WIMPO, or the case for downsizing UN organisations. Plus, people and shareholders
The first panel of the afternoon – “New political paradigms” – was a rather visionary affair. Predictably, it has the conservative minority steaming.
Declan McCullagh of Politech, whose presentation this morning centered exclusively on the US (how Hollywood has bought the Democrats), was rattled by the suggestion of Tunisian professor Mohamed Ben Ahmed, who said that the system of intellectual monopoly powers should focus on people, not on shareholders.
Declan countered this outrageous argument by mentioning that (in this order) a) half of the US population are shareholders, and b), that shareholders are people too.
Until that time, Declan had made on me the impression of an intelligent person. But this creative use of logic does not further his ratings with me. If there are some people who are shareholders, and unless animals or plants take to buying shares, that means all shareholders are people.
Easy, right? It’s the second step which Declan doesn’t get. The fact that all shareholders are people does not mean that all people are shareholders. You’d think it’s not too hard a concept to grasp.
Good thing there were some more refreshing opinions. Tom Faunce of the Australian National University made a truly visionary suggestion.
Why not save tons of money by downsizing UN organisations, and merging some of them? Why not put together WTO and WHO, and sell the WHO building? Why not fusion WIPO and the Human Rights Council. How’s that for saving money?
Tom consistently (and inspiringly) refused to use the term “intellectual property”, saying “intellectual monopoly powers” (IMPs) instead. The panel he was speaking on was chaired by WIPO’s Anthony Taubman, who dared to take a peek into a brigher future:
“I am looking forward to working for WIMPO.”
Now there’s a name I like. Forgive me that my entries are increasingly swaying off topic. I’m tired. Luckily, now there’s a coffee break.