"Mike wants to separate the means from the ends. He wants to promote the progress so long as we don't do it by granting to authors exclusive rights."
Mike has never claimed such a thing. And your imagination does not count as evidence that he has.
"It's important to pretend like the two aren't interrelated since he hates the means so much."
No, its pretty clear that Mike and many others hate the damage those means, in their current form, are causing. Whatever the desired results from copyright, when the current downsides are considered it's hard to justify keeping the system unless it's massively reformed.
"That's why he always and only focuses on the negatives, or his version of the negatives anyway, of copyright. He'll never put things into perspective or acknowledge that there are even positives."
To be fair, it's pretty hard to see the positives. Feel free to present evidence of modern copyright producing the results intended when it was enacted. In fact, why don't you start your own 'Great Things About Copyright' blog so we can all see how awesome you think things really are!
"His mantra is that it's completely broken..."
That's pretty much the case...
"...and his dream is to see the day when authors have no exclusive rights whatsoever."
... but this claim is the product of your imagination and is not backed up by any evidence you've ever shared here.
"No matter who your friends are, your viewpoints support infringement lawsuits and the lawyers who benefit from them. And nothing else."
This can't be emphasised enough. AJ is just like so many other copyright maximilists who claim to be all about supporting artists, but on closer inspection their arguments are clearly in support of a system that makes a lot of money from artists (via recored companies) but offers nothing in return.
...as soon as he sets foot anywhere with an extradition treaty with the US, he will get bagged, gagged, and tagged with a one way ticket to the US.
Anywhere with an extradition treaty with the US, just like NZ. What makes you think things would happen any differently in another country. The US's case isn't going to suddenly change from laughably weak to extradition-worthy overnight.
"I didn't claim that, so I am not sure what you feel you corrected. I stated only that "512(f) is there specifically to handle people claiming to hold copyright on something they do not own", but that does not limit to ONLY that purpose."
Actually that's exactly how your comment reads. If that's not what you meant you shouldn't have used the word 'specifically'. In this context it is indeed a limiting statement.
"I don't use regular dictionaries when looking up legal terms."
Eric Holder is not using "theft" as a legal term, otherwise he'd be charging MU with theft. He's using it as a copyright maximalist's scare term based entirely on the commonly understood dictionary definition.
"You inject your moral judgment into this. Drugs, weapons, child porn, money laundering and digital theft are all crimes and each harm a segment of society."
And the harm to society caused by drugs, weapons, child porn and money laundering and all far, far worse than the harm supposedly caused by "digital theft", i.e. copyright infringement. It's extraordinary that your own moral compass is so misguided that you would think these things are on the same level of harm. I'm not sure which possibility is worse; that you think copyright infringement is just as bad or if the others are not really all that harmful.