liberty student:It's my opinion that it is impossible to predict the outcomes of a free market. If we could, then that would be an argument in favour of planning the market.
I agree, but a voluntarily government would not be based only on free market. You are focusing on the economical aspect. What about the other ones?
liberty student:Very few reject ideas of liberty when they are presented in a digestable manner.
You would so be surprised.
liberty student:You may see us in the "creation" phase, but this is a necessary step.
Lol, it is a necessary step for sure!
liberty student:It's not enough to make the case for liberty, to start thinking about opportunities and consequences, about the first structures to test in the free market, so that there is something to move to, when people choose to withdraw their consent.
Exactly. So if I understand it well, only after the first step, the education, is Completely done, you forsee the birth of the voluntarily governed society....
liberty student:Nothing enduring is built without patience and care.
One can seldom go against ones inner nature. Even when one knows that it is wrong. It would be a waste of time to lecture me on this one.....
marquise:I agree, but a voluntarily government would not be based only on free market. You are focusing on the economical aspect. What about the other ones?
Economics is a social science. A voluntary government would have to be a product of a free market, or it would not be voluntary.
marquise:You would so be surprised.
Not if the message is communicated the right way. If you only have a hammer as your tool, after awhile, everything starts to look like a nail.
marquise:Exactly. So if I understand it well, only after the first step, the education, is Completely done, you forsee the birth of the voluntarily governed society
Education and then action. But if people act without understanding rational economics, or have a cogent philosophy of liberty, then they aren't going to construct anything enduring. Like I wrote up thread, many Constitutionalists are not aware of the division between federalists and anti-federalists. Or the european classic liberalism and greek philosophy many of the founding fathers were very knowledgable about.
It's like getting into a car and driving it, without first understanding how an engine works. Sure it will take you from A to B, but if the car needs a mechanic, you are out of luck.
Now this is all strictly my opinion. There are loads of people on this forum I agree with, and could participate in a free society with, but I don't think any two of us have the exact same ideas or perspective. And that's healthy, as long as we can all fundamentally agree we are better off working together peacefully than trying to dominate one another.
marquise:One can seldom go against ones inner nature. Even when one knows that it is wrong. It would be a waste of time to lecture me on this one.....
I'm not trying to lecture you. It seems to me you don't believe that you can exert control over yourself by rational means (the ability to change). If your nature is fixed, and it is fixed on destructive or counter-productive activity, then nature will take care of that and eliminate the strain.
To be honest, I don't think you give yourself enough credit. You are intelligent. You can be whatever you want to be, nature notwithstanding.
We all make choices.
liberty student:Economics is a social science
Yes, and so are psychology, sociology, communication, behaviour, etc....why aren't they important for the voluntary government concept?
liberty student:But if people act without understanding rational economics, or have a cogent philosophy of liberty, then they aren't going to construct anything enduring.
People...per se you are correct. It happens that we might be forced to accelerate the process...and then theory and education might have to go simultaneously with action. And also, as we are talking about decentralization, to each his field, according to his skills and/or his will. All people may not reach the ultimate understanding, but will voluntarily help building the concept.
Just like in your example with the car...I learned about engines and their mechanism before knowing how to drive a car...it didn't really helped me learn faster how to drive it and quite frankly I wouldn't be able to fix it if it breaks. But it is helping me get to point B, which is after all the purpose.
liberty student:Like I wrote up thread, many Constitutionalists are not aware of the division between federalists and anti-federalists. Or the european classic liberalism and greek philosophy many of the founding fathers were very knowledgable about.
Yup, this is the reason why I think that the document they wrote together is a nice piece of work.
liberty student:Now this is all strictly my opinion
I know...this is what I am asking for. It is easier for me to directly talk with you than browsing the topics. That is if you don't mind....
Spideynw: Harry Felker:The problem with using utilities is that these businesses cause much undo stress to have competition on the community, What?
Harry Felker:The problem with using utilities is that these businesses cause much undo stress to have competition on the community,
What?
You have Power Company A, they just opened to compete with B, how do you get your power to customers? I am talking about utilities as an example of monopoly discussion, if I was unclear about that. To bring your product to the people it requires the entire community to be inconvenienced and since B is already in place it has the advantage of not disrupting the community, the inherent advantage of being first. If you want to go all out let us take water utility, where excavation have to happen all over a community to get water to customers. Lets say you live in a community and the community is serviced by 3 utilities of each variety, up until the equilibrium point is met, where the value of the utilities are based on the value of the service and the free market has done its job, it is hell on the community, with lines being run, expantion and contraction projects on behalf of the utilities...
Spideynw: Harry Felker:with that said, the government does not stop the individual from competing by providing his own power... So?
Harry Felker:with that said, the government does not stop the individual from competing by providing his own power...
So?
So it is not truly a monopoly with the advent of the companies that provide the means to create your own power
Spideynw: Harry Felker:1. Illegal copying differs from stealing how? The one has a victim (stealing), the other does not (copying).
Harry Felker:1. Illegal copying differs from stealing how?
The one has a victim (stealing), the other does not (copying).
Does it not make the originator a victim technically with the loss of potential revenue?
Spideynw: Harry Felker:2. US Constitution : To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; Your point? I think this should be stricken from the Constitution.
Harry Felker:2. US Constitution : To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Your point? I think this should be stricken from the Constitution.
My point was the next quote you posted....
Spideynw: Harry Felker:IP does not include power companies, let us work within the example, Scientific Discovery and Art... I know IP does not include power companies. But IP is a monopoly, just like power companies that are given monopolies are monopolies. The monopoly issues are the same. Would you not agree that if someone copies a painting of someone else, that the original person still has the painting? Would you also not agree that what is really "lost" is potential revenue? Just like the only thing lost by someone being allowed to build a competing power plant would be potential revenue? I mean, the original power plant still exists. It still has the same operating ability. Would you not agree that copying and stealing are not synonyms?
Harry Felker:IP does not include power companies, let us work within the example, Scientific Discovery and Art...
I know IP does not include power companies. But IP is a monopoly, just like power companies that are given monopolies are monopolies. The monopoly issues are the same.
Would you not agree that if someone copies a painting of someone else, that the original person still has the painting? Would you also not agree that what is really "lost" is potential revenue? Just like the only thing lost by someone being allowed to build a competing power plant would be potential revenue? I mean, the original power plant still exists. It still has the same operating ability. Would you not agree that copying and stealing are not synonyms?
So, with the potential revenue "lost" there is a loss, the difference being that the loss of revenue to a power company is through active competition and the loss of revenue to an artist or writer through copying, because if you have an art with a value and someone copies it, now there are two instead of one, sharing the samer value, or in the case of an original discovery, the one who brings it to market first retains most if not all of the value....
Do you understand where I am coming from?
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
you dont have a right to 'the value' of your property, but to the property itself.
If house prices crash and its market value decreases you as a homeowner have not been stolen from, you still own the property itself, you simply would get less for it in one circumstance than the other. it is nonsense to talk of rights to 'the value' of things. if you have the *right to value* its only the right to receive whatever 'value' is negotiated with the buyer of your product.
you dont have the right to revenue lost, as a shoemaker, if another shoe maker opens across the street. artists arent more *important* than shoemakers, or *special*, or *magic*. I speak as a budding artist myself.
also, all this nonsense about citizens living in a hell on earth as utility companies try to install services is ludicrous. If there is violence, theft, or vandalism that is illegitimate, anything else is done voluntarily due to mutual benefit. There is a hellish outcome to state granted monopolies of local utilities due to loss of quality service and increased cost to the consumer. Its also illegitimate.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: you dont have a right to 'the value' of your property, but to the property itself.
Then the benefit of discovery is not the incentive?
nirgrahamUK: If house prices crash and its market value decreases you as a homeowner have not been stolen from, you still own the property itself, you simply would get less for it in one circumstance than the other. it is nonsense to talk of rights to 'the value' of things. if you have the *right to value* its only the right to receive whatever 'value' is negotiated with the buyer of your product.
You are not talking about a property that loses potential value to copying, therefore apples and oranges
nirgrahamUK: you dont have the right to revenue lost, as a shoemaker, if another shoe maker opens across the street. artists arent more *important* than shoemakers, or *special*, or *magic*. I speak as a budding artist myself.
Who says a shoemaker is not an artist? If the said shoemaker discovers a process to improve his shoes, or make them more profitable, and is copied by the guy across the street, then yes he did lose revenue
nirgrahamUK: also, all this nonsense about citizens living in a hell on earth as utility companies try to install services is ludicrous. If there is violence, theft, or vandalism that is illegitimate, anything else is done voluntarily due to mutual benefit. There is a hellish outcome to state granted monopolies of local utilities due to loss of quality service and increased cost to the consumer. Its also illegitimate.
I am not talking about violence... I am talking about general inconvenience, just being a little dramatic...
marquise:Yes, and so are psychology, sociology, communication, behaviour, etc....why aren't they important for the voluntary government concept?
They are. However, voluntary government is based upon voluntary interaction (aka trade). Thus economics in my opinion has the most relevance.
marquise:People...per se you are correct. It happens that we might be forced to accelerate the process...and then theory and education might have to go simultaneously with action.
I don't see any compelling reason why we have to accelerate the process. If we get action before we have an understanding, the outcome might be an abject failure.
marquise: And also, as we are talking about decentralization, to each his field, according to his skills and/or his will. All people may not reach the ultimate understanding, but will voluntarily help building the concept.
Sure, as we go along. But the initial institutions and collaborations should be somewhat understood going in. If the government disappeared tomorrow there would be chaos. That is a bad thing for liberty. We need time to establish money substitutes, security/legal substitutes, and so on.
marquise:Yup, this is the reason why I think that the document they wrote together is a nice piece of work.
It's nice, although if you read the sources, there is a lot of nice stuff behind it. I fear too often people treat it like scripture, and not merely a step in the evolution of ideas.
marquise:I know...this is what I am asking for. It is easier for me to directly talk with you than browsing the topics. That is if you don't mind....
Whatever makes you happy.
liberty student:It seems to me you don't believe that you can exert control over yourself by rational means (the ability to change). If your nature is fixed, and it is fixed on destructive or counter-productive activity, then nature will take care of that and eliminate the strain.
I believe that you can control your nature by transforming the negative energy into a positive one...I do not believe that you can change it. Nature is indeed taking care and eliminating what is negatively influencing/affecting you, but can not change your fondamental tendencies.
liberty student:You can be whatever you want to be, nature notwithstanding.
I agree, you can break your limits and go past regardless your nature...but that doesn't mean you can change it.....
liberty student:We all make choices.
I did. I am taking my impatience and make it a fuel. When it is becoming just fire then I deal with it. More or less...lolz....
Thank you for taking the time, LS....
If there were lots more copies of your house, its market price would decline, supply and demand and all that.
your shoemaker earned less revenue than he might have earned in a different world. the correct response to this 'fact' is 'so what?'
I was making the point that it is nonsense to reject a free-market in local utilities on political grounds. Also, it is ridiculous on economic grounds. With all 'inconveniencing' being compensated for, all your claims to the contrary about competition in some markets being a 'bad thing' are just empty rhetoric.
I think you are taking the comparrison to utilities for IP discussion out of context....
I was making the point you cannot compare utilities to IP discussions becuse of external factors, regardless of the benefits....
Harry Felker:So, with the potential revenue "lost" there is a loss
A loss of potential is not a material loss.
Harry Felker:the difference being that the loss of revenue to a power company is through active competition
Active competition does not create a loss of revenue. Inefficient competition creates a loss of revenue.
Harry Felker:the loss of revenue to an artist or writer through copying, because if you have an art with a value
Value is subjective and determined only at the time of sale between the two parties making the exchange (all prices are past prices). Your art is only worth what someone is willing to give you for it. If it is a nickel, it is a nickel whether you worked on it for 1 month or 10 years.
Harry Felker:and someone copies it, now there are two instead of one
There is one copy and one original. They are different goods.
Harry Felker:sharing the samer value
Again, the value is subjective. They may not get the same price in trade. There may only be one person willing to pay $10 for one, and $8 for the other.
Harry Felker: or in the case of an original discovery, the one who brings it to market first retains most if not all of the value....
Sure, the one who brings it to market first. I think you're still confusing the idea with the actual production of the good.
The idea behind a painting, the combination of brush strokes and the particular colours and shapes is not ownable, in that anyone can conceive of the same idea at no net loss to the first person with these ideas. The actual production of those ideas has value in trade, and does not constitute a zero sum game.
A really big stumbling block for people, is coming from a labour theory of value perspective to AE which is based on the subjective theory of value.
That is, value is determined subjectively in the market place. Not all paintings have value, all paintings are likely to have different values to the same people. So when people speak of "lost value", that's a non-concept in that value is measured by price (what will it take to buy it from you, how much will I pay for it - do i value it), and price is only determined at the moment of sale.
The seller does not dictate the price, because without a buyer willing to pay a price, no exchange is being made. I could value my hourly labour at $500 an hour, but if no one will employ me for more than $18 an hour, I am only an $18 an hour labourer, whether I think I am worth (value) $500 an hour or not. Likewise, creators of goods, art, services can price their side of exchange at any price, but it does not become a market exchange value until a buyer to sell can be found to match.
There is a HUGE difference between "Someone said they would pay me $200k for my home, so it is worth $200k" and "The guy is here and he has $200k to buy my home right now".
liberty student:Whatever makes you happy.
Lol!
liberty student: Harry Felker: or in the case of an original discovery, the one who brings it to market first retains most if not all of the value.... Sure, the one who brings it to market first. I think you're still confusing the idea with the actual production of the good.
OK, let us say that we are talking about a product X, that has yet to be produced, and the inventor is looking for a producer, he goes through free market channels and has meetings with many people, and the first one rejects his invention. While meeting others the first business begins producing this product and brings said product to market before the inventor gets his produced, how is this dealt with so the inventor gets justice?
The patent function in the United States protects the inventor by registering the invention at a time so there is no way the business (unscrupulously) can produce a product from said invention without the inventor's consent, for a limited period of time. This protection is purely legal indemnification for the inventor, and yes, I know it requires a state in order to have a point, but in dealing with the fact that we are a world of states, predominantly, as it stands currently I have to agree that the inventor should have such a protection...
liberty student: The idea behind a painting, the combination of brush strokes and the particular colours and shapes is not ownable, in that anyone can conceive of the same idea at no net loss to the first person with these ideas. The actual production of those ideas has value in trade, and does not constitute a zero sum game. A really big stumbling block for people, is coming from a labour theory of value perspective to AE which is based on the subjective theory of value. That is, value is determined subjectively in the market place. Not all paintings have value, all paintings are likely to have different values to the same people. So when people speak of "lost value", that's a non-concept in that value is measured by price (what will it take to buy it from you, how much will I pay for it - do i value it), and price is only determined at the moment of sale. The seller does not dictate the price, because without a buyer willing to pay a price, no exchange is being made. I could value my hourly labour at $500 an hour, but if no one will employ me for more than $18 an hour, I am only an $18 an hour labourer, whether I think I am worth (value) $500 an hour or not. Likewise, creators of goods, art, services can price their side of exchange at any price, but it does not become a market exchange value until a buyer to sell can be found to match. There is a HUGE difference between "Someone said they would pay me $200k for my home, so it is worth $200k" and "The guy is here and he has $200k to buy my home right now".
I am investigating this, or I should say learning it now, this is one of the reasons I am here, to learn about the economics of the people that were mostly, if not, invariable correct in predicting economic conditions, what I know of it, it is sound, but I want to know more than what I know now...
liberty student:They are. However, voluntary government is based upon voluntary interaction (aka trade). Thus economics in my opinion has the most relevance.
I have done some homework....
Would it be correct for me to assume that when you say economics, you refer to a much broader field, including the psychological characteristics of the individuals?
Harry Felker:While meeting others the first business begins producing this product and brings said product to market before the inventor gets his produced, how is this dealt with so the inventor gets justice?
There was no injustice. He exposed his idea freely. If he was smart, he would have had them sign a no-compete, NDA in advance. Contracts can be used to solve a lot of problems. But there was no injustice. He was taking a risk by exposing his idea, in order to gain a profit later. This is normal market behaviour.
Harry Felker:The patent function in the United States protects the inventor by registering the invention at a time so there is no way the business (unscrupulously) can produce a product from said invention without the inventor's consent, for a limited period of time.
Yes, it creates an artificial scarcity of ideas. It is a state fiction. Like a marriage license. You don't need a license to get married, the state makes a law that says you do. There is no property per se in IP, so the state makes a law that says there is. Without a monopoly state that makes blanket laws everyone is forced to consent to, IP as you understand it is impossible. IP law differs already from country to country, and that is because it is all made up as it goes, like speed limits and ages of consent.
What you call unscrupulous can only be so if the business violates a contract, written or oral. The confusion is that the state created scarcity and thus the false empowerment of consent for the inventor.
I look at IP like I look at tariffs and slavery. Just bad constitutional law.
Harry Felker:This protection is purely legal indemnification for the inventor, and yes, I know it requires a state in order to have a point, but in dealing with the fact that we are a world of states, predominantly, as it stands currently I have to agree that the inventor should have such a protection...
Well by that logic, since we live in a world of states predominantly, then you should agree with everything the state does.
Harry Felker:I want to know more than what I know now...
The more I know, the less I know "for sure".
marquise:Would it be correct for me to assume that when you say economics, you refer to a much broader field, including the psychological characteristics of the individuals?
I'm going to sugget you give this a read, and see what you think. It is a very important portion of AE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology
I hope it will answer your above question better than I can.
liberty student:I'm going to sugget you give this a read, and see what you think. It is a very important portion of AE.
So I am assuming correctly....
And the voluntary government would not be a "real" government, like having people payed to do... well, nothing, lol... it is just another way to say that the society would be regulated spontaneously by the course of the free market?
marquise:And the voluntary government would not be a "real" government, like having people payed to do... well, nothing, lol... it is just another way to say that the society would be regulated spontaneously by the course of the free market?
Bingo.
liberty student:Bingo.
Oks...
Now, if I can abuse of your patience :P, can you please explain to me (or direct me to some concentrated writings) the NAT?
I read some posts here and I do have some questions about it.
The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism
The Non-Aggression Principle and Weapons Ownership
The Non-Aggression Principle
Thank you.
Harry Felker:OK, let us say that we are talking about a product X, that has yet to be produced, and the inventor is looking for a producer, he goes through free market channels and has meetings with many people, and the first one rejects his invention. While meeting others the first business begins producing this product and brings said product to market before the inventor gets his produced, how is this dealt with so the inventor gets justice?
Again, thats not a copyright issue. That is also a trade secret issue.
How can the person be protected? By contract. He can choose to show or to not show his invention. If a company won't sign a contract that prevents them from producing his design without his premission, he won't show him the invention.
You are approaching this all wrong. Even if you could prove one situation where a copyright enforcement might grant some small benefit does not legitimize the entire scope of IP. Your defense of IP will only float if you can create a consistent rights based theory of ownership.
Harry Felker:The patent function in the United States protects the inventor by registering the invention at a time so there is no way the business (unscrupulously) can produce a product from said invention without the inventor's consent, for a limited period of time. This protection is purely legal indemnification for the inventor, and yes, I know it requires a state in order to have a point, but in dealing with the fact that we are a world of states, predominantly, as it stands currently I have to agree that the inventor should have such a protection...
Counter-history. That is not why the patent office exists. Not even close.
The patent office exists because someone thought more inventions would be made if the government stepped in to the increase the value of inventions. Price fixing, plain and simple.
Peace
JonBostwick:Your defense of IP will only float if you can create a consistent rights based theory of ownership.
Care to explain?
JonBostwick:Price fixing, plain and simple.
Very interesting, I will have to think about this a while....
Harry Felker:Care to explain?
You have yet to propose how all ideas can be owned.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw:You have yet to propose how all ideas can be owned.
If you thought of it, you own it....
You have paid for it with the time and effort of thinking, outlay for education, etc.
That is what my opinion is on the matter of owning ideas, now my question is why is this not applicable?
I glean from the conversation that it is like monopoly issues, but the same can be said if you purchase a car, you have a monopoly on the benefit derived from said car, you pay for a car with your time and effort (wages), and as property you own it...
I am really trying to wrap my mind around your way of looking at it... Jon actually said the one thing that I would admit is the most concerning point of the argument against IP....
only tangible physical things can be candidates for property, intangibles like concepts and patterns can not be. they are not rival.
Harry Felker:That is what my opinion is on the matter of owning ideas, now my question is why is this not applicable?
You are trying to force the burden of proof on others. Thats not where it lies.
You have claimed the right to initiate violence, the burden of proof falls on you.
If you see no problem with treating a person as a criminal because they have photocopied a page, please explain to us why.
I, of course, am against the initiation of violence. I do not see defending an intellectual monopoly to be equivalent to defending material property, and why should I?
I am just delving into the "IP is bad" train of thought, I am not trying to convince you otherwise, just trying to throw as many questions out there to get all of the logical arguments presented to me...
JonBostwick:You have claimed the right to initiate violence
No, I claimed the right to have legal indemnification, I was thinking financial restitution...
JonBostwick:If you see no problem with treating a person as a criminal because they have photocopied a page, please explain to us why.
Because it is not their to copy
JonBostwick:I do not see defending an intellectual monopoly to be equivalent to defending material property, and why should I?
You can profit off of intellectual property, and that is why...
If I may, you have made the most compelling argument for the case that I have yet to see, price-fixing, and I am still thinking about that....
nirgrahamUK: only tangible physical things can be candidates for property, intangibles like concepts and patterns can not be. they are not rival.
Can you give me a source for this?
Harry Felker: I am just delving into the "IP is bad" train of thought, I am not trying to convince you otherwise, just trying to throw as many questions out there to get all of the logical arguments presented to me... JonBostwick:You have claimed the right to initiate violence No, I claimed the right to have legal indemnification, I was thinking financial restitution...
To enforce any legal restitution it is done at the point of the gun, just so you know cause I'm sure Jon will see that too.
wilderness:To enforce any legal restitution it is done at the point of the gun, just so you know cause I'm sure Jon will see that too.
Are you suggesting legal restitution cannot occur without violent interaction?
http://mises.org/books/against.pdf
IP AND PROPERTY RIGHTSProperty and Scarcity
Let us take a step back and look afresh at the idea ofproperty rights. Libertarians believe in property rights intangible goods (resources). Why? What is it about tangible.....
etc.
Harry Felker:If I may, you have made the most compelling argument for the case that I have yet to see, price-fixing, and I am still thinking about that....
Most here reject the state as a legitimate means to achieve any ends. Murder is wrong, but enslaving and robbing innocents in order to pursue the murderer is also wrong.
There are many here that feel that a polycentric(that is, an anarchist) legal system could, and should, enforce copyrights in the absence of a state, but I am not among them.
I am against state murder, but I am also against private murder, I see attempts to enforce copyright to be illegal initiations of coercion, regardless of who does it.
Harry Felker: JonBostwick:If you see no problem with treating a person as a criminal because they have photocopied a page, please explain to us why. Because it is not their to copy
That's circular logic. You have yet to show why its not theirs to copy. There is no conflict in rights here, one person photo copying a page does not prevent any other person from doing the same to their own copy of book.
If the holder of IP is victimized because the market value of his product is reduced, then any action that causes a reduction in the market value of someone's product must also be criminal.
Harry Felker: JonBostwick:I do not see defending an intellectual monopoly to be equivalent to defending material property, and why should I? You can profit off of intellectual property, and that is why...
The usual position, but just because something has value does not mean it is ownable.
A good reputation is very valuable, but do I own my reputation? A reputation is nothing more than what others think of me. In order to own my reputation, I'd have to own other people's thoughts. An absurdity.
You can profit from trade monopolies as well, but that is not a defense of them.
You have presented a faulty theory of property. Property is based on first usership over scarce resources.
Harry Felker: wilderness:To enforce any legal restitution it is done at the point of the gun, just so you know cause I'm sure Jon will see that too. Are you suggesting legal restitution cannot occur without violent interaction?
Exactly, so long as it is based on a credible threat of violence, even if no actual violence occurs.
If someone say's, "Give me your wallet or I'll shoot" is that not a violent interaction?
JonBostwick:If someone say's, "Give me your wallet or I'll shoot" is that not a violent interaction?
If someone says give me back my wallet or I will shoot, is that initiating violence?
Harry Felker: JonBostwick:If someone say's, "Give me your wallet or I'll shoot" is that not a violent interaction? If someone says give me back my wallet or I will shoot, is that initiating violence?
No its not. The mugger has initiated the violence.
But my point all along has been that photocopying does not initiate violence. So should someone say, "Give me that photocopy or I'll shoot" that is an initiation.
JonBostwick:But my point all along has been that photocopying does not initiate violence. So should someone say, "Give me that photocopy or I'll shoot" that is an initiation.
So you are saying that the act of materrializing a thought on paper makes it public access?
Harry Felker: JonBostwick:But my point all along has been that photocopying does not initiate violence. So should someone say, "Give me that photocopy or I'll shoot" that is an initiation. So you are saying that the act of materrializing a thought on paper makes it public access?
I'm saying the act of selling a book makes it the property of the buyer.
Once you put a thought on paper and send it out into the world, it becomes common knowledge. The point of IP is force people to act as though the idea is scarce, even though it is not.
If an idea where truly scarce, a secret for example, no IP laws are required, it is actually the property of the owner by default, because no one else knows it. This is why blackmail has a market value, while IP does not.