unless you've reconciled the fact/value dichotomy.
Depends; if you follow epistemological tacks to ethics a la Kant, you can circumvent this problem entirely by instead focusing on showing how certain ethical proscriptions collapse into self-contradiction. If you argue as Aristotelians and utilitarians do that man's orientation to seeking a betterment in his condition is what gives rise to ethical proscriptions (the means to the end), you are ineffect deriving values from facts.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
"I'm no expert on this topic, but I imagine the cola manufacturer could write "manufactured by Coca Cola Ltd" on his bottles, while Pepsi couldn't."
So incredibly simple, yet so very effective. Beautfully thought out. This is the answer to this thread.
limitgov: "I'm no expert on this topic, but I imagine the cola manufacturer could write "manufactured by Coca Cola Ltd" on his bottles, while Pepsi couldn't." So incredibly simple, yet so very effective. Beautfully thought out. This is the answer to this thread.
Only if trademarks are protected. Otherwise Pepsi could change their name to "Coca Cola Ltd" and then what.
At best the consumer can sue them for fraud.
Jon Irenicus: At best the consumer can sue them for fraud.
If their name was "Coca Cola Ltd" because it's impossible to own a word, then there would be no fraud.
I think when it comes to things like IP protection and trademark, that it's something that we simply have to agree to within a contractual society. Everyone in X society will have to agree up front not to step on each other's toes in terms of names. I'm not sure there's a consistent principled position that avoids these problems.
Though, again, I haven't done my due diligence on Kinsella and others here have assured me there are good arguments, so I'll reserve judgment for now.
I would also recommend looking into the example of phishing sites.
Who makes more money, the actual company, or the phishers?
Sure, some people fall for the scam and are defrauded, (but this is between the person and the phishers, NOT the actual company + phishers).
Let us say I own a bank called Bank of Tex2002ans, and you decide to create a site called "Bank of Tcx2002ans" (notice the 'c' instead of 'e').
You copy the look of my site, you try to copy and create an almost identical site to mine. Although you are very close to mimicking, it is impossible to have the same exact domain name, or the same exact security certificate as the legitimate site.
You trick a few of the customers looking to deal with my company, and begin to defraud customers.
- Customers begin to complain to the credit card companies about fraud from "Bank of Tcx2002ans", and then they will decide to cut off payments to the phishing site (making it harder for the phishers to make money).
- The web host who hosts "Bank of Tcx2002ans" might look down upon phishing and refuse to host the site any more. Making it harder to keep your site up and running.
- The actual Bank of Tex2002ans can put out warnings and notices saying "double check to make sure you are on BankofTex2002ans.com".
- If you accidentally did fall for the phishing scam, the credit card companies can send you mail informing you of complaints against the phishers.
- The phishers do not have the resources/expertise of the actual Bank of Tex2002ans... So let us say you have an account with my bank which is located down the street from you, and you accidentally log into "Bank of Tcx2002ans". They don't have access to Bank of Tex2002ans servers/information.
- Other banks will refuse to deal with "Bank of Tcx2002ans".
- The companies that hand out security certificates can refuse to give one to "Bank of Tcx2002ans".
- Google could remove "Bank of Tcx2002ans" from their searches, leading to much less traffic to the phishing site.
- Your browser could have a list of scam sites, and begin warning you before you get onto them.
- Your email server might automatically place "Bank of Tcx2002ans" email right in the Spam folder.
@ Anenome,
You can give it away infinitely without diminishing your knowledge of that idea.
So you can produce more of the scarce resource, that doesn't make it not scarce, just less scarce. If one person has an idea, and 6,999,999,999 people don't, it's very scarce. If 6,999,999,998 people now have it, it's still scarce, just to a lesser degree.
But you don't control an idea
No. You're making stuff up. You have exclusive control over ideas in your head. You DO control them. You have vast control over them. Others don't.
books are scarce. But the ideas in them are not because they're infinitely copyable.
No, books don't contain ideas, brains do. Books contain symbols or data that brains may (or may not) process and interpret to form ideas. And no, ideas aren't "infinitely copyable", whatever that means. They require brains, and effort, energy, memory, etc etc etc. Nothing is infinite.
In the sense that everything is subjective. Sure.
No, in the sense that I demonstrated what you were saying (about so-called "objective" validity) is wrong.
Anenome: X is a valid business contract. Hashem: "Valid" on what grounds? Not any objective grounds. Anenome: Yes, on objective grounds. Hashem: No, subjective grounds. Anenome: I don't think anyone's claiming there's such a thing as an objectively valid contract.
I'm sort of confused about why you were disagreeing when you actually agree, but we don't have to linger on this point any longer.
It doesn't cease to exist so much as it has now been broken
You mean broken figuratively. LITERALLY, the contract ceases to exist to the extent that it's been abandoned. A contract is an idea, a concept, within the minds of people. Even if some people still have a drive to enforce their conception of a party regardless of the thoughts of those actually involved, that doesn't mean the contract therefore still exists.
I would disagree that it "ceases to exist"
Then I invoke the spaghetti monster. Prove the contract exists in the first place. It exists WITHIN A MIND, or WITHIN MINDS. It is an idea. When someone abandons it, it ceases to exist to that extent.
If you agree to sell me a barrel of fish for $25 and I give you $25 and you break the contract and walk away, the contract doesn't magically disappear. You've now stolen $25.
If you agree to sell me a barrel of fish for $25 I make a promise I give you $25 You voluntarily transfer property to me with the expectation of a return you break the contract You mean that figuratively. What actually happened was I failed to follow through with my promise and walk away Then I walk away the contract doesn't magically disappear The contract existed in our minds, I abandoned it, it ceased to exist in my mind You've now stolen $25. No, YOU GAVE ME $25. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
"Only if trademarks are protected. Otherwise Pepsi could change their name to "Coca Cola Ltd" and then what."
What if they wrote, Manuf. by xyz in city, State?
Unless some company decided to also open a drink company in the same city as Coke and name their company the same thing and produce the same exact beverage.
"Markets clear waste" - That's all I gotta say about this for now.
No, if they are selling the product to the consumer on the condition that it is produced by that company, they are defrauding them if it isn't. If the consumer is aware and buys it anyway, then of course they're not.
"No, if they are selling the product to the consumer on the condition that it is produced by that company, they are defrauding them if it isn't. If the consumer is aware and buys it anyway, then of course they're not."
But, what if there were two companies in the same city, with the same name, making the same exact products?
Did you read the link I posted on genericized trademarks and the like?
"Did you read the link I posted on genericized trademarks and the like?"
I don't see the problem. 2 guys open steak houses in the same town. Both are named Ted. Both want their steakhouses to be Ted's of Beverly Hills steakhouse. Both claim to be the best steak in Beverly Hills. Both want to serve a special drink called the "Ted" which is rum and coke. Both claim to have invented the drink.
Both sell Ted's of Beverly Hills Steakhouse sauce to grocery stores. Can they both do that?
The point of the link is that they can.
"The point of the link is that they can."
I see. I'm gonna take out all the so whats...it makes me sound smartass.
lol no worries. The point of genericized trademarks is that once people no longer associate a trademark with a specific product, then it's fair game for anyone to use it. Trademarks would be very different in a free market, but insofar as people associate Coca Cola with Coca Cola ltd or whatever it is, then you can't call your product Coca Cola. Considering trademarks can be genericized even now, I suspect the process would be far faster in the free market.
Lots of trademarks today would probably genericized relatively fast. There would probably be more organizations like the Better Business Bureau that would be able to vouch for certain sellers so that you know you aren't getting ripped off.
limitgov: "Only if trademarks are protected. Otherwise Pepsi could change their name to "Coca Cola Ltd" and then what." What if they wrote, Manuf. by xyz in city, State? Unless some company decided to also open a drink company in the same city as Coke and name their company the same thing and produce the same exact beverage.
That's a point. If they included their address or significant GPS coords, that would be uncopyable and certainly fraud. Indeed only location would be unreproducible in this world, thus anyone claiming the same physical location would certainly be committing fraud.
I think we've hit on a good answer then.
"I think we've hit on a good answer then."
Me and you just solved the IP issue.
You're welcome, world.
limitgov: "I think we've hit on a good answer then." Me and you just solved the IP issue. You're welcome, world.
Haha :)
We'd have to limit it to GPS coords, because there's nothing stopping anyone from making a new street and giving it the same name and address as the copied company. But GPS coords cannot be fooled.
Another thing various companies could do is find ways to uniquely identify products that originate from their factories.
hashem: @ Anenome, You can give it away infinitely without diminishing your knowledge of that idea. So you can produce more of the scarce resource, that doesn't make it not scarce, just less scarce. If one person has an idea, and 6,999,999,999 people don't, it's very scarce. If 6,999,999,998 people now have it, it's still scarce, just to a lesser degree.
I basically agree there. That's why one can obtain a price for selling transmission of that idea, ie: teaching, etc.
hashem:But you don't control an idea No. You're making stuff up. You have exclusive control over ideas in your head. You DO control them. You have vast control over them. Others don't.
I mean in a cosmic sense. If you know an idea, you don't control that idea in someone else's head. You may possess an idea but you don't control it like you might control a piece of property. It would be equally nonsensical to say that because you own some air that you can tell others what to do with their air.
hashem:books are scarce. But the ideas in them are not because they're infinitely copyable. No, books don't contain ideas, brains do.
No, books don't contain ideas, brains do.
Books contain ideas put there by brains. Books are communications separated in time and place from their communicator.
hashem:Books contain symbols or data that brains may (or may not) process and interpret to form ideas. And no, ideas aren't "infinitely copyable", whatever that means. They require brains, and effort, energy, memory, etc etc etc. Nothing is infinite.
If you had infinite brains you could put any idea into each of those brains. So yes, it's infinitely copyable. Transmission of an idea does not reduce that idea's ability to be transmitted again. Which is to say ideas are not scarce.
hashem:In the sense that everything is subjective. Sure. No, in the sense that I demonstrated what you were saying (about so-called "objective" validity) is wrong. Anenome: X is a valid business contract. Hashem: "Valid" on what grounds? Not any objective grounds. Anenome: Yes, on objective grounds. Hashem: No, subjective grounds. Anenome: I don't think anyone's claiming there's such a thing as an objectively valid contract. I'm sort of confused about why you were disagreeing when you actually agree, but we don't have to linger on this point any longer.
Again, I assumed a libertarian context. Should have been obvious. You decided to ignore that context and take philosophical exception. If I then agree that looking at the issue from your perspective your statement is correct, doesn't necessarily mean my unspoken context makes it wrong. It depends on your premises. If we taken libertarian ideals as a premise, it's a valid contract in the sense that it doesn't violate libertarian principles. That's what I was saying, and I'm sure everyone but you read it that way.
hashem:It doesn't cease to exist so much as it has now been broken You mean broken figuratively. LITERALLY, the contract ceases to exist to the extent that it's been abandoned. A contract is an idea, a concept, within the minds of people. Even if some people still have a drive to enforce their conception of a party regardless of the thoughts of those actually involved, that doesn't mean the contract therefore still exists.
What is it about the contract you're saying ceases to exist when it's been broken? Surely not the means by which that contract was recorded. Nor the provisions of that contract. The agreement the contract signifies has been broken, yes figuratively, but I have no idea what you mean by saying it ceases to exist as a concept or as an agreement.
hashem:I would disagree that it "ceases to exist" Then I invoke the spaghetti monster. Prove the contract exists in the first place. It exists WITHIN A MIND, or WITHIN MINDS. It is an idea. When someone abandons it, it ceases to exist to that extent.
Lol, here you going off on silly philosophical tangents again. The way proof of contract has typically been handled on the market is by embodying the contract, usually in written form, then recording that or witnessing it by an impartial third party. If it's abandoned, that record still exists, so I still have no idea why you're choosing to use the phrase "ceases to exist" as if both parties suddenly forgot it somehow. A broken agreement does not constitute the cessation of existence of anything meaningful. It constitutes only a failure to perform. The idea of it remains unchanged, broken or not.
hashem:If you agree to sell me a barrel of fish for $25 and I give you $25 and you break the contract and walk away, the contract doesn't magically disappear. You've now stolen $25. If you agree to sell me a barrel of fish for $25 I make a promise I give you $25 You voluntarily transfer property to me with the expectation of a return you break the contract You mean that figuratively. What actually happened was I failed to follow through with my promise and walk away Then I walk away the contract doesn't magically disappear The contract existed in our minds, I abandoned it, it ceased to exist in my mind You've now stolen $25. No, YOU GAVE ME $25. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
I see. You have an invalid conception of a contract. A contract is not a promise, it is a mutual title transfer. If I say I agree to transfer to you title to $25 in exchange for title to your barrel of fish, and you agree. Then what's happened is I put forth an offer, which is a title transfer conditional on acceptance. If you accept, a dual title transfer has happened in that moment. If you decline, that offer ceases to exist or can be said to be off the table. You cannot accept it again later unless it is proposed again by me.
This stuff is handled very cogently in a basic contract 101 course at your local college, and Rothbard goes over it as well iirc in Ethics of Liberty.
Therefore if I make that offer, and you accept, and give you $25 and you refuse to hand over the fish, you have indeed stolen a barrel of fish from me.
"We'd have to limit it to GPS coords, because there's nothing stopping anyone from making a new street and giving it the same name and address as the copied company. But GPS coords cannot be fooled."
Whoaaa...we just went DEEP......yep. I think its nailed down and glued now.
Can you imagine? 10 different companies. All named the same thing. Located in the same city. All located in different parts of the city, but operating on the same street names. All making the exact same product?