Jack,
Is IP property? If so, what qualities of property do you feel it meets in order to be classed so?
JackSkylark: GilesStratton: Think of it this way. I can make a forward contract with you telling you that in a year I will purchase good X from you for $25, because that refers to tangible property. I can not, however, tell you that at the specified date you will value the good at that much... Yes, we can. If you agree to value a good at a certain amount at a certain time, then you must (to the best of your ability) try to meet that obligation. If you do not truly value that item at that price, then you sure as hell not show it, since the burden of proof rests on the one who would claim you did not fulfill your duties you agreed to in the contract.
GilesStratton: Think of it this way. I can make a forward contract with you telling you that in a year I will purchase good X from you for $25, because that refers to tangible property. I can not, however, tell you that at the specified date you will value the good at that much...
Think of it this way. I can make a forward contract with you telling you that in a year I will purchase good X from you for $25, because that refers to tangible property. I can not, however, tell you that at the specified date you will value the good at that much...
Yes, we can. If you agree to value a good at a certain amount at a certain time, then you must (to the best of your ability) try to meet that obligation. If you do not truly value that item at that price, then you sure as hell not show it, since the burden of proof rests on the one who would claim you did not fulfill your duties you agreed to in the contract.
so you think there arent breaches of contract if one party doesnt know/realise the other party transgressed?
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
Would you deny that the specific ideas that you have in your head are property? And that removal of the idea would be a violation of your property?
No, the contract is void, since ownership of my mind, the "good" the contract concerns and what is effectively being transferred to you, is a prerequisite for me signing the contract. It's contradictory.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
JackSkylark: Would you deny that the specific ideas that you have in your head are property? And that removal of the idea would be a violation of your property?
What?
yes, ideas arent property.
is there a way to remove ideas? a way of doing it without hurting my brain?
nirgrahamUK:is there a way to remove ideas? a way of doing it without hurting my brain?
ouch, that guy must have trespassed on some property.
j/k
nirgrahamUK:ouch, that guy must have trespassed on some property.
He trespassed on non-property, and a statist authoritarian went all gangsta on him.
nirgrahamUK: so you think there arent breaches of contract if one party doesnt know/realise the other party transgressed?
There will be literal breaches of contract, but that only gives the other members of the contract the right to bring complaint of not fulfilling the terms of the contract. In this manner, legal view on the fulfilment of the contract is relative to the individual parties after literal breach has ocurred.
nirgrahamUK: yes, ideas arent property. is there a way to remove ideas? a way of doing it without hurting my brain?
I am creating an imaginary construct. But, correct me if I am wrong, you just said that if I clear your mind of all ideas (without physical trespass) I am not guilty of agression of property, since (as you have said) ideas are not property.
liberty student: Jack, Is IP property? If so, what qualities of property do you feel it meets in order to be classed so?
My specific idea in my head is my property, your specific idea in your head is property. Ideas are not always non-scarce, they are not floating in some nether-region waiting to be grabbed. They originate in the mind of the individual. At this point that idea is my own, i own it. I can now go and disseminate this idea but create contract limiting other parties on how they will use this information.
liberty student: nirgrahamUK:ouch, that guy must have trespassed on some property. He trespassed on non-property, and a statist authoritarian went all gangsta on him.
Serves him right...
After a few days away from this, I have to jump back in real quick. A = A. LS keeps up this mantra, which he takes from Rand, whom he doesnt like. Thats cute, but beside the point. A = A. You say a contract cannot control my thoughts, nor place limits on them. But a contract can control my actions, or place limits upon them. IE, you say I can sign a contract to not eat an apple, but not a contract to not copy your book and sell it as my own. Now a equaling a, the brain function that controls my physical actions is exactly identical to the brain function that controls my mind. Electrons firing in neurons. There is absolutely no difference, because as the proponents of COPYRIGHT (screw this IP word, we want copyright, which is currently under the IP umbrella) have pointed out time and time again, only to be ignored b/c you were too busy wasting time arguing with max, copyright is nothing but a contract that limits physical action. Not your thoughts. I do not presume to tell you that you cannot come up with cold fusion the same time I do. But I do presume that we can contractually declare that you cannot produce cold fusion after I show you how its done. We're not limiting your mind, but your actions. If Jack Chan from Nicaragua comes up with the same idea as me, let the market sort out who is more effecient in their implemintation. If you walk into my fusion plant and learn how it works, and before you entered you signed a contract saying you will not use anything you see in the production of cold fusion, then you cannot go build your own plant. The solution to this is simple for books and software as well. There is a ELA that comes up before you use your software (sound familiar?) that lets you know that you may not reproduce anything within it for yourself, and may not sell it to someone else unless they agree to the same contract. This limits not your mind, but your actions.
It seems your only argument is truely cocurrent discoveries. We're talking about I create cold fusion, and you steal the plans from me. If this is how the world works in your society, why would I ever let cold fusion out of my head? Sure, someday someone might come up with it. But personally, I'd rather watch the world burn than let my great discovery be owned by anyone who can d/l it from piratebay.
JParker:IE, you say I can sign a contract to not eat an apple, but not a contract to not copy your book and sell it as my own.
JParker:But I do presume that we can contractually declare that you cannot produce cold fusion after I show you how its done.
JParker:It seems your only argument is truely cocurrent discoveries.
JParker:But personally, I'd rather watch the world burn than let my great discovery be owned by anyone who can d/l it from piratebay.
JParker:LS keeps up this mantra, which he takes from Rand, whom he doesnt like.
I agree with every word JParker just wrote.
JackSkylark:My specific idea in my head is my property, your specific idea in your head is property. Ideas are not always non-scarce, they are not floating in some nether-region waiting to be grabbed. They originate in the mind of the individual. At this point that idea is my own, i own it. I can now go and disseminate this idea but create contract limiting other parties on how they will use this information.
So are ideas unique or not? Is there any difference between an idea in your brain and the same idea in my brain?
You still didn't answer the question about property. What defines property, and which of those qualities does IP have?
liberty student: JParker:IE, you say I can sign a contract to not eat an apple, but not a contract to not copy your book and sell it as my own. Strawman.
Strawman.
Did you or did you not agree that a contract where I sell you an apple upon the condition you not eat it was ok? Do I have to go pull the direct quote from you in this thread? And you are clearly saying that you can take a book I write and sell it as your own, as you dont believe that I can limit your ability to do so. Not strawmen, but summations of your entire position on this matter. If I must, I'll dig back through the 18 pages of you stating exactly this.
liberty student: JParker:But I do presume that we can contractually declare that you cannot produce cold fusion after I show you how its done. Let's assume you can do this. Do you plan to contract with every working mind in the world? Of course not. Which is why you rely on state enforcement via social contract. There is no way for you to guarantee you can meet every single individual's price to agree not to consider cold fusion, and thus use the state to subsidize the cost of negotiating your own contract, by forcing it on everyone by law.
Let's assume you can do this. Do you plan to contract with every working mind in the world? Of course not. Which is why you rely on state enforcement via social contract. There is no way for you to guarantee you can meet every single individual's price to agree not to consider cold fusion, and thus use the state to subsidize the cost of negotiating your own contract, by forcing it on everyone by law.
And there is your huge logic gap. You're somehow assuming that if I discover cold fusion, it is instantly in the public domain? How, if every person who ever stepped foot in my plant, including those who constructed it, is under contract to not disclose to anyone the method used, nor create their own plant using my method, am I controlling "every working mind in the world". My method is not known to the working mind. It is not released, it is not common knowledge, because I protected it via contract.
liberty student:Then you have not read closely. IP is not property, and thus it is not subject to ownership. I can contract you to take a certain route to work everyday, but that doesn't mean I "own" the directions, and no one else can travel that same path without my permission.
Keep repeating your mantra without refuting my point. Cold fusion is not directions to work. It is not in the public domain. I can protect it via contract to never enter the public domain. If someone else discovers it independently, then good for them. But unless they do, it is mine and mine alone.
liberty student:Which is precisely why we shouldn't have IP. Where bitter people seek to hold back the ability of other people to solve problems, that claim to have a monpoly on the answers for. If your discovery was the cure for cancer, could you rationalize holding it back out of spite, and limiting anyone else from discovering your solution?
You'd rather I give up my mind to better society? You, who scream social contract and socialism at every turn, just told me that I should give up the profits I could create via my cure for cancer, presumably because it is for the good of society. A = A. We are a selfish species intent on our personal survival. If I cannot profit from a cure for cancer, then why should I release it? I should, in fact, hold it back. More people die from cancer = less competition for scarce resources = better for me personally. Now, to turn a profit from it is better for me right now, as opposed to later. So time value/utility would suggest I'd rather profit now from my discovery than hope enough people die for me to profit later. But it is my choice. To call me "bitter" and say I hold it back "out of spite" is you putting your valuations of the well-being of others upon me. My mind is my own, and I can chose to not release its creations to the world if I cannot profit from doing so.
As to the last part, "limiting anyone else from discovering your solution", where have I said this? No where. Not once did I say if someone independently discovered something or wrote the same song would there be an issue. So, to quote you, STRAWMAN.
Ideas are not always unique, I did not mean that I own the entire concept of the idea (just the one in my head). We can both posess the same idea, and we have equal property rights.
Before I answer the question on property, I would like to know your definition?
JackSkylark:Before I answer the question on property, I would like to know your definition?
No. I've asked twice already. Plus, I've pretty much posted my definition, or the key parts relative to this discussion, at least a half dozen times to this thread already.
If you're not going to answer, just say so.
LS, im awaiting your response to my post...
JParker:Do I have to go pull the direct quote from you in this thread?
Yes.
JParker:And you are clearly saying that you can take a book I write and sell it as your own, as you dont believe that I can limit your ability to do so.
I can sell a book I bought from you, and I can copy your book into a new book, and sell that. What would be wrong, woudl be to claim I am the author, when I am only the re-publisher. You would still be the author. It would be fraud for me to claim otherwise.
JParker:If I must, I'll dig back through the 18 pages of you stating exactly this.
You must. Or you can just do what I just responded to. Ask me to restate or clarify my position. But I have a real hardon in this forum for people claiming I said or meant something I do not. I can argue my position, but I can't argue positions people make up for me.
JParker:You're somehow assuming that if I discover cold fusion, it is instantly in the public domain?
No. Should I continue reading?
JParker:It is not released, it is not common knowledge, because I protected it via contract.
You're not the only person capable of figuring out cold fusion. Some people take days to read a book, some people read can read a book in a few hours. It's presumptious to think that only one mind is capable of achieving a particular idea.
JParker:Keep repeating your mantra without refuting my point. Cold fusion is not directions to work. It is not in the public domain. I can protect it via contract to never enter the public domain.
Only through the vectors that voluntarily contract with you.
JParker:If someone else discovers it independently, then good for them. But unless they do, it is mine and mine alone.
JParker:You'd rather I give up my mind to better society?
No. I would rather you not hinder other people from discovering solutions by insisting you have a monopoly on an idea.
JParker:You, who scream social contract and socialism at every turn, just told me that I should give up the profits I could create via my cure for cancer, presumably because it is for the good of society.
Reading comprehension is fundamental. Go back and read what I wrote.
JParker:My mind is my own, and I can chose to not release its creations to the world if I cannot profit from doing so.
No one asked you to.
JParker:As to the last part, "limiting anyone else from discovering your solution", where have I said this? No where. Not once did I say if someone independently discovered something or wrote the same song would there be an issue. So, to quote you, STRAWMAN.
Is it a strawman?
JParker:Unique code is not scarce? The exact order of thousands of letters to form words and tell a story is not scarce? I'd say they are. Granted, IP is so overblown it's laughable right now, but basic IP/copyright laws should exist. But by claiming that the sentences I write here, or the book I write in my spare time is not unique, and claiming that you're able to reproduce it without my approval, means you are taking the labor of my mind.
Yeah, we gunna suck out your brains with a straw.
JParker: Summation: my mind is unique and scarce, just as your labor is. The market puts value on my mind. Thus the product of my mind has value, and should be considered property, just as the product of your labor is considered scarce, and is thus property.
And for laughs, here is some confused Maxism. Check out this logical progression.
My mind is unique, the market puts value on it (could be zero, but regardless) value = property. Since labour is scarce, Labour is property.
Q.E.D.
JParker: LS, im awaiting your response to my post...
Done.
I rarely if ever skip a response, but I am not sitting here waiting to answer every post. I do occasionally do other things. Occasionally.
liberty student: JackSkylark:Before I answer the question on property, I would like to know your definition? No. I've asked twice already. Plus, I've pretty much posted my definition, or the key parts relative to this discussion, at least a half dozen times to this thread already. If you're not going to answer, just say so.
I have also stated my definition of property, I just haven't formalized it in one post. I wanted to give you the chance to do that while I ate and then prepared my own post, so that we would both have a definition we could both work from.
Anyways, I would define the rights of property as "an exclusive claim to use", meaning the rights are not only in the good itself but in the use of that good... Now as to what constitutes property, I begin with the notion that everyone is a self-owner, meaning they can lay claim on the right of property over the use of their own self... From this we come to the issue of original appropriation, by which individuals claim property outside of self (and not through trade or prior-ownership). I find the homesteading principle most fitting here, but there are many problems with the scope of Locke's "mixing labor with land" theory. Any and all resources (including ideas) can be homesteaded and then called property (I can bottle some air, and then claim rights of property over that bit of air), scarcity need not play any part in this process, only divisibility and separation. The rest is fairly simple to deduce, but I think you get the idea.
liberty student:You're not the only person capable of figuring out cold fusion. Some people take days to read a book, some people read can read a book in a few hours. It's presumptious to think that only one mind is capable of achieving a particular idea.
Equally presumptious to assume that you could. If relativity (a law of nature, so its always been there) was so easy, why did it take one man to discover it? You're arguing that einstein was not unique? And yet again, If someone else comes up with the idea independently, there is no issue. Dont know how many times I have to state this...
liberty student:Only through the vectors that voluntarily contract with you.
How is this so hard to imagine? A construction worker will sign a contract to not use my cold fusion, because it provides him with a job. If he wont sign the contract, he doesnt get the job, and someone else will take it. You still havent stated how I will be
liberty student:use[ing] the state to subsidize the cost of negotiating your own contract, by forcing it on everyone by law.
You call me
I call you
(of the mind)
liberty student:No. I would rather you not hinder other people from discovering solutions by insisting you have a monopoly on an idea.
I CLEARLY stated exactly the opposite of this countless times, including in the very post you quoted. Give me an s-t-r-awman!
liberty student: JParker:Unique code is not scarce? The exact order of thousands of letters to form words and tell a story is not scarce? I'd say they are. Granted, IP is so overblown it's laughable right now, but basic IP/copyright laws should exist. But by claiming that the sentences I write here, or the book I write in my spare time is not unique, and claiming that you're able to reproduce it without my approval, means you are taking the labor of my mind.
Not inconsistent with my position.. i clearly point out that i'm referring to copyright, as all along this is what I was arguing for. We have moved the conversation on to cover a stateless society, and Jack and I are asking how a position based soley upon contract is inconsistant. I believe a limited state is necessary. I'm a randian minarchist. But the questions we're posing now you still are not answering.
So now you're saying
liberty student: I can copy your book into a new book, and sell that
Aside: I re-read the posts in question, and you did not agree with Giles that a contract could be made to sell you an apple wherein you could not consume the apple. I am sorry I misrepresented your position. Though the question still is posed, couldn't such a contract be signed?
If ideas are not property, would it then not be a invasion of property rights if I were to (without interference to any other property) remove all ideas from your conscious (which would, I assume include memories, and invested learning, etc.) Or, can individual, specific ideas be owned as property in an indiviual fashion?
I think I'm ready to concede. I just realized why these contracts are indeed meaningless.
Rothbard once wrote about contracts in something I read that said no contract can compell a man's future will. If he violates the contract, he would only need return whatever he gained as part of the contract, referring specifically to money payments or property transfers. There could be no legal contract that said "if you fail to show up on ___ date, you owe us $1,000,000" unless the contract arranged to pay the person that sum before the date.
I would agree that information fails to be classified strictly as property. It is not "returnable". There can be no punishment for breaching the contract. Thus, it is meaningless. I am not suggesting Rothbard is infallible; only that I agree with him on liberty and contracts.
...although it may be considered fraud to agree to a contract you plan on breaking...
I am not ready to concede the economic point of copyright, however. I still believe there are benefits to a system that can best link consumer usage towards direct pricing of information goods. This may need to shift towards what I was trying to avoid - a gift economy + alternative goods markets. I'm going to ponder that for a while.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Jack, they don't own the pattern of their brain, but the brain itself. for you to use that property in anyway without permission is unlawful.
of course i would consider privacy invasions also criminal; however, informational goods are not valued for their secrecy.
meambobbo:Rothbard once wrote about contracts in something I read that said no contract can compell a man's future will. If he violates the contract, he would only need return whatever he gained as part of the contract, referring specifically to money payments or property transfers. There could be no legal contract that said "if you fail to show up on ___ date, you owe us $1,000,000" unless the contract arranged to pay the person that sum before the date.
You can compell man's future action, however. Otherwise you're saying that an order for future goods (ie I order a ship to be built) is meaningless because it compells the shipbuilder to take future action of building a ship.
meambobbo:I would agree that information fails to be classified strictly as property. It is not "returnable". There can be no punishment for breaching the contract. Thus, it is meaningless. I am not suggesting Rothbard is infallible; only that I agree with him on liberty and contracts.
The punishment would be written into the contract. If I invent cold fusion, and you breach contract and use the idea for your own gain, I take all the money you gained, all the property you created using my idea. This would be spelled out in the contract. Hell, you could be executed for breach of contract. Some may say you cannot agree to this, but by saying you cant sign your life away, they're claiming ownership of your life.
For those who don't support the state yet believe in IP - what, exactly, do you propose to do with the inevitable millions of people who will pay no attention to your imposed barriers to entry into the market? What will you do with the tens or hundreds of millions who will buy their products when they offer them cheaper and better than the would-be monopolist?
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
JackSkylark:scarcity need not play any part in this process
Sarcity is related to uniqueness. Something unique, property, cannot be duplicated. You can own the same model and colour car as me, but only I can own my car. You can own your car. They are not the same thing.
The IP argument says that ideas are scarce, so scarce, that they can only have one owner. Forget for a moment that the current mechanism for determining who the owner is, varies from territory to territory, or that exclusive ownership expires when the state says so.
Now if an idea was truly scarce, someone would not be able to steal it, without taking it away from the original thinker. If it is unique, it cannot exist in two places at once.
That's my argument based on scarcity. Pick any good, and you will see that it cannot be duplicated without creating a new instance of the product. You can copy a book, but it is not the original, it is a copy, and thus, it is new and unique. Likewise, people need to decide if ideas are unique, then how is it possible that someone can have an idea stolen, when they still have access to it?
The fact is, what's being "stolen" is the exclusivity of the idea. The idea is only unique, as long as no one else has it. But as we all will admit, someone else, in another place, in another time, can come to the same thought, write the same words, figure out the same formula without any interaction with the "original" thinker. Which now begs the question, can you steal an idea, you have never come into contact with? Of course not.
I spent almost all day on the forum and didn't get much work done. I won't be around much tomorrow, but I will catch up on replies asap.
Thank you for replying btw. It is like pulling teeth to get anyone to discuss a definition of what actually constitutes property in these IP debates.
MacFall:For those who don't support the state yet believe in IP - what, exactly, do you propose to do with the inevitable millions of people who will pay no attention to your imposed barriers to entry into the market?
Personally? I would not produce anything but physical goods. I would never create anything that could be pirated, never invent anything new. And to those who would try and keep producing, they would go bankrupt, and the millions who would steal their work will have noone to steal from anymore.
MacFall:What will you do with the tens or hundreds of millions who will buy their products when they offer them cheaper and better than the would-be monopolist?
And once you've crushed the 'would-be monopolist', from whom would you loot?
meambobbo:I think I'm ready to concede. I just realized why these contracts are indeed meaningless.
Hallellujah. I'm not familiar with your line of thinking, but I feel, no, I KNOW you are headed in the right direction.
meambobbo:I am not ready to concede the economic point of copyright, however.
Utilitarian and emotional/moral arguments get different mileage on this. People can get pretty far removed from objective reasoning when they are considering their own self-interest.
JParker:Equally presumptious to assume that you could. If relativity (a law of nature, so its always been there) was so easy, why did it take one man to discover it? You're arguing that einstein was not unique? And yet again, If someone else comes up with the idea independently, there is no issue. Dont know how many times I have to state this...
Then we're just talking past one another. I'm no socialist of the mind. You're a minarchist, who agrees there should be IP laws. IP laws are state granted monopoly privilege, and create artificial scarcity and market distortions.
I don't expect you to give up anything to anyone if you do not want to (profit or altruism). But if you plan to use state laws to distort the market, and infringe on the abilities of your fellow man to act freely on the capacity of their own minds, then yeah we got a big problem.
JParker:Aside: I re-read the posts in question, and you did not agree with Giles that a contract could be made to sell you an apple wherein you could not consume the apple. I am sorry I misrepresented your position.
Not a big deal. There are some people on this forum who have a bad habit of framing the debate by creating false positions. Needless to say, it is very hard to mount a defense in a debate if you aren't entitled to your own position, but one your opponent forces you to play.
If I write something, I stand by it. If I am wrong, I'll own up to it.
JParker:Though the question still is posed, couldn't such a contract be signed?
I don't know, I didn't pay a lot of attention because it all seemed off topic. In order to debate property rights with IP, we have to establish that IP is or is not property. I feel I can make a compelling case based on scarcity, or perhaps more precisely, uniqueness, that it is not property and thus the notion of theft, ownership, compensation, etc is all moot.
JParker:So now you're saying liberty student: I can copy your book into a new book, and sell that But what if, when I sold you the first book, you agreed to not do that very thing?
Then I would be violating a contract. No dispute there. Of course, I would probably not buy a book that I couldn't read at the bookstore before taking it to the counter. I'd have to agree that whatever I read, prior to accepting the terms of sale was binding. And that's just too much legal liability for a guy after some cheap paperback Sci-Fi.
JParker:I believe a limited state is necessary. I'm a randian minarchist.
I know. It is very sad. Hopefully you can see that limited doesn't work, nor is it ideal. A state is fine, if it is voluntary. Coercion, in all instances is wrong.
JParker: MacFall:For those who don't support the state yet believe in IP - what, exactly, do you propose to do with the inevitable millions of people who will pay no attention to your imposed barriers to entry into the market? Personally? I would not produce anything but physical goods. I would never create anything that could be pirated, never invent anything new.
Personally? I would not produce anything but physical goods. I would never create anything that could be pirated, never invent anything new.
Really? How pathetic.
And to those who would try and keep producing, they would go bankrupt
LOL. Yeah, because there was absolutely NO innovation until the modern patent system emerged. Good thing there was a mercantilist state around to guarantee profits to the guy who invented the wheel!
MacFall:And once you've crushed the 'would-be monopolist'
You mean after competition crushes the would-be monopolist? Well, then there would be lower costs and greater efficiency, which would result in more capital savings, which would result in more investment, which would lead to more innovation, which would lead the the emergence of multiple competing firms, which would lead to lower costs and greater efficiency, etc.
Free markets bring about new and better processes. There is no reason to believe that a state is necessary for innovation and entrepreneurship to occur -except a stunning lack of imagination.
MacFall:Really? How pathetic.
More pathetic than having my ideas robbed from me, my creations given away for free to all who would want it, my mind sacrificed at the alter of 'anarchy' as opposed to the alter of 'socialism'? B/C I still see a direct correlation between the two.
MacFall:You mean after competition crushes the would-be monopolist?
Competition? You dare to say that blatantly stealing a man's ideas and inventions is competition? I invent marvelous new technology, you rip it off and have the audacity to call that competition? You've created a new god to worship and call it anarchy. You're no different than Marx in this regard, at least to my eyes.
MacFall:Well, then there would be lower costs and greater efficiency, which would result in more capital savings, which would result in more investment, which would lead to more innovation, which would lead the the emergence of multiple competing firms, which would lead to lower costs and greater efficiency, etc.
And all the while you keep forgetting the inventor. You forget people are selfish. You forget that people value their labor, and their effort, and their own minds. So I'll ask once more the question that no anarchist has ever answered me: Why would the inventor ever let the invention leave his mind when you are guaranteeing that he will never earn anything from it? If I invent cold fusion, why would I tell anyone about it if you claim the second it leaves my lips, its owned by everyone? If I could not profit from it? You call me pathetic for this, I call you pathetic to give away your mind at the alter of your anarchy god, or collective good, or whatever reason you would give to give this information away for free. This is socialism at its finest. You're saying that your mind is worthless to the market. I say the market would claim otherwise.
MacFall:Free markets bring about new and better processes. There is no reason to believe that a state is necessary for innovation and entrepreneurship to occur -except a stunning lack of imagination.
And yet again, this entire argument is based upon a stateless society, whereby freely entered contract controls copyright. Quit throwing the current state on my argument.
**Edit: also, you ignore the other part of my question above. From whom would you loot? Once you've improved the effeciency of the 'would be monopolists' invention through free market competition, from whom would you loot the next idea to improve upon? Who would invest their time and effort to create the next 'wheel'. Oh and referencing the wheel, which was invented before written history, is kind of rediculous, seeing how you cannot possibly prove that it was not a closely controlled secret during the inventor's lifetime, which is all that I was arguing for, copyright with duration of inventor's lifetime.
JParker:You can compell man's future action, however. Otherwise you're saying that an order for future goods (ie I order a ship to be built) is meaningless because it compells the shipbuilder to take future action of building a ship.
in this example, what does the contractor forsake before he is given the ship? money, then it should be returned. if he is paying on delivery, simply don't pay. if the ship is delivered, then both parties would be viewed to benefit, at least at the time they signed the contract. of course, if the ship got built but money was not delivered, the builder shouldn't simply get his ship back...
and there is obviously a gray line here...if the ship builder failed to produce anything but spent his advance and had no property, justice would compell his future action to repay his debt. i'm frankfully unsure how to remedy cases of much larger scenarios, such as how one could produce justice should he destroy something beyond his net earning potential.
JParker:The punishment would be written into the contract. If I invent cold fusion, and you breach contract and use the idea for your own gain, I take all the money you gained, all the property you created using my idea. This would be spelled out in the contract. Hell, you could be executed for breach of contract. Some may say you cannot agree to this, but by saying you cant sign your life away, they're claiming ownership of your life.
Can you take away some portion of my brain that has learned a fair bit about your cold fusion invention? If I kill you in self-defense in attempting to prevent you from killing me, as the result of my breach of contract, should I be tried for murder? Under the state, would legal enforcement of the contract involve the state killing me in the name of justice? It seems at any moment if you did not consent and someone attempted to kill you, they would be claiming ownership of your life, independent if or when any contract was made.
Rothbard addresses these as the immutable properties of life and liberty, which can never be contracted away. They are superior to freedom of contract, as they are both a requirement.
liberty student:People can get pretty far removed from objective reasoning when they are considering their own self-interest.
How could they do anything but? Self-interest as expressed through action is surely not equivalent to selfishness or greed.
As far as my admiration of products that may be effected, I am determined to help find efficient means to produce them.
JParker: MacFall:Really? How pathetic. More pathetic than having my ideas robbed from me, my creations given away for free to all who would want it, my mind sacrificed at the alter of 'anarchy' as opposed to the alter of 'socialism'? B/C I still see a direct correlation between the two. MacFall:You mean after competition crushes the would-be monopolist? Competition? You dare to say that blatantly stealing a man's ideas and inventions is competition? I invent marvelous new technology, you rip it off and have the audacity to call that competition? You've created a new god to worship and call it anarchy. You're no different than Marx in this regard, at least to my eyes. MacFall:Well, then there would be lower costs and greater efficiency, which would result in more capital savings, which would result in more investment, which would lead to more innovation, which would lead the the emergence of multiple competing firms, which would lead to lower costs and greater efficiency, etc. And all the while you keep forgetting the inventor. You forget people are selfish. You forget that people value their labor, and their effort, and their own minds. So I'll ask once more the question that no anarchist has ever answered me: Why would the inventor ever let the invention leave his mind when you are guaranteeing that he will never earn anything from it? If I invent cold fusion, why would I tell anyone about it if you claim the second it leaves my lips, its owned by everyone? If I could not profit from it? You call me pathetic for this, I call you pathetic to give away your mind at the alter of your anarchy god, or collective good, or whatever reason you would give to give this information away for free. This is socialism at its finest. You're saying that your mind is worthless to the market. I say the market would claim otherwise. MacFall:Free markets bring about new and better processes. There is no reason to believe that a state is necessary for innovation and entrepreneurship to occur -except a stunning lack of imagination. And yet again, this entire argument is based upon a stateless society, whereby freely entered contract controls copyright. Quit throwing the current state on my argument. **Edit: also, you ignore the other part of my question above. From whom would you loot? Once you've improved the effeciency of the 'would be monopolists' invention through free market competition, from whom would you loot the next idea to improve upon? Who would invest their time and effort to create the next 'wheel'. Oh and referencing the wheel, which was invented before written history, is kind of rediculous, seeing how you cannot possibly prove that it was not a closely controlled secret during the inventor's lifetime, which is all that I was arguing for, copyright with duration of inventor's lifetime.
Absolutely pathetic. Your concerns has already been addressed ad nasuem in books like Against Intellectual Monopoly, on websites, and on this thread. No business model apperantly, can please you.
Other people already did and will make a profit inventing stuff/writing softwares/etc. So shut up your whining about how you won't produce X without Y. Because clearly, you sucks at entrepreneurship and deserve to starve on the street.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
kiba: Absolutely pathetic. Your concerns has already been addressed ad nasuem in books like Against Intellectual Monopoly, on websites, and on this thread. No business model apperantly, can please you.
Kiba, your 'business model' was disproven by me long ago. Work for hire is not an answer, as it only solves the small jobs that any college kid (aka you) could complete.
kiba:Other people already did and will make a profit inventing stuff/writing softwares/etc. So shut up your whining about how you won't produce X without Y. Because clearly, you sucks at entrepreneurship and deserve to starve on the street.
Compelling evidence. I see your schooling has taught you well. First i'm 'fucking stupid' now 'i suck and deserve to starve on the street'. If you aren't prepared to actually provide a response, please refrain from speaking to me.