Political Theory

Re: Intellectual Property Rights?

Charles Anthony — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:35:43 GMT

Thedesolateone:
Well, no objective proof is required because none can be provided

All judgements are necessarily subjective, and so their only "objective" value is in the fact that either the judge or the judgement is accepted by both the accuser and accused.

Finally, somebody who understands the reality of libertarianism.

Jon Irenicus:
Charles Anthony:
The libertarian arbitration of disputes does not require any proof.

How so? It certainly does if the process is to be deemed respectable.

How? -- because all you need is consent over the terms of arbitration.

Once every party in the dispute agrees on an arbitrator, it really does not matter how the arbitrator arrived at his decision. That and the fact that there is no such thing as real proof. There can only be convincing arguments and substantiation but never any real objective proof.

Stephanie Bond:
So, Charles, all law is subjective? There is "practically speaking" no objective reality? Libertarian dispute resolution requires no proof?

Yes, yes and yes.

That is not to say that we can not treat things or principles as objective truths.

Jon Irenicus:
A firm that does not even bother in dealing with proof in arbitration is no better than my neighbour trying to play judge in disputes between us, and will not be taken seriously. I'm not sure what Charles Anthony means, hence I asked for clarification, because proof matters insofar as a firm's reputation as a respectable arbiter does - meaning, a lot.

It is not that nobody bothers with proof. Of course, an arbiter will look at "proof" but true proof does not exist. The only thing that is really provided is convincing arguments.

Even if God came down and provided The Proof(tm), whether you realize it or not you would still be stuck with the physical reality that every sentient being faces: your own perception. So, objective reality can certainly exist however, you, as an individual, will always appreciate it through your own senses. Your senses are subjective. Thus, in a practical sense, reality is always and everywhere subjective -- unless of course you are God.

Re: Intellectual Property Rights?

DanielMuff — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 22:35:51 GMT

Oh. Ooooooh. I see.

Re: Intellectual Property Rights?

Thedesolateone — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 22:15:59 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

The libertarian arbitration of disputes does not require any proof.

How so? It certainly does if the process is to be deemed respectable.

Well, no objective proof is required because none can be provided

All judgements are necessarily subjective, and so their only "objective" value is in the fact that either the judge or the judgement is accepted by both the accuser and accused.

But Irenicus is correct - those courts which will be most frequently used will be those which are most meticulous and most often correct/fair.

Re: Intellectual Property Rights?

liberty student — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:38:19 GMT

Daniel:

How is it relevant to "libertarian arbitration of disputes"? Keynes receives a lot of respect from tens of thousands of mainstream economists, but does that mean he is correct or that we should use his remedies to cure our economy?

That's not what Irenicus was talking about. Your example is completely irrelevant.

Re: Intellectual Property Rights?

nirgrahamUK — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:54:57 GMT

whats so hard to understand? under the circumstance that you and I agree that if we get into dispute we would take our problem to judge J..., are we both likely to agree to go to to J1 for whom there is greater evidence of competence or or J2 for which there is not? (or evidence that j2 is positively a bad judge)

Re: Intellectual Property Rights?

DanielMuff — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:11:04 GMT

How is it relevant to "libertarian arbitration of disputes"? Keynes receives a lot of respect from tens of thousands of mainstream economists, but does that mean he is correct or that we should use his remedies to cure our economy?

Re: Intellectual Property Rights?

Jon Irenicus — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:12:22 GMT

Wow, a new shocker from this site. Firms are only as good as their reputations - so what makes you think reputation (and consequently respectability) is not relevant here? A firm that does not even bother in dealing with proof in arbitration is no better than my neighbour trying to play judge in disputes between us, and will not be taken seriously. I'm not sure what Charles Anthony means, hence I asked for clarification, because proof matters insofar as a firm's reputation as a respectable arbiter does - meaning, a lot.

Re: Intellectual Property Rights?

DanielMuff — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:08:36 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

The libertarian arbitration of disputes does not require any proof.

How so? It certainly does if the process is to be deemed respectable.

What does respect have to do with any of this? Keynes received a lot respect while he was alive (and even now) yet he was wrong as hell.

Re: Intellectual Property Rights?

Jon Irenicus — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:26:29 GMT

The libertarian arbitration of disputes does not require any proof.

How so? It certainly does if the process is to be deemed respectable.

Re: Intellectual Property Rights?

Mingy Jongo — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:09:38 GMT

Daniel:

Mingy Jongo:

I agree that you can not own ideas. I'm just wondering why that means it is OK to break perfectly valid contracts that involve transmission of them. You can not own actions, either, but agreeing to pay someone to do a goofy dance and then not paying after they do so is a broken contract that the dancer can validly demand restitution from.

What does any of that have to do with IP as defined and practiced in the USA?

I think I just got confused between ideas as legal property (invalid) and ideas as services (valid).

Re: Intellectual Property Rights?

DanielMuff — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:53:03 GMT

Mingy Jongo:

I agree that you can not own ideas. I'm just wondering why that means it is OK to break perfectly valid contracts that involve transmission of them. You can not own actions, either, but agreeing to pay someone to do a goofy dance and then not paying after they do so is a broken contract that the dancer can validly demand restitution from.

What does any of that have to do with IP as defined and practiced in the USA?

Re: Intellectual Property Rights?

DanielMuff — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:50:05 GMT

From Against Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella:

As should be apparent, copyright and patent seek to prevent the owners of tangible property—scarce resources— from using their own property as they see fit. For example, they are prohibited, under patent law, from practicing patented methods, using their own property, or from shaping their own property into patented devices, even if they independently invent the method or device. (55)

Re: Intellectual Property Rights?

Mingy Jongo — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:38:17 GMT

I agree that you can not own ideas. I'm just wondering why that means it is OK to break perfectly valid contracts that involve transmission of them. You can not own actions, either, but agreeing to pay someone to do a goofy dance and then not paying after they do so is a broken contract that the dancer can validly demand restitution from.

Re: Intellectual Property Rights?

liberty student — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:17:59 GMT

Mingy Jongo:
If one said "do not copy" and the other said "go ahead and spread it around," that's too bad for the first person.

Right, because ideas are not scarce.

Mingy Jongo:
I flatly disagree with the second statement. Ideas may not be property, but they can be used as a service.

So you don't disagree. You're just trying to create an exception.

Mingy Jongo:
Movie companies pay people to create ideas for films, and that takes time and effort.

Walking up a hill takes time and effort, does that mean I own walking up a hill?

Mingy Jongo:
In an anarchist society, why would that change?

Up thread I mentioned I really don't want to re-hash the last 4 or 5 threads on IP for everyone who comes to these discussions. I would suggest you read what has been discussed before, rather than expecting me to repost what I have already written. I'm not trying to be short, but my time is finite.

There is a wealth of information here on IP. Sink your teeth into it. You could spend a couple weeks just studying the IP position.

Re: Intellectual Property Rights?

Stephanie Bond — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 00:46:40 GMT

liberty student:

I didn't read the rest of your response. What a waste of our time.

OooOOooo Moderator fight!

So, Charles, all law is subjective? There is "practically speaking" no objective reality? Libertarian dispute resolution requires no proof?