Awesome free state project open to bitcoin donations

[onarchy]

A "Mind Worker"?  What does Nature say about this? I can think of better ways of growing corn, but can't grow corn. So you want to charge the corn growers for increased efficiency from using your method. If you never told them, they would still grow corn.

Before the contribution of the mind worker: a 10 ton crop of corn. After the contribution of the mind worker: a 100 ton crop of corn. Those 90 extra tons of corn would not exist without the contribution of the mind worker. Are you seriously saying then that just because he can still grow 10 tons of corn, being able to grow 100 tons of corn is of NO value to the farmer?

A "Mind Worker"? is working in a fictitious world. He gets what he gets, and should be happy he gets it. However, if he grows corn and increases his own corn yields, he wins. But is he getting the reward from the Mind Work or the Corn Yield and his Physical Work.

You are simply proving my point that libertarian anti-IP people are materialists who think that information is "fictional," i.e. doesn't exist. All that exists is physical work. That's identical to the ideas of stalinist Marxists.

Wonder what a world of "Mind Workers" would look like? How much would things cost?

ALL people are to some extent a mind worker, because even the simplest of human tasks require the usage of the mind. So the right question is to ask: what would a world WITHOUT mind workers look like? How much would things cost? Basically you would be an animal, less than a savage. The concept of "cost" would be meaningless to you since you don't have a mind to understand it with.

[1713568938]

1713568938

[1713568938]

1713568938

[1713568938]

1713568938

[1713568938]

1713568938

[1713568938]

1713568938

[1713568938]

1713568938

[onarchy]

Then when all of society is like that you start wondering why there are no more new really good books being written, and why all the Hollywood films that come out are crap and regurgitations.

Yes, it's a good thing we had strong copyright laws back in the day to protect Bach, Beethoven, Plato, Aristotle, Chaucer, etc, or we'd be in such trouble.

If you're making art just for the money, you probably suck anyways.

And if you bake bread just for the money then those breads probably suck anyways. And if you write software just to make a living then that software probably is trash. And if you build cars, or waiter at diners, or drive taxis, then you probably just deliver bad, bad goods and service. Again, this is exactly what the Marxists say when they argue against capitalism. So long as people do things out of self-interest it sucks. (BTW, all the great classical composers such as Bach or Beethoven earned a wage from kings.)

[­­­Atlas_]

A "Mind Worker"?  What does Nature say about this? I can think of better ways of growing corn, but can't grow corn. So you want to charge the corn growers for increased efficiency from using your method. If you never told them, they would still grow corn.

Before the contribution of the mind worker: a 10 ton crop of corn. After the contribution of the mind worker: a 100 ton crop of corn. Those 90 extra tons of corn would not exist without the contribution of the mind worker. Are you seriously saying then that just because he can still grow 10 tons of corn, being able to grow 100 tons of corn is of NO value to the farmer?

A "Mind Worker"? is working in a fictitious world. He gets what he gets, and should be happy he gets it. However, if he grows corn and increases his own corn yields, he wins. But is he getting the reward from the Mind Work or the Corn Yield and his Physical Work.

You are simply proving my point that libertarian anti-IP people are materialists who think that information is "fictional," i.e. doesn't exist. All that exists is physical work. That's identical to the ideas of stalinist Marxists.

Wonder what a world of "Mind Workers" would look like? How much would things cost?

ALL people are to some extent a mind worker, because even the simplest of human tasks require the usage of the mind. So the right question is to ask: what would a world WITHOUT mind workers look like? How much would things cost? Basically you would be an animal, less than a savage. The concept of "cost" would be meaningless to you since you don't have a mind to understand it with.

Billy invents a way to increase crop production ten-fold. Billy licenses use of said technique with John. John agrees not to tell anybody. John walks down the street with said technique in-hand. Technique blows away and John breaks the contract. Mary finds the lost technique and applies it to her crop. She shares it with everybody. Hundreds of thousands of people are using the technique. Should they be forced to stop and/or pay royalties to Billy?

[onarchy]

It's my ink and my paper. I will sell it any form I damn well please.

It's my mouth and I will use it to say whatever I want, including "give me all your money or I'll kill you." It's just sound, right? Doesn't mean anything, right? And when I sign a contract with you, it's not really an agreement, right? It's just ink on a piece of paper, right?

[­­­Atlas_]

It's my ink and my paper. I will sell it any form I damn well please.

It's my mouth and I will use it to say whatever I want, including "give me all your money or I'll kill you." It's just sound, right? Doesn't mean anything, right? And when I sign a contract with you, it's not really an agreement, right? It's just ink on a piece of paper, right?

The first sentence is out of context. Irrelevant. If you break contracts, nobody is not going to want to do business with you in the future. It's only to your detriment.

[onarchy]

Billy invents a way to increase crop production ten-fold. Billy licenses use of said technique with John. John agrees not to tell anybody. John walks down the street with said technique in-hand. Technique blows away and John breaks the contract. Mary finds the lost technique and applies it to her crop. She shares it with everybody. Hundreds of thousands of people are using the technique. Should they be forced to stop and/or pay royalties to Billy?

Yes, they should, for the very same reason as if my car is stolen and resold to a third party then that third party does not own that car. He has to deliver it back to ME, the owner. You should be allowed to enforce such third party infringements both in the physical realm AND in the non-material realm.

[NghtRppr]

And if you bake bread just for the money then those breads probably suck anyways. And if you write software just to make a living then that software probably is trash. And if you build cars, or waiter at diners, or drive taxis, then you probably just deliver bad, bad goods and service.

Bread isn't art. Neither is any of that other crap you've mention. Your analogies fail. Many classical and romantic artists didn't live under nobility. Mozart was an independent musician yet he's arguably still one of the greatest composers of all time, without the need for copyrights. Of course, you tellingly ignored the examples of Plato, Aristotle and others so you can cherry-pick your argument.

[onarchy]

It's my ink and my paper. I will sell it any form I damn well please.

It's my mouth and I will use it to say whatever I want, including "give me all your money or I'll kill you." It's just sound, right? Doesn't mean anything, right? And when I sign a contract with you, it's not really an agreement, right? It's just ink on a piece of paper, right?

The first sentence is out of context. Irrelevant.

It's free speech, right? I just used my body peacefully to make sounds, right? Sounds don't hurt anyone, right?

If you break contracts, nobody is not going to want to do business with you in the future. It's only to your detriment.

Interesting argument. Are you saying that it should NOT be legal to enforce contracts?

[­­­Atlas_]

Guy walks into a public area and starts a conversation with someone. As it progresses, someone begins to reveal slowly the design of a valuable technology. Guy screams, 'No! Stop! I don't want the patent holder to own me.' Onarchy would claim that this situation is equivalent to doing something dangerous where you might end up in the hospital with astronomical debt. Better not to talk to people.

Well, let's take the more tangible case of books. Authors use a year of their life to write a novel which provides entertainment and afterthought to his readers. BUT instead of selling 1 million copies of the book with copyright protection, the book only sells 100 copies because there is no copyright protection. The market is flooded with cheap or free pirate copies of the book. Millions of people read his books and since various materialist libertarians have been very successful at spreading their morality that intellectual work has ZERO value. Hoards of people not only do not pay for his book, but actually scoffs at people who pay for it for being "irrational" and "wasting money on something that has no value." So these people who read his one year work not only do not pay, but have a really, really good conscience about not paying, thinking "he got paid exactly what he deserved: ZERO. That's free market capitalism for you" before he continues reading the exciting book which allegedly was of zero value.

So what you anti-IP libertarians are doing is something much, much, much, much worse than actually just reading a book without paying for it. You're spreading ideas to people that they should do it with a clear conscience! Then when all of society is like that you start wondering why there are no more new really good books being written, and why all the Hollywood films that come out are crap and regurgitations. But at least it's free!

Well, let's take the more tangible case of sex. A prostitute uses a year of her life to learn how to make pleasurable sex which provides entertainment and afterthought to her partners. BUT instead of selling 100 acts of sex with copyright protection, she only sells 10 acts because there is no copyright protection. The market is flooded with cheap or free prostitutes whom she is undersold. Millions of people experience her trademark sex positions and since various materialist libertarians have been very successful at spreading their morality that intellectual work has ZERO value. Hoards of people not only do not pay for her positions and services, but actually scoffs at people who pay for it for being "irrational" and "wasting money on something that has no value." So these people who experience her one year work not only do not pay, but have a really, really good conscience about not paying, thinking "she got paid exactly what he deserved: ZERO. That's free market capitalism for you" before he continues enjoying the sex which allegedly was of zero value.

So what you anti-IP libertarians are doing is something much, much, much, much worse than actually just reading a book without paying for it. You're spreading ideas to people that they should do it with a clear conscience! Then when all of society is like that you start wondering why there are no more new really good girls selling sex, and why all the pornographic films that come out are crap and regurgitations. But at least it's free!

[NghtRppr]

It's my ink and my paper. I will sell it any form I damn well please.

It's my mouth and I will use it to say whatever I want, including "give me all your money or I'll kill you." It's just sound, right? Doesn't mean anything, right? And when I sign a contract with you, it's not really an agreement, right? It's just ink on a piece of paper, right?

It's coercion. Why do you keep bringing up arguments that have already been refuted?

[­­­Atlas_]

It's my ink and my paper. I will sell it any form I damn well please.

It's my mouth and I will use it to say whatever I want, including "give me all your money or I'll kill you." It's just sound, right? Doesn't mean anything, right? And when I sign a contract with you, it's not really an agreement, right? It's just ink on a piece of paper, right?

The first sentence is out of context. Irrelevant.

It's free speech, right? I just used my body peacefully to make sounds, right? Sounds don't hurt anyone, right?

If you break contracts, nobody is not going to want to do business with you in the future. It's only to your detriment.

Interesting argument. Are you saying that it should NOT be legal to enforce contracts?

In many cases contracts can't be enforced like on the internet. I am just saying they don't have to be. A monopoly on force or a gun in hand isn't always necessary.

[­­­Atlas_]

Billy invents a way to increase crop production ten-fold. Billy licenses use of said technique with John. John agrees not to tell anybody. John walks down the street with said technique in-hand. Technique blows away and John breaks the contract. Mary finds the lost technique and applies it to her crop. She shares it with everybody. Hundreds of thousands of people are using the technique. Should they be forced to stop and/or pay royalties to Billy?

Yes, they should, for the very same reason as if my car is stolen and resold to a third party then that third party does not own that car. He has to deliver it back to ME, the owner. You should be allowed to enforce such third party infringements both in the physical realm AND in the non-material realm.

...but they didn't sign any contract. Why should they be obligated to pay?

...and a car can't be duplicated and be used by multiple people. It isn't the same.

[wb3]

Before the contribution of the mind worker: a 10 ton crop of corn. After the contribution of the mind worker: a 100 ton crop of corn. Those 90 extra tons of corn would not exist without the contribution of the mind worker. Are you seriously saying then that just because he can still grow 10 tons of corn, being able to grow 100 tons of corn is of NO value to the farmer?

Actually under our financial system and commodities market, he makes money by having the ability to grow corn but not grow it. The ability to grow is Acreage, not the mind workers improved methods. The profit is maintained by not growing, just like software, the profit is maintained by not hitting the "Copy key."

Thomas Jefferson created a plow that was more efficient, but he did not believe in the patent system. He though knowledge and use of knowledge belonged to the public. So his field was plowed more efficiently but he didn't care if others copied his design or not. It was their choice to use it or reject it.

My problem is people want to get paid for "No Work" or "Very Little Work" well beyond the original work. If a bank wants software for its banking computers, it should contract the work (work for hire), all the work is paid for before delivery to the bank. The bank could even contract for the software to be specific and not generalize so others would not be using it at least very easily. Everyone is happy.

In my world of software, there would be no libraries, unless those libraries are GPLv3.

[wb3]

I am in favor of the Aspirin process. Aspirin is in the public domain, but yet companies still make money off of making Aspirin. Anyone who doesn't think its price is worth it, can go to the Willow Tree and eat the appropriate amount of Bark.

People will pay for the convenience of not going to the willow tree, but will do so, if costs get out of hand.  <--- Piracy defined.

[onarchy]

...but they didn't sign any contract. Why should they be obligated to pay?

Interesting you are arguing that if you don't sign a contract then violation is ok. That of course has to apply to killing as well. If you don't sign a contract with another person explicitly stating not to, it's ok to kill him.

...and a car can't be duplicated and be used by multiple people. It isn't the same.

Sure a car can be duplicated. You just get the atoms and put them together into a car.

[­­­Atlas_]

...but they didn't sign any contract. Why should they be obligated to pay?

Interesting you are arguing that if you don't sign a contract then violation is ok. That of course has to apply to killing as well. If you don't sign a contract with another person explicitly stating not to, it's ok to kill him.

...and a car can't be duplicated and be used by multiple people. It isn't the same.

Sure a car can be duplicated. You just get the atoms and put them together into a car.

So, you wouldn't download a car?

[EvanR]

Onarchy is autistic and this community likes trollbait.

Everything onarchy says is
  a) correct assuming certain data and ideas are property
  b) sounding really stupid to people
  c) therefore a great argument against premise of a)

[onarchy]

I am in favor of the Aspirin process. Aspirin is in the public domain, but yet companies still make money off of making Aspirin. Anyone who doesn't think its price is worth it, can go to the Willow Tree and eat the appropriate amount of Bark.

People will pay for the convenience of not going to the willow tree, but will do so, if costs get out of hand.  <--- Piracy defined.

Sure, once Aspirin is out there in the public domain (i.e. its novelty has worn off) then there is no problem with this. But what if someone actually spent 1 billion dollars researching and inventing Aspirin and after 10 years of hard work and lots of investment they finally start selling Aspirin only to find out that the company across the street has used one week to analyze the contents of their Aspirin and are now making their own version of Aspirin. And since they didn't spend 1 billion dollars and 10 years they can now sell the product at a fraction of the cost! Wow, free market competition! So the inventor -- the company who spent one billion dollars and 10 years on cutting edge research taking a huge risk and building up huge debt -- end up going broke, whereas the business across the street makes a fortune because they were able to make a "competing" product at "more competitive price." Please tell me that you understand that there is something fundamentally wrong with this, that it is grossly unfair that the hero who used all those  resources to make the world a better place goes bankrupt while the parasite across the street who has done NO research and invested NOTHING gets all the profit.

[­­­Atlas_]

I am in favor of the Aspirin process. Aspirin is in the public domain, but yet companies still make money off of making Aspirin. Anyone who doesn't think its price is worth it, can go to the Willow Tree and eat the appropriate amount of Bark.

People will pay for the convenience of not going to the willow tree, but will do so, if costs get out of hand.  <--- Piracy defined.

Sure, once Aspirin is out there in the public domain (i.e. its novelty has worn off) then there is no problem with this. But what if someone actually spent 1 billion dollars researching and inventing Aspirin and after 10 years of hard work and lots of investment they finally start selling Aspirin only to find out that the company across the street has used one week to analyze the contents of their Aspirin and are now making their own version of Aspirin. And since they didn't spend 1 billion dollars and 10 years they can now sell the product at a fraction of the cost! Wow, free market competition! So the inventor -- the company who spent one billion dollars and 10 years on cutting edge research taking a huge risk and building up huge debt -- end up going broke, whereas the business across the street makes a fortune because they were able to make a "competing" product at "more competitive price." Please tell me that you understand that there is something fundamentally wrong with this, that it is grossly unfair that the hero who used all those  resources to make the world a better place goes bankrupt while the parasite across the street who has done NO research and invested NOTHING gets all the profit.

When they released Aspirin, invested in research and etc. they should of been aware of such risks.

[EvanR]

News flash: in a free market you can lose your investment and get nothing for it. Try making THAT illegal.