Every society in history has had some form of government. A cheif, a village elder, a council of elders, a king or queen, a ceaser or an emperor, a president, a chairman... There are two reasons why this is wrong. 1) A government (or state) is merely an entity that, in a given geographical area, has a perceived legitimate monopoly on the initiation of force. 2) There have been many stateless societies throughout history. Here are some examples, all of which fulfill the criteria of having no monopoly on the initiation of force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth#Go.C3.B0or.C3.B0_system |
|
|
|
Why I have the right to control my ideas? Because they're mine perhaps? I spent time and by extension money on it. You don't have the right to wander into my property, why doesn't that apply to IP? Why does the right to property supersede your right to liberty? Because we both cannot use your property at the same time (thus, if I were to use it against your will, I would deprive you of its use). We can both use your idea at the same time, so I can use it against your will without depriving you of its use. You don't seem to realize that the reason theft is bad is because it deprives the rightful owner of its use. Think about it this way. If we could make copies of physical things as easily as we could information, there would be no need for property rights. If you had a lawnmower and I made a copy of it, have I diminished your use of the lawnmower in any way? Perhaps you sell lawnmowers... well, it's kind of dumb to try to sell copies of things that can easily be copied. Should you be able to kill me in order to stop me from copying your lawnmowers? Intellectual property is just as stupid. |
|
|
|
But you do want to take my possessions. You want to take the thing I've spent years on. And you want to make me your slave. You've taken my time for your own. First you have to show that ideas are possessions. Likewise, you want to make me your slave by forcing me to pay you for using my property in a certain way. And how is time not scarce? Once spent, on whatever thing, it won't come back. I can only spend my time on one thing, and then it's gone. Forever. Clearly you've never worked as a contractor. Time is scarce and valuable.  That's not what is meant by scarcity in this sense. Think of a hammer - if I'm using it, you can't use it. Does that same statement apply to a story, or a song, or any other idea? Just answer the questions... why do you have the right to control the use of your ideas? Why does that right supersede my right to liberty? |
|
|
|
Ideas, or "ideal objects" are not scarce in the economic sense. Wood is scarce because you and I can't use the same wood at the same time. A story, song, piece of software (etc) are not scarce because you and I can use them at the same time.
Time is scarce. Yet somehow you feel that you have the right to mine. Time is not scarce in the economic sense, in fact it doesn't make sense to say that you and I "can't use the same time" or "can use the same time". I did not force you to share your ideas, you did it of your own volition. You have made no argument that you have the right to control the use of your ideas after you share them. If I felt I had a right to your time, I would make you my slave or take your possessions. |
|
|
|
it is not scarce.
then why are you copying my book? WRITE YOUR OWN DAMN BOOK  j/k (sort of) Ideas, or "ideal objects" are not scarce in the economic sense. Wood is scarce because you and I can't use the same wood at the same time. A story, song, piece of software (etc) are not scarce because you and I can use them at the same time. |
|
|
|
I agree with all of that, but what makes the product of my mind (which also takes time and labour) any different from physical property? It did not start off as an unowned resource, and it is not scarce. Scarcity is what creates the need for property, as it is the source of dispute. If I steal your physical book, you can no longer make use of that book. But if I infringe on your copyright, you still have the original book, and the book-pattern, the symbols in a particular order that form a story. Stephen Kinsella calls these "ideal objects" in his short paper Against Intellectual Property. As they do not fit into the category of property, my questions stand. |
|
|
|
I don't know, this thread has been "off topic" for most of its existence: first derailmentsecond derailmentSince the first page, the topic of discussion has been wage exploitation. |
|
|
|
From where do you derive rights at all? My friend has a great blog post about this, from the perspective of a subjectivist. The whole thing is worth reading, but I want to specifically quote the section that argues for the right to property as an example of what I am looking for (roughly). The chief resource of any subjective entity is their own body. The foundation for any subjective entity feeling secure is in having control of their own body to direct toward whatever aims it so wishes in acquiring a greater sense of security. Thus the very nature of the cooperative social mode of objectifying the subjective is founded on two implicit but foundational agreements, often called natural rights (in this context, rights born from the very nature of what it means to be social):
1) the right to life; and
2) the right to liberty
These two natural rights are technically negative rights, which means that they require a particular absence of action by others. The directive of these rights stated in negative terms are: a subjective entity has the right to expect that other subjective entities will not take their life (for without their life they cannot use the chief resource of their body) and the right to expect other subjective entities will not force their body to perform actions against their will.
Because the very definition of social is the respect for the voluntary actions of others in cooperation, we may term such behavior as being bounded by a social contract. Like any other contract, a subjective entity gains rights (natural rights in this case) so long as they abide by the contract; should they break the contract, they lose any privileges gained as rights by that contract. Since the use of aggressive violence is by definition a breaking of that contract, the use of violence can only be justified on social grounds in defensive use against such aggression. This is commonly called the non-aggression principle, that no justification exists for the initiation of violence.
There is a third natural right leading directly from the first two, but it is less direct, and that is the right to property. If a resource has not been gathered by any subjective entity and then is, the resource becomes the property of the subjective entity that has put their body and time into collecting it. Thus if another subjective entity takes that resource away without the consent of the owner, they have, through the clever leveraging of time, controlled the body of the owner. It is in effect the taker making a claim that the use of the body and time of the owner is theirs regardless of the wishes of the owner. It is thus the same thing as if the taker had beaten the owner into gaining the resource and beaten them to take it. It is theft and it is characterized by its aggressive violence and thus it breaks the social contract. |
|
|
|
|
Almost certainly. Probably only a few hundred thousand to few million before someone close to him finds it economically suitable to turn on him, or for some individual or group to track him down.
|
|
|
|
|
Is there anybody that can answer my two simple questions?
From where do you derive the right to intellectual property, and why does it supercede my right to liberty?
|
|
|
|
We will be (in the near future) operating from within cypherspace, beyond the reach of any terrestrial government entity.
As an actual investor in GLBSE, I want to express my support with this stance, and I will gladly buy out any other investors that don't agree with this viewpoint. As far as anyone else goes, you are free to avoid the goods and services provided by GLBSE and any companies traded on the exchange. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin should be usable by the most conservative imam in Saudi Arabia, as well as the most libertarian, drug-seeking teenager on this forum.
You never miss an opportunity to call libertarians immature, do you? If what you say is justification for banning links to drugs, then it also justification for banning links to porn, alcohol, religious objects, and just about anything else. |
|
|
|
It is the imposition of the software rules. Try to change bitcoin's software rules, and you'll realize it's a fiat currency.
I don't see how that has anything to do with the question of the source of Bitcoin's value, which is at the heart of the fiat question. Still, does the imposition of the rules of nature make gold a fiat currency? |
|
|
|
If you took one of my ebooks and tried to sell it without my permission, then I have the right to redress the situation via the judicial system. I think this simplifies to: individuals have the right to control the use of the ideas they share with others, through force if necessary. Do you agree with this? Keep in mind that if I don't acknowledge your right to drag me to court, police will come and take me by force. We agree on the rights of life, liberty, and property. From these principles, how do you derive the right to control the use of your ideas? Even if I agree that there is a right to intellectual property, I do not agree that it supersedes the right to liberty of thought or action. How do you arrive at the conclusion that it does? These are the points of contention that prevent me from supporting the idea of intellectual property. |
|
|
|
|
I've just paid out to chmod775 and ploum. I think I'm going to withdraw my pledge at this time.
I'd actually prefer to be part of a bounty that would pay out to the organization which began accepting Bitcoin, rather than the individual that brought it to their attention. If anyone starts such a thing, let me know.
|
|
|
|
The one major issue I have is in calling bitcoin a fiat currency. That is completely inaccurate...you might think people view that term to mean that it is not backed by a commodity, but even if that were the case (and I would strongly argue that it is in fact not the case), it does not make it correct. A fiat currency is a currency that has value only because of government regulation or law. Period. And that absolutely is not the case for bitcoin. In fact, one of the essential attributes of bitcoin is that no one is forced in any way to ascribe any value to bitcoin. I would encourage you to start with a definition of fiat currency. Then talk about commodity backed currencies. And then describe bitcoin, which is neither a fiat currency, nor backed by a commodity (but which does have certain properties that, based on the evidence, does give it value).
You are mistaken. Bitcoin is a fiat currency. Call it software fiat, as I do. Or satoshi-fiat. Or community-fiat. Or miner fiat. But it is definitely fiat currency. What exactly is your definition of fiat currency? People are using two different definitions of the term - "currency given value by government decree" or "currency not backed by specie". Unless you can prove that your definition is the only correct one, why not try a little less arrogance? The word fiat, on the other hand, is pretty unambiguous. Literally translated, it is "let it be done", and it implies the imposition of will by some sort of authority, such as a government. Fiat currency then implies to me a currency backed by threats of violence, such as government issued paper money. Even if you make an agreement with an individual that payment for services will be made by gold, he can still take you to court and force you to accept federal reserve notes. That is fiat. I can't kind of see how "let it be done" could be taken to mean anyone declaring that something is of value, but if that is the case, everything has value only by fiat. Gold is fiat, Bitcoin is fiat, sea shells are fiat, and yap stones are fiat. Seems like kind of pointless stance. |
|
|
|
|
I think he's offering his services as a Spanish tutor in exchange for Bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it also has to be established that society can be benefited or harmed. No action can be taken against or for society, only against or for individuals. To say that the initiation of force is acceptable when it benefits society is to say that it is acceptable to aggress against some individual or group for the benefit of another individual or group.
|
|
|
|
|
I feel that it comes down to a simple question.
Do you have the right to use force against me in order to control the way in which your idea is used?
|
|
|
|
Listing drugs on the wiki is bad marketing, pure and simple.
It also implies that the entire bitcoin community endorses drugs, which is vehemently not true. Wikipedia links to methods to synthesize illegal drugs. It implies that the entire internet community endorses drugs, which is vehemently not true.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
