...snip... So the underpinning philosophy here is envy: The idea that if you share your information freely, people will benefit from it and those people should be hated for their success. Lovely. Anyways, these development prices are skewed. The corporations are overpowered in legal stature and the small guys along with individuals are never allowed into the ring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislaw_BurzynskiIn a free market, if a drug was desired and was truly useful, it would find the capital, guaranteed. If people truly wanted to prevent disease, they would build the capital and they do. The government is made of people albeit in an inefficient and parasitic form. So moot point. You have to prove government (VIOLENCE) can only do these things which you haven't. You have posted a link to a quack: "Data supporting the efficacy of Burzynski's treatments are lacking and his use of antineoplastons has generated considerable controversy among medical authorities and regulatory agencies." "Burzynski was also found guilty of fraud in 1994, as he claimed reimbursement from a health insurer for an illegally administered cancer treatment" So based on the fact that you have found one quack, you want the rest of the world to give up medical research? Oh, he's no quack. The FDA and the corporations have made him labeled as such but there are many people and many medical charts that can claim he has saved countless lives. His drugs have a 25% rate of resolving all types of cancer. Sorry but you have no right to force others to give up medical research for the sake of someone who is a quack. You may support his quackery - every quack has supporters - but that doesn't give you the right to copy the research work of people who are not quacks and resell their work for profit. It doesn't because I'll be arrested at the expense of society. Enjoy fighting for your life for overpriced vaccines and treatments in the future. |
|
|
|
You may have noticed the defintions of humility you quoted don't mention value.
Everybody has things they are better at than the average person, while conversely, everybody has things they are worse at than the average person. People humble enough to recongnize this can exchange goods and services to their mutual benefit. If you do not recognize your limits or the ablilites of others, any exchange you enter into will likely be inefficient and sub-optimal.
To force people to accept a sub-optimal exchange involves coersion.
So people who are not humble steal? Considering your aversion to humility and the fact that you indeed stole, the answer seems self-evident. I swear on my life that I haven't stolen anything of value. Theft is theft regardless of value I couldn't care less. I haven't revoked any significant value from anybody. If there is no victim, why should I care? I'll steal all I damn please if it doesn't cost anybody anything. No victim, no problem. Victimless crimes are only marks of tyranny. Victimless? a crime has a victim by definition You seem to be confused. Who is the victim if I walk out my back door and pop a couple rounds off into the tree trunk back there? Cause it's super-illegal... http://gawker.com/5858759/100000-atlas-shrugged-dvds-recalled-for-perfectly-hilarious-reasonThis is why I came back to this thread... Laws aren't morality and I don't stand under them. I do what I prefer. It's not a matter of who is going to let me do something. It's a matter of who's going to stop me. Who's going to stop me from firing weapons on my own property? Probably nobody. My neighbors are very friendly and I can do it regularly despite the local ordinances. Anyways, my preference dictates no aggression. As long as I don't aggress against anybodies person or property, I'll have no qualms acting as I please. |
|
|
|
...snip... So the underpinning philosophy here is envy: The idea that if you share your information freely, people will benefit from it and those people should be hated for their success. Lovely. Anyways, these development prices are skewed. The corporations are overpowered in legal stature and the small guys along with individuals are never allowed into the ring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislaw_BurzynskiIn a free market, if a drug was desired and was truly useful, it would find the capital, guaranteed. If people truly wanted to prevent disease, they would build the capital and they do. The government is made of people albeit in an inefficient and parasitic form. So moot point. You have to prove government (VIOLENCE) can only do these things which you haven't. You have posted a link to a quack: "Data supporting the efficacy of Burzynski's treatments are lacking and his use of antineoplastons has generated considerable controversy among medical authorities and regulatory agencies." "Burzynski was also found guilty of fraud in 1994, as he claimed reimbursement from a health insurer for an illegally administered cancer treatment" So based on the fact that you have found one quack, you want the rest of the world to give up medical research? Oh, he's no quack. The FDA and the corporations have made him labeled as such but there are many people and many medical charts that can claim he has saved countless lives. His drugs have a 25% rate of resolving all types of cancer. |
|
|
|
I'll stand by the theory of over ownership over oneself. All other theories require me to be a slave.
Um - actually you are insisting that you are entitled to take the product of other people's labour without their consent. That's getting uncomfortable close to slavery and no-one made you boss. No, I am not. I am insisting on using my physical property as I please regardless of its form. IP is insisting that others can have a claim to it if it happens meet some of their subjective criteria. Both statements can be true. I pay a team of developers to make a clever program, pay for advertising and I sell it for profit. You buy a copy and then make copies and sell them for profit. Are you taking the product of my labour for your profit? Yes. Are you using your own hardware? Yes. Will I be entitled to sue your greedy ass? Yes. And if you have a problem with that, I don't care. Go create your own product instead of trying to profit off selling mine. Good luck catching me under Tor and pseudonyms. We can play it both ways. People can be just as sovereign in this metaphysical world you call "intellectual property". I can take your software, seed it on several torrents and profit off all of my sites I please with no repercussions. Your society's whims you call laws have nothing on a man or his property who cannot be found nor coerced. That's really irrelevant as you can only get people who would never have paid anyway that way. At the end of the day, you will be out of pocket and I won't have lost a penny. But at least you are honest in saying that your main concern is finding a way to take the product of other people's labour off them instead of having to work yourself. What IP law prevents is you openly reselling protected property and making a huge profit. If a drug costs $100 million to make, and sells for $1 per tablet, you can make a $billion selling it for 90 cents and the guy who invested the $100 million will be screwed. Since we actively want to encourage development of new drugs, the law doesn't' allow you to openly do that. So the underpinning philosophy here is envy: The idea that if you share your information freely, people will benefit from it and those people should be hated for their success. Lovely. Anyways, these development prices are skewed. The corporations are overpowered in legal stature and the small guys along with individuals are never allowed into the ring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislaw_BurzynskiIn a free market, if a drug was desired and was truly useful, it would find the capital, guaranteed. If people truly wanted to prevent disease, they would build the capital and they do. The government is made of people albeit in an inefficient and parasitic form. So moot point. You have to prove government (VIOLENCE) can only do these things which you haven't. |
|
|
|
I'll stand by the theory of over ownership over oneself. All other theories require me to be a slave.
Um - actually you are insisting that you are entitled to take the product of other people's labour without their consent. That's getting uncomfortable close to slavery and no-one made you boss. No, I am not. I am insisting on using my physical property as I please regardless of its form. IP is insisting that others can have a claim to it if it happens meet some of their subjective criteria. Both statements can be true. I pay a team of developers to make a clever program, pay for advertising and I sell it for profit. You buy a copy and then make copies and sell them for profit. Are you taking the product of my labour for your profit? Yes. Are you using your own hardware? Yes. Will I be entitled to sue your greedy ass? Yes. And if you have a problem with that, I don't care. Go create your own product instead of trying to profit off selling mine. Good luck catching me under Tor and pseudonyms. We can play it both ways. People can be just as sovereign in this metaphysical world you call "intellectual property". I can take your software, seed it on several torrents and profit off all of the sites I please with no repercussions. Your society's whims that you call laws have nothing on a man who cannot be found nor coerced. He will be just as imaginary as your idea of property. The point: Intellectual property is hardly enforceable. |
|
|
|
Well, they did give their sub-fractions of pennies in electricity voluntarily by accepting to run any software that was on my blog. Thank you for clearing this up.
And the hundreds of dollars in bitcoins you stole from the person who won your wager when you decided you didn't want to pay? No such crime occurred. |
|
|
|
You may have noticed the defintions of humility you quoted don't mention value.
Everybody has things they are better at than the average person, while conversely, everybody has things they are worse at than the average person. People humble enough to recongnize this can exchange goods and services to their mutual benefit. If you do not recognize your limits or the ablilites of others, any exchange you enter into will likely be inefficient and sub-optimal.
To force people to accept a sub-optimal exchange involves coersion.
So people who are not humble steal? Considering your aversion to humility and the fact that you indeed stole, the answer seems self-evident. I swear on my life that I haven't stolen anything of value. Theft is theft regardless of value I couldn't care less. I haven't revoked any significant value from anybody. If there is no victim, why should I care? I'll steal all I damn please if it doesn't cost anybody anything. No victim, no problem. Victimless crimes are only marks of tyranny. Victimless? a crime has a victim by definition The crime of stealing something that has no objective value is victimless and hence not a crime. The value of anything stolen is determined by the rightful owner not the thief, if the rightful owner did not contester it of any value it would be given freely and not something that could be stolen in the first place. Well, they did give their sub-fractions of pennies in electricity voluntarily by accepting to run any software that was on my blog. Thank you for clearing this up: I haven't stolen from anybody. |
|
|
|
I'll stand by the theory of over ownership over oneself. All other theories require me to be a slave.
Um - actually you are insisting that you are entitled to take the product of other people's labour without their consent. That's getting uncomfortable close to slavery and no-one made you boss. No, I am not. I am insisting on using my physical property as I please regardless of its form. IP is insisting that others can have a claim to it if it happens meet some of their subjective criteria. |
|
|
|
|
I'll stand by the theory of over ownership over oneself. All other theories require me to be a slave.
|
|
|
|
You may have noticed the defintions of humility you quoted don't mention value.
Everybody has things they are better at than the average person, while conversely, everybody has things they are worse at than the average person. People humble enough to recongnize this can exchange goods and services to their mutual benefit. If you do not recognize your limits or the ablilites of others, any exchange you enter into will likely be inefficient and sub-optimal.
To force people to accept a sub-optimal exchange involves coersion.
So people who are not humble steal? Considering your aversion to humility and the fact that you indeed stole, the answer seems self-evident. I swear on my life that I haven't stolen anything of value. Theft is theft regardless of value I couldn't care less. I haven't revoked any significant value from anybody. If there is no victim, why should I care? I'll steal all I damn please if it doesn't cost anybody anything. No victim, no problem. Victimless crimes are only marks of tyranny. Victimless? a crime has a victim by definition The crime of stealing something that has no value is victimless and hence not a crime. The state and the sheep can whine about it insulting their sensibilities all they want but their claim has no merit. |
|
|
|
You may have noticed the defintions of humility you quoted don't mention value.
Everybody has things they are better at than the average person, while conversely, everybody has things they are worse at than the average person. People humble enough to recongnize this can exchange goods and services to their mutual benefit. If you do not recognize your limits or the ablilites of others, any exchange you enter into will likely be inefficient and sub-optimal.
To force people to accept a sub-optimal exchange involves coersion.
So people who are not humble steal? Considering your aversion to humility and the fact that you indeed stole, the answer seems self-evident. I swear on my life that I haven't stolen anything of value. Theft is theft regardless of value I couldn't care less. I haven't revoked any significant value from anybody. If there is no victim, why should I care? I'll steal all I damn please if it doesn't cost anybody anything. No victim, no problem. Victimless crimes are only marks of tyranny. |
|
|
|
...snip...
Inventions take investment. Drugs costs hundreds of millions to develop. If you remove the protection of the patent system, research stops as there is no way to pay for it.
Strawman. That's not what we are talking about. ALPHA - we are talking about why IP laws are a good idea. The preference for encouraging research is one reason. Wittering on about straw men doesn't advance your case. Okay, so riddle me this: How has most of human civilization advanced without idea protection? Why was the Industrial Revolution so successful with all the captains of industry "stealing" from each other? The Industrial Revolution happened in England first at a time when patent law was blossoming. Everything from the cotton gin to the locomotive benefited from the incentive to invest the patent laws created. Even more strangely, the countries where this patent regime persists are still the countries where most innovation take place. Its almost as if there was some connection between the ability to monetise research and the flow of investment capital into research. Could the 2 things be connected? Possibly but it doesn't change the fact that it infringes physical property rights. Society gives you property rights. They are legal constructs - they don't exist outside of laws and can be taken away in accordance with laws. Our societies give us physical property rights and intellectual property rights. Since both come from the same source, its silly to say that one infringes the other. No, my will and labor gives me property rights in exchange for the value I provide. I pay for the force that protects the property I hold. If it doesn't meet my demands, I will not pay and I will not create value! |
|
|
|
You may have noticed the defintions of humility you quoted don't mention value.
Everybody has things they are better at than the average person, while conversely, everybody has things they are worse at than the average person. People humble enough to recongnize this can exchange goods and services to their mutual benefit. If you do not recognize your limits or the ablilites of others, any exchange you enter into will likely be inefficient and sub-optimal.
To force people to accept a sub-optimal exchange involves coersion.
So people who are not humble steal? Considering your aversion to humility and the fact that you indeed stole, the answer seems self-evident. I swear on my life that I haven't stolen anything of value. |
|
|
|
...snip...
Inventions take investment. Drugs costs hundreds of millions to develop. If you remove the protection of the patent system, research stops as there is no way to pay for it.
Strawman. That's not what we are talking about. ALPHA - we are talking about why IP laws are a good idea. The preference for encouraging research is one reason. Wittering on about straw men doesn't advance your case. Okay, so riddle me this: How has most of human civilization advanced without idea protection? Why was the Industrial Revolution so successful with all the captains of industry "stealing" from each other? The Industrial Revolution happened in England first at a time when patent law was blossoming. Everything from the cotton gin to the locomotive benefited from the incentive to invest the patent laws created. Even more strangely, the countries where this patent regime persists are still the countries where most innovation take place. Its almost as if there was some connection between the ability to monetise research and the flow of investment capital into research. Could the 2 things be connected? Possibly but it doesn't change the fact that it infringes physical property rights. |
|
|
|
...snip...
Inventions take investment. Drugs costs hundreds of millions to develop. If you remove the protection of the patent system, research stops as there is no way to pay for it.
Strawman. That's not what we are talking about. ALPHA - we are talking about why IP laws are a good idea. The preference for encouraging research is one reason. Wittering on about straw men doesn't advance your case. Okay, so riddle me this: How has most of human civilization advanced without idea protection? Why was the Industrial Revolution so successful with all the captains of industry "stealing" from each other? |
|
|
|
|
Well, the whole definition of humility at this point is 3p7548-98875=60943;nksdf;dsfg;m ds; ,m ;mp /;,mcx,h. It's not consistent.
humble:
1. not proud or arrogant; modest: to be humble although successful.
2. having a feeling of insignificance, inferiority, subservience, etc.: In the presence of so many world-famous writers I felt very humble.
3. low in rank, importance, status, quality, etc.; lowly: of humble origin; a humble home.
This is what I am going by.
|
|
|
|
You may have noticed the defintions of humility you quoted don't mention value.
Everybody has things they are better at than the average person, while conversely, everybody has things they are worse at than the average person. People humble enough to recongnize this can exchange goods and services to their mutual benefit. If you do not recognize your limits or the ablilites of others, any exchange you enter into will likely be inefficient and sub-optimal.
To force people to accept a sub-optimal exchange involves coersion.
So people who are not humble steal? |
|
|
|
Law enforcement can be given the tools to make every Bitcoin transaction transparent and traceable.
How? |
|
|
|
|
I asked my father -- who is behind me -- what he thought of this:
"Sounds Un-American, son."
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
