The animals are not accorded any rights any more than an owned couch is accorded any rights...
Well, in your idealized world, yes. But here in the real world, there are plenty of laws and regulations to ensure animals' safety, well being, survival, prevent abuse, etc. Not nearly enough, but as society matures, the trend is to increase the rights of animals, not decrease them. Read up on the subject. Your way of thinking is a step backwards. Those are "laws" and "regulations," not rights. You can't give someone rights by law. You can only take them away. Though, granted, since you guys still don't even have a concept of "person," or understanding on where rights actually come from or what foundation they are built on, it's no surprise you keep confusing things. |
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with shark finning, unless someone already owns the sharks.
So an animal (a shark, dog, etc.) is accorded the right to different treatment depending on whether it is owned or not by the one mistreating the animal? The animals are not accorded any rights any more than an owned couch is accorded any rights... |
|
|
|
So, have these measures, regulations, treaties, etc. of yours stopped shark finning? Drug trade? Illegal downloading?
Measures, regulations, etc. have been extraordinarily successful with regard to bringing back certain species from near extinction. I guess that part is true |
|
|
|
|
So, have these measures, regulations, treaties, etc. of yours stopped shark finning? Drug trade? Illegal downloading?
|
|
|
|
My family.
Is your family is entitled to torture the dogs and cats it bought? Sure! But we don't do it because we love animals. (Except when we forget to walk them and they poor all over the kitchen) Since you've already said you are OK with killing babies, I suppose it was silly to ask your position on torturing animals. In terms of politics and society, you're advocating a type of society that will never be accepted. Its a purely intellectual exercise. Have no you interest in things that are likely to matter in the real world? And you are delusional in believing that laws against neglecting/hurting kids, torturing animals, or stealing IP actually prevent those things from happening, when they are all done in private. You are also putting words in my mouth as well regarding that baby thing, btw. Specifically, I said that if YOU were to try to kill a baby, and neither I nor society at large cared about that baby, I wouldn't try to stop you. Key point you purposefully pretend to miss every time is the part about me actually caring. |
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, who is 'we'?
My family. Who, in your family, paid for the dogs, cats and refrigerator? Why is that relevant to intellectual property? I'm trying to get a sense of the households in which hardcore libertarians live. It's not an unreasonable question. My family is diverse in their views. Dad is more of a libertarian hippie, mom is more christian conservative, bro is ex military UFC fighter. Three dogs, two cats, in the end side of a townhouse compex. Huge three story house with plenty of space. Oh, also a fish aquarium and a newt. Parents both have backgrounds in biology, and love animals, so we've always had lots of pets. The house is a $600k+ one in a very upper-middleclass area, too. I moved out a long time ago, though, and live with my husband in our own house. No pets, partially because I'm allergic to cats, but mostly because we travel so much and have little time for them. I used to have a hedgehog though. Back in USSR we had one dog, one turtle, one bunny, two parakeets, one finch, one large fishtank, one small one, two hamsters, a white mouse, and a walking stick bug. All that in a medium sized 3 room apartment on the 8th floor. Anything else that could help you form a more informed opinion? |
|
|
|
|
We should start an Occupy Bitcoin protest! Everyone should buy as much bitcoin as they can and squat on it, demanding the 1% distribute their coins to everyone else in a fair manner. I bought my bunch of bitcoins, everyone upset with the 1% hoarders, your turn to buy now.
I.e. buy buy buy! (Please?)
|
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, who is 'we'?
My family. Who, in your family, paid for the dogs, cats and refrigerator? Why is that relevant to intellectual property? |
|
|
|
My family.
Is your family is entitled to torture the dogs and cats it bought? Sure! But we don't do it because we love animals. (Except when we forget to walk them and they poop all over the kitchen) |
|
|
|
Wrong, owning a sofa is exactly like owning land (except mobility), like owning a dog, like owning a DVD. Making IP laws, dog laws and DVD laws different distorts the meaning and interpretation of property and makes it inconsistent in it's utility and logical construction.
Wrong. Demonstrate how they're the same. As an example, demonstrate how, because you handed Joe ten one hundred dollar bills in exchange for Rover, you are under the belief that such an act accords you the exact same rights as handing Sally ten one hundred dollar bills for her refrigerator. Wait... that's exactly what we did when we got our new refrigerator, and when we bought our dog (number of hundred dollar bills varied). Actually, when we bought our past 4 dogs and 3 cats (they die of old age after 15+ years). Was there supposed to be something different? Out of curiosity, who is 'we'? My family. |
|
|
|
He'll be happier because he'll actually have other reasons to live besides shaping ground beef?
Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. Eventually, robots are produced to flip burgers automatically. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives. Mr 8 hours had the burger flipping knowledge AND the free time to invent the burger flipping robot. He sells his idea, becomes rich, and replaces Mr 16 hours's job. Too bad for Mr 16. Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. They grow envious of 8's happiness and decide to buy a weapon with the money they've saved. No one stops them. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives.
Not sure how killing the poor, peniless, and lazy Mr 8 hours is going to make Mr 16 hours happier... Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. 16 saves up enough money to be able to procure some means of production, and forms a burger company. BurgerB takes enough customers away from BurgerA so that the grasshopper gets laid off. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives.
Mr 8 hours has a lot of experience flipping burgers. If Mr 16 is building a competing burger business, he'll need a lot more Mr 8 hourses to hire for his place, too, including the already experienced one. Once BurgerA folds, the number of Mr 8 hourses just goes back to what it used to be, and if he was any good, Mr 8 just has a new employer. |
|
|
|
That's a funny straw man used against libertarians: that a person's only desire in life should be the accumulation of resources. I've never heard anyone argue that.
Aside from those who derive pleasure from their work, what desires can be fulfilled without the accumulation of resources? Also painting/drawing, writing music or books, writing software/apps, blogging, cooking, racing cars, taking photos, traveling and writing guides, and having sex. All activities that people derive pleasure from that others happily pay them to help them continue to derive pleasure from it. |
|
|
|
Industrial Revolution conditions are not the result of capitalism but people rising from poorer conditions that would otherwise exist. The capitalists were only saving people from starvation. If anything, it was a pinnacle part of history and a necessary one. It occurs in every evolving country inevitably. The oppressor is previous technology and restraints.
Oh, if only those evil industrial corporations would stop exploiting those poor workers in third world countries like India and Thailand, and let them go back to the good old days of living on the streets and surviving by pickpocketing, begging, or underage prostitution, right.  |
|
|
|
In the many discussions about state v.s. free market on this forum, the one thing I keep running across is people claiming how if someone establishes a monopoly in a libertarian society, then everyone else in that market is screwed. Their reasoning is that anyone else trying to enter the field will get kicked out by the established monopoly. Recent example was oil companies ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47747.msg568485#msg568485), where the claim is that starting your own oil company is now impossible, because established oil companies now have too much control over oil. The mistake I keep seeing over and over and over (and over and over) is that people seem to think there is only one way to destroy a monopoly, which is to create a more competitive business in the same market. There are actually two ways: Outcompete the monopoly in their own market OR SUBSTITUTIONSIf a company has a monopoly on ALL soda (Coke, Sprite, 7-UP, etc) and prices go up too high, people substitute with drinking milk or juice. If a company has a monopoly on all operating systems, people can substitute with built-in application platforms, like running Google Docs or Chrome apps on PCs regardless of the OS installed. If a company has a monopoly on electricity (common, with public utilities being only options for running wires), people substitute by reducing power usage, buying generators, or using their own solar and wind generators. If a company has a monopoly on cable TV, people substitute by buying satelite, or buying internet, only, and streaming TV through Hulu/Netflix. If a company has a monopoly on oil, people can substitute by switching to natural gas, ethanol, or electric. There once were monopolies on trains, typewriters, telephones, televisions, and a slew of other stuff, much of which we don't even use anymore. They were all killed by substitutions. So, next time you want to bring up a point about how a monopoly you are thinking of is entrenched and can not be replaced by someone else selling the same stuff, PLEASE stop, remember the word " substitution," think, and see if there is anything else that people can use in place of that monopoly's product. |
|
|
|
Wrong, owning a sofa is exactly like owning land (except mobility), like owning a dog, like owning a DVD. Making IP laws, dog laws and DVD laws different distorts the meaning and interpretation of property and makes it inconsistent in it's utility and logical construction.
Wrong. Demonstrate how they're the same. As an example, demonstrate how, because you handed Joe ten one hundred dollar bills in exchange for Rover, you are under the belief that such an act accords you the exact same rights as handing Sally ten one hundred dollar bills for her refrigerator. Wait... that's exactly what we did when we got our new refrigerator, and when we bought our dog (number of hundred dollar bills varied). Actually, when we bought our past 4 dogs and 3 cats (they die of old age after 15+ years). Was there supposed to be something different? |
|
|
|
Not clear on something - how exactly does the enforcement of IP rights lead to slavery?
When grandma downloads 2,500 songs illegally, the RIAA breaks down her door, she is taken to court, and is fined $250,000. Since grandma obviously doesn't have that kind of cash, she is taken to jail instead, where she is forced to work off her "debt to society" by either picking up litter off the side of the roads, or by breaking rocks with sledgehammers. Slavery. Um no. Its a civil action so there is no prospect of jail. Hmm. I guess when I saw a lot of FBI warnings about how copying this and that is a federal offence, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $250,00 fine, I got the wrong idea http://goo.gl/RIa1q |
|
|
|
Contract requires consideration, i.e. both people giving something up. I am giving up my money in exchange for the DVD. The movie maker is giving up what exactly for my money?
They gave up the opportunity to engage in an activity which would have a more consistent and earlier payoff, and instead chose to spend a great deal of time and effort as well as spend money up front to risk making a product in the hope that you and others would, at your discretion, choose to purchase it sometime in the future. You are apparently confused as to what a contract is. More so, since you are confusing it with IP law. Copyright law is in no way a contract. At most it's property that can be entered under a contract. Consideration is both people givng something up. When I buy a car, I give up cash, the seller gives up a car. When I buy a house, I give up cash and the mortgage company gives up a portion of the principal. When I buy insurance, I give up cash, and insurance company gives up the right to a portion of their funds in case I need them. In every contract case I am free to do whatever i wish with the thing I have traded for under contract. In case of mortgage, I am free to use my principal to get a home equity loan, or to sell my house. In case of insurance, I am free to get covered against events for the months I have paid for. When I buy a DVD, I give up cash, and the movie company gives up a disk with a movie on it. If I am to contractually give up access to DVD copying tools (ones that I own, so this doesn't even make sense), the movie company must give something up in exchange for that to be a valid contract. They do not. In fact under current IP laws they gain the right to maintain license to their movie despite not having physical possession of all copies any more. The only way IP here can be in a contractual exchange is if I gave up money, and they gave up rights to their movie to me. |
|
|
|
|
Contract requires consideration, i.e. both people giving something up. I am giving up my money in exchange for the DVD. The movie maker is giving up what exactly for my money?
|
|
|
|
If Toy Story hadn't already been produced, the exact same movie could have been produced by a creative team using three or four consumer desktops networked together.
And how does this radically reduce the cost of production of a CG animated film? *twitch* Um... are you asking how using four home consumer level desktops instead of a CGI supercomputing renderring cluster from IBM or Silicon Graphics will save money? No. I'm asking how it will radically reduce the cost of production of a CG animated film. And if you wish to get technical with me, feel free, because back in the late eighties, I was reading the Siggraph papers authored by the founders of Pixar on such topics as stochastic sampling, etc., and I was implementing ray tracing software in C from what I learned in those papers - back when the Pixar team was doing their rendering on a VAX. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Taq9LFbcvxEWell, to be technical, they could've waited and spent about $10,000 on four computers with lots of ram and either single Quadro cards, or SLI mode Nvidia or ATI cards, then used a slew of rendering engines, such as the Unreal engine or VALVe's engine, and rendered the movie in near real-time, spending very little on employment for designers and rendering staff, since they would only need them for maybe 6 month to a year, instead of about 5 years on very slow rendering machines that cost a few hundred thousand to a few million to build and operate. Few hundred thousand > $10,000 5 years of paying salaries and benefits > 6 to 12 months of paying salaries and benefits. Hope that was technical enough. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
