You do not live in a "knowledge" economy which gives you the "right" to profit from investment. You are given a monopoly privilege (for a price) which permits you to extricate property from others when it resembles your property in some particular way. It is the privilege to prohibit, in some general or specific way a similarly resemblembling/functioning object as manifest in the characteristics of other people's property.

You don't get the meaning of hostile and violent. If you came into my home without permission that would be hostile. You not leaving when I ask you would also be hostile and may become violent. All of those actions start and finish with forceful interactions. All actions require forces, all actions also require energy. Some are acceptable, some not.

I don't dictate, my intention is to suggest appropriate societal behaviour (via negative laws) which encumbers the fewest number of individuals with the least amount of violent force interactions.

I have never intimated in any way the "taking of property" or the "taking the outcome of someone else's work". That implies the theft of some object owned by them and is something that can be possessed exclusively by them.

Mimicry isn't theft. Never has, never will be. If that were the case, then everbody would be stealing from everybody all of the time. Say it ain't so.

Well said. No one is entitled to a profit.

It seems there are two ways you can "profit"; both of which are still personal opinions, best I can tell. Profit and value are similar abstract mental constructs.

1) Profit arises from the opinion that if whatever objects or services you exchanged with another, is, in your mind, of greater value than that property which you previously possessed, you had a gain.

2) In a similar vein, if in the process of modifying the composition of property you already own (the raw physical material), you believe the property conditionally changed for the better, you also profited.

Does profit require human-to-human interchange to qualify?

"Taking" requires energy, hence some sort of force.
Being "hostile" or "violent" behaviour requires force and energy.

How did you come up with no here? Weirdness.

The answer is YES; it is measured in Newtons of force. Your misunderstanding about the characteristics of aggression is fly-by-night seat-of-the-pants stuff. Any attitudes about the specific attributes of the nature Force(s) doesn't change the forces themselves. For that matter, any which way I think about it doesn't change the fundamental characteristics of any physical material matter or any phenomenon related thereto. Thinking differently doesn't change anything about how the Universe operates.

The only way I change stuff is by physically interacting with it, and even then only to a limited extent.

Doesn't aggression imply some sort of force, and isn't force measured in Newtons, or more specifically kg*m/s^2.

If the aggression isn't measured in those units, what units of force are we going to use?

It certainly couldn't be just the opinion of the day, should it? That could make for some serious confusion I would think.

Last I checked, we had this force problem solved about 300+ years ago. Why are we trying to redefine it now? Did I just wake up and the world of physics change on me?

This must be like some overnight Jonny-Appleseed-Alice-in-Wonderland-Wizard-of-Oz "awakening" I'm having here. Very confusing problem it seems.

I guess if we're going to pick nits, a butterfly flapping it's wings in Brazil will affect me. In fact, a butterfly thinking about flapping it's wings in Brazil also affects me. Albeit negligible, but true.

No, wrong. Society doesn't want things. The people in society want things. Society is an abstraction. Individuals want things. Some individuals have similar beliefs and wants and they organize in an attempt to achieve some of their goals, other don't.

I'm not attacking anybody. That would imply I'm applying a force (as in Newtons or Pounds). Ever heard of F = ma? You know, the physics stuff? As in their intial state or conditions are changed because I imparted energy into their environment where one didn't exist before? Lets not make something from nothing.

I also don't deprive the researcher of his profit, the market, or more specifically the individuals which comprise the market, decide whether or not the researcher directly profits or not. For the right price...

You could have the best product in town, but if nobody buys it, whatever you've got invested becomes a loss to you until the market changes its mind.

I'm only entitled to the property physically in my possession. I cannot take the physical objects others own from them, and they shouldn't take the objects in my possession from me. Simple as that.

Value is in the eye of the beholder, and only measureable by the owner/traders at the moment of exchange.

Everybody learns from everybody. We don't live or learn in a vacuum. We all stand on the shoulders of others work. By that logic, were I the first man to invent mathematics I could dominate the world as they would owe me nearly everything they interact with.

Of course your going to disagree with me because some esoteric law says that algorithms don't count. Okay, I'll give you that one. But what if I was the first man to walk out of a cave and invent the first house. Is that good enough for you?

Where ya gonna draw the line?

Fergalish,

I know nothing of Libya. I didn't know I was asked any questions in that regard; at least I didn't know they were directed at me, but whatever it is, they can keep doing what their doing, independent of me. I have no skin in their game whatever it may be.

All humans have different DNA. Should we enslave them because they're are different from us. In fact, no two persons are the same. Could I justly enforce a law that allows everybody who has different genes from me, to become slaves of mine? No. I'm not sure where we're going here as this diverges significantly from IP law subject matter.

My references to anything-goes-kinda-laws was only a rhetorical question, but one made to evince the reasons why a law should even see the light of day including IP laws.

We should have very concrete laws. Laws that don't change with the prevailing winds. Is it not the mission of the law to prevent murder/injury, enslavement and plunder? Start there and try to justify half the laws we have on the books.

I hope it wouldn't be that difficult to arrive at similar results.

The only reason "society" has any say in an individuals life is because collectively they have more force than a person does individually.

I only fear for my life because "society" thru it's superior weaponry, not necessarily it's justice, convinces me to comply.

If society decides tomorrow that yellow shirts are the "right" color, do you honestly think I'm going to wear anything other than the color yellow? Duh, of course not!

Just because you create intellectual property "rights" doesn't make them automagically justifiable. Just because you spent a million dollars or one dollar on an idea has nothing to do with me. Don't make your stuff about me and mine.

I would like to think justice is well defined and is constrained only to those who provoke or initiate acts of aggression against others. If it isn't that, then you can make justice anything you want and there would be no end to the violence you could commit.

Collectivist attitudes and beliefs are extremely dangerous thinking.

Hawker,

All of my quotes, even though they may not have directly responded to your posts, are apropo to the subject matter at hand, that being IP.

They aren't random. All laws are force including IP laws. All of my quotes address that, albeit indirectly.

If we're going to talk about IP laws, is it not true that what we are really saying is what force/violence can I apply to you if you don't comply with the law? Forced restitution?

The final quote directly addresses IP laws. Maybe you just ignored it? If you're not going to read my responses, then we can just stop right now and move on.

And besides you keep speaking as if society is what rules, and individuals rights can be sacrificed. That's why the quotes make sense. In that context they are obvious.

Hawker,

One question per post. Fine.

Define private property. Try to stay within the confines of the known universe. Don't make up stuff. If it doesn't incorporate something definable and divisible using the laws of physics it probably won't fly.

To wit, you can't say property is one thing one day, and then have it become something else by mere legislative proclamation the next. That's what we call legislative fiat.

A few revealing quotes:

"There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because the law makes them so." --Frederic Bastiat.

"It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons or property, since they preexist, and his work is only to secure them from injury. It is not true that the mission of law is to regulate our consciences, our exchanges, our gifts, our enjoyments. Its mission is to prevent the rights of one from interfering with those of another, in any one of these things." -- Frederic Bastiat.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent "moral" busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." --C.S. Lewis

"The harm done by ordinary criminals, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional "do-gooders," who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others -with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means"

"All acts involve altering physical matter. If you claim that there is property in physical matter, that already covers all physical phenomenon and thereby all possible actions related thereto. However, if you claim that you have a right on benefits derived from physical property that do not alter the physical property you own, it logically follows that it is a "right" to alter physical property belonging to someone else."

Hawker,

I see you didn't feel the need to answer my questions. A bit too revealing perhaps?

Define stealing. Try to be concise.

Of course, society describes its members. So what. Just because a group of people does something doesn't inherently make it right or wrong.

We could bring back slavery. I could make a law that all geriatric men and women be killed because they are a "drain" on society. I could make any substance illicit with the stroke of a pen. I could give privileges to anybody in any industry so as to reduce competition. I could put a star of david on your arm and send you to the gulag. I could do lots of things...

Quoting a true intellectual (sorry not sure who he is as I lost the reference):

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

Is that crystal clear enough for you?

I never said anything was of equal importance, only that software which is removed from the computing environment in which it is used, typically has less value (in my mind). I can have a pile of software CD's and no computer and not get much personal utility out of it. I never said the software itself was worthless.

I also said nothing of remunerations except to mention that whatever you can bargain or negotiate for, is what you get. If your price isn't right...

It's for the most part, about the contract. Contracts are about mutual consent betwixt persons of interest. Contracts are not between me and someone not privy to the terms. That's all I was trying to convey.

I see no contradictions anywhere.

Hawker,

Doing anything requires effort (energy and materials). Some products and services require more effort than others to manufacture and distribute. Why should there be any special privileges given to some "inventions" or "discoveries" over others?

Your intellectual property has some problems, namely: It violates or nullifies private property rights. It censors speech and other types of expression. It violates contract. And ultimately it manipulates free markets.

Private Property: The right of property is simply the right of dominion. It is the right, which one man has, as against all other men, to the exclusive control, dominion, use, and enjoyment of any particular thing. The principle of property is, that a thing belongs to one man, and not to another —mine, and thine, and his, are the terms that convey the idea of property.

Here's a few questions:

Can you have private property coexist with intellectual property without imposing your will on other people?

If a contract is mutual consent between 2+ persons, and their property has the appearance and likeness of your property how do you not affect their contract?

If an individual wants to express himself in a similar manner to you, or to provide presentations which mimic yours, how do you not censor their speech/expression if you find it offensive?

If a free market is a market of freely exchanging individuals for products and services, how can you prohibit any type of expression or composition of matter without simultaneously removing or diminishing competition thru the use of monopoly privilege?

Is the current rendition of intellectual property incongruous with the tenets of private property, or is private property something else altogether?

Why does government (or anybody else) need to decide what characteristics private property has when their opinions and definitions don't change the outcome of the PMM itself?

Is not intellectual property effectively a body of law comprised of prohibitions and penalties associated with the characteristics and descriptions other individuals property appear to convey?

Do you want private property, contract, free markets, and freedom of speech?

Hawker,

All things are made of PMM or they are nothing. Medicine cannot help you with your ailment if the cure wasn't comprised of PMM. A television show (its content) isn't very useful without the television set. Software without some computing platform has little utility to the user. It is only as these "abstractions" are attached to the real world in some way that they have value.

And in fact, they're all connected to the world of reality. The software, TV content, and medicinal theory are all "stored" somewhere before they are applied in the desired way. These stored things (abstractions of sorts) can also be considered valuable. All of those locations, including in the mind, had some connection to PMM. Duh!

I have no confusion about society. Society, used as an analogy, is just like a forest. A forest is comprised of trees just like society is comprised of people. Society is just an abstract term. I'm not confused about the role of society, if there even is such a thing. The "role" society "plays" is just a measure of the sum total of actions the individuals contribute to the whole. So what? I'm not a collectivist and never will be. I believe I have basic human rights, I don't believe in societal rights. I'm not beholden to society (other than non-aggression) to do anything for them. "Society" cannot, or more accurately should not, force me to do their bidding (I hope you weren't implying this).

A few examples to whet the appetite:

1.) Two or more persons can exchange smiles for a price. Did they exchange anything material? No, they performed an action. In actuality they exchanged reflected or emitted photons of a specific wavelength, but now were just splitting hairs. They had to use PMM to do it (the muscles in their face), but again so what.

2.) One computer transmits combinations of bits (1's and 0's) from one computer to another. These voltage levels or potentials are interpreted to mean a specific software program.

Can you find value in these exchanges? It seems you can. You personally contract with that person(s) for those things or for those actions you want performed. On the other hand, your actions, performances, or PMM compositions cannot bind others who are not privy to the terms or who have not given their consent. This would be a violation of the basic premise of contract. It also violates private property rights. Either you own an object or you don't. If you don't, might (independent of justice) makes right. If you believe that, then we're just in an arms race, where those who can apply the most force more often will maintain their possessions the longest. But, if that's the case, we can just dispense with right and wrong and just go with the animal kingdom. Prey and predator. Kill or be killed. Eat or be eaten.

If you read (4.3) it mentions performances or services as possible contractual objective outcomes, and thus legitimate. It is even possible to be paid to forbear from an action. I'm pretty sure I haven't missed much. Keep shooting though. There might be something...

First, society is comprised of individuals. Seems like an obvious place to start due to its atomic nature. I don't see how anybody could have many rights, or any at all, if they don't have autonomy. Did you read (3.)? That line is practically limitless I would think. I fit a lot of possibilities into that statement (axiom).

If "things" aren't comprised of physical material matter, how on earth could you observe them, much less describe their characteristics? The product of a persons labor is comprised of PMM. We learn this in the first few presentations given in basic physics classes. And finally yes, anybody who attempts to take another man's PMM from him to destroy it or steal it would be guilty of Rights Violations. Seems we're in agreement.

There are obviously many expressions humans can possess, autonomy just happens to be one of them. It isn't the only one, of course. In fact it is probably one of the fundamental expressions upon which many of the other expressions can exist. Without autonomy, man could (and still does) enslave another man thereby diminishing or prohibiting other types of expressions that would exist were he "freer".

Demands and threats seem like close cousins, but maybe an example might make sense of things.

Example 1:
I write on a piece of paper stating that I demand that you kill yourself and then mail it to you. I live on the other side of the planet. This demand would appear to be legitimate, but only so because the immediacy of the threat, if there is any, is not particularly apparent.

Example 2:
I stand inches away from your face and demand that you kill yourself. Hmm... well that appears to be a different animal altogether. The circumstances are not the same. The threat is very apparent and could be perceived (misinterpreted violent intentions??) to be very real if not imminent (your impending doom).

I would like to assume you have an inherent right to defend yourself against such threats of violence, or appearances thereto if necessary. What's the goal? What's your end-game? You can use different words in numerous contexts and mean many different things.

In the end, applying violence requires much effort, but threatening violence does not, and achieves much in the way of achieving some means to an end. That end typically is to extricate your property from you and transfer it to the "manipulator" -via perceived threats of violence and coercion.

If the outcome achieves some deviant end, then it matters little the use of the words themselves. Perhaps demand should be substituted for profusely and energetically, but politely, ask. That way we don't confuse acts of potential violence for hyperactive requests.

Men, Women, Agent(s), Person(s), and Life collectively or individually have synonymous equivalent meaning herein. De facto entrusted crucially dependent Life admits safe guardianship or conveyance thereto.
1.   All men are equal in Rights.
  1.1.   All men are intrinsically free, whose expression when manifest, admits autonomy.
  1.2.   Rights exist because man exists (consequent to Life).
  1.3.   Rights are inalienable and inherent, hence discovered not created.
  1.4.   Man commits autonomous choices apart from all other men.
2.   Rights are defined as the Liberty to control, secure and defend one’s Property and Life.
3.   Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything not in violation of other’s Rights.
4.   Rights Violations are unprovoked physical aggressions (UPAs) initiated by man against another, or Breaches of Contract (BOCs), resulting in an incontrovertible diminishment in one’s Rights.
  4.1.   UPAs are non-consenting acts which cause an Object (Property or Life) to undergo a transferred or transformed change to the Object’s original energy state or condition.
  4.2.   Energy transfer to/from an Object or energy transformation of the Object occurs by means of three ways, namely: thermodynamic work, heat transfer, or mass transfer.
  4.3.   Contracts are compulsory promissory agreements involving Property or Life (and specific performances or forbearances therewith) between mutually consenting men.
  4.4.   Misrepresentation of Contract obligations or BOCs resulting in misappropriation of Property or Life, or expenditures related thereto, is subject to Rights Violations.
5.   Property can be anything comprised of physical material matter (PMM).
6.   Property is the exclusive non-simultaneous possession or dominion of discrete PMM.
  6.1.   Unconstrained/non-delimited/uncontrolled PMM (UPMM), UPMM effusions or energy transmissions, are not Property; they are ownerless nonexclusive UPMM or Emissions thereof, until physically made to become otherwise.
 6.2.   A Property’s inertial reference frame, dimensions, Emissions/Emitters, usage and genesis thereof, define and constitute its Property Scope Ambit (PSA).
  6.3.   PSAs that initiate tangible material perturbations which intersect or preclude another’s preexisting or antecedent PSAs may be subject to Rights Violations.
6.4.   Preexisting antecedent unconstrained Emitters cannot proscribe the receipt of similar, both in magnitude and direction, intersecting Emissions Flux.
  6.5.   Property cannot transform into something extracorporeal, extrinsic or compulsory due to the manipulation or interpretation of its PMM composition.
  6.6.   Absent Contract and Force, Property or Life of one man shall not control, compel or impede Property or Life of another.
  6.7.   Unintentional personal ingress vouchsafes unimpeded passage and egress.
7.   Force is the means –proportionate to the aggression– to obstruct, inhibit or extirpate the Rights of any man who interferes with or imminently threatens the Rights of other men.
  7.1.   Force can only be applied to resolve Rights Violations and is consequently just.
  7.2.   Man, or an Agent to man, must ascertain that a Rights Violation has occurred.
  7.3.   Man is severally liable and accountable for solely his Rights Violations a posteriori.
8.   Justice, viz., lawfulness effectuates disjunctive Rights between men.
9.    That which is neither just nor lawful is Violence and imperils the Rights of man.
10.   Violence causes inequality (unequal in Rights of man) and is forbidden.


If you disagree with any of the above you might not be Libertarian. I'm not siding with anybody here specifically, but I think the above is what bitcoin2cash was trying to get at without having to give an entire discourse on Libertarianism. That might be speaking out of turn, but I think it's relatively accurate considering his past posts.

jgraham,

Just for kicks and giggles, and knowing this will probably go sideways on me, I'll ask a few questions of my own. Notwithstanding, I don't really care at this point as I'm going after the entertainment value. Two can play at this game. Let's pretend for a moment that you just don't "understand" anything I say (or anybody else it seems) or what anything means. To wit, you're ignorantly unawares but inquisitive (I'll give you a infinitesimally small benefit of the doubt here).

Define: the words crush, burden, injury, abuse, power, authority, justice, patronizing, standard, maladjustment, offense, condescension, deserve and detriment.

Define or explain the phrases: "simple statement of fact", "light-years away from the idea", "fitting the crime", "hint of social maladjustment", "simply false", "general term", "without context", "sense of justice", "internally inconsistent", "second sense", and "superior attitude".

Oh, and by the bye, don't use any moral references as those would be entirely inappropriate. I'm not interested in your opinions regarding right or wrong, as they are groundless due to their subjectivity. I only want objective definitions. To be a little more precise, but perhaps still obscure and vague in your world, consider the following:

"In asking whether moral values are objective or subjective, we ask whether moral values are up to us or not. If they are up to us, then moral values are subjective; if they are not up to us, then moral values are objective."

Knock yourself out. You can take that any way you like colloquially speaking.