"As Lysander Spooner said it, "The proprietor of any thing has the right to an exclusive ownership, control, and dominion, of and over the thing of which he is the proprietor... He has a right, as against all other men, to control it according to his own will and pleasure... Others have no right to take it from him, against his will; nor to exercise any authority, control, or dominion over it, without his consent; nor to impede, nor obstruct him in the exercise of such dominion over it, as he chooses to exercise. It is not theirs, but his. They must leave it entirely subject to his will. His will, and not their wills, must control it. The only limitation, which any or all others have a right to impose upon his use and disposal of it, is, that he shall not so use it as to the equal supremacy, dominion, and control of others, over what is their own."
That is saying that you have the right to burn your dog and no-one has the right to stop you. Which simply isn't true.
Can we just leave out the biological issue for the moment and focus on the inanimate object for a second? I love puppies too, so let's not go there just yet. Kapeesh? |
|
|
|
I can't find the quote. It was something along the lines of "If you own something, you can do as you please with it under natural law.." but I can't remember where I saw it  Why don't you just address what I quoted. It seems complete enough; at least within the context of theft, taxing, society, contract and property. Now try to justify your taxing entity. You can always find something somebody said that probably isn't perfectly spoken or written. Notwithstanding, that doesn't necessarily mean everything they said before or after that is a lie and untruthful. That would be just a teensy weensy bit harsh don't you think? I mean seriously, nobody's perfect. |
|
|
|
The part where he says you are entitled to torture and kill your pets. Its a fundamental misunderstanding of property rights.
What/where did you read that? I certainly didn't quote anything like that. Try again. |
|
|
|
Spooner was wrong. As we discussed earlier, you can own a dog but you don't have a right to set it on fire.
Cute little furry rabbits aside, what part of Spooner's definition of property and ownership are you not in agreement with? |
|
|
|
Welcome back Fred. Still not worked out the whole society concept I see. Just to remind you, people do get together and act for their common good. The action requires money. Taxation is the mechanism used to pay for it. You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too.
Oh, I get the whole society "concept". There's nothing wrong with individuals collectively working together to achieve a goal. That's just like any association, or solidarity. Name your flavor (Rotary Club, Red Cross, Religious groups, Insurance companies, etc.). The same could be said of a government except that they too must form in a voluntary way otherwise it isn't free association anymore but force and coercion. That isn't what we call "consent to be governed". I have no problem with spending money on any number of things, just so long as those activities don't infringe on the freedoms of others. As Lysander Spooner said it, "The proprietor of any thing has the right to an exclusive ownership, control, and dominion, of and over the thing of which he is the proprietor... He has a right, as against all other men, to control it according to his own will and pleasure... Others have no right to take it from him, against his will; nor to exercise any authority, control, or dominion over it, without his consent; nor to impede, nor obstruct him in the exercise of such dominion over it, as he chooses to exercise. It is not theirs, but his. They must leave it entirely subject to his will. His will, and not their wills, must control it. The only limitation, which any or all others have a right to impose upon his use and disposal of it, is, that he shall not so use it as to the equal supremacy, dominion, and control of others, over what is their own." |
|
|
|
What you mean to say is that you feel less guilty stealing 9% of someone's money if they have a lot of it.
no. no i don't. taxes aren't stealing. Despite whatever privilege you think your government has, if someone (regardless of their title) comes to you and demands that you relinquish your property to them when they have no contract with you to do so, is coercion and plunder. Look thru the veil of obfuscation for a moment and step back and take a bird's-eye view of it. Now imagine you and two other people in the room with you. They could form a government. Why on earth should they ever have any greater permission to relieve you of your property than anybody else in the room? |
|
|
|
The bankers get a far larger share with a VAT implemented and the economics effects are disastrous. I preferred the poor paying no taxes at all. Now they get to suffer and go further into debt. It's depressing.
The economic affects are not disasterous - the US is unusual in not having a VAT and its hard to argue that the US is better off as a result. The transfer of the tax burden onto the poor is a fair point though. In England, the combination of taxes on petrol, drink and tobacco with VAT means that the very poor have the highest effective tax rates. I would be happy with them regulating and taxing the middle-class and above with no inhibition as along as they left the little guy alone. The freedom of the proletarian is all that's left in this society. To be free to be self-sufficient with minimal means is a right that should still be enjoyed. It's something I would like to enjoy in bad circumstances... Wouldn't it just be better if the government left everybody alone? |
|
|
|
And then you have to pay 9% again when you actually use your earned money. And prices will be higher due to increased production costs.
My dad supported Cain until I told him that 9-9-9 included a 9% sales tax.
I find VAT and sale taxes "less evil" in their economic consequences than income taxes. How is stealing "less evil" than stealing? |
|
|
|
|
Hawker, FirstAscent please answer the question posted.
Given: When copying a DVD in china sold to another chinese person. What is the significance of this force?
So are you're referring to a magical mystical (MM) kind of force? So what are the units of this force? Oh, and if it isn't this new MM force and it's still about "degrees" of force in Newtons (kg*m/s^2), what is the approximate measure and quantity of force as applied in my example? I do understand a proportionality of punishment (force applied), so I would be willing to accept that proportion I'd be found guilty of.
|
|
|
|
Its NAP done properly. People do get together in societies and societies do act to protect themselves from harm. If the society believes losing the benefits of IP law is harmful, it will protect and enforce IP laws...
The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP laws. Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP law will be harmful in some cases.
I agree that the practical question of what to protect is not a moral question - it's something that ideally should be decided by a group of elected representatives.
You really like this society concept. Could we not say that at a minimum, society is comprised of at least 2 people? It's small I know, but still true. Can we not also say that it only requires one person to create law? Now given the above, it would seem obvious that the law(s) created shouldn't favor the one person over the other, because by doing so, the one individual could gain an economic advantage over the other. This advantage could eventually lead to the other person eventually losing his property to the other individual due to his cunning manipulation of the law. This typically results in different classes of individuals. Now I ask you, should the one individual be esteemed higher than the other, under the law? No doubt the individuals are unique and have different skill sets, but should there be privileges bestowed via force of law? Is there a logical reason why there should be any inequitable application of law? Should one man's property be given any greater privilege than the other man? Remember, the property is just combinations of atoms or molecules in an infinite number of configurations. Why should any specific interpretation of that property obtain special privilege and status? Should not the division of property be one of a physical nature? To wit, shouldn't the property you have, be of any configuration you choose? Should we also not want to violate or invade any individuals physical property or person? If property can be defined beyond the physical and chemical characteristics, then by mere interpretation, one individual can obtain the property of another by description alone. If it is to be assumed that the composition of matter is what determines property, then any combination or permutation could gain favored status and confiscatory powers; and why should some compositions gain privilege and not others? Or why, if intellectual property really was just like physical property, that it should have an expiration date? That would be like the government deciding from one day to the next that your ownership of your house, isn't for life (or transferable to your heirs and assigns), but could expire next week. I mean seriously, how would you feel if your "representative" sent an agent to confiscate your property because they decided the expiration date was in a few days? What makes them so important to decide this matter? From whence comes their privilege? I surely wouldn't give it to them. Oh yeah, the majority thought it was a good idea. Why is the majority deciding what to do with my property again? Why should the majority be voting on what to do with my property in the first place? Don't you find it just a bit disconcerting, that an individual should have to fear losing his property because millions of "sanctioned" compositions might in some way resemble what others have created? Should I as an individual, have to research these millions of compositions before I proceed to modify what is in my possession? Does it not also seem a bit odd that I could be completely unaware that I'm breaking a law at any moment in time whilst in the privacy of my abode? How does one break a law without being able to measure it, or being aware of it? Why should describing and registering a composition automatically put me in the precarious situation of law-breaker? Is law really this complicated? |
|
|
|
That's not a moral question, and I think that you know it. Whether or not a particular law causes harm or not, is not the moral question. It's a practical question. But a corrolary to the question, "would repeal of IP laws cause harm" is "do IP laws cause harm now?" The answer to both questions is, provablely, yes. So which is the moral cause? Neither. Harm avoidance is not a principle to decide laws upon.
Isn't "harm avoidance" effectively the NAP? |
|
|
|
MoonShadow,
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. 70 years, five notes, etc. We're in agreement.
But somewhere in there is a line that is defensible. It's not 70 years, and it's not five notes.
The only line that is defensible is the one that crosses over onto other peoples property. The definition of which must be grounded in physical things (isn't everything anyway). It seems the older we get, the smarter we think we are. We think the intangible is somehow tangible. That an idea is somehow property. A reified object (intangible) is one that doesn't exist, and yet here we are arguing over who owns it. Impossibly childish. |
|
|
|
IP law is intended to be of benefit to society. If you can't persuade your legislature that granting IP protection to recipes is a good idea, you are stuffed.
Creating positive law is always damaging to someone. |
|
|
|
|
You either allow all forms of patent, copyright and trademark use on all forms of ideas and patterns or you disallow all of them (logically speaking). You aren't allowed to pick and choose. That would be nothing more than sheer capriciousness. It does not follow that you can have your information protected and not mine. Or likewise, you shouldn't have any greater permission granted to you by your government bureaucrat than mine for any collection or combination of information.
It seems to fall back again on the majority vote or monopoly privilege via an oligarchy control structure. Your idea is only valued more than mine because more people or elite governors in high places said so. If your supposed IP property can't stand on it's own two feet sans government intervention (monopoly blessing) and because only you can own it and nobody else, it doesn't deserve discussion. Stupid and illogical.
|
|
|
|
So how much force would be applied to you if there was someone who copied your DVD in China and gives it to another chinese person? How many Newtons of Force would that be approximately?
I see you failed to comprehend the example was to point out the significance of degree.
So are you're referring to a magical mystical (MM) kind of force? So what are the units of this force? Oh, and if it isn't this new MM force and it's still about "degrees" of force in Newtons (kg*m/s^2), what is the approximate measure and quantity of force as applied in my example? I do understand a proportionality of punishment (force applied), so I would be willing to accept that proportion I'd be found guilty of. |
|
|
|
Honestly, are you dense? Copying the number 925 and a number the size of which resides on a DVD are both acts of copying. Both are different in degree though, and that is what matters. Same as something touching your back. Both are acts of force, but different in degree.
So how much force would be applied to you if there was someone who copied your DVD in China and gives it to another chinese person? How many Newtons of Force would that be approximately? |
|
|
|
Why not, since it would never be found otherwise? You just quoted his post, which is copying the information he found, without permission. Pay him restitution or we will come kidnap you! Excelent point. Where do I send the check? |
|
|
|
What does ease of transferability have to do with it? Using that logic, I might argue that if I am able to commit a crime against you with ease, then it must be justified.
Besides, how easy would it be for you to transfer the next film by the Coen Brothers when they have not yet made it? There comes a point when you have to recognize and respect the efforts of others, especially when it can be mathematically demonstrated that even if everyone alive today lives a billion years, nobody else is going to make available the next Coen Brothers movie until they make it. That number, whatever it is, has not yet been pulled off the shelf of The Library of Babel, and except for their efforts, will essentially never be pulled of the shelf. From both a moral standpoint (your lack of respect and recognition of the work of others), and from a mathematical standpoint, your argument fails.
I was referring to the transfer of a copy, and not the location of the original number as inscribed in the pattern on the object of the original owner. Mimicry is just applied observation. Everybody does it. Are you going to call all mimicry theft? Because if that were the case, we would all be thieves. Theft is physical material matter transferred to another without the permission of the owner. Stop making special exceptions, it makes your logic look ridiculous. Copyright owners are disrespecting the transferability and use of my property. From a moral standpoint your arguments fail even worse. |
|
|
|
Because he pays the salaries of the scriptwriters, directors, producers, actors, cameramen, scenery staff and other people who "find" the movie and unless he has a way to get paid, there will be no movie.
We've discussed this - why are you going back over it?
So he paid people to "find" the movie, or book, or any other combination or permutation of information. So what? If I were to pay somebody to "find" something different, should I be able to charge other people once it's found? If you are merely the discoverer of information, that would imply you never owned the information in the first place. Why should a re-arrangement of bits of data be any different than a random set of bits of data? Your interpretation doesn't change the intrinsic "info-bits" themselves. Why should we be contractually bound to you because you think your permutation is any better than any other. And don't say because you spent money and effort on it. We all do that. If that were the case, I could charge you for all the effort I've expended in re-arranging the information I have. Weird. |
|
|
|
Stealing a very large number deprives the legitimate discoverer of it his earnings from expending the effort it making it available to everyone else, because it wouldn't be available otherwise. We're done here.
You can't steal a number. It's just information. You may have spent a lifetime looking for it, but copies of it are easily transferable. Nobody forced you to search for it. I suppose you would then propose that if one of the first proto-humans, were he to find a number (say the #1), he could, of logic and reason, be able to manipulate all of mankind (demand payment) for all eternity because he was the first to represent a number in some written or transliterated form. Or the first to invent fire, or build a house, a boat, make clothes, shoes, create an alphabet, words in a dictionary, etc. It would seem if property were of the sort you suggest, much of innovation would come to a standstill. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
