The issue I have with the FDA is with regards to it's regulation. The definition of regulate is to control or direct. That isn't what you want. You just want to expose fraud and connect the actors with the evidence, decide who's at fault and then finally to provide for a reasoned method of restitution.

The FDA directs people on how to do their business. It's similar to the way we have gun control laws. You should have laws for the criminal act itself, not the type, possession or utility of the gun itself.

If the FDA wants to release reports on specific drugs to the public regarding their efficacy and safety, that's great. Prohibiting anybody from willingly participating in human trials, using delay tactics with respect to the release of drugs or constraining innovation is not okay. An informed public is the best way.

If the drug is poisonous or ineffective, report that. It would seem reasonably obvious that any company that wants to stay in business wouldn't intentionally kill its customers. I'm not aware of too many companies which were formed for the sole purpose of supporting and encouraging serial killer scientists.

I think it would be more accurate to say that if the FDA was an organization that freely associated, and that their purpose was to root out fraud (of the medical kind, I presume), and they asked either for donations or advertised and offered their services for a fee, then there would be nothing wrong with the organization.

I, were I inclined, should also be able to do the same, and compete (as in a free market) with the FDA. If my services were in some way more improved, more efficient, more inexpensive, or more serviceable such that I drove the FDA out of business, then that's that. Or we could coexist.

That is not the current incarnation that the FDA is today. It is an organization who forces all within its jurisdiction to bend to it's will. Can we avoid that scenario?

To wit, I want all medical fraud investigators (i.e. FDA and others), their would-be victims, and their members to make their case before an unbiased court to air their grievances.

+100

The alternative to intellectual property is to have no intellectual property at all. That is the proposal, and I believe it has merit. Are we not arguing the merits and demerits of IP?

Arguing about what type of intellectual property we should have, in my opinion, is similar to the assumption that if we just switched blacks for whites that slavery would be so much better. I don't want to pick the lesser of two "evils", I don't want "evil" at all.

A thousand years ago, IP didn't exist, that's a relatively recent development. Monopoly predation has, in some form or other, of course, always existed, but that isn't the point. Unless what you're trying to say is, as long as your ignorant of your "offenses" you can't or shouldn't be held accountable for your actions. Consider yourself informed.

However and notwithstanding that, I do believe there are eternal "truths". I don't know what they all are, and I have no problem accepting new ones when they come along, but I sure as hell won't concede the fact that laws are dependent on length of existence, or that an object is unlawful based on on it's composition, or function.

An object, in and of itself, isn't "evil", "objectionable" or "offensive", it's the use of that object as a tool which can bring harm to others; and please don't say that competition is offensive, it isn't, it's about freedom of choice.

Therein lies the conundrum.

Is vs. Ought.

Examples:

You are the current possessor of land/objects. This is factual. I can observe it, therefore it is.

1.) You acquired the land via force. You evicted an individual from off of a piece of land because you merely have superior might and strength. You conquered them. You ought to own the land?

2.) You acquired the land via force. You were evicted from the land by late-comers (invaders, conquerers). You defended yourself against their onslaught and reclaimed the land. You ought to own the land?

3.) You acquired the land via force. The land was abandoned and it required little effort (almost no force) to homestead it, and there were no occupiers to contest your claim. You ought to own the land?

4.) You possess an object. This tangible physical thing is in your possession. You acquired it in trade or it was previously abandoned (no known owner). You ought to own the object?

5.) You possess an object. This tangible physical thing is in your possession. You acquired it in trade or it was previously abandoned (no known owner). You modifiy the composition of the object. This object is now similar to another object in the possession of another man. You ought to own the object?

See where I'm going with this?

You might be splitting hairs here. No doubt the present day Turks/Israelies are the current "possessors" of the land they squat, but that in and of itself doesn't make them the owners per se. Ownership should imply one of two things. One, that they homesteaded an abandoned piece of land, or two they acquired the land via contract (non-coerced, non-violent).

So while it is necessary from time to time to defend ones property from invaders, the act of doing so is not prima facie evidence that you're the legitimate owner. I could go to Times Square and set up a bunker in the middle of the street, arm it to the teeth, and hold everybody at bay for weeks. However, even for that brief period of time while I was holding out, it is certain I'm not the owner of said land I occupied.

Ownership and expropriation (or even occupier and possessor) are different concepts. An auditable paper trail or chain of custody, may illuminate the situation for the Cypriots. It could reveal the true owners. Reuniting property with owner might be a bit tricky though.

Further down in the wikipedia article it mentions the criticisms of IP. What say you to that? In a way Hobbes is suggesting that a powerful personage in the realm protects my property. Does that mean might makes right only, or that some other reasoning might come in to play?


I understand the rules of a game of basketball, but I don't want to play the game. Do I have to play? Slavery worked pretty well for the cotton plantations in the South too, again and your point? Non sequitur and straw man argument. I may also want a cheaper knock-off can of coke too. If you're offering, I might buy. Abundance can not be equated to IP.


I argue that if we were to abandon the system of IP we might have more freedoms and better products and services. Unfortunately very few people, including yourself apparently are unwilling to try it. Selfish narrow mindedness.

You would be right I can't steal someone's idea, but only because there's nothing to steal. I am under no obligation to provide you or anybody else a benefit I don't think they rightly deserve. I owe them non-aggression at most.


I'm arguing that the enforcement of IP laws is theft. I wish to maintain that private property is a tangible thing exclusively owned by the person who consensually bargained for it or homesteaded it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Here's the thing. What can be said for certain is that the theory of private property and that of intellectual property conflict. The one affects the other and vice a versa.

They are not independently and mutually exclusive theories.

Intellectual property theory states that anyone can lay a claim to any property, anywhere, and at any time and for virtually any reason, based on it's physical attributes as determined by external agents.

Private property theory states that physical objects can only be legitimately acquired by homesteading or via mutual consent by trade.

Intellectual property laws violate more human rights than private property laws do, hence the reason for rescinding such laws.

And I say black is white, the sun don't shine, and gravity goes up, not down. I can say whatever I want, you see. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

I was made to be rich. I intend to acquire my wealth from you. The money you should give me, you gave to somebody else. My year-end accounts will indicate that that money was not included in my revenue figures when I evaluate my assets. The return on my investment will be lower.

That's a very serious affect. If it happens often enough, the return on my investment will fall to the point where it doesn't make sense for me to attempt to acquire monies from you, therefore I will close down.

You owe me. Now pay up.

So you admit that the definition of "free market" can be both free and unfree at the same time. Hmm... I think that's what we call a logical fallacy.

Here's a short, but in nowise exhaustive list of fallacies contained in your prior statements.

Irrelevant conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly.
Affirming the consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.
Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion.
Fallacy of false cause or non sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow."

Try to use a little more logic please however informal it may be.

To fraud or not defraud.

Contract 1: I offer a knock-off version of a Viagra pill (known to the buyer). I specify that I am the producer thereof, and that I am not representing the Pfizer corporation. Buyer beware.

Outcome 1: No fraud.

Contract 2: I offer a knock-off version of a Viagra Pill (unbeknownst to the buyer). I specify that the pill in my possession was produced by Pfizer, whose company headquarters are located in Midtown Manhattan. However, I am the producer of said knock-off Viagra pill. I deliver my pill, and not the one originating from the Pfizer company as specified by our contract. Hence, no resell/transfer from Pfizer, to me, to buyer has occurred.

Outcome 2: Fraud.

Get it? .  .  .  . I'ts called connect the dots......

The original maker of Viagra has not being ripped off. The person on the other end of the sale has been defrauded of his money because the vendor who sold him the product, misrepresented its origns for something other that what was expected (specifically a pill designed and manufactured by Pfizer).

I think that dispenses with the trademark/patent neediness theory. A free market would imply persons who own objects comprised of any combination of physical characteristics, and services, trading with whomever they choose, free of restrictions.

You can't have trademarks and patents and a free market simultaneously. That's a logical impossibility. You're going to have to admit to that one. The logic says it's so.

Do all of those unborn people get to have a chance to "cast" their vote? Kinda hard to do when you're dead, huh? I am attempting to persuade you. Your IP laws conflict with my personal property, and hence interfere with the way I have chosen to live. Get your chocolate out of my peanut butter please.

Posit a solution to the IP vs. PP issue and maybe we can move on to more important matters.

I'm noticing a real division in many of the comments about Law, in the threads in the Politics & Society sections.

Here's the general theories/beliefs posited:

1) Law's are devised to determine what actions between persons and their possessions are consensual, and if not, is prohibited.

2) See (1) and,

• Consensual interpersonal acts, or acts between a human and a non-human object, defined as offensive (i.e. same-sex marriage, child pornography, etc.) is prohibited,
• Specific characteristics (composition, function, appearance, etc.) that an object has, independent of its application, and by definition offensive, is prohibited. (i.e. intellectual property, violent video games, guns, etc.)
  

What's your preference of law, and why?

roy·al·ty (roil-t)
n. pl. roy·al·ties
1.
   a. A person of royal rank or lineage.
   b. Monarchs and their families considered as a group.
2. The lineage or rank of a monarch.
3. The power, status, or authority of a monarch.
4. Royal quality or bearing.
5. A kingdom or possession ruled by a monarch.
6. A right or prerogative of the crown, as that of receiving a percentage of the proceeds from mines in the royal domain.
7.
   a. The granting of a right by a monarch to a corporation or an individual to exploit specified natural resources.
   b. The payment for such a right.
8.
   a. A share paid to a writer or composer out of the proceeds resulting from the sale or performance of his or her work.
   b. A share in the proceeds paid to an inventor or a proprietor for the right to use his or her invention or services.
9. A share of the profit or product reserved by the grantor, especially of an oil or mining lease. Also called override.

The definition of safe is to be free from harm or injury. If by that, you mean to be safe from competition, then no, no investment in any endeavor will ever be "safe". I should be free to compete with you on any thing. To compete is to offer an object or service of any kind that I possess or can physically provide to another interested party, sans government monopoly privilege. I have it, it's mine, you want it, I ask for payment, you either accept or reject it. The end.

My ideology does not remove consumer brands. I'm not going to force you to have no branding or labeling. You can label your private property however you choose, it's your private property after all. Compose, divide, manipulate, dispose and destroy it to your hearts content. I'm not going to stop you.

Do we need a definition of what freedoms are? Perhaps the impact on your freedoms you don't notice because you don't know what they are. If you were the only person on the planet, you'd have an infinite amount of freedom. With two or more people you have less. How much less, is the interesting question.

A democracy is just majority rule. Again we've gone over this before. I and my comrades, should they represent a majority, could make murder permissible, but we've agreed before, that isn't just. So, if were going to get past arguing over mere numerical superiority, can we move on to the more relevant argument regarding the validity of law for lawful sake?

If by implementation problem you mean method, type, or construct of contract, then yes, it becomes a matter of what representations you make. If you agree with the other person that you will provide an "original work" (i.e. not plagiarized) and your work too closely resembles the work of another author, then you can decide amongst yourselves what restitution you might have to make. Likewise, this is also true for lying about the origins of a product (under contract) about an object you may or may not have produced yourself.


I'm not running away, just doing things other than responding to you. In any case, my response is that you are not obligated (being an outside third party) to refrain from mimicking another persons work, nor causing your possessions from becoming functionally similar to those of another person regardless of the origins of their works. I guess competition is cruel. I do prefer cooperation just so you know, if that helps. Life isn't all about the money, right?

I believe, although I can't definitively prove, that the free flow of information in society, and the minimization of litigation which prevents the utilization of said information may improve production, reduce redundant cyclical errors (repeating the same errors or attempts) therby reducing costs, and overhead (government agencies, examiners, lawyers).  Resource management could be more effective.

Constraining information (which is a nearly infinite resource) as opposed to intentionally forcing it to become a scarcity, seems to me to be an unnecessary contrivance. It complicates and blurs the line between what thing belongs to who merely because someone, somewhere was the first to "author" it. By authoring, I mean to say a recomposition or molecular manipulation of the constituent parts of the physical material matter in your possession.

To infuse characteristics of private property with the characteristics of origin, pattern, function, composition, and time specificity as opposed to who is merely the first possessor of the object seems misguided and wholly inadequate to the theory of private property rights.

The theories of private property ownership and intellectual property concepts conflict. You are estopped if by establishing the theory of private property law, you then reverse yourself by enacting IP law that directly violates private property principles. Doing that, in my most humble opinion, truly is a living hell.

In re, IP vs. Private Property.

In this context, an object is a thing comprised of physical material matter. It is tangible.

Private Property: An object within the exclusive control (to use, compose, recombine, dispose, exchange, divide, or destroy) of the owner (a human), excepting only, that said control not effectuate tangible physical and material perturbations (physical force) upon another man or his possessions, is Private Property.

Intellectual Property: The object of one owner that resembles the material characteristics or composition of an object owned by another who was not the originator of said object's composition, pattern or function is prohibited.

Resolve the dichotomy. Those two types of "property" conflict. Please don't summarily dismiss the concern as it is pertinent to the discussion at hand (IP law).

Fergalish,

The individual bad actors of society are the ones ruining it for everybody else. Society is only as good or as bad as it's individual actors. Don't blame the ideology, (Libertarianism, or any other -ism) for the horrible outcomes that spring forth. Punish the criminal, but first and foremost, define the crime. Being consistent with the fewest dichotomies and oxymorons helps.

Libertarianism attempts to reconcile and reduce laws into their component parts attempting to not produce violent outcomes or illogical conclusions. It wouldn't make sense to have two laws in conflict with themselves. If it does conflict, go back to the drawing board. Don't ignore it; explore it, resolve it, or rescind it.

EDIT: Try it sometime, it's quite a refreshing eye-opener.