Taxes is not Theft

[kiba]

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxestheft.htm

* kiba sigh.

Somebody have the ball to attack one of our idea directly.

Unfortunately, it failed. Roads are not public goods, research certainly can be funded with private dollars, and governments force program upon the people whether they like it or not, democracy elects bad/mediocre official.

Suggestion: please do your research more so that you can give a real criticism of libertarian political thought.

[1715545093]

1715545093

[1715545093]

1715545093

[1715545093]

1715545093

[1715545093]

1715545093

[Anonymous]

then they must not consume the government's goods and services.

I stopped reading right there. This doesn't work well when the government kills any possible alternative.

[kiba]

Countries can deny or allow entry, or requires certain regulation to be followed in the country. So it's not like you can just move between countries.

There's only 200 nations in the world for six billion human beings.

[davout]

Roads are not public goods

Really?

Countries can deny or allow entry, or requires certain regulation to be followed in the country. So it's not like you can just move between countries.
There's only 200 nations in the world for six billion human beings.

Freedom is not given, it's conquered...

[hugolp]

What the fuck is a public good? I never got the concept.

Its either a private good or a government good. I guess you could make something you own public if you signed a contract allowing anyone to use it, but I wonder how that would work.

[kiba]

Public goods are non-rivalrous but roads get traffic congestion as they're used up

[Anonymous]

A public good isn't worth much if it reduces the populace to basking in equal mediocrity.

[grondilu]

Many conservatives and libertarians make the following populist argument:

"If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will come to your house, arrest you, and seize your property."

The implication here is that you are being extorted to pay taxes, and this theft amounts to a violation of your rights. Although the events described are technically correct -- you should expect such a response from any crime you commit -- the implication that the government is aggressing against you is false, and not a little demagogic.

Taxes are part of a social contract,...

I stopped reading here, for I don't remember having signed anything.

[gene]

Somebody have the ball to attack one of our idea directly.

Did somebody have testicular cancer?

Unfortunately, it failed. Roads are not public goods

They are.

research certainly can be funded with private dollars

Give an example. I hope it won't be underwhelming.

[kiba]

Unfortunately, it failed. Roads are not public goods

They are.

Roads are not non-rivalorous. More people on the road, the more congestion there are.

research certainly can be funded with private dollars

Donating to medical foundation, cancer society, etc.

[Anonymous]

Research without incentive nor efficiency isn't going to achieve much at all anyways. Unless -- like in the case of the Soviet Union -- it is fueled by nationalism and imperialistic goals in mind.

[kiba]

Research without incentive nor efficiency isn't going to achieve much of all anyways. Unless -- like in the case of the Soviet Union -- it is fueled by nationalism and imperialistic goals in mind.

I want to end aging but most people are like pro-aging. 

Death is evil and we should work hard to eliminate it.

Right now I am trying to earn a living so that I can donate 10% of my earning every month to the most efficient charity dedicated to anti-aging I can find.

[Anonymous]

Research without incentive nor efficiency isn't going to achieve much of all anyways. Unless -- like in the case of the Soviet Union -- it is fueled by nationalism and imperialistic goals in mind.

I want to end aging but most people are like pro-aging. 

Death is evil and we should work hard to eliminate it.

Right now I am trying to earn a living so that I can donate 10% of my earning every month to the most efficient charity dedicated to anti-aging I can find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcor_Life_Extension_Foundation

Cryonics is your best bet at the moment. I am certainly signing myself up. They accept donations but a life insurance plan can cover your body treatment alone.

[kiba]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcor_Life_Extension_Foundation

Cryonics is your best bet at the moment. I am certainly signing myself up. They accept donations but a life insurance plan can cover your body treatment alone.

On the other hand, I think donating to a few charity that took different approach is a good idea.

[grondilu]

When I think about it, I realise that this is exactly why we should not vote.

Because if some people like this guy argue that taxe is part of a social contract, then the closest thing to this contract is the vote.  Basically when you vote you accept the idea that you will obey to people who are elected, even if you did not vote for them.


I think I will never ever vote again.

[kiba]

If we're supposed to sign a social contract? Where is the document?

Is our "citizenship" and "passport" a social contract? Is the constitution a social contract?

[Anonymous]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcor_Life_Extension_Foundation

Cryonics is your best bet at the moment. I am certainly signing myself up. They accept donations but a life insurance plan can cover your body treatment alone.

On the other hand, I think donating to a few charity that took different approach is a good idea.

Specialized research rarely ever achieves the desired result. We shouldn't put faith in frivolous miracles that may come from these causes. Results are produced by stringent purpose and through actually knowing that results WILL be actually achieved. Invest your dollar in businesses that will achieve genuine innovation.

[ribuck]

research certainly can be funded with private dollars

Give an example. I hope it won't be underwhelming.

Bell Labs, and Xeroc PARC. They were spectacularly successful research centers that weren't funded by stolen money.

They flourished in the 1960s and 1970s, before it became more profitable for big corporations to spend their R&D dollars building up government-enforced patent portfolios instead of doing real research.

I still remember when Bell Labs announced that they had invented the spell checker. From memory, this was in the early 1970s. I still recall the press release, where a guy with a beard ten times the size of Stallman's was holding a computer printout with misspelled words on it.

This was revolutionary for its time. Back then, the mainstream didn't even accept that computers had a role to play in text processing (just numerical processing and data processing).

Some other things to come out of Bell Labs included the transistor, the laser, the C programming language and Unix.

PARC was responsible for the invention and/or maturation of bitmap graphics, graphical user interfaces, WYSIGYG word processing, page description languages, ethernet, object oriented programming, IDEs and Smalltalk.

Underwhelming enough for you?

[gene]

Bell labs was part of Ma Bell.

A massive state-subsidized monopoly.

 

[kiba]

Bell labs was part of Ma Bell.

A massive state-subsidized monopoly.

 

Date and period when it was a state-subsidized monopoly?

[Anonymous]

The state subsidization doesn't mean it couldn't of thrived without it. There's the possibility it could of done better if the state wasn't involved.

[kiba]

Specialized research rarely ever achieves the desired result. We shouldn't put faith in frivolous miracles that may come from these causes. Results are produced by stringent purpose and through actually knowing that results WILL be actually achieved. Invest your dollar in businesses that will achieve genuine innovation.

Audrey de Grey propose anti-aging approach based on engineering approach rather than trying to interfere with complicated and essential metabolic process.

[ribuck]

Bell labs was part of Ma Bell.

Bell Telephone Labs Inc was a separate entity, jointly owned by AT&T and Western Electric. Although those corporations enjoyed government-protected monopoly status, Bell Labs did not, nor was it taxpayer-funded.

[gene]

Date and period when it was a state-subsidized monopoly?

Since you apparently can't be bothered to do a simple search:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_Bell

The Bell System was the American Bell Telephone Company, an AT&T led organization that provided telephone service in the United States from 1877 to 1984, at various times as a monopoly. In 1984, a Federal mandate broke the company up into separate companies.

[...]

The 1984 Bell System divestiture brought an end to the affiliation branded as the Bell System. It resulted from another antitrust lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1974, alleging illegal practices by the Bell System companies to stifle competition in the telecommunications industry. The suit was settled on 8 January 1982, superseding the former restrictions that AT&T and the DOJ had agreed in 1956.

[...]

In 1934, the government set AT&T up as a regulated monopoly under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, in the Communications Act of 1934.

For reference, they did the transistor thing in 1947 or so.

[gene]

Bell Telephone Labs Inc was a separate entity, jointly owned by AT&T and Western Electric. Although those corporations enjoyed government-protected monopoly status, Bell Labs did not, nor was it taxpayer-funded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_labs

Bell Laboratories (also known as Bell Labs and formerly known as AT&T Bell Laboratories and Bell Telephone Laboratories) is the research and development organization of Alcatel-Lucent and previously of the American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T).

For completeness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Electric

Western Electric Company (sometimes abbreviated WE and WECo) was an American electrical engineering company, the manufacturing arm of AT&T from 1881 to 1995. It was the scene of a number of technological innovations and also some seminal developments in industrial management. It also served as the purchasing agent for the member companies of the Bell System.

[...]

In 1915, Western Electric Manufacturing was incorporated in New York, New York as a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T, under the name Western Electric Company, Inc[1].

And you don't think being a government-subsidized monopoly helped things along?

[Anonymous]

Gene, what gender are you?

[ribuck]

Bell Telephone Labs Inc was a separate entity, jointly owned by AT&T and Western Electric. Although those corporations enjoyed government-protected monopoly status, Bell Labs did not, nor was it taxpayer-funded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_labs...

You found the right Wikipedia page. Why did you quote some random tangential excerpts instead of the part that is directly relevant:

"Formal Organization: In 1925 Western Electric Research Laboratories and part of the engineering department of the American Telephone & Telegraph company (AT&T) were consolidated to form Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., as a separate entity ... The ownership of Bell Laboratories was evenly split between AT&T and the Western Electric Company." (emphasis mine)

It confirms what I was saying.

[Anonymous]

*wonders at the opportunity cost of statism.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Liberals have two lines of argument against those who reject the idea of the social contract. The first is that if they reject it, they should not consume the government's goods and services. How they can avoid this when the very dollar bills that the economy runs on are printed by the government is a good question. Try to imagine participating in the economy without using public roads, publicly funded communication infrastructure, publicly educated employees, publicly funded electricity, water, gas, and other utilities, publicly funded information, technology, research and development -- it's absolutely impossible.

Visualizing... ... ... ... ... ...yes!

[caveden]

I stopped reading here, for I don't remember having signed anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfQdw2K59x4



The larger video from which this small one was extracted is really good too, if you have some time I recommend.

[caveden]

Unfortunately, it failed. Roads are not public goods

They are.

There's no such a thing as "public good". By good I mean "property". There's no "public property". To own something you have to be able to make decisions about this something. An entity that's not capable of making decisions can't own anything.

The "public", as any other abstract collective determined by arbitrary definitions, can't make any decision.

Only individuals and organizations can make decisions. And organizations can only make them indirectly, by the inner rules that make them be. Such rules delegates each decision to a rational individual that decides for the organization.

So, the government, yes, it can possess stuff and make decisions for them. The "public" can't, as that's not an organization or rational entity.
And I used the work "possess" to make a distinction, since governments can't rightfully own anything, since everything they have was either stolen or produced with stolen resources. They control stuff by force only.

[gene]

[proceeds to ignore that Western Electric, Bells labs and AT&T were all subsidiaries of the Bell System]

Here, let me help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_system#Subsidiaries_and_Bell_operating_companies_today

Before the 1984 break-up, the Bell System consisted of the companies listed below.

[...]

AT&T Inc., a currently existing holding company

[...]

# Alcatel-Lucent, a currently existing equipment/research company

    * Lucent Technologies, Inc., a research company spun off separately in 1995 and merged with Alcatel in 2006
          o Western Electric, a former telecommunications and recording equipment-manufacturing company that ceased to have that name as of the 1984 break-up
          o Bell Labs, the former AT&T-corporate research unit

It was one enormous conglomerate which enjoyed its position as a government-subsidized monopoly. This means that it made money by not having to compete in a market. This is effectively a tax, albeit one that you don't seem to recognize.

You seem to be opposed to markets, since you presented the case of Bell Labs (a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of the Bell System monopoly) as an example of innovation. Failure... so sad.

[ribuck]

Gene, it feels to me like you're one of those people who post because they enjoy the attention they get from those who reply.

I apologise in advance if you are actually interested in what other people have to say.

But either way I'm tired of it. You may have the last word.

[gene]

Gene, it feels to me like you're one of those people who post because they enjoy the attention they get from those who reply.

I apologise in advance if you are actually interested in what other people have to say.

But either way I'm tired of it. You may have the last word.

I appreciate your frustration, but rest assured that I am truly interested when people try to make bogus arguments about scientific research. In this case, the false claim was that the transistor and other technologies were the product of private corporate research in the absence of public funds (which doesn't really even exist). Much of what passes as private research stems from one form or another of government subsidy, as I'm sure you know.

I responded to your false claim that Bell Labs was somehow independent of the Bell System (Ma Bell). This example of "private research" (transistor and other tech by Bell Labs) was shown to be a product of government subsidy. Since you (correctly) no longer contest this, I feel the point has been made.

Add the examples from Bell Labs to the long list of technologies that would not exist today if it weren't for publicly-subsidized (funded via taxes) research.

Just in case you think I'm ignoring your other example, Xerox PARC got its start thanks to DARPA grants (which also funded the research that led to what we now call the internet) at Stanford. More tax money.

The Point
I think it is worth discussing how a company which must realize quarterly profits to justify its existence can sponsor basic research that won't provide marketable products for many years. This is ultimately why such work must be funded by some other entity, such as the public through taxes. It is an important question, and nobody here sees that this is the point I am trying to raise.

[Anonymous]

Gene, it feels to me like you're one of those people who post because they enjoy the attention they get from those who reply.

I apologise in advance if you are actually interested in what other people have to say.

But either way I'm tired of it. You may have the last word.

Add the examples from Bell Labs to the long list of technologies that would not exist today if it weren't for publicly-subsidized (funded via taxes) research.

You have yet to prove this.

[gene]

Gene, it feels to me like you're one of those people who post because they enjoy the attention they get from those who reply.

I apologise in advance if you are actually interested in what other people have to say.

But either way I'm tired of it. You may have the last word.

Add the examples from Bell Labs to the long list of technologies that would not exist today if it weren't for publicly-subsidized (funded via taxes) research.

You have yet to prove this.

Theories can't be proven; they can only be disproved. So far, there is no evidence that shows that businesses are better able to perform basic research than public institutions. No evidence has been presented by you, for instance. On the other hand, I presented evidence of major technologies developed with the help of taxes.

[Anonymous]

Here's your evidence:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-emotional-intelligence-empowers-positive-attitudes.html

[gene]

Here's your evidence:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-emotional-intelligence-empowers-positive-attitudes.html

The study was conducted at a public university. Which means that taxes helped pay for it...

[grondilu]

I don't care if taxes and public funding are more efficient for research, scientific developpement or whatever.  It is probably.

I'm pretty sure that a scientist will be more efficient if you give him one hundred slaves to help him for his research (building him a home, a laboratory, shining his shoes, whatever...).

It's not the matter.  With the same ideas, we could solve unemployement by rehabilitating slavery.


Domestication of humans is probably an efficient economic model.  I have no doubt about that.  Still, I don't want to be part of it.

[gene]

I don't care if taxes and public funding are more efficient for research, scientific developpement or whatever.  It is probably.

I'm pretty sure that a scientist will be more efficient if you give him one hundred slaves to help him for his research (building him a home, a laboratory, shining his shoes, whatever...).

It's not the matter.  With the same ideas, we could solve unemployement by rehabilitating slavery.


Domestication of humans is probably an efficient economic model.  I have no doubt about that.  Still, I don't want to be part of it.

Red herring. Nobody here has advocated for slavery. In fact, I regard unregulated private capital accumulation as a rapid path in that direction. History provides ample evidence for this.

The topic here is taxes - contributions by those who live in a in a healthy democracy to implement what the people have decided is in their best interest. In the case of high-tech advances, basically every such development has occurred as a result of public funds. DARPA, NASA, NIH, NSF and countless other programs in the US have funded most of the major technologies of the 20th century. The rest have been funded with the help of tax-subsidization, often in the form of protection from having to actually compete in a market.

The mountain of examples does not prove that basic research requires public funds (nothing can prove a theory or hypothesis, as a high-school student understands), but the lack of counter-examples is itself quite damning evidence.

[grondilu]

Red herring. Nobody here has advocated for slavery. In fact, I regard unregulated private capital accumulation as a rapid path in that direction. History provides ample evidence for this.

I very much doubt so.  Private capital accumulation doesn't lead to slavery, as long as it doesn't use force to coerce people to work.

The topic here is taxes - contributions by those who live in a in a healthy democracy to implement what the people have decided is in their best interest.

Well, it is NOT a volontary contribution.  If you don't agree with it, you have to pay anyway.  If you don't, armed people threaten you and put you in a cage.  It is not slavery, but it's pretty damn close.

In the case of high-tech advances, basically every such development has occurred as a result of public funds. DARPA, NASA, NIH, NSF and countless other programs in the US have funded most of the major technologies of the 20th century. The rest have been funded with the help of tax-subsidization, often in the form of protection from having to actually compete in a market.  The mountain of examples does not prove that basic research requires public funds (nothing can prove a theory or hypothesis, as a high-school student understands), but the lack of counter-examples is itself quite damning evidence.

The lack of counter examples??  You're obviously biased.

Anyway, even if that was true, think about what would happen if suddenly government stopped funding those research.  Would all the scientists who were working for gov. suddenly become dum?  Would they stop thinking, creating, innovating?  Would they become too poor to organize themselves the funding of their research?  Wouldn't some private companies be glad to be able to support them financially?

In science, the governement is like an elephant in a room.  Once you get rid of it, there is plenty of room for other things.


PS.  And again, it's not even a matter of efficiency.  Science is great, no doubt of that.  But I don't value it more than my freedom.

PS.  Also, please stop using public scientific research as an excuse to legitimate taxation.   It is a very tiny small part of taxation. 

[gene]

I very much doubt so.  Private capital accumulation doesn't lead to slavery, as long as it doesn't use force to coerce people to work.

That's a pretty big "as long as."

Well, it is NOT a volontary contribution.  If you don't agree with it, you have to pay anyway.  If you don't, armed people threaten you and put you in a cage.  It is not slavery, but it's pretty damn close.

I wouldn't have a problem with you becoming a hermit if you elect not to participate in society. However, we should remember that freedom isn't absolute. One's freedom may impose on another's. This problem is not magically handled by anything that you're proposing.

The lack of counter examples??  You're obviously biased.

I await counterexamples. The examples provided by ribuck were the result of public support via taxes.

Anyway, even if that was true, think about what would happen if suddenly government stopped funding those research.  Would all the scientists who were working for gov. suddenly become dum?  Would they stop thinking, creating, innovating?  Would they become too poor to organize themselves the funding of their research?  Wouldn't some private companies be glad to be able to support them financially?

Historically, science has occurred at universities or (far more rarely) done by bored, rich people. Typically, the first priorities for humans are to make a living, so it depends on what priorities private corporations have. These priorities are typically to make money, not advance the state of knowledge.

You are placing undue trust in the ability for a base instinct like greed to actually improve our lives. In my experience, greed is not a constructive impulse.

In science, the governement is like an elephant in a room.  Once you get rid of it, there is plenty of room for other things.

This is true, although probably not in the way you would like to imagine.

PS.  And again, it's not even a matter of efficiency.  Science is great, no doubt of that.  But I don't value it more than my freedom.

And that is your choice, but I think most people would rather have improved medicine, communications, etc. than the freedom to live outside of society.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

I wouldn't have a problem with you becoming a hermit if you elect not to participate in society. However, we should remember that freedom isn't absolute. One's freedom may impose on another's. This problem is not magically handled by anything that you're proposing.

What. Freedoms do not impose on one another, I do not have the right to take something of my neighbors, and don't have the right to kill someone. Nobody has those rights. People can all be free without imposing anything on anyone else, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

I await counterexamples. The examples provided by ribuck were the result of public support via taxes.

Basically every improvement in computing engineering, design, that flying car that was mentioned earlier doesn't look to be government supported. Lots of medicine, if not all of it... the list goes on.

[gene]

What. Freedoms do not impose on one another, I do not have the right to take something of my neighbors, and don't have the right to kill someone. Nobody has those rights. People can all be free without imposing anything on anyone else, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Some people on this very forum have expressed the desire to see every valuable resource owned. If I own all the potable water in your city, I am imposing on your freedom to live, unless you pay. This is coercion.

Also, some people do think they have the right to do anything they want. They are called sociopaths, and most people recognize that they have to be controlled. So you have made what I think is a reasonable choice about what kinds of freedom are appropriate. Unfortunately, we can't just assume that these values are shared, and consensus via some democratic process and social contract (what you described) is required.

Basically every improvement in computing engineering, design, that flying car that was mentioned earlier doesn't look to be government supported. Lots of medicine, if not all of it... the list goes on.

Unfortunately, this is demonstrably untrue. Basic medical research typically occurs at universities with large federal funding (NIH, NSF). All of the original work in what we consider computer science came from DARPA money from the 50s to the 80s. What came after were incremental improvements toward marketability. For instance, I don't consider an ipod to be a fundamental technological advancement to be compared with something like the transistor.

Even modern aerospace firms depend heavily on military spending to survive, only to incrementally improve technology that was developed at universities or NASA. I've had this same basic conversation many times over the years. Each major tech that is brought up is inevitably the result of government money.

[grondilu]

I wouldn't have a problem with you becoming a hermit if you elect not to participate in society.

This is an error statits often make.  They see society as a whole.  You're part of it or you're not.

A society is basically a group of people interacting with one another.  If you reject one, you can join an other. Basically what I advocate is the right for individuals to chose who they want to work and collaborate with.

[gene]

PS.  Also, please stop using public scientific research as an excuse to legitimate taxation.   It is a very tiny small part of taxation.

First, I'm not trying to "legitimate taxation." I'm telling it the way it is.

Second, the bulk of US tax money goes to military spending, much of which supports all kinds of research both at universities and at corporate contractors. This is well known, and I'm surprised you could make such a statement with a straight face. None of the US aerospace firms would still be around if it weren't for military contracts.

A similar situation exists in europe as well, with airbus. I think you would be surprised to see just how dependent basic research is on taxes and the sheer scale of the funding.

[gene]

I wouldn't have a problem with you becoming a hermit if you elect not to participate in society.

This is an error statits often make.  They see society as a whole.  You're part of it or you're not.

A society is basically a group of people interacting with one another.  If you reject one, you can join an other. Basically what I advocate is the right for individuals to chose who they want to work and collaborate with.

You are arguing over semantics. The logical conclusion of what you are saying is in agreement with what I said. People agree (more or less) on a set of rules to govern (see that word?) their interactions and sustain their system.

[kiba]

You are arguing over semantics. The logical conclusion of what you are saying is in agreement with what I said. People agree (more or less) on a set of rules to govern (see that word?) their interactions and sustain their system.

Society have no goal, no feeling, or no aspiration. Society is not a person. Instead, society is a total sum of individual interaction amongst human beings.

[grondilu]

You are arguing over semantics. The logical conclusion of what you are saying is in agreement with what I said. People agree (more or less) on a set of rules to govern (see that word?) their interactions and sustain their system.

Yeah, and when they DON'T agree with such rules, they don't have to live like ermits as you suggested.  They just separate and gather in groups of people agreeing with a different set of rules.

I think this is called separationism (or maybe cessessionism), and to me it is better than democracy.

[Anonymous]

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1094f.asp

Governments have killed over 203,000,000 people in the 20th century.

But at least you have nice roads and research grants to show for it.......

[em3rgentOrdr]

Here's your evidence:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-emotional-intelligence-empowers-positive-attitudes.html

The study was conducted at a public university. Which means that taxes helped pay for it...

I've had this same basic conversation many times over the years. Each major tech that is brought up is inevitably the result of government money.

Yes, and I had to walk on the public sidewalks (created using eminent domain) to get to my car (paid by the GM bailout money) and used gas (subsidized by the US imperialism in the Mideast) to drive on the roads (funded by taxes) to get to my research job (oh, did I mention that I attended a public school funded by State monopoly lottery money?), ... , ... , ... , ... , etc.

Folks, this discussion is going nowhere.  I am reminded of a concept called "Falsifiability":

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Falsifiability

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.

Gene simply has to show that the inventor or researcher lived for some part of his life on a plot of land claimed by some monopolistic government, thereby proving that the research depended on tax money.  Since every plot of land on earth is claimed by at least one state, Gene's claim is unfalsifiable.  I am going to treat Gene as another internet troll from now on and focus my efforts on my research and on promoting bitcoin. 

[The Script]

Gene, you are right about Bell Labs.  +1

Counter examples: Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell, Eli Whitney, Guglielmo Marconi, Heinrich Hertz, et cetera

Yes, government research is responsible for much of the technological development in the 20th and 21st centuries.  Government has also dominates the research industry using its coercive monopoly to do so.  Private companies can't compete with government tax-funded dollars, so of course government dominates the research industry.  That doesn't mean that we wouldn't have had all those great inventions WITHOUT government funding.  We might have, we might have not.  We might have more, we might have less.  You can't know, and that neither proves nor disproves whether government research is more efficient.  You provided an empirical example for government research, I have just provided empirical counter-examples for private research.  You certainly could provide more empirical examples and then I could go research more for my side.  At what point is one of us proved right?  If you have 54 confirmed examples and I only have 53?  You have to use other methods to determine whether government is more efficient than private business.  Mises, Rothbard and Hayek have done this quite well. 

[grondilu]

Counter examples: Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell, Eli Whitney, Guglielmo Marconi, Heinrich Hertz, et cetera

I suggest you add Satoshi Nakamoto to this list

[The Script]

Counter examples: Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell, Eli Whitney, Guglielmo Marconi, Heinrich Hertz, et cetera

I suggest you add Satoshi Nakamoto to this list

Who the hell is that?

[em3rgentOrdr]

But didn't Thomas Edison rely on the patent system to make a living off his inventions? 

-Gene.

(I couldn't resist)

[Anonymous]

But didn't Thomas Edison rely on the patent system to make a living off his inventions? 

-Gene.

(I couldn't resist)

That post if full of win.

[The Script]

But didn't Thomas Edison rely on the patent system to make a living off his inventions?  

-Gene.

(I couldn't resist)

 

[fergalish]

But didn't Thomas Edison rely on the patent system to make a living off his inventions? 

-Gene.

(I couldn't resist)

Well, even libertarians think that property rights should be enforced in an anarchist/lassaiz-faire economy.  Patents are nothing other than intellectual property, but I don't know if the libertarian argument defends that too.  So maybe they could argue that patents are OK, but that there shouldn't be a monopoly on patent enforcement...

I note that patents exist to protect the research investment of the developer and allow them to recoup their investment through exclusivity for a while.  Of course, it's being abused now, but what do the libertairians amongst us say about intellectual property?


My understanding of the "social contract" question is that, e.g. in the US, the founding fathers formulated the constitution, with popular consent.  Those who consented implicitly raised their children to consent, and so on until today.  Like lots of laws, the constitution is being abused now to enable government to pass absurd laws to which the founders and their popular following would never have consented.  So maybe ye should genuinely try to get a revolution going, unseat government, and with popular consent, formulate a new constitution/social contract which includes the missing bit from this one - that is, articles which limit government's power over periods of hundreds of years and through unforeseeable technological and sociological changes.

Let me ask a question, suppose the people of Egypt manage to get their choice of president (and not Suileman who seems to be as unliked as Mubarak).  Now suppose this guy, Mr. X, let's call him, frames a new constitution, and creates a new country Egypt_V2.0, with freedom for all, and there is rejoicing and joy in the streets.  Even though the only guy to sign the new constitution is Mr X himself, would anyone here doubt that all Egyptians agree to be bound by that constitution, even though they didn't sign it?

The only hole in the argument is parents deciding for their children.  But that can hardly be otherwise, can it?

f.

[theymos]

Well, even libertarians think that property rights should be enforced in an anarchist/lassaiz-faire economy.  Patents are nothing other than intellectual property, but I don't know if the libertarian argument defends that too.  So maybe they could argue that patents are OK, but that there shouldn't be a monopoly on patent enforcement...

I note that patents exist to protect the research investment of the developer and allow them to recoup their investment through exclusivity for a while.  Of course, it's being abused now, but what do the libertairians amongst us say about intellectual property?

Libertarians are opposed to intellectual property, as it allows non-scarce intellectual property to interfere with the use of scarce real property.

[gene]

Gene, you are right about Bell Labs.  +1

Counter examples:

I'll note that all of your examples predate the emergence of the modern transnational corporation, but they are interesting, nonetheless. Also, the bar for developing new technologies has been raised substantially (in terms of capital) since their times.

Thomas Edison

His famous inventions happened before 1881 and were patented (thanks, emergent - you made a statement of fact) well before the time of the modern multinational conglomerate.

It can also be argued that his inventions were not fundamental discoveries in basic science. One good example was the fluoroscope. Edison marketed the first commercial fluoroscope years after Roentgen made the critical discoveries at a university. See my point about about packaging and marketing of technology.

Now, let's take a closer look regarding emergent's point about patents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_edison#War_of_currents

Edison's true success, like that of his friend Henry Ford, was in his ability to maximize profits through establishment of mass-production systems and intellectual property rights.

I think that is quite interesting. Who do you think enforces those rights? Who pays for that enforcement?

Henry Ford

His main innovation was to pay his workers excellent salaries, which allowed them to actually buy the things they produced, ensuring a market for his cars. The novelty of his idea is lost on the modern corporation, and is actually seen as a means of "wealth redistribution" by some.

Alexander Graham Bell

The invention of the telephone also came out of substantial university research. Most people don't know that Bell was a professor at Boston U. This is what set him up with the requisite knowledge for his patent.

Another good example of having the patent system on your side...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_telephone_controversy

Plus, we know what became of his legacy (the Bell System).

Eli Whitney

We're talking pre-industrial revolution now? Why not include daVinci or the discovery of fire?

Guglielmo Marconi

Patents galore, all of which stemmed from work done by...

Heinrich Hertz

who made his discoveries while working at a public university.

I appreciate you for setting that one up. 

et cetera

You said it, brother.

More interesting:

Libertarians are opposed to intellectual property, as it allows non-scarce intellectual property to interfere with the use of scarce real property.

I'm not sure that things are so simple. Perhaps you are opposed to the idea of IP, but many self-identifying libertarians (Randians come to mind) are supportive of such rights. fergalish describes one approach to IP, which seems to be quite reasonable.

There are, of course, extremes even within the so-called "libertarian" crowd. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, ultra-free marketers espouse the notion that everything should be privately owned. This includes, by necessity, ideas. It also includes things like air. The idea here is that once the resource is owned, then the owner will naturally want to take care of it. This seems crazy to me - more likely the owner will use the control over critical resources to coerce for profit.

I find the notion of universal private ownership absurd, but I do recognize the need for IP as a means to protect individuals and smaller business from being robbed by more powerful interests. I think people should be able to decide the terms by which their programs, music, writings, etc. are distributed, and for a period of time no longer than their natural lives. Unfortunately, the very tools that were meant to protect individuals and smaller shops have been co-opted by powerful interests. This is what happens when government stops being by and for the people. Democracy helps - and democracy can also help to define sane notions for IP in the digital age.

[kiba]

I'm not sure that things are so simple. Perhaps you are opposed to the idea of IP, but many self-identifying libertarians (Randians come to mind) are supportive of such rights. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, ultra-free marketers espouse the notion that everything should be privately owned. This includes, by necessity, ideas. It also includes things like air. The idea here is that once the resource is owned, then the owner will naturally want to take care of it. This seems crazy to me - more likely the owner will use the control over critical resources to coerce for profit.

I find the notion of universal private ownership absurd, but I do recognize the need for IP as a means to protect individuals and smaller business from more powerful interests. I think people should be able to decide the terms by which their programs, music, writings, etc. are distributed. Unfortunately, the very tools that were meant to protect individuals and smaller shops have been co-opted by powerful interests. This is what happens when government stops being by and for the people. Democracy helps - and democracy can also help to define sane notions for IP in the digital age.

No. My fellow rebels and I are going to remove your democratic option to define sane IP rights using revolutionary anti-IP counter-economic activities.


Our economic effort will speak for itself.

[gene]

No. My fellow rebels and I are going to remove your democratic option to define sane IP rights using revolutionary anti-IP counter-economic activities.

Do you realize how crazy you sound?

Do you also realize that you are advocating a system in which the individual does not have the right to assert ownership over his or her own creative works? And that you and your "fellow rebels" via "revolutionary anti-IP counter-economic activities" ( rol) are imposing their own values? Contradict much?

Our economic effort will speak for itself.

I'm so sure. Your posts definitely do.

[kiba]

Do you also realize that you are advocating a system in which the individual does not have the right to assert ownership over his or her own creative works? And that you and your "fellow rebels" via "revolutionary anti-IP counter-economic activities" ( rol) are imposing their own values? Contradict much?

Libertarians thought IP are violation of private property right not that IP are property right. That is the emerging consensus after years of debate.

Also, what I am doing is merely outcompeting my adversaries. They can complain about too much competition, but I am better than them.

[theymos]

I'm not sure that things are so simple. Perhaps you are opposed to the idea of IP, but many self-identifying libertarians (Randians come to mind) are supportive of such rights. fergalish describes one approach to IP, which seems to be quite reasonable.

There are, of course, extremes even within the so-called "libertarian" crowd. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, ultra-free marketers espouse the notion that everything should be privately owned. This includes, by necessity, ideas. It also includes things like air. The idea here is that once the resource is owned, then the owner will naturally want to take care of it. This seems crazy to me - more likely the owner will use the control over critical resources to coerce for profit..

Respect for property rights is the core libertarian issue. I have a hard time considering people libertarians if they say, "Property rights are absolute, and everyone can do what they want with their property, except when someone else already used their property in that way."

[fergalish]

No. My fellow rebels and I are going to remove your democratic option to define sane IP rights using revolutionary anti-IP counter-economic activities.

Do you realize how crazy you sound?

Kiba, I'm inclined to agree with Gene here - until this you seemed reasonably coherent and sensible, if a bit extreme.  But this rebel talk of removing democratic options makes you look like a bit of an irrational fool.  Are you being flippant perhaps?  Libertarians are all about protecting individuals and their choices and yet here you would impose *your* values on everyone else.

Respect for property rights is the core libertarian issue. I have a hard time considering people libertarians if they say, "Property rights are absolute, and everyone can do what they want with their property, except when someone else already used their property in that way."

I don't understand this. Can you explain a bit more please?

[kiba]

Kiba, I'm inclined to agree with Gene here - until this you seemed reasonably coherent and sensible, if a bit extreme.  But this rebel talk of removing democratic options makes you look like a bit of an irrational fool.  Are you being flippant perhaps?  Libertarians are all about protecting individuals and their choices and yet here you would impose *your* values on everyone else.

You got it all wrong. I am not violating any laws in the process. I am not coercing anybody.

I am just making your economic life miserable through competition. I am making democratic rule irrelevant.

[theymos]

I don't understand this. Can you explain a bit more please?

Take a look at "Against Intellectual Property" (PDF), which largely represents my views on the matter.

If I own a section of land, then no one cares. I can't interfere with the use of anyone's property. My ownership doesn't affect anyone. But if I own intellectual property, then I have the right to stop people from using their property in certain ways. I can stop someone from using their ink and their paper to recreate my words. I can stop people from assembling their electronics into certain formations. This is exactly opposed to the libertarian principle of allowing people to do what they like with their property.

[Anonymous]

Theymos is right . Infinitely copyable digital content shouldnt over rule actual physical property. The idea someone can take your physical property because you copied something is repulsive , considering that the original still exists .

Now if you break into someones property and steal all their physical dvd's ,well, you deserve to lose your house. 

[fergalish]

Libertarians are opposed to intellectual property, as it allows non-scarce intellectual property to interfere with the use of scarce real property.

I can stop someone from using their ink and their paper to recreate my words. I can stop people from assembling their electronics into certain formations.

I can see an inconsistency.  I argue that creative brains are *way* more scarse than whatever real property you're talking about - particularly ink & paper, electronics etc.  I mean, what's to stop me making a contract "I'll tell you about the products of my creativity, but you must use them only in these ways", and then enforcing that agreement through whatever means at my disposal.  Thence, Intellectual Property.

[kiba]

I can see an inconsistency.  I argue that creative brains are *way* more scarse than whatever real property you're talking about - particularly ink & paper, electronics etc.  I mean, what's to stop me making a contract "I'll tell you about the products of my creativity, but you must use them only in these ways", and then enforcing that agreement through whatever means at my disposal.  Thence, Intellectual Property.

Sell your scarce brain, not your non-scarce output!

[caveden]

Despite being scarce or not, the intellectual property debate should end with the fact that causing a positive externality to somebody else's property doesn't give you any right whatsoever over him or his property.

Say, for instance, a musician is playing something on the street you're passing by. Let's assume for all effects that both you and him have all the right to be there where you are doing whatever you're doing.

Suppose the music is the musician's creation. We can says it belongs to him, as the instruments he uses to play. By extension, we could even say that the sound waves he produces with his labor and property belong to him. But as soon as this waves hit your ears and affect your brain, they're causing an externality to your property. Positive externality if you like the music, negative if you don't.
But even if it's positive, that doesn't give the musician any right over you. He can't force you to pay something for the benefits you're having from this music, and I bet, for this example, most people agree.

Just change your ears and brain for your recorder, and the example keeps valid. But, for some reason, people claim once your recorder receive the positive externality caused by the musician work, you owe him something or you can't fully dispose of your property as you could before.... this makes no sense. Causing positive externalities to other people's stuff doesn't grant you any right over these people's stuff.

[fergalish]

Say, for instance, a musician is playing something on the street you're passing by. Let's assume for all effects that both you and him have all the right to be there where you are doing whatever you're doing.

Agreed, but you didn't sign any contract with the musician in this case.  Suppose I permit you to enter my property and listen to my music only if you agree to certain terms and conditions.  Then what?

[theymos]

I can see an inconsistency.  I argue that creative brains are *way* more scarse than whatever real property you're talking about - particularly ink & paper, electronics etc.  I mean, what's to stop me making a contract "I'll tell you about the products of my creativity, but you must use them only in these ways", and then enforcing that agreement through whatever means at my disposal.  Thence, Intellectual Property.

Brains are scarce, but a single idea is not: it can be reproduced infinitely.

An IP-like contract would be perfectly alright. However, if someone breaks this contract, then those who are receiving the item without agreeing to the contract are free to spread the idea. For example, movie studios would probably still have a theater-only release period. If a "screener" is released, though, then only the person who leaked the video is in violation of a contract.

[fergalish]

An IP-like contract would be perfectly alright. However, if someone breaks this contract, then those who are receiving the item without agreeing to the contract are free to spread the idea. For example, movie studios would probably still have a theater-only release period. If a "screener" is released, though, then only the person who leaked the video is in violation of a contract.

This seems more reasonable.  But...
1. Film studios might never release their products for DVD after the theatre period - what's in it for them?
2. I once saw a film that was pirated by using a hand-held in the cinema.  I didn't realise until someone in front of the camera got up and (presumably) went to the toilet.
3. Musicians would have a hard time making money - after their first concert all the music would be copied and distributed.  Lower quality yeah, but we're not all audiophiles.
4. How about authors and journalists?
5. Computer games writers?

So the only way, then, to protect IP rights, even if only for a short time, is to introduce severe penalties for whoever leaks the content, so much so, that everyone who signs the contract fears for themselves.  Woe betide whoever misplaces their legitimate copy, or is robbed of it, and finds themselves in hospital the next day with two broken legs.  Don't get me wrong, I think the IP system in force now is ridiculous and way oversize.  Personally I'd love to return to a system of traveling musicians and bards, playing to small groups in return for dinner and a bed.  But I realise that that'd be difficult now, and most of humanity almost certainly disagrees with me.

Sell your scarce brain, not your non-scarce output!

Nobody will buy it if they cannot be assured that its output can be protected.

My understanding of the "social contract" question is that, e.g. in the US, the founding fathers formulated the constitution, with popular consent....
Let me ask a question, suppose the people of Egypt manage to get their choice of president....

Nobody has answered these two questions regarding the social contract, see page 3 of this thread.  If I'm just an ignorant fool who should read the answer to the first question elsewhere because it's already been answered a thousand times, please point me to the right place.  But how about the second re. Egypt?

[左]

edit.

[ribuck]

1. Film studios might never release their products for DVD after the theatre period - what's in it for them?

There are always people who will prefer to buy tangible products from the primary source. The original studio has "first mover" advantage which will count for quite a lot too. But the studios will no longer be able to exploit their monopoly by (e.g.) releasing in some continents several months before they release in the rest of the world, or by releasing products that are inferior to the free ones (e.g. DRM-laden).

Consider that great music was composed and performed long before copyright existed. Consider that there are companies making money from bottled water, when you can get water almost for free from the tap. Consider that iTunes is successfully selling many songs that you can hear for free on YouTube any time you like.

Creativity flourishes without violence (or the threat thereof).

[caveden]

Say, for instance, a musician is playing something on the street you're passing by. Let's assume for all effects that both you and him have all the right to be there where you are doing whatever you're doing.

Agreed, but you didn't sign any contract with the musician in this case.  Suppose I permit you to enter my property and listen to my music only if you agree to certain terms and conditions.  Then what?

Then the contract may be enforced. That's the closest you can get to IP, through voluntary contracts.

But that's not IP, at least not how state laws make it be. You could enforce your contract over the person that agreed on it. But if this person disrespects the contract and sell this music to somebody else, you could not enforce anything on this third person who had nothing to do with you.
Like, a marriage contract may have some clause stipulating punishments to a spouse in case of adultery, but not to the lover! 

[fergalish]

Consider that great music was composed and performed long before copyright existed.

Are you speaking of the time of great composers like Mozart and Beethoven?  The were patronized by wealthy families, royalty, or churches, each of which was wealthy because... can you guess?  It wasn't from free market competition, I can tell you that.  And if you're talking about more modern times, well there wasn't the problem of mass copying.  Pre-vinyl the skill was in the performance as much as the composing, and you couldn't record it.  For vinyl, mass unauthorised copying wasn't possible without big expensive machinery.  Cassette copying was much simpler but caused a notable downgrade in quality.  The "problem" of unauthorised copying of music is *exclusively* a problem of the digital age.

Consider that there are companies making money from bottled water, when you can get water almost for free from the tap.

This is not a good thing, though.  In fact, bottled water is probably one of the biggest debacles in the history of marketing.  I remember I saw a great youtube presentation about where the bottled water market came from, and how it came to be as it is.  Look for "say no to bottled water" "stop bottled water" and so on.

You know, there's a thing about this libertarianism.  Here you say "look at bottled water", but bottled water is a sham.  Someone else said "look at the internet in somalia, it's great now" but if you want people to look at Somalia and think how great libertarianism is, well, think again.  If only half of what wikipedia says is true, things in Somalia seem to be terrible. So it may well be better now than under government, but if you're already living in the gutter it's not so hard to pull yourself up now, is it?

But if this person disrespects the contract and sell this music to somebody else, you could not enforce anything on this third person who had nothing to do with you.
Like, a marriage contract may have some clause stipulating punishments to a spouse in case of adultery, but not to the lover!  

This is perfectly logical.  A creates, sells under restrictive contract to B, who breaks contract and sells to C.  A has no recourse against C.  Agreed.  I'd just be dubious that A will sell his creativity given the lack of recourse against unauthorised copying.  Except at a very high price.  B, of course, will be reluctant to pay a high price in something that they will, certainly, eventually have very little control over.  It's just my opinion, you may well disagree.  Only an experiment will tell - and I mean a 100 year long experiment in libertarian/anarchist economics.

[kiba]

One thing is true for sure:

IP proponents have no ball to experiments. 

[caveden]

This is perfectly logical.  A creates, sells under restrictive contract to B, who breaks contract and sells to C.  A has no recourse against C.  Agreed.  

Great then, we agree that there should be no IP, just contracts.

I'd just be dubious that A will sell his creativity given the lack of recourse against unauthorised copying.  Except at a very high price.  B, of course, will be reluctant to pay a high price in something that they will, certainly, eventually have very little control over.  It's just my opinion, you may well disagree.  Only an experiment will tell - and I mean a 100 year long experiment in libertarian/anarchist economics.

There are several ways producers of content may assure their earnings. People would still find a way to escape, but it would be a minority. For example, watermarking digital content like movies delivered to movie theaters or downloaded. Software could be delivered in closed markets like what's happening for mobile applications. Web applications are another way to charge for software without actually delivering it. Advertises could be embedded or displayed before allowing the download of music/video. Musicians may earn their lives making shows. There are many ways...

[kiba]

Dude, my inaugural magazine issue is like the first public domain issue ever and we still make money.  

All this stuff about how we can't make a living without copyright is a bunch of bollocks.

[BitterTea]

The Point
I think it is worth discussing how a company which must realize quarterly profits to justify its existence can sponsor basic research that won't provide marketable products for many years. This is ultimately why such work must be funded by some other entity, such as the public through taxes. It is an important question, and nobody here sees that this is the point I am trying to raise.

The only reason they must realize quarterly profits is because they are legally obligated to do so by the government.

[kiba]

The only reason they must realize quarterly profits is because they are legally obligated to do so by the government.

A lesswronger told me that 80% of biomedical research is actually funded by private corporations. As a result, the USA is the first nation in the world to receive many of the medical advancement.  We also have the highest cancer survival rate.

He then said that 20% are probably military R&D expenditure.

The european? They barely spend any money on biomedical research at all.

Now, I agree that the US healthcare system still sucks badly. It's all good old regulatory capture.

[theymos]

This seems more reasonable.  But...
1. Film studios might never release their products for DVD after the theatre period - what's in it for them?
2. I once saw a film that was pirated by using a hand-held in the cinema.  I didn't realise until someone in front of the camera got up and (presumably) went to the toilet.
3. Musicians would have a hard time making money - after their first concert all the music would be copied and distributed.  Lower quality yeah, but we're not all audiophiles.
4. How about authors and journalists?
5. Computer games writers?

I don't care about consequences to certain groups. I don't even care if the economy as a whole is less productive without IP (though I bet this would not be the case). I only care that IP is immoral.

[gene]

 

The only reason they must realize quarterly profits is because they are legally obligated to do so by the government.

A lesswronger told me that 80% of biomedical research is actually funded by private corporations. As a result, the USA is the first nation in the world to receive many of the medical advancement.  We also have the highest cancer survival rate.

He then said that 20% are probably military R&D expenditure.

The european? They barely spend any money on biomedical research at all.

Now, I agree that the US healthcare system still sucks badly. It's all good old regulatory capture.

You seriously don't know what the hell you're talking about. Maybe you should get out of the subdivision and check out the real world sometime. Your post count's rate may take a hit, but at least you'll learn how to not make yourself look like such an idiot. Maybe you'll even learn some grammar.

I don't care about consequences to certain groups. I don't even care if the economy as a whole is less productive without IP (though I bet this would not be the case). I only care that IP is immoral.

This from a man (?) who peddles a fucking ponzi scheme in his signature. You really think that this is the kind of thing that will help bitcoin? Anyone with even a modicum of decency will know what to think of your morals.

I just can't take any of you seriously.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

This from a man (?) who peddles a fucking ponzi scheme in his signature. You really think that this is the kind of thing that will help bitcoin? Anyone with even a modicum of decency will know what to think of your morals.

You seem to think everyone has the same morals as you, or should. Good luck with that.

And as for the ponzi scheme? It's honest and it's all of a bitcoin to enter. It's a game to people, not something like Amway 

[kiba]

You seriously don't know what the hell you're talking about. Maybe you should get out of the subdivision and check out the real world sometime. Your post count's rate may take a hit, but at least you'll learn how to not make yourself look like such an idiot. Maybe you'll even learn some grammar.

You're supposed to say "citation needed", not sprout insult about what I didn't say. Or even better, refute the statement.

I didn't say that's my official views. I said I heard it from somebody else. Nonetheless, I should have source the statement in the first place.

[BitterTea]

All this stuff about how we can't make a living without copyright is a bunch of bollocks.

I want to bring up copyright again because I came up with a market argument against intellectual property the other day.

Let's say that copyright laws are abolished. Let's say that following this, nobody is willing to pay for creative works anymore, like copyright supporters say. In addition, let's also assume that nobody is willing to create new works without getting paid. What will happen? As the supply of creative works dries up, one of two things happen.

1) Nobody cares. This means that those creative works were not actually fulfilling a need, and time and energy spent in their creation can be put to better use fulfilling other needs.

2) People care. This means that those creative works were fulfilling a need. People want more books, movies, tv shows, video games, but nobody is producing because nobody is willing to pay. Does it take an economist to understand what's going to happen? People are going to be yet again willing to pay to have works created, all in the absence of copyright law.

All of this assumes the absolute worse case scenario, that creative works are a purely economic good, nobody will pay for them if they don't have to, and nobody will create them if they can't get paid.

Feedback?

[kiba]

1) Nobody cares. This means that those creative works were not actually fulfilling a need, and time and energy spent in their creation can be put to better use fulfilling other needs.

If nobody cares than that mean they're enjoying the backlog of stuff produced in the last several century? I mean, there's million and million of songs, and million of books to digest.

[Anonymous]

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880

Interesting article about Somalia from 2006

Prime Minister Gedi of the TFG recently said, “It is totally misguided not to accept the government. The alternative is chaos.” Unfortunately, he’s got it exactly backwards. It is, in fact, the attempts to impose a government on Somalia that create chaos.

[em3rgentOrdr]

1) Nobody cares. This means that those creative works were not actually fulfilling a need, and time and energy spent in their creation can be put to better use fulfilling other needs.

If nobody cares than that mean they're enjoying the backlog of stuff produced in the last several century? I mean, there's million and million of songs, and million of books to digest.

I think the distinction should be made about new creative works.

You seriously don't know what the hell you're talking about. Maybe you should get out of the subdivision and check out the real world sometime. Your post count's rate may take a hit, but at least you'll learn how to not make yourself look like such an idiot. Maybe you'll even learn some grammar.

Enough with the ad-hominems, gene.

Kiba's grammar skills is irrelevant to his arguments.

I don't care about consequences to certain groups. I don't even care if the economy as a whole is less productive without IP (though I bet this would not be the case). I only care that IP is immoral.

This from a man (?) who peddles a fucking ponzi scheme in his signature. You really think that this is the kind of thing that will help bitcoin? Anyone with even a modicum of decency will know what to think of your morals.

I just can't take any of you seriously.

As for the ponzi schemes, I'm fine as long as they are honest and free to enter/leave.  Unlike social security.

[fergalish]

All this stuff about how we can't make a living without copyright is a bunch of bollocks.

I want to bring up copyright again because I came up with a market argument against intellectual property the other day.
<snip>
All of this assumes the absolute worse case scenario, that creative works are a purely economic good, nobody will pay for them if they don't have to, and nobody will create them if they can't get paid.
Feedback?

This is actually a very interesting discussion which will soon move from digital content to actual physical objects.  Heard of "reprap" or "fab@home"?  They are 3D printers which, eventually, should be able to quickly print out simple plastic, metallic and even electric/electronic goods (ok, electronics further in the future).  So suppose a simple small plastic piece in your car breaks, it's patented and is manufactured by only one company, so it costs $100.  You, instead, download the "pirated" design from the web and print it out at home, saving $99.  The revolution that started with audio cassette tapes and cheap photocopiers is about to go to 3D objects.  Exciting times ahead!

[Timo Y]

Do you also realize that you are advocating a system in which the individual does not have the right to assert ownership over his or her own creative works?

That system is soon becoming reality. Whether it's morally right or wrong is irrelevant.  This system will emerge by itself, regardless of what advocates and opponents do. It's unavoidable.  

De facto, nobody will have the power to "assert ownership" over information 20-30 years from now. The whole concept of copyright will be dead, as a simple consequence of the physics of information in the age of Petabyte hard disks and mesh networks. Regarldless of what is written in some law book.  

The only reason the whole concept of copyright was practicable in the first place was because it was tied to the technology of a certain era. Not the other way around.

Of course business will adapt. Instead of selling information (which nobody will buy because it's non-scarce), creative industries will sell personalised services. The computer games industry has already woken up to this new reality, and it's doing fine.