Chanting mantras as if to be presenting rational arguments, is incompatible with freethinking. So as a freethinker that presents me with a dilemma. You appear to be saying "You can't be in my club if you don't accept X Y and Z" That's called a religion. If libertarianism is a religion, then I accept your exclusion.
If I say violence is incompatible with pacifism am I being dogmatic?
No. Non-violence is the central tenet of Pacifism. Would you say that opposition to intellectual property is even a reasonable approximation to being the 'central tenet' of libertarianism? Perhaps you might like to go hunting for people who profess to be pacifists yet condone violence, while I go hunting for people who profess to be libertarians, yet condone IP. Who do you think would return the longest list of names?
If I say that an intersection of parallel lines is incompatible with Euclidean geometry am I being dogmatic?
Depends. Are you a cosmic string on the event horizon of a black hole? Oh... never mind.
Is geometry a form of religion? No. These are just definitions. If you want to be consistently libertarian then you must reject intellectual property laws.
The problem is, that there are others who don't agree that to be 'consistently libertarian' they MUST 'reject intellectual property laws.' It's the fact that you don't even appreciate you are expounding a moot point, that makes you seem dogmatic. The point of my criticism was that you were appealing to your
preferred definition, as if that itself were an argument for or against IP. Would you really be satisfied to encourage somebody into opposition of IP, specifically on the grounds that is the 'done thing' if you consider yourself to be a libertarian? I'm not opposed to violence because
I'm a pacifist, but rather I'm a pacifist
because I'm opposed to violence. Declaring that these are 'just definitions', has no barring on the merit (or lack thereof) that Intellectual Property may or may not deserve. It's the sort of ploy that religion often uses, appealing to group think and 'If you're not with us your against us' etc.. I'd rather not be drawn into a petty little quibbling session over semantics if it's all the same to you, especially not while the valid issues of ethics are outstanding. If you act like a politician or a preacher however, I'm likely to point it out. Just sayin'.
If you don't care about being consistently libertarian then you can do whatever you want.
Thanks for your courteous permission. I think I'll just continue to be consistently libertarian, whist remaining somewhat dissatisfied with intellectual property law, seeking it's reform, but endorsing it as a necessary, even vital part of society.
If you want to own a idea then don't share it with anyone.
Well the world would be in a fine state, if everybody who ever had a good idea, kept it to themselves.
Fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam
Having just presented a lamentably consequentialist plaint for opposition to IP (that consequence being that 'you cant really be in the libertarian club' unless you oppose IP) now you are going to try to strawman me with ad consequentiam
? WTF? Note in this context, that you are asserting the truth value of a claim (ie Intellectual property is incompatible with Libertarianism), rather than an ethical appeal to what is good. It is precisely under these circumstances that argumentum ad consequentiam
is relevant. The consequence of being compatible with libertarian values, is the objective being enshrined (a desirable consequence), but the truth value of the claim is moot. The reader is enticed by the consequence being a desirable one, yet the desirability of the consequence set forth , has absolutely no baring on the truth value of the claim. Moreover, the implication that IP must be opposed, is slipped right in there, without being evaluated on it's own terms.
Let's just clarify that my previous comment was not made in the service of a formal logical argument, but simply a response to your own prior comment. If you're going to invoke ad consequentiam
, it must be noted that simply mentioning a consequence, doesn't necessarily count as a resort to the ad consequentiam
fallacy. If somebody makes a claim of a factual nature (ie asserting something to be true or false) and resorts to implying the truth of the claim by appealing to the desirability of it's consequence, THEN
there is justified grounds to call ad consequentiam
. If they are simply expressing ethical opinion or a statement about the desirability of a circumstance, then the is no grounds to call ad consequentiam
. There can be no logical fallacy, in an ethical conjecture that was not set up to establish a point of fact. In the statement "Well the world would be in a fine state, if everybody who ever had a good idea, kept it to themselves." I am lamenting the moral outcome of of a circumstance (ie what is good or bad). Does it sound like it was set up to establish an objective point of logical fact? Hmmm..?
It might be very nice if you would quit trying to argue like a disingenuous, sophist. Since it seems to have escaped your parochial self-absorbed attention, the whole issue of IP is entrenced in the ethics of consequential outcomes. There's no point whatsoever having any opinion about it, least of all raising it as your favorite bone of contention, if you insist on holding matters of ethical consequence off the table. But of course you expect nothing of the sort. Your own points are loaded to the hilt, with every opportunity taken to express consequential scenarios. It's also a 'patently'
subjective issue of great ethical import. If you consider the various scenarios and examples in the book by Hazlitt, which you upheld as an essential introduction to libertarian values, then you might notice they are also rich in giving credit to the importance of a multitude of intangible consequential outcomes. The central theme (illustrated by The Broken Window analogy) is to enlist our awareness, of the less tangible and less obvious secondary consequences of any particular policy or action. I can scarcely believe you have even read this book, let alone that you understand it and uphold it as a valuable piece of inspiration.
Returning to the actual subject matter of the two comments above, the purpose of pointing out the consequence, of expecting people to remain silent in the event they may have a good idea, was that we would all be much worse off if they did so. In my OP I've laid out a detailed case that innovative original ideas are in fact granted value in our societies. Talent (as in the painting example) is rewarded far beyond the material utility of the medium. That is intended to establish that the intangible quality in a work of original art is agreed in general to be worthy of having value in it's own right. Even though the intangible value of a painting is restrained by the physical medium, we have every reason to agree that physical things are not the only store of value. Paintings are not easily copied, at least the intangible value of an original masterpiece, can't be transfered even to a good reproduction. The physical impracticality tends to make IP redundant as there can only ever be one original Mona Lisa. The point is the perceived value of this intangible talent and original creativity has it's precedent, regardless of whether there are IP laws to protect it and regardless of whether it is constrained by a physical medium.
Considering this, it is not hard to reach the conclusion that original works of creativity and innovation are valued by society at large, and that if we are asking ourselves, as we should be, do inventors and artists deserve to be rewarded for their original, unique and intangible creations, whether they be works of art, toys, tools or household goods; if we wish to establish whether unique acts of creative endeavor are worth paying for independently from the medium then the typical renaissance masterpiece tells us all we need to know. YES the intangible, original creation of the talented mind is entitled to be granted our endorsement of value. A reasonable person should see that the work of creativity has it's own value. For that reason, our society has seen fit to render a reward system so that works of the mind and imagination can be given reward for motivation. That's pretty basic psychology and shouldn't need explaining or proving. Most economists understand the law of effort and reward. Apart from this, there is the aspect of social justice, that having established that an creative idea or invention, in many cases could be credited to somebody other than the originator and deserving beneficiary, or be taken for profit by anybody, there was a need to establish priority in first invention. The patenting system serves a purpose
to allow for rewards and credit to be granted to those who contribute a commodity of mutual value their talent innovation and creative abilities. If you need proof that inventions are valuable, I can assure you that you need a psychiatrist much more.
Not rewarding people for contributions of mutual value to society has easily predictable consequences. They will not only no longer have the motive to deliver their talents and skills for our mutual benefit but their contribution will be squandered, should they withhold their talents. Otherwise if they voluntarily give up their skills and efforts without reward, they will be easy targets of exploitation by greedy undeserving parasites who have no right to profit from the value an innovator might contribute. I don't see how it could be too difficult to follow this line of reasoning.
So I repeat: "Well the world would be in a fine state, if everybody who ever had a good idea, kept it to themselves."
And yet I still wonder how you can proudly utter such a contemptible antisocial imperative as: "If you want to own a idea then don't share it with anyone."
I have a better idea: If you don't want to live in a society that mutually agrees, to give deserved rewards to people who contribute their creative skills and talents, then go live in a cave and eat worms.
As it happens, sharing an idea does nothing to change who 'owns' it. Credit is rightfully given to the originator of the idea, so It's my idea no matter who I do or don't share it with. It certainly doesn't sound very 'libertarian' of you to be attempting to dictate who I can or cant share my ideas with.
Controlling the usage of an idea and receiving credit for originating an idea are two completely separate issues.
You said: "If you want to own a idea then don't share it with anyone." Implying that sharing the idea is somehow mutually inconsistent with owning it.
I pointed out (just for the record): "As it happens, sharing an idea does nothing to change who 'owns' it." It's still regarded as my idea whoever I might share it with, unless of course it's misappropriated.
And of course "Controlling the usage of an idea and receiving credit for originating an idea are two completely separate issues." That's a very pertinent point that serves my argument. You would do very well to take heed in it. In my OP, I deliberately made this very distinction to counter a contrived grievance in a popular Anti-IP publication (which, incidentally. is also copyrighted
"And nobody is precluding anybody from possessing and using the manifestations of an idea that is protected by IP. The example given in 'Against Intellectual Property', which point's out that: "If I invent a technique for harvesting cotton,
your harvesting cotton in this way would not take away the technique from me." is a prime example of disingenuous sophistry.
Theres a huge difference between being allowed to buy a cotton harvester, manufactured under licence and incorporating a royalty for it's inventor and not being permitted to use an instance of the intellectual property. You will not be asked to pay the price of having the monopoly to USE something, but simply to manufacture and market it."
None of your rhetorical plaints (because you're not making anything that deserves to be called points), seem to adequately or directly address the aspect of "receiving credit for originating an idea". That is the point of IP and the justification for implementing it in law. You don't seem to want to go near the justifications for tentatively deserved rewards, that patenting in particular makes provision for. The protection of the innovator to gain a very marginal royalty, in a restricted monopoly for a limited time, is unequivocally denied. Your own petty, selfish grievances to have freedoms you were never entitled, to do anything you want with your
possessions, is reiterated ad nauseum
This "Controlling the usage of an idea" you allude to, I take it, is yet another reference to the unsubstantiated and refuted claim, that you and your possessions exist above the law. You have been well informed, that cant do anything you want with your pen or your car, as I have clearly pointed out and exactly why you seem to think, lawful restrictions mandated by IP laws should be granted any exception for you, only falls back to your circular excuses that posit you as above the law to begin with.
I might as well point out that this same petty grievance is also founded on a matter of consequence (ie: the alleged consequence of IP on your assumed freedom). Not that you shouldn't make points that draw upon consequential outcomes, but just to note the hypocrisy of your special pleading.
If I were to take your ideas and claim that I originated them, I would be committing plagiarism, a form of fraud, not theft. There's something known as "my reputation" but my reputation consists entirely of what other people think about me. I don't own the thoughts of others. So even though it's "my reputation" doesn't mean it's mine to own and control.
Not that I care to dispute this or take issue, as I don't see the relevance it has to either the preceding discourse or the general issue over why IP law should be abolished. I don't recall saying anything that could be construed as confounding plagiarism with theft. Still, its so amusing to see you make such a pedantic distinction, considering you previously likened the law forbidding you from copying published literature with: "...claiming ownership over my pen and paper. That's little more than theft." Nor am I surprised to hear you report your absence of command and control over your own reputation. I should try to talk you out of thinking this way as a gesture of goodwill, but the reserves of empathy I can afford you are a little low... but that's probably nothing to do with anything you might influence right?
You can? I didn't realize it was illegal to make reproductions or derivative art works.
Then you are even more irresponsible in your attempts to defend intellectual property laws. You don't even know the content of the laws you are defending.
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
Well thank's for that enlightening piece of informative research. It seems this little treasure has such a profound impact on any practical outcome in the real world, that I've been blissfully unaware of the heavy burden of these bureaucratic manacles that have so deprived my most liberating powers of freedom. Did I mention that "I didn't realize it was illegal to make reproductions or derivative art works."
I wasn't being cynical. I've honestly never noticed the tiniest effect in the real world that this legislation has ever had. Actually, in light of your comment; the one which lead to this point:
For every work of art you show, I can show another that doesn't exist because it was prevented from being made, being deemed a "derivative".
when you said "work of art" I was thinking along the lines of art... as in, classical art such as paints on canvas and marble statues. I'm no great art buff, but I could swear I have often heard of reproductions mentioned casually, as if they were a legitimate form of art. For some reason I imagine marble statues and oil paintings to have little to do with copyright law. Perhaps that's partly due to the low demand from aficionados and collectors to actually call for reproductions. At the same time there are the repros that I know of, but in hindsight, come to think, they are all ancient classics (David, Venus de Milo etc..) since those would not be covered by existing copyright It's understandable that they are popular as grist for the mill.
In any-case, if we return to the above comment it might be taken with the pinch of salt it deserves, if only because it makes no legitimate case for the complete abolition of IP law but simply points out a misgiving that might be addressed by reform. In fact a casual browse through wikipedia and other websites, tends to reveal quite a number of exceptions and caveats that have been brought to bare for exceptions, fair use, education etc etc.. None of them may be ideal, but demonstrate that this unyielding exclusive rights
term, is typical of the law in it's attempt at being decisive and unambiguous, until there is some other legislation that partly over rides and re interprets some exceptions or caveats, to correct perceived misgivings, or make pandering concessions, so that governments can be seen trying to please all of the people all of the time. Almost all areas of law, are riddled with riddles and ad hoc exceptions, concessions and corrections.
Besides all this, I am far less concerned to salvage much of what counts as copyright law, as I am to defend and reform the provisions of patent law. They are hugely different creatures. Nothing suggests, that even if copyright were totally indefensible, that patent law should be thrown out along with it.
Can you prove which outweighs which? No, you can't.
And you can?
No, I can't. That's fine for me though because I'm not the one advocating the existence of such laws.
It does appear that you are proclaiming the certainty of your position by default however, and you would be the one, who advocated a book which explicitly criticizes the limited and temporary parochial view of any policy whereby the critic looks only at the short term and primary consequences or only accounts for the long-term and secondary secondary. Also pretending anybody must prove their case, where some information is unavailable, and that the corollary must be taken as true by default if they don't, is completely disingenuous.
Since you admittedly can't prove whether intellectual property laws are helpful or harmful, it's irresponsible to advocate them. You're like the religious person that says, "You can't prove God doesn't exist."
Intelligent people, with some understanding of critical thinking and epistemology, don't tend to posit claims in terms of absolute fact nor speak of proof
as if it were infallible certainty. 'Proof is for mathematicians and alcohol' goes a wise saying in philosophy. Primary school children quibble about 'proof'. Religious nuts think it's ever so important.
I admittedly can't PROVE that the sun will appear tomorrow. I deliberately surrender the goal of perfect certitude, so that I have room to doubt, even my own tentative convictions. Anybody who is perfectly certain, is in no position to change their mind. Instead I consider all things as matters of relative probability.
Since I'm not the one demanding conclusive proof of anything and have willingly considered every argument put forward and presented my own with abundant evidence, your claim to the upper hand in stakes for convincing reason are somewhat premature. Firstly lets clarify that the measures you posit of helpful or harmful are hardly tangible scientific variables to be quantified like rainfall. Even if we could agree on tangible measures for what constitutes help or harm and a calibrated scale to compare them, we would then have to find the empirical means to find data and test them. As far a valid epistemological claim, to the 'burden of proof' you have rushed in to claim priority amidst our mutual dearth of objective evidence. Who has the burden of proof, depends on whether we choose to test for evidence of harm or help, since they may both manifest for separate reasons, they are independently variable. Which one represents 'god' depends which side of the coin we are looking at.
In my experience it's always the religious nutter, who demands to posit a false dichotomy, such that there are only two possible outcomes and If you can't prove their position false then they reserve the right to win by default. The religious nutter never permits their claim to be tested and spends the whole debate squealing for the right to hold an untestable, unfalsifiable position as completely, unequivocally certain fact unless you can prove otherwise. The religious nutter cant deal in relative probabilities or concede a point towards their opponent. They don't consider debate to be a test of their assumptions, but a petulant demand to be indulged. No mater how carefully broken down an argument may be, even if it comes to self evident principals, the religious nutter will refuse to acknowledge the most undeniable obvious fact. They will diligently ignore it for as long as possible and forestall any progress towards conceding it.
For example I may point out the simple obvious fact that people do apparently collectively value the creative component of a work of art or invention. If it's in the religious nuts interest to avoid commenting on that, they will. Instead they will create a diversion of irrelevant sophist rhetoric. They will aspire to make the debate all about the terms of the debate and avoid at all costs, the relevant points to be considered to make any progress. They will require that you school them in basics of epistemology, reasoning and critical thinking. They are not seeking truth or understanding. They are not there to reach agreement in the quest for knowledge. So far you seem to have jumped into that role boots and all.
Laws that can't be proven to be helpful have no business existing.
Well then there are a shit load of laws that are due to be axed. I'd like to know who proved it was helpful that I be prohibited from wandering around the street buck naked. I would do it for the mere asthetic value as a community service, but you know, people have no gratitude, if they don't see this law as a hindrance and not a help. Go Figure.
It's not supposed to be a game of chance based on "gut feelings".
Well it is what it is. It's not supposed
to be anything else. Any issue is as tangible and objective as it just happens to be. If you wish to suggest some quantifiable measures of empirical data, to quantify the measures for helpful or harmful, fire away. I was getting bored with doing all the thinking in this debate anyhow.
You accuse me of being religious but your unproven faith in intellectual property laws is closer to religion than anything I've put forth.
You haven't put anything forth. I have detailed a rational case for our collective investment of value, in the products of creative endeavor. It stands to reason that we seek to reward intellectual product and talent, because inventions are useful and art is enjoyable. Having established reasonable grounds for the existence of this value in the creative product (which you have tenaciously refused to face and respond to), it follows that there's every reason to expect, that having a reward system that provides incentive to the benefactors of creative endeavor, there will be good reason to expect them to be encouraged to provide their talents. Nobody is expected to contribute anything to society without some reward. I can train my dog according to the laws of effort and reward. Seems that she understands simple economics better than you.
I have faith in nothing my dear fellow and only tentative acceptance of what seems plausible. Nothing I have said should give any indication that I have any unwillingness to change my position. When you actually address a few of the key points which Ive made to show reason for my position, then you can examine if there's any ground to accuse me of faith.
Also, you're very long-winded and I'm a busy person. Keep your responses under 1,000 words...
FUCK THAT! Who did you say you think you are?
I write as much as I like. MY POST! MY TIME! MY CHOICE! If you need to read my posts in three of four sitting you are welcome. Take your time. If you want to run off and bury you head in the sand be my guest.
PS: Perhaps it might help if you stopped being ignorant and addressed my main arguments, so I would feel less cause to keep repeating myself.