Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 10:13:28 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 ... 116 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!  (Read 95965 times)
fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 09:13:42 AM
 #101

Libertarians want to be able to do as they please, as long as they don't engage in 'violence' or 'coercion' against others.  This is certainly very noble and, indeed, a place without any violence or coercion would be very very nice.

The problem lies in defining what is violence or coercion.  Here are some simple situations:
  • You might feel you have the right to set up a factory on your lakeside property, and dump chemicals in the lake while fishermen on the lake might feel this constitutes an act of violence against their livelihoods.
  • You might feel you have the right to sell meat from hormone-pumped animals even though those hormones can cause damage to the human biochemistry.  No 'violence' involved, you're not coercing them, though victims might feel they have no option but to seek medical treatment, and would probably be quite angry at you.
  • You might feel you can drink your alchohol and then drive your old broken car at high speed, but pedestrians whose families are maimed or killed will certainly feel aggrieved.
  • And many many more...

Even whole countries can have problems:
  • your country might think to take all the water from the river and use it for irrigation, or maybe pollute it with nuclear waste, while downstream countries might not be best pleased about that.

So, not only is it difficult to get everyone to agree on what constitutes "violence", "agression" or "coerce" (just like "good" and "bad", there are no absolutes), but there are also clearly non-coercive, non-agressive, non-violent acts which *nonetheless restrict the freedom of others*.  This can be the case *even when contracts are formulated and signed by all parties*: there can be unforeseen consequences which damage one party or another.  In such circumstances, it's enough that each side thinks the other should shoulder the responsibility and BANG! conflict arises from an entirely voluntary, contractual interaction, and the libertarian utopia disintegrates for another two citizens.  Libertarianism does not solve situations where conflict arises though unforeseen consequences of voluntary interactions.  There has been another thread about this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3772.0;all
(look towards the second half of the thread) and here are the replies of those who were defending libertarianism at the time, to a simple problem posed to them:

Must we devise solution to every little problem in the world?
He's not proposing any solutions, but he wants the "libertarians and anarchists" to propose solutions! HAHAHAHAHA.
The only "solution" necessary is for you to accept responsibility for your own actions.

Way to go, libertarianists!  Ignore the problems, and hope that someone else will solve them!  Right now society already has a system for dealing with conflict, unforeseen or not.  I'll be the first to admit it's less than perfect, but the libertarianists wouldn't even suggest an alternative!


6 billion people on the planet could decide tomorrow to rob, assault, maim and then kill me, but that wouldn't necessarily make it just would it?
Quote
there is no absolute morality...
This is true. There is no provable objective morality, but what we make. However, if that is the case, we could just be prey and predator and just do whatever we want (no right, no wrong, just do, kill or be killed). Seems there might be a line drawn in the sand somewhere...

YES! YES YES YES! YESSSSSSSSS!  There IS a line drawn in the sand.  It's called "The Law".  The line itself is more-or-less arbitrary, but it's the same line for everyone.  The world couldn't suddenly decide to "rob, assault, maim and kill" you, without also allowing *you* to arbitrarily "rob, assault, maim and kill" them at the same time.  Or maybe you mean society could suddenly re-enact laws enslaving (e.g.) black people.  In principle yes, but that would require *everyone* to ignore their conscience, and to ignore 200 years of advance in science, morality and the human condition, and suddenly start thinking again that black people aren't really people after all.  All we can do is hope that doesn't happen.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

Quote
"Socialism, like the old policy from which it emanates, confounds Government and society. And so, every time we object to a thing being done by Government, it concludes that we object to its being done at all. ...
You misunderstand me - if you want your libertarian utopia, you'll have to start somewhere.  Buy some land so, make a new private road and start making people pay to travel on it.  Buy more land, build a power plant and sell the electricity.  Staying paying for private health care.  Go, do it.  You'll fail.  Not because the idea is fundamentally flawed, but because you need critical mass to make it work.  Only then will we find out if the idea is fundamentally flawed or not.  Libertarianism could well be great, so get started!  I'm definitely curious.
1481192008
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481192008

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481192008
Reply with quote  #2

1481192008
Report to moderator
1481192008
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481192008

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481192008
Reply with quote  #2

1481192008
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 03:36:11 PM
 #102

...The mechanism chosen for this is intellectual property...

...The core issue here is freedom.  We have to choose between your desire for to profit from someone else's research with our collective desire for the benefits of research.  It can't be both; either we have medicines or your "freedom" to take the output of other people's work.

...You have no right to prevent people having new medicines.  Unless you have some proposal that allows us as a society to have the benefits of medical research, your ideas are worthless and we are done with them.

The mechanism chosen to do research is to take what you've learned, expound upon it if you can, and then apply it to the physical material matter in your possession. How hard was that?

I use "childish words" because most people don't understand the purpose and proper role of law.

Your right, the core issue is freedom. Don't take my freedoms from me and I won't take them from you.

You are free to start your own collective and convince people to join you. I don't want to be a part of your collective as you've described it, so don't force me.

You are again correct in not allowing me to prevent people from having new medicine. Go right ahead and take whatever medicine you have and exchange it with whomever you may, I won't stop you.

I do have a proposal, I've already provided it. Start a solidarity society , viz., an association of like minded individuals and combine your efforts together to produce medicines to help those in need.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 31, 2011, 04:06:31 PM
 #103

...The mechanism chosen for this is intellectual property...

...The core issue here is freedom.  We have to choose between your desire for to profit from someone else's research with our collective desire for the benefits of research.  It can't be both; either we have medicines or your "freedom" to take the output of other people's work.

...You have no right to prevent people having new medicines.  Unless you have some proposal that allows us as a society to have the benefits of medical research, your ideas are worthless and we are done with them.

The mechanism chosen to do research is to take what you've learned, expound upon it if you can, and then apply it to the physical material matter in your possession. How hard was that?

I use "childish words" because most people don't understand the purpose and proper role of law.

Your right, the core issue is freedom. Don't take my freedoms from me and I won't take them from you.

You are free to start your own collective and convince people to join you. I don't want to be a part of your collective as you've described it, so don't force me.

You are again correct in not allowing me to prevent people from having new medicine. Go right ahead and take whatever medicine you have and exchange it with whomever you may, I won't stop you.

I do have a proposal, I've already provided it. Start a solidarity society , viz., an association of like minded individuals and combine your efforts together to produce medicines to help those in need.

For medicine that means we have to employ large teams of people.  And if one person can simply take the result of that research, the investment in salaries will never be recovered.  If the investment can't be recovered, it will never happen and people will have to do without medical research.

Be honest - your idea means people will be materially worse off.  Its a bad one.  Why waste your time on something that is a step backwards?

FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 04:11:26 PM
 #104


The problem lies in defining what is violence or coercion.  Here are some simple situations:
  • You might feel you have the right to set up a factory on your lakeside property, and dump chemicals in the lake while fishermen on the lake might feel this constitutes an act of violence against their livelihoods. See 'The Law' 4.1, 4.2, and 6.3
  • You might feel you have the right to sell meat from hormone-pumped animals even though those hormones can cause damage to the human biochemistry.  No 'violence' involved, you're not coercing them, though victims might feel they have no option but to seek medical treatment, and would probably be quite angry at you. See 'The Law' 4.0, 4.1, 4.4, and 7.2
  • You might feel you can drink your alchohol and then drive your old broken car at high speed, but pedestrians whose families are maimed or killed will certainly feel aggrieved. See 'The Law' 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 7.1
  • And many many more... See 'The Law' above: post #23

Even whole countries can have problems:
  • your country might think to take all the water from the river and use it for irrigation, or maybe pollute it with nuclear waste, while downstream countries might not be best pleased about that. See 'The Law' 4.1, 4.2, and 6.3

So, not only is it difficult to get everyone to agree on what constitutes "violence", "agression" or "coerce" (just like "good" and "bad", there are no absolutes), but there are also clearly non-coercive, non-agressive, non-violent acts which *nonetheless restrict the freedom of others*.  This can be the case *even when contracts are formulated and signed by all parties*: there can be unforeseen consequences which damage one party or another.  

Way to go, libertarianists! Ignore the problems, and hope that someone else will solve them!  Right now society already has a system for dealing with conflict, unforeseen or not.  I'll be the first to admit it's less than perfect, but the libertarianists wouldn't even suggest an alternative!

YES! YES YES YES! YESSSSSSSSS!  There IS a line drawn in the sand.  It's called "The Law" See 'The Law' post #23.  The line itself is more-or-less arbitrary, but it's the same line for everyone.  The world couldn't suddenly decide to "rob, assault, maim and kill" you, without also allowing *you* to arbitrarily "rob, assault, maim and kill" them at the same time.

You misunderstand me - if you want your libertarian utopia, you'll have to start somewhere.  Buy some land so, make a new private road and start making people pay to travel on it.  Buy more land, build a power plant and sell the electricity.  Staying paying for private health care.  Go, do it.  You'll fail. Not because the idea is fundamentally flawed, but because you need critical mass to make it work.  Only then will we find out if the idea is fundamentally flawed or not.  Libertarianism could well be great, so get started!  I'm definitely curious.

I wrote definitions of Law in this thread. It's post #23 (I've made bold references to it above). Perhaps if you read it, you would know what we're trying to get at. In re, the bolded comment "its the same for everybody", that's what you call equity in law. Monopoly privilege destroys equity (equal treatment under the law).

I'd need to see an example of the above bolded comment on how there is the possibility of restricting the freedom of others thru non-coercive, non-aggressive, or non-violent acts. I'm having a difficult time seeing how I could bring harm to somebody by doing virtually nothing.

Why do we need to "herd" people like sheep? If there are a sufficient number of people interested in a project requiring joint effort (i.e. power plant, health care, roads etc.) then you have the critical mass you need already. Go do. Join the rank and file. If the idea/project is so great, and many people think so, then start your solidarity society. Notice how I made that distinction? I don't like gangs and their affiliations, they tend to break basic human rights.

Remember gang society vs. solidarity society. Beautiful how that works out. Is that a sufficient starting point for you, or do we have to grind out more of the minutia to make it sink in?

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 31, 2011, 04:21:51 PM
 #105


The problem lies in defining what is violence or coercion.  Here are some simple situations:
  • You might feel you have the right to set up a factory on your lakeside property, and dump chemicals in the lake while fishermen on the lake might feel this constitutes an act of violence against their livelihoods. See 'The Law' 4.1, 4.2, and 6.3
  • You might feel you have the right to sell meat from hormone-pumped animals even though those hormones can cause damage to the human biochemistry.  No 'violence' involved, you're not coercing them, though victims might feel they have no option but to seek medical treatment, and would probably be quite angry at you. See 'The Law' 4.0, 4.1, 4.4, and 7.2
  • You might feel you can drink your alchohol and then drive your old broken car at high speed, but pedestrians whose families are maimed or killed will certainly feel aggrieved. See 'The Law' 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 7.1
  • And many many more... See 'The Law' above: post #23

Even whole countries can have problems:
  • your country might think to take all the water from the river and use it for irrigation, or maybe pollute it with nuclear waste, while downstream countries might not be best pleased about that. See 'The Law' 4.1, 4.2, and 6.3

So, not only is it difficult to get everyone to agree on what constitutes "violence", "agression" or "coerce" (just like "good" and "bad", there are no absolutes), but there are also clearly non-coercive, non-agressive, non-violent acts which *nonetheless restrict the freedom of others*.  This can be the case *even when contracts are formulated and signed by all parties*: there can be unforeseen consequences which damage one party or another. 

Way to go, libertarianists! Ignore the problems, and hope that someone else will solve them!  Right now society already has a system for dealing with conflict, unforeseen or not.  I'll be the first to admit it's less than perfect, but the libertarianists wouldn't even suggest an alternative!

YES! YES YES YES! YESSSSSSSSS!  There IS a line drawn in the sand.  It's called "The Law" See 'The Law' post #23.  The line itself is more-or-less arbitrary, but it's the same line for everyone.  The world couldn't suddenly decide to "rob, assault, maim and kill" you, without also allowing *you* to arbitrarily "rob, assault, maim and kill" them at the same time.

You misunderstand me - if you want your libertarian utopia, you'll have to start somewhere.  Buy some land so, make a new private road and start making people pay to travel on it.  Buy more land, build a power plant and sell the electricity.  Staying paying for private health care.  Go, do it.  You'll fail. Not because the idea is fundamentally flawed, but because you need critical mass to make it work.  Only then will we find out if the idea is fundamentally flawed or not.  Libertarianism could well be great, so get started!  I'm definitely curious.

I wrote definitions of Law in this thread. It's post #23. Perhaps if you read it, you would know what we're trying to get at. In re, the bolded comment "its the same for everybody", that's what you call equity in law. Monopoly privilege destroys equity (equal treatment under the law).

I'd need to see an example of the above bolded comment how there is the possibility of restricting the freedom of others thru non-coercive, non-aggressive, or non-violent acts. I'm having a difficult time seeing how I could bring harm to somebody by doing virtually nothing.

Why do we need to "herd" people like sheep? If their are a sufficient number of people interested in a project requiring joint effort (i.e. power plant, health care, roads etc.) then you have the critical mass you need already. Go do. Join the rank and file. If the idea/project is so great, and many people think so, then start your solidarity society. Notice how I made that distinction? I don't like gangs and their affiliations, they tend to break basic human rights.

Remember gang society vs. solidarity society. Beautiful how that works out. Is that a sufficient starting point for you, or do we have to grind out more of the minutia to make it sink in?

Nonsense and you already know it.

A new drug costs several hundred million dollars to develop.  If you remove IP protections, that money will not be invested.  So society loses medical research and gains what?  Nothing.

Likewise, you insist that everyone has the right to use the Coca-Cola name for their fizzy soft drink and the Ford name for their auto products.  That means no-one will have the peace of mind buying a reliable brand and a lot of people who did trust the Ford brand will die due to cheap parts.  Thats a loss for all of us and what is the gain?  Nothing.

Your ideology simply means that society must be poorer.  Feel free to provide a benefit - so far all I see is that your principles are wrongly based (we are not autonomous - we are social beings) and as a result you have a poor result.

Come up with something positive please.  And telling us that volunteering to provide several hundred million dollars for drug research is an option is, well, not an option.

FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 04:46:45 PM
 #106

For medicine that means we have to employ large teams of people.  And if one person can simply take the result of that research, the investment in salaries will never be recovered.  If the investment can't be recovered, it will never happen and people will have to do without medical research.

Be honest - your idea means people will be materially worse off.  Its a bad one.  Why waste your time on something that is a step backwards?

I have this idea and it needs a really vast, smart and expensive research team to investigate it.

Here's my idea... I want to design a device using cats and mice for the mentally challenged human. I need the cats to chase the mice in alternating concentric circular motions (this is to mesmerize and soothe the human).

The mice cannot be consumed by the cats, and the cats and mice need to follow the obstacle course as prescribed. Some time and resources should be spent on drugs that convince the cats to not eat the mice, and drugs used on the mice, so they become stronger and faster than the cats. I'll also probably need to do some gene splicing so that the offspring of these cats and mice will only chase in circles. And last but not least, I'll need human subjects to determine the validity of my work (you know, for double blind testing).

This research will probably take years, and I consider it extremely valuable to cat and mouse trainers, and of course, for the improvement of the mentally insane the world over. It will cost billions (insert currency of choice here) and I will have to recoup my investment, or the world will never be the same...

I need a politician, a lobbyist and a few lawyers to help me out. Any takers?

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 31, 2011, 04:49:04 PM
 #107

I notice you haven't answered.  Stuck?

FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 05:02:45 PM
 #108

Nonsense and you already know it.

A new drug costs several hundred million dollars to develop <this is always true?> .  If you remove IP protections, that money will not be invested <non sequitur> .  So society loses medical research and gains what <you can't prove a negative> ?  Nothing.

Likewise, you insist that everyone has the right to use the Coca-Cola name for their fizzy soft drink and the Ford name for their auto products.  That means no-one will have the peace of mind buying a reliable brand and a lot of people who did trust the Ford brand will die due to cheap parts <non sequitur> .  Thats a loss for all of us and what is the gain?  Nothing.

Your ideology simply means that society must be poorer <non sequitur> .  Feel free to provide a benefit - so far all I see is that your principles are wrongly based (we are not autonomous <you couldn't have written that sentence without your autonomy> - we are social beings <so what?> ) and as a result you have a poor result <proving a negative> .

Come up with something positive please.  And telling us that volunteering to provide several hundred million dollars for drug research is an option is, well, not an option.

I inserted the bolds to respond to you in context.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 31, 2011, 05:05:55 PM
 #109

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

You don't know what that means.  OR else you are being obtuse.  Please answer instead of dodging.

Here is the question you are avoiding:
"For medicine that means we have to employ large teams of people.  And if one person can simply take the result of that research, the investment in salaries will never be recovered.  If the investment can't be recovered, it will never happen and people will have to do without medical research.

Be honest - your idea means people will be materially worse off.  Its a bad one.  Why waste your time on something that is a step backwards?"

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 05:11:27 PM
 #110

You might feel you have the right to set up a factory on your lakeside property, and dump chemicals in the lake while fishermen on the lake might feel this constitutes an act of violence against their livelihoods.

Who owns the lake? The guy dumping chemicals or the fishermen?


You might feel you have the right to sell meat from hormone-pumped animals even though those hormones can cause damage to the human biochemistry.  No 'violence' involved, you're not coercing them, though victims might feel they have no option but to seek medical treatment, and would probably be quite angry at you.

Are you telling people how the meat was produced when they ask or are you lying to them?

You might feel you can drink your alchohol and then drive your old broken car at high speed, but pedestrians whose families are maimed or killed will certainly feel aggrieved.

Who owns the road and what rules did they set?

There's nothing new you've presented here. These are all questions that have been asked and answered many times. I can point you to a few books if you like.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 05:15:03 PM
 #111

Who owns the lake? The guy dumping chemicals or the fishermen?

There's your fixation on property ownership again. The world is more complex than your simplistic paradigm allows for.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 05:41:00 PM
 #112

There's your fixation on property ownership again. The world is more complex than your simplistic paradigm allows for.

Your posts are becoming less about debate and more about abuse. If this is all you have to offer, you will be ignored.

Property ownership is the key to determining what is aggression. If you take the shirt I'm wearing, are you the aggressor? Well, it depends, if it's my shirt, yes. If I stole the shirt from you yesterday, you're just reclaiming your property. We can't even determine which acts are acts of aggression without a theory of property rights.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 05:47:15 PM
 #113

There's your fixation on property ownership again. The world is more complex than your simplistic paradigm allows for.

Your posts are becoming less about debate and more about abuse. If this is all you have to offer, you will be ignored.

Property ownership is the key to determining what is aggression. If you take the shirt I'm wearing, are you the aggressor? Well, it depends, if it's my shirt, yes. If I stole the shirt from you yesterday, you're just reclaiming your property. We can't even determine which acts are acts of aggression without a theory of property rights.

And your theory is overly simplistic. Study ecology.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 05:56:30 PM
 #114

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

You don't know what that means.  OR else you are being obtuse.  Please answer instead of dodging.

Here is the question you are avoiding:
"For medicine that means we have to employ large teams of people.  And if one person can simply take the result of that research, the investment in salaries will never be recovered.  If the investment can't be recovered, it will never happen and people will have to do without medical research.

Be honest - your idea means people will be materially worse off.  Its a bad one.  Why waste your time on something that is a step backwards?"

Thanks for the reference to the definition of non sequitur. I knew I was using it correctly. Thanks. It's always good to proof my work.

In answer to your question; Firstly, it may or may not require the employ of large teams of researchers to solve medical issues. That would be another logical fallacy.

However, on the average I suppose that's possible, just not always true. Assuming the average, it also does not follow that having IP will necessarily improve the chances those medicines derived from said research will make it to market, be profitable, or even further future research. That's a lot of assumptions and conditions to satisfy, all of which require imperfect humans to enact.

Why not just use the process of private contract (as if there were any other kind of contract anyway) to convince your employees to not blab their research (keep a secret), and then when you produce the drug; contract with the manufacturer to not disclose or divulge, and then after that, contract with the distributor who delivers to the retailer (pharmacist), to not disclose or divulge, and then last but not least, the consumer; contract with him not to disclose, divulge or reproduce?

There's your rebuttal to your IP laws question.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
hashman
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 915



View Profile
August 31, 2011, 06:11:10 PM
 #115


Nonsense and you already know it.

A new drug costs several hundred million dollars to develop.  If you remove IP protections, that money will not be invested.  So society loses medical research and gains what?  Nothing.


Right, we "lose medical research" completely as you say because everybody knows the only reason to ever do medical research or perform medicine is to collect money by monopolist market manipulation.  If we don't have the king pay us off in unearned dollars, why would I want to do medical research?       

Further, we all know that medicine in the sole pursuit of collecting money unfairly is extremely efficient and just suits all our needs perfectly, leading to valuable research, collaboration, and a truly healthy populace.   



Likewise, you insist that everyone has the right to use the Coca-Cola name for their fizzy soft drink and the Ford name for their auto products.  That means no-one will have the peace of mind buying a reliable brand and a lot of people who did trust the Ford brand will die due to cheap parts.  Thats a loss for all of us and what is the gain?  Nothing.

 

I am trembling in fear of the loss I will feel when beverage bottlers are forced to compete in a free market.  The horrors!
And the audacity to think that a car company would have to also make parts at competitive prices..   sacrilege!  The Ford family and shareholders should be able to profit from the work of 100 years ago and not have to compete with current markets.   



Your ideology simply means that society must be poorer.  Feel free to provide a benefit - so far all I see is that your principles are wrongly based (we are not autonomous - we are social beings) and as a result you have a poor result.

Come up with something positive please.  And telling us that volunteering to provide several hundred million dollars for drug research is an option is, well, not an option.


Hmm, well some people might argue that free markets do provide benefit to society, but I won't bore you with that tired old line. 

Sadly, as IP laws die their last gasps in the coming years, drug research will stop.  And by drug research, of course I mean research of new litigation to increase profits from drugs which cannot compete based on their effects, propping up of prices and strongarming competition, and pushing inappropriate medicines when well-tested "non patented" medicines are safer.   However don't worry, there will still be people selling snake even without the incentive of market protection by the king.

       

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 31, 2011, 06:27:37 PM
 #116

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

You don't know what that means.  OR else you are being obtuse.  Please answer instead of dodging.

Here is the question you are avoiding:
"For medicine that means we have to employ large teams of people.  And if one person can simply take the result of that research, the investment in salaries will never be recovered.  If the investment can't be recovered, it will never happen and people will have to do without medical research.

Be honest - your idea means people will be materially worse off.  Its a bad one.  Why waste your time on something that is a step backwards?"

Thanks for the reference to the definition of non sequitur. I knew I was using it correctly. Thanks. It's always good to proof my work.

In answer to your question; Firstly, it may or may not require the employ of large teams of researchers to solve medical issues. That would be another logical fallacy.

However, on the average I suppose that's possible, just not always true. Assuming the average, it also does not follow that having IP will necessarily improve the chances those medicines derived from said research will make it to market, be profitable, or even further future research. That's a lot of assumptions and conditions to satisfy, all of which require imperfect humans to enact.

Why not just use the process of private contract (as if there were any other kind of contract anyway) to convince your employees to not blab their research (keep a secret), and then when you produce the drug; contract with the manufacturer to not disclose or divulge, and then after that, contract with the distributor who delivers to the retailer (pharmacist), to not disclose or divulge, and then last but not least, the consumer; contract with him not to disclose, divulge or reproduce?

There's your rebuttal to your IP laws question.

Good effort.  Really - I admire your persistence Smiley But you need to try harder as life is hard and there is a small minority of people who are blatantly dishonest.

If one of these crooks gets the medicine into his hands and in flagrant breach of contract, publishes the formula, are you, as an innocent third party, then free to copy the formula and sell the new drug yourself?  Under the same brand name as the original investor? 

If yes, the original investor is ruined and the world being the cruel place it is, you know this will happen every time.  And thus, the research stops unless there is a patent system.

Unless you have some alternative mechanism ?  I await your reply with interest.

fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 07:45:03 PM
 #117

  • You might feel you have the right to set up a factory on your lakeside property, ...  See 'The Law' 4.1, 4.2, and 6.3
  • You might feel you have the right to sell meat from hormone-pumped animals .... See 'The Law' 4.0, 4.1, 4.4, and 7.2
  • You might feel you can drink your alchohol and then drive your old broken car at high speed... See 'The Law' 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 7.1
  • And many many more... See 'The Law' above: post #23

  • your country might think to take all the water from the river ... See 'The Law' 4.1, 4.2, and 6.3

[to much to quote all. please click above for the rest]
Section 4 of your law relates to "UPA", Unprovoked Physical Agressions of "BoCs", Breaches of Contract leading to a loss of rights.  Where is the agression or contract in any of these scenarios?  I presume the rights lost refer to section 2 - right to defend and control one's life and property.

So, you're saying, you can't pollute in your part of the lake because that would also pollute my part of the lake, even though there is no agression and no contract between us.  Fair enough.  But I'll be generous - suppose you own *all* the lake, and you even own *all the river* right down to the sea.  But your industry emits really nasty pollution and kills the fish in the sea.  Are you still prohibited from building?  Does someone have to own the sea as well?  And all the ocean?  Do you have to enter into a contract with people on the other side of the ocean in the event your pollution should cause damage there?  Suppose you want to build a nuclear power-plant.  First of all, you'll have to be sure not to impinge on others' property rights by emitting radioactive waste.  But then wait, what if there's a meltdown and you end up accidentally destroying the country for 100 miles around?

Section 7.1 says force can be resolved to resolve a rights violation.  I presume here you mean to say that a drunk driver can legitimately be beaten up, or have property confiscated, or maybe assassinated, if he kills someone.  An eye for an eye, eh?  We're really moving civilisation forward here, aren't we?   But suppose he doesn't have property?  Suppose the accident kills him as well?  Suppose I'm a very successful artist and I earn my living through painting things with my fingers; and the accident is slight, no damage apart from breaking all my fingers such that I can no longer work.  Am I entitled to confiscate the drunks arbitrarily valuable property to compensate my loss of earnings?   I freely admit that current legislation does not bring people back from the dead, but I can't see how libertarianism will improve road safety, or food safety, nuclear safety, etc.


Lastly, and here's a critical point.
Quote
4.   Rights Violations are unprovoked physical aggressions (UPAs) initiated by man against another, or Breaches of Contract (BOCs), resulting in an incontrovertible diminishment in one’s Rights.
What if it's a controvertible diminishment in one's Rights?  Suppose I feel that your action diminshes my rights, and yet you think otherwise?  Either in the absence of a contract, or where the perceived diminishment has not been foreseen by the contract and hence, the appropriate compensation has not been specified.  Resolve this conflict please.
fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 07:47:00 PM
 #118

You might feel you have the right to set up a factory on your lakeside property, and dump chemicals in the lake while fishermen on the lake might feel this constitutes an act of violence against their livelihoods.
Who owns the lake? The guy dumping chemicals or the fishermen?
Let's say it's communal property.  In modern parlance, we might say public property.  Suppose in the Great Transition from the current democracy to your libertarianism, the people can't agree as to who should own the lake.  Or suppose you own one little bit of the lake, and the fishermen each own a little piece.  Two possibilities for you to consider.

Quote
You might feel you have the right to sell meat from hormone-pumped animals even though those hormones can cause damage to the human biochemistry.  No 'violence' involved, you're not coercing them, though victims might feel they have no option but to seek medical treatment, and would probably be quite angry at you.
Are you telling people how the meat was produced when they ask or are you lying to them?
Let's say the seller is not aware of the danger presented by the chemicals I'm using.  But by the time people figure out the damage done (could be years, could be thousands of people affected), the seller has shut up shop, and moved to the next town/city/country.  Of course, the danger is unknown because there's no FDA (or equivalent) to carry out the *extremely expensive* research required, and there's no law saying you can't add arbitrary stuff to the food you sell.

Quote
You might feel you can drink your alchohol and then drive your old broken car at high speed, but pedestrians whose families are maimed or killed will certainly feel aggrieved.
Who owns the road and what rules did they set?
Suppose the pedestrians are walking through the town square.  Is that also private property in your world?  Do you have to read the Terms & Conditions of the town square, and sign your acceptance, before entering it?  What if you own a business on the town square, but reject the rules of whoever owns the road?  Do I have to get one drivers licence for when I drive on RoadCompanyA's roads, and another license for RoadCompanyB's roads?  Are there road-police checking if people are drunk-driving and checking people's cars when they drive on these private roads, one set of police for each road-owner?  I just can't see how road safety could possibly be improved in a libertarian world.

Why not just use the process of private contract (as if there were any other kind of contract anyway) to convince your employees to not blab their research (keep a secret), and then when you produce the drug; contract with the manufacturer to not disclose or divulge, and then after that, contract with the distributor who delivers to the retailer (pharmacist), to not disclose or divulge, and then last but not least, the consumer; contract with him not to disclose, divulge or reproduce?
That's the most absurd proposition I've ever seen from a libertarian.  It had to come to that, but I've never seen the absurdity made so explicit.  Right now, people leak *movies* even when there's no profit to be made.  Imagine the vast vast profits to be made from breaching the contract and handing the data over to a competing company - who could of course, not having signed any contract, reproduce without any repercussions.  Or, the hell with that, find a hit-man who wastes a researcher and steals his notes for you.

It would be great if people all over could be trusted to behave responsibly and take responsibility for their 'wrong' actions (caveat: define 'wrong'); but that's a pipe-dream and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.  People *are* irresponsible and they *hate* taking responsibility, and the more serious the consequences, the more they shirk responsibility and run from it.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 08:03:42 PM
 #119

Suppose the pedestrians are walking through the town square.  Is that also private property in your world?  Do you have to read the Terms & Conditions of the town square, and sign your acceptance, before entering it?  What if you own a business on the town square, but reject the rules of whoever owns the road?  Do I have to get one drivers licence for when I drive on RoadCompanyA's roads, and another license for RoadCompanyB's roads?  Are there road-police checking if people are drunk-driving and checking people's cars when they drive on these private roads, one set of police for each road-owner?  I just can't see how road safety could possibly be improved in a libertarian world.

It's expected and encouraged that you will spend all of your time investigating and evaluating the contracts and regulations of countless participants in this 'free society', remaining ever vigilant and aware of the differences and changes to the policies enforced, and be hopeful that as ownership of one domain transfers to another, that the policies won't change. But if they do, you will need to keep abreast of those changes, their new subscription fees, tolls, regulations, and so on.

You will relish the prospects of engaging in all these evaluations and research, being free to make your own decisions at all times, because you will be living the dream of the libertarian society.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 08:27:01 PM
 #120

Let's say it's communal property.  In modern parlance, we might say public property.  Suppose in the Great Transition from the current democracy to your libertarianism, the people can't agree as to who should own the lake.  Or suppose you own one little bit of the lake, and the fishermen each own a little piece.  Two possibilities for you to consider.

All property will be either owned or unowned. If it's owned then it's owned by one or more people. If it's owned by more than one person it is settled by vote.


Let's say the seller is not aware of the danger presented by the chemicals I'm using.  But by the time people figure out the damage done (could be years, could be thousands of people affected), the seller has shut up shop, and moved to the next town/city/country.  Of course, the danger is unknown because there's no FDA (or equivalent) to carry out the *extremely expensive* research required, and there's no law saying you can't add arbitrary stuff to the food you sell.

There could be several competing versions of the FDA. Each one with different costs and different standards. There could be super-expensive and super-safe food for paranoid people. There could be average-cost food with safety comparable to current standards. There could be low-safety standards for people that don't care or don't value safety that highly. It would ultimately be up to market forces and each person to decide what's right for them rather than "one size fits all".

Suppose the pedestrians are walking through the town square.  Is that also private property in your world?  Do you have to read the Terms & Conditions of the town square, and sign your acceptance, before entering it?

Yes, you would have to agree to the terms and conditions and buy a ticket signifying your acceptance much like any other private park, Disney World, etc. By the way, where would you rather meet me after dark openly holding a hundred dollar bill, in Disney World or Times Square?

What if you own a business on the town square, but reject the rules of whoever owns the road?

I would hope business owners would consider that when locating their business in the first place. Also, since road owners are trying to attract customers and having business adjacent to their roads will do that, they are going to be very reasonable if they want to make money.

Do I have to get one drivers licence for when I drive on RoadCompanyA's roads, and another license for RoadCompanyB's roads?  Are there road-police checking if people are drunk-driving and checking people's cars when they drive on these private roads, one set of police for each road-owner?

That's up to each road owner to decide. Maybe you have to pay a monthly fee. Maybe you have to have an RFID chip on your bumper. Maybe you have to blow into a breathalizer before getting on the road. Maybe you have to agree to be publicly executed if you are caught driving drunk. It will be up to the road owners but since they are trying to attract customers, you can bet it won't be too restrictive or too relaxed. Whoever can provide the safest, cheapest and overall best roads will attract more customers and drive the others out of business.


I just can't see how road safety could possibly be improved in a libertarian world.

You just need to understand market forces. Currently, about 40,000 Americans die on the road each year. Does the road owner go lose money or go out of business because of that? No. So what's the incentive to improve that? Very little. However, if it were privately run, losing money would surely provoke a response.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 ... 116 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!