Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[phelix]

@ OP Karmicads: could you please put a one short paragraph summary on the top of the first post?

this whole thread is a horrible wall of text. I have looked at it a couple of times and still have no clue what it is about at all.

[1714294825]

1714294825

[1714294825]

1714294825

[fergalish]

@ OP Karmicads: could you please put a one short paragraph summary on the top of the first post?

this whole thread is a horrible wall of text. I have looked at it a couple of times and still have no clue what it is about at all.

To put it briefly, the thread started out as a discussion of IP law.  It degenerated into a discussion regarding the very validity of Law itself, and some very absurd examples have come up.

The pro-libertarians argue that, irrespective of how absurd a situation might be (e.g. IP rights -> property rights -> personal rights -> weapons -> nuclear weapons), "Law" can never be justified, and market forces will ensure that anti-social and tyrannical behaviour will be eliminated; furthermore that the NonAgressionPact (NAP) will ensure a smooth peaceful society.

The anti-libertarians argue that 1) this is no good if the anti-social behaviour has already wrought its damage and 2) market forces would be insufficient anyway, and the free market would eventually lead to tyranny and 3) that in a society with differing values, libertarianism inherently cannot guarantee peace for its citizens.

@all: I'm trying to give an objective summary of the arguments presented.  Don't flame, just correct me.

[AyeYo]

I think we all agree not to murder, rape and rob each other. At some point, we don't need to agree on everything. There can exist competing jurisdictions. If you own property, you set the rules on that property. If you go on someone else's property, you follow their rules. If you don't like it, leave their property. However, don't be confused like AyeYo and think that you can set whatever rules you want for other people and force them to leave their own property if they don't like it.

+1!

AyeYo knows this, he's just trying to goad you. His last 100 rants have demonstrated that enough. They're trollish and nonsensical. I can explain it to my 16 year old, and he can get to the answer faster than AyeYo can, and I don't even have to finish my sentences. Common sense isn't so common after all.

I tried to warn you all, and yet I can see that many of you still got sucked in.

Here are the problems:

1. NONE of you (pro-libertarianists) have yet explained how to resolve a conflict which is not somehow addressed by a contract, and therefore for which no court of arbitration is specified.
2. NONE of you seem to see that, under the same circumstances of (1), it is contradictory to allow arbitrary behaviour, NAP notwithstanding.  One person's right will infringe another's.
3. Libertarianism has failed in the past and will fail again because other nations will exploit its vulnerabilities.  Now this has no bearing on whether lib. is admirable or not, just whether it's practical or not.
4. Libertarianism enshrines money and wealth as the ultimate source of power.  Power begets wealth, weath begets power.  All the things you don't like about government will be the same, if not worse, in libertyland; and there would be no public accountability.
5. Libertarianism requires cooperation from everyone everywhere and, by definition, cannot demand that cooperation without hypocrisy.  Again, no bearing on whether it's admirable or not, just its practicality.

Once again ferg comes through with a solid summary of all the points that the libertards have let fall by the wayside throughout the last 10+ pages.  Maybe they'll get addressed now?  hahahah yea right

[Hawker]

Its getting depressing.  All the arguments are the same.

Argument 1: You have no right to stop me having nukes.
Response 1:  We don't want terrorists or lunatics to have nukes.
Argument 2: The free market would stop terrorists and lunatics having nukes.  No regulation needed.
Response 2: If the free market doesn't stop terrorists and lunatics having nukes, do we have the right to regulate?
Argument 3: No.  Go to Argument 1.

Its like trying to reason with a truther or birther.  No matter what logic or experience says, they always come back to the same old articles of faith.

Back on topic, intellectual property is created by society because it makes life better.  Anyone who tries to deny our right to make life better is an authoritarian so unless they can get the votes for their notion, can be safely ignored.  Anyone who says things like movies and branded goods doesn't make life better is on some kind of ascetic trip and unless they can get the votes for their austere version of paradise, are best ignored.  There doesn't seem to be any reasoning with them.

[NghtRppr]

He is perhaps a more elegant summary:

Libertarians: You can only use violence to defend yourself or your property from physical aggression or the threat thereof. If you don't follow that maxim, you run the risk of using aggression on people that were never going to threaten you. It's better to let a few criminals go free and never imprison an innocent person.

Statists: You can use violence to defend yourself of your property from the mere likelihood that physical aggression or the threat thereof will exist eventually. If you don't follow that maxim, you run the risk of allowing people to commit aggression before they can be stopped. It's better to imprison a few innocent people and never let a criminal go free.

I can appreciate the statists view. It's rational if you accept that justice is of secondary importance. I don't. I would rather risk my life with freedom. We're all going to die anyways. We could at least do so with honor knowing we did the right thing during our brief time alive.

[Rassah]

Argument 1: You have no right to stop me having nukes.

I was pretty sure that the argument was that you have the right to do whatever you want, including the right to stop me from having nukes. It's just that I also have the right to stop you from trying to stop me, either by volunteering to give up some privacy and information (voluntary self-regulation) or by protecting myself with force. Am I right in understanding that?

I think that reveals we all do share at least basic agreement.  It would be a very bad thing if people like Osama bin Ladin or Jared Laughner had access to nukes.
Is there anyone on this forum that disagrees with that?

So far the only people who disagreed with that have been the imaginary citizens of strawmanville created by the anti-libertarian side, who don't actually live in libertardville, and aren't supported by libertarians.


Let me see if i can make up some answers for these...

1. NONE of you (pro-libertarianists) have yet explained how to resolve a conflict which is not somehow addressed by a contract, and therefore for which no court of arbitration is specified.

Same way these situations are handled now: by mutual agreement of both parties, even if that involves going to arbitration and having the case decided without prior precedent. Hopefully the final resolution will have both parties in agreement, and will be mutually beneficial. The costs of conflict resolution (court fees, lost productivity, personal annoyance) will hopefully make both parties want to settle the dispute as soon as possible. If no resolution is found, let the two parties duke it out some other way, either by competing in the market or with a duel. As long as they are not forcing harm on other bystanders, who cares. You guys are confusing criminal law with civil law. Criminal law has actual laws on the books, passed by government. Personal conflicts between two parties or businesses go through civil law. There, the laws are not determined by government but by a judge or jurry that both parties have previously agreed on. The actual decisions come from either prior cases, or whatever the judge decides is just. These "laws" or prior rulings can also transcend national borders, and don't need to rely ob government enforcement.
Let me know if this answer is insufficient.

2. NONE of you seem to see that, under the same circumstances of (1), it is contradictory to allow arbitrary behaviour, NAP notwithstanding.  One person's right will infringe another's.

Isn't infringing on another's rights an act in violation of NAP? Thus, wouldn't the person who is following NAP have the right to be agressive against the in ringer until they stop infringing and follow NAP themselves? I'm confused. It sounds as if you think following NAP means everyone will be like Ghandi. Or do you mean the person infringing will just do stuff you don't want them to, but which isn't technically illegal? In that case the person is just allienating themselves.

3. Libertarianism has failed in the past and will fail again because other nations will exploit its vulnerabilities.  Now this has no bearing on whether lib. is admirable or not, just whether it's practical or not.

In that case, I would ask what were some of the examples of those historical exploitaitions, and what could be some ways of fixing those problems? I can't really think of any historical examples of libertarianism.

4. Libertarianism enshrines money and wealth as the ultimate source of power.  Power begets wealth, weath begets power.  All the things you don't like about government will be the same, if not worse, in libertyland; and there would be no  public accountability.

I think humanity enshrines wealth and power. Everyone is "keeping up with the Joneses," buying expensive cars, TVs, and other crap. In democratic governments everyone still tries to be rich and powerful. Even communist governments have people trying to attain money and power, though that is brutaly restricted to upper members of the government. So, I don't think libertarianism does anything different from a democratic government in that regard. The only major difference is that in a government democracy, the wealthy and powerful can pay the government to pass the laws they want, and then I have to pay the government to enforce those laws against me, while in a libertarian government the powerfully wealthy will have to pay to enforce those laws out of their own pockets.

5. Libertarianism requires cooperation from everyone everywhere and, by definition, cannot demand that cooperation without hypocrisy.  Again, no bearing on whether it's admirable or not, just its practicality.

What about mutual benefit? The most basic tennant is I make something you want, you give me something I want (like money), and we're both better off than before. Is everyone working for their own benefit by making sure their own desires are mutually beneficial to everyone else (thus everyone else will continue to give them money) not sufficient? Why not? And how is choosing to refuse to cooperate at the risk of not having others cooperate with you hypocritical? You still have a choice, and if you can survive by living in your own house and growing your own food, you'll still be OK. I don't see the choice as a hypocricy.

[Rassah]

He is perhaps a more elegant summary:

Libertarians: You can only use violence to defend yourself or your property from physical aggression or the threat thereof. If you don't follow that maxim, you run the risk of using aggression on people that were never going to threaten you. It's better to let a few criminals go free and never imprison an innocent person.

Statists: You can use violence to defend yourself of your property from the mere likelihood that physical aggression or the threat thereof will exist eventually. If you don't follow that maxim, you run the risk of allowing people to commit aggression before they can be stopped. It's better to imprison a few innocent people and never let a criminal go free.

Sounds iffy, especially in light of the Tea Party cheering about 234 inmates put to death recently. I know the details and facts don't stack up, but that's the mental connections others will have.

[Hawker]

...snip...

I think that reveals we all do share at least basic agreement.  It would be a very bad thing if people like Osama bin Ladin or Jared Laughner had access to nukes.
Is there anyone on this forum that disagrees with that?

So far the only people who disagreed with that have been the imaginary citizens of strawmanville created by the anti-libertarian side, who don't actually live in libertardville, and aren't supported by libertarians.

...snip...

OK lets test you. 

If the free market doesn't stop terrorists and lunatics having nukes, do we have the right to regulate?

[Rassah]

...snip...

I think that reveals we all do share at least basic agreement.  It would be a very bad thing if people like Osama bin Ladin or Jared Laughner had access to nukes.
Is there anyone on this forum that disagrees with that?

So far the only people who disagreed with that have been the imaginary citizens of strawmanville created by the anti-libertarian side, who don't actually live in libertardville, and aren't supported by libertarians.

...snip...

OK lets test you.  

If the free market doesn't stop terrorists and lunatics having nukes, do we have the right to regulate?

Yes?

If the free market doesn't stop terrorists and lunatics having nukes, do we have the right to try to come up with ideas of how to set up some mutually agreed on rules within the free market system that will stop those nukes?

[FredericBastiat]

He is perhaps a more elegant summary:

Libertarians: You can only use violence to defend yourself or your property from physical aggression or the threat thereof. If you don't follow that maxim, you run the risk of using aggression on people that were never going to threaten you. It's better to let a few criminals go free and never imprison an innocent person.

Statists: You can use violence to defend yourself of your property from the mere likelihood that physical aggression or the threat thereof will exist eventually. If you don't follow that maxim, you run the risk of allowing people to commit aggression before they can be stopped. It's better to imprison a few innocent people and never let a criminal go free.

Actually, I think your version of Statism is a little to kind. It's more like the following,

Statists: You can use violence to defend yourself and your property under the abstract pretext of physical aggression or the potential threat thereof. You construct law, which discriminates against individual rights, by making illicit certain characteristics and compositions of property. All property of this "illicit" type falls under the purview of the State. Property and control then accrues to the State in this fashion. More innocent people fall under this "criminal umbrella" definition. In the end, it's better to imprison many more innocent people and a few more criminals.

[AyeYo]

...snip...

I think that reveals we all do share at least basic agreement.  It would be a very bad thing if people like Osama bin Ladin or Jared Laughner had access to nukes.
Is there anyone on this forum that disagrees with that?

So far the only people who disagreed with that have been the imaginary citizens of strawmanville created by the anti-libertarian side, who don't actually live in libertardville, and aren't supported by libertarians.

...snip...

OK lets test you.  

If the free market doesn't stop terrorists and lunatics having nukes, do we have the right to regulate?

Yes?

If the free market doesn't stop terrorists and lunatics having nukes, do we have the right to try to come up with ideas of how to set up some mutually agreed on rules within the free market system that will stop those nukes?

Like what?

[Hawker]

...snip...

I think that reveals we all do share at least basic agreement.  It would be a very bad thing if people like Osama bin Ladin or Jared Laughner had access to nukes.
Is there anyone on this forum that disagrees with that?

So far the only people who disagreed with that have been the imaginary citizens of strawmanville created by the anti-libertarian side, who don't actually live in libertardville, and aren't supported by libertarians.

...snip...

OK lets test you.  

If the free market doesn't stop terrorists and lunatics having nukes, do we have the right to regulate?

Yes?

If the free market doesn't stop terrorists and lunatics having nukes, do we have the right to try to come up with ideas of how to set up some mutually agreed on rules within the free market system that will stop those nukes?

Then you and I are in agreement as is AyeYo, Fergalish and the other "progressives" here.  We all agree the state should do as little as possible so if there is a free market way to guarantee nukes not being available to the likes of Jared Laughner (mad guys) and Osama bin Ladin (bad guys) then of course we are all for it.  If not, then we regulate.

[NghtRppr]

...if there is a free market way to guarantee...

There are little to no guarantees in life, regardless of what ideology you follow.

[Rassah]

Then you and I are in agreement as is AyeYo, Fergalish and the other "progressives" here.  We all agree the state should do as little as possible so if there is a free market way to guarantee nukes not being available to the likes of Jared Laughner (mad guys) and Osama bin Ladin (bad guys) then of course we are all for it.  If not, then we regulate.

No guarantee of regulation working, either (e.g. drugs are regulated as well).
Why do you believe that nuclear materials and weapons producers would not self-regulate out of their own interest?

[Hawker]

Then you and I are in agreement as is AyeYo, Fergalish and the other "progressives" here.  We all agree the state should do as little as possible so if there is a free market way to guarantee nukes not being available to the likes of Jared Laughner (mad guys) and Osama bin Ladin (bad guys) then of course we are all for it.  If not, then we regulate.

No guarantee of regulation working, either (e.g. drugs are regulated as well).
Why do you believe that nuclear materials and weapons producers would not self-regulate out of their own interest?

I don't feel qualified to decide and I am certainly not going to study nuclear physics to educate myself.  It's precisely the type of issue where I will listen to educated experts.

[MoonShadow]

Hey Moonshadow, I'm glad you're back.  I wonder do you have the time to answer this question?

@Moonshadow: I'm still waiting for your non-arbitrary definition of "acceptable weaponry", and if it's not a simple static list then please outline the valid circumstances for a few representative weapons.  If it's truly non-arbitrary, then I'm sure myself, FirstAscent, Ayeyo, Hawker *and* bitcoin2cash, Rassah, FredericBastiat will all instantly realise that the definition cannot logically be otherwise - or at least, we will after some (finite) debate.

Okay, I'll try to define it, as I see it.  Basicly, a device that has no other legitimate use beyond mass destruction is verboten.  This is because, if it has a legitimate use, then we have no right to prohibit or even substantially burden that legitimate use.  This, of course, means that WMD of any form are out.  Nuclear weapons fall into this catagory, but nuclear fuels do not.  Yet, this applies to governments as well as citizens; for it is citizens that actually run governments.  People are fallible, and if a citizen cannot be trusted to own such a weapon (due to it's enourmous threat potential) then no one can be rationally trusted to have command control over a government's arsenal either. 

Back on topic, if your neighbor has a history of mental illness or a strong propensity towards violence; it is within the right of the community to collectively choose to restrict that neighbor's property rights so long as he continues to choose to live within the community.  This is why one would have to go to a court.  This is a form of government, but it's community specific.  If you don't like the community's restrictions, move.  As I see it, the individial should have the right to own a certain class of weapons without asking for permission from either the government or the community (so long as he has no history of misbehavior).  This class of weapons, in my view, can reasonablely be limited to weapons that can be borne (held and operated) by a single person, are sufficiently accurate (in practiced hands) as to no be a realistic threat to bystanders simply by reason of their presence.  I.E. an "assault" rifle; be it semi-auto, burstable or automatic, should qualify because in the right hands it is a very precise weapon.  However, a grenade launcher would justify a review by the community (or government, if you prefer) because, even though it can be borne by a single person, it is not possible to be a precise weapon when in use.  It is quite plausible to hit one's target (or attacker) in as precise a manner as the weapon allows and still cause great harm or death to bystanders.  Likewise, although a machine gun designed to be "crew served" and thus it is not reasonablely possible to be born by a singe individual, can be very accurate; it still might justify review because it's not possible for a single person to be responsible for the results of the weapon being utilized.  A fictional description would be the 'sentry gun' in TF2.

There is a bit of a disconnect here that has not been well addressed.  I'm a true libertarian, and hit the max position on every one of those 2D political quizes, but the question that is never asked is "should government exist?".  I am not a anarchist, although I can agree that from a philisophical perspective that anarchy is the logical end conclusion, taken to it's extreme.  But most libertarians are not anarchists, even though many here seem to be.

[Rassah]

Then you and I are in agreement as is AyeYo, Fergalish and the other "progressives" here.  We all agree the state should do as little as possible so if there is a free market way to guarantee nukes not being available to the likes of Jared Laughner (mad guys) and Osama bin Ladin (bad guys) then of course we are all for it.  If not, then we regulate.

No guarantee of regulation working, either (e.g. drugs are regulated as well).
Why do you believe that nuclear materials and weapons producers would not self-regulate out of their own interest?

I don't feel qualified to decide and I am certainly not going to study nuclear physics to educate myself.  It's precisely the type of issue where I will listen to educated experts.

I guess that's the other major difference. In democratic governments, if there's a problem, we almost automatically say that we'll let the government fix it or figure out how to regular it. In a libertarian one, you'd have to figure out how to work out the problem yourself (even if it includes hiring professionals or experts).

OK Mr. Shits&giggles (AyeYo), what's your answer to:
Why do you believe that nuclear materials and weapons producers would not self-regulate out of their own self-interest?

[Hawker]

Then you and I are in agreement as is AyeYo, Fergalish and the other "progressives" here.  We all agree the state should do as little as possible so if there is a free market way to guarantee nukes not being available to the likes of Jared Laughner (mad guys) and Osama bin Ladin (bad guys) then of course we are all for it.  If not, then we regulate.

No guarantee of regulation working, either (e.g. drugs are regulated as well).
Why do you believe that nuclear materials and weapons producers would not self-regulate out of their own interest?

I don't feel qualified to decide and I am certainly not going to study nuclear physics to educate myself.  It's precisely the type of issue where I will listen to educated experts.

I guess that's the other major difference. In democratic governments, if there's a problem, we almost automatically say that we'll let the government fix it or figure out how to regular it. In a libertarian one, you'd have to figure out how to work out the problem yourself (even if it includes hiring professionals or experts).

Provided nukes are kept out of the hands of the mad and the bad, I don't really care about implementation details.  I'm sure in a libertarian society, you'd have some way to collectively handle that kind of thing or else you'd spend all your time hiring experts for food additives, drugs, nuclear safety, explosives and a million other things that are important but very boring.

[FirstAscent]

Okay, I'll try to define it, as I see it.  Basicly, a device that has no other legitimate use beyond mass destruction is verboten.  This is because, if it has a legitimate use, then we have no right to prohibit or even substantially burden that legitimate use.  This, of course, means that WMD of any form are out.  Nuclear weapons fall into this catagory, but nuclear fuels do not.  Yet, this applies to governments as well as citizens; for it is citizens that actually run governments.  People are fallible, and if a citizen cannot be trusted to own such a weapon (due to it's enourmous threat potential) then no one can be rationally trusted to have command control over a government's arsenal either. 

Sorry, but no. We do distinguish between any random citizen who uses any random procedure, and a precise set of protocols followed by certain people who have been trained in participating in precisely defined and constructed infrastructure. Your philosophy is inadequate to discussing this topic and will not be taken seriously.

Back on topic, if your neighbor has a history of mental illness or a strong propensity towards violence; it is within the right of the community to collectively choose to restrict that neighbor's property rights so long as he continues to choose to live within the community.  This is why one would have to go to a court.  This is a form of government, but it's community specific. 

I would move. I'd rather pay taxes than constantly involve myself in the governance and management of every damn thing that needs to be governed. Let me say it again: Your philosophy is inadequate to discussing this topic and will not be taken seriously.

[AyeYo]

=This post has been redacted due to violations of civil discourse.  You will not be warned again.