Frederic, your posts seem, to me, so full of errors, contradictions and oversights that it's hard to know where to begin.
I know nothing of Libya. I didn't know I was asked any questions in that regard; at least I didn't know they were directed at me, but whatever it is, they can keep doing what their doing, independent of me. I have no skin in their game whatever it may be.
Please answer the questions on Libya, it's very relevant to this debate as it provides an ab initio
justification for law. It's quite incredible that you discourse on politics and yet you know nothing of what's happening in Libya and the rest of the middle east. If the popular uprising there spreads to more of the Arab world, including Saudi Arabia, it could come to be the world's biggest geopolitical event since the '70s oil crisis. In short, there has been an uprising in Libya, a north African country with a population of a few million; the dictator Gaddafi has been [almost completely] overthrown and now a rebel government has to establish law and order. Here are the question: Do you think Libyans supporting the rebels are bound by the rebels' new constitution & law? Should their children & grandchildren also be bound? Are those who oppose the rebels also bound? Please answer.
All humans have different DNA. Should we enslave them because they're are different from us. In fact, no two persons are the same. Could I justly enforce a law that allows everybody who has different genes from me, to become slaves of mine? No. I'm not sure where we're going here as this diverges significantly from IP law subject matter.
Humans do not have different DNA (minor mutations aside). We all member of a single species and all have the same genetic structure. We all have the genes for eye colour that, in some people expresses blue, in others brown and in rare cases, green. Different genes are, as it were, switched "on" or "off" in different people. If we didn't have the same genetic structure, then an African-Oriental couple couldn't have children, for example. Don't ask me where were going with slavery, you
brought up that subject. The point I was making is that, once upon a time society thought some races were not "people", and hence could be enslaved like animals. Fortunately, we know better now, so no, you couldn't justify a law enslaving people
We should have very concrete laws. Laws that don't change with the prevailing winds. Is it not the mission of the law to prevent murder/injury, enslavement and plunder? Start there and try to justify half the laws we have on the books.
Libertarianism has been around for a while, but in terms of political importance, right now it's just a popular fad among neo-intelligentia feeling empowered by wikipedia and the internet. If you think that laws shouldn't change with the prevailing winds, then I can't see why you think IP, copyright or patent law should be altered one whit. They've been around for hundreds of years.
Doesn't aggression imply some sort of force, and isn't force measured in Newtons, or more specifically kg*m/s^2.
If the aggression isn't measured in those units, what units of force are we going to use?
You're confusing the common understanding of the word "force" with the scientific one. The scientific one is a precise mathematical statement relating the conditions of an object to its dynamic evolution - a mass of 1kg subject to a force of 1N will accelerate at 1m/s^2. Such misunderstandings are common in the public. e.g. people confuse "weight" with "mass", "accuracy" with "precision" and many more. If I go to your house with a gun, I can "force" you to give me your money without actually exerting any "force" on you. Even better, I just need to convince you over the telephone that I am holding your family hostage and I don't even need to be near you. "Force" without physical "force". You spout "physics" but I think you are not (yet) a scientist.
The fact you can profit off of something is a function of everyone else valuing what you have to offer. You aren't owed a profit just because you feel that way.
Absolutely right. And the laws of almost all countries, originally proposed by, and approved by, the people, have enshrined creative works as valuable, and have likewise enshrined the right of the author to be remunerated. If you copy a protected work, then you are effectively eroding the rights of the author.
If IBM had not the exclusive right to resell that technology since the 1960s, there never would have been a computer revolution.
Can you prove that computers wouldn't have existed anyways or in even a better form than they currently do? I don't see how you can. I think your statement is without merit.
Both sides are making assumptions about "what might have been" and such arguments are as verifiable as asking whether human life might have come about if the Electronic Charge (e=1.6x10^-19 C) had been different by just 1%. All we know is that, under the conditions of IP etc laws, the computer revolution DID come about. I find it hard to believe that, if it hadn't, there would have been a massive open-source movement such as we have now though, and it seems to me that Frederic is arguing that all R&D should be open-source. Open-source is constantly seeking to emulate Closed-source, though, maybe now or soon, that trend will reverse itself. In any case, IP etc law allows for closed-source AND open-source. According to the principles of Libertarianism, people, and hence institutions, are free to choose whichever they prefer, right? If open source is "better", then it will suffocate closed source and Frederic will win. We just have to be patient.
All things are made of PMM or they are nothing. Medicine cannot help you with your ailment if the cure wasn't comprised of PMM. A television show (its content) isn't very useful without the television set. Software without some computing platform has little utility to the user. It is only as these "abstractions" are attached to the real world in some way that they have value.
Computer software without a computer is as useless as a computer without computer software. By this (your) argument, computer software is as important as the computer itself and is therefore just as deserving of remuneration. It's hard to believe that you have seriously considered the implications of what you're writing and yet fail to see this obvious contradiction.
I never said anything was of equal importance, only that software which is removed from the computing environment in which it is used, typically has less value (in my mind). I can have a pile of software CD's and no computer and not get much personal utility out of it. I never said the software itself was worthless.
You say that software without a computer is of "little utility" to the user. Does that not also imply "of little value", or can objects of "little utility" be valuable? Your argument that computer software without a computer is useless, implies
that a computer without software is useless. True, you didn't say
it, but you implied
it. My opinion is, they complement each other. Each brings value to the other in a kind of digital symbiotic embrace. Except not symbiosis... symdigitosys, maybe or symelectrosys :-)
It's for the most part, about the contract. Contracts are about mutual consent betwixt persons of interest. Contracts are not between me and someone not privy to the terms. That's all I was trying to convey.
Now we're getting to the nut of the problem. Ever head of the "social contract"? Answer the questions on Libya first please, then we'll talk about that.