Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[NghtRppr]

When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.

You don't get extra rights just because you bring some friends to the party.

[1713960080]

1713960080

[1713960080]

1713960080

[1713960080]

1713960080

[Hawker]

I say we look at the basics again. Should mere possession of anything, regardless of its composition (patterns, etc.), constitute a crime? Let's assume no crimes have been committed, or are about to be committed by the present owner.

I know.  That's your position.  And you accept that it means terrorists can make nukes, biological and fertiliser based bombs and until they use them, you will take no action at all.  

Your vision of an ideal society is clear.  All I am saying is that its not that attractive.  Lots of explosions and unpleasantly early deaths.  And no movies as we discussed earlier.  Our present system with less explosions and more movies is nicer.

[Hawker]

When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.

You don't get extra rights just because you bring some friends to the party.

Life is not a party.  If people band together for their own protection, you need more than talk about rights to remove the protections they have created.

[NghtRppr]

When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.

You don't get extra rights just because you bring some friends to the party.

Life is not a party.  If people band together for their own protection, you need more than talk about rights to remove the protections they have created.

Why?

[AyeYo]

When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.

You don't get extra rights just because you bring some friends to the party.

No, what I get is social contract and backing by society.

He intentionally said YOU and not SOCIETY, because if it's ME setting the standards, that's easy to argue against.  If it's SOCIETY setting the standards, that's much more difficult to argue against.

[AyeYo]

When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.

You don't get extra rights just because you bring some friends to the party.

Life is not a party.  If people band together for their own protection, you need more than talk about rights to remove the protections they have created.

Why?

Something about voluntary contracts and no coercion or force.

[FredericBastiat]

All very imaginative but you are still left with terrorists owning nukes.  No-one has the right to enter their land once they have bought it.  They won't tell you in advance they are making a nuke or that they intend to use it.

This is true of any society, anywhere.

It all ends in a lot of mushroom clouds in your utopia.  

A big fat assumption with little proof. Impossible to draw that conclusion. I however can conclude that governments of your type have done such things. Say it ain't so. Maybe it's your ideology that's to blame.

Its not just nukes.  You have the same view on smallpox and on fertiliser based bombs.  Yours is a very grim vision of society.  Its your utopia and you are entitled to it but please don't try to pretend that it will be anything other than a return to life being "nasty, brutish and short."

I speak of liberty and NAP. I'd say that nowhere in those definitions, grim is ever used. You love to blow things way out of proportion, create apocalyptic "mushroom cloud" scenarios, use twisted logic, blame an ideology for the future dissolution of society, and label most humans as irrationally inane, whilst simultaneously claiming that your government and society has none of that. UP is DOWN is LEFT is RIGHT is WRONG is BLACK is WHITE = LAW = TROLL.

[FredericBastiat]

I'll give you a tip here... you need to stop saying "you" and start saying "society".  Because it's not about ME and YOU, it's about US ALL.  It's not whether I alone believe you to be a threat, it's whether society as a whole believes you to be a threat.

When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.

Gotta give you an A for subtle, manipulative effort though!

I'll give you an F for the subtle, manipulative, and coercive way you use ignorant voters, law enforcement, legislators and regulators for creating laws that control your neighbors indirectly.

[NghtRppr]

When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.

You don't get extra rights just because you bring some friends to the party.

Life is not a party.  If people band together for their own protection, you need more than talk about rights to remove the protections they have created.

Why?

Something about voluntary contracts and no coercion or force.

What about it?

[FredericBastiat]

No, what I get is social contract and backing by society.

He intentionally said YOU and not SOCIETY, because if it's ME setting the standards, that's easy to argue against.  If it's SOCIETY setting the standards, that's much more difficult to argue against.

If I hire hitmen to do my dirty work, am I not responsible for the death of my neighbor? I suppose technically speaking that'd be false, but still ugly (I didn't "pull the trigger" personally). If you use the voting mechanism to achieve legislation, you have a difficult time determining who the "hitmen" were. It's all well hidden and abstracted within the mechanism of statism.

[NghtRppr]

No, what I get is social contract and backing by society.

He intentionally said YOU and not SOCIETY, because if it's ME setting the standards, that's easy to argue against.  If it's SOCIETY setting the standards, that's much more difficult to argue against.

If I hire hitmen to do my dirty work, am I not responsible for the death of my neighbor? I suppose technically speaking, that'd be false, but still ugly (I didn't "pull the trigger" personally). If you use the voting mechanism to achieve legislation, you have a difficult time determining who the "hitmen" were. It's all well hidden and abstracted within the mechanism of statism.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just adding. If you want to get that technical, even if you pull the trigger, it's the bullet that killed him. That's why we talk about proximate causes vs. ultimate causes. The proximate cause was the bullet or the hitman, the ultimate cause would still be you in either case.

[MoonShadow]

...snip...

In the UK, there are indeterminate sentences.  In the US, there is "3 strikes and you are out."  Both address the issue of people who are never going to stop harming others.  I am not comfortable with either idea but I have met someone who does spent his life either in jail or terrorising people and I accept that society needs protection.

You think that I need protection, or do you think that you need protection?

There are specific cases where you do need protection.  Same for me.  There are mad and bad guys who do work as groups and they need to be stopped.

But that statement doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  There might very well be mad and bad guys who work as groups who hold ill will towards myself, but how is that your responsibility?  And if you are responsible for my protection, to what extent are you responsible?  These aren't just bs questions that I'm making up as I go, they are intended to guide you to think along a pattern.

I snipped your question about trying to making general rules.  We protect kids from buggery but not from a smacked ass.  Laws tend to be specific.

Actually, quite the reverse is true.  Laws tend to be written as generalities, and the details are finalized by judicial precedent.  And there are plenty of such laws that have been interpreted to the very end that you claim doesn't occur, namely that we don't protect kids from a smacked ass.

[MoonShadow]

@Hawker,

I would like to take this discussion in a slightly different direction, perhaps to illustrate a point.

I will assume that you own some kind of property, that you bought using funds that you honestly earned.  This kind of property doesn't need to be anything contriversial, let's say that you own a video game machine.  The common kind that can be bought at any toy store.  You own a video game, of a non-contriversial type; say Mario Kart.

You enjoy your game, and like to play it often.  You invite friends over to play with you.  When the night is over, one of your friends declares that he's taking your game with him.  He doesn't ask, he just states it as a fact.  I say it's obvious enough that you are within your rights to object, as it's your property and it's thus your's to do with what you like.  Even so far as to destroy it, if you so wish.  If you don't agree with this statement, then we have a greater chasm to cross than I presently assume.

So I will continue with the assumption that you agree with the above.

In light of this, here are my questions.

Who own's you?  Who own's your spouse?  Who own's your children?

[AyeYo]

No, what I get is social contract and backing by society.

He intentionally said YOU and not SOCIETY, because if it's ME setting the standards, that's easy to argue against.  If it's SOCIETY setting the standards, that's much more difficult to argue against.

If I hire hitmen to do my dirty work, am I not responsible for the death of my neighbor? I suppose technically speaking that'd be false, but still ugly (I didn't "pull the trigger" personally). If you use the voting mechanism to achieve legislation, you have a difficult time determining who the "hitmen" were. It's all well hidden and abstracted within the mechanism of statism.

My statement obviously went miles over your head, because nothing you said was even remotely relevant.

[MoonShadow]

No, what I get is social contract and backing by society.

He intentionally said YOU and not SOCIETY, because if it's ME setting the standards, that's easy to argue against.  If it's SOCIETY setting the standards, that's much more difficult to argue against.

If I hire hitmen to do my dirty work, am I not responsible for the death of my neighbor? I suppose technically speaking that'd be false, but still ugly (I didn't "pull the trigger" personally). If you use the voting mechanism to achieve legislation, you have a difficult time determining who the "hitmen" were. It's all well hidden and abstracted within the mechanism of statism.

My statement obviously went miles over your head, because nothing you said was even remotely relevant.

No, it's relevant.  You just either didn't understand his point, or are willfully ignorant of the implications. 

[Rassah]

Still waiting for an answer on how we determine where to draw the line for regulations...

[MoonShadow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Excerpts...

"Definition

Libertarians typically claim that the non-aggression principle includes property and freedom of contract as a part of self-ownership, and that any interference is equivalent with aggression. The basis for this extension of self-ownership to one's property is John Locke's argument (also called the homestead principle) that mixing of labor with an unowned resource makes that resource part of one's self. Subsequent exchange of such property (e.g. sale, rental) simply transfers this right. Hence, the argument goes, to aggress against, or in more neutral terms interfere with, someone's property is the exact equivalent to aggressing against, or interfering with, the individual's physical body. As for freedom of contract, the right of self-ownership is held to imply freedom of action in the absence of aggression (e.g. in the absence of false or duress contracts, and the absence of contracts stipulating aggression against third-parties).

Justification

The principle has been derived by various philosophical approaches, including:

Argumentation ethics. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has argued that rights are presumed by the very act of arguing with another person;
Natural law. Some derive non-aggression from self-ownership or sovereignty of the individual, such as Josiah Warren and Lysander Spooner in the 19th century, and Murray Rothbard in modern times;
Contractarianism as described by Jan Narveson and David Friedman;[3]
Objectivism. Ayn Rand has made efforts in deriving the principle from the right to life.
Universally preferable behavior. Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio has argued that non-aggression is valid because it is the only rule that meets the logical requirement for moral universality."

http://common-law.net/nap.html

"To paraphrase, the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is usually stated as "do not initiate force or fraud", or "if it harms none, do what you will", or "treat others as you'd like to be treated", or "live and let live". In more detail, “Do not initiate force or fraud against anyone else’s person or property." In other words, except for self-defense, don’t harm others, don’t harm or steal their property, don’t break your word, don’t try to coerce anyone by threatening to do any of these things, and don’t delegate or encourage anyone to do any of these things.

The Equal Rights Principle (ERP) states that everyone has equal inherent rights, there should be no special privileged class, no "divine right of kings". This also implies that a group of people, no matter how many, can't have more rights than any individual. You cannot delegate a right to another individual or group if you do not have that right in the first place.

The Individual Sovereignty Principle (ISP) is that we, as individual sentient human beings with free will, each have the right to do anything we want as long as we do not violate NAP or ERP; and that we create organizations (including governments) and we grant specific, limited, enumerated privileges to them, not the other way around; they have no inherent rights of their own (this latter point is further discussed here). These 3 principles (ISP/NAP/ERP) form the tripod upon which any viable and just civilization must be founded, but for simplicity, we shall hereinafter refer to them collectively as NAP.

<snip>

The term "Common Law" has several meanings or derivations. In one sense, it means the informal body of law (in effect) consisting of customary behaviors and practices of civilizations over millenia. In America, that tends to mean English Common Law. In another sense, it means what are the most common or universal laws all over the world despite the different laws in different countries or the different laws and rules that different religions impose on their followers. This is why Common Law must be secular to be truly neutral, universal, and common.

These can all be considered imperfect examples of trying to figure out what are the minimum universal common principles that people must live by in order to have a functioning civilization, without the extra laws and customs that are specific to particular countries or religions or cultures. If you've read this entire web page so far, it should be quite obvious that the answer is NAP. Thus, throughout the rest of this web site, the phrase "Common Law" (or more specifically "Universal Common Law") will be considered to mean NAP. This is what Common Law should really mean, and the world would be much better off if was truly the common (and only) law of the whole world."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html

"The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms. Thus, there would be no victimless crime prohibitions, price controls, government regulation of the economy, etc.

If the non-aggression axiom is the basic building block of libertarianism, private property rights based on (Lockean and Rothbardian) homesteading principles are the foundation. For if A reaches into B's pocket, pulls out his wallet and runs away with it, we cannot know that A is the aggressor and B the victim. It may be that A is merely repossessing his own wallet, the one B stole from him yesterday. But given a correct grounding in property rights, the non-aggression axiom is a very powerful tool in the war of ideas. For most individuals believe, and fervently so, that it is wrong to invade other people or their property. Who, after all, favors theft, murder or rape? With this as an entering wedge, libertarians are free to apply this axiom to all of human action, including, radically, to unions, taxes, and even government itself.

<snip>

Second case. You are lost in the woods, freezing, with no food. You will die without shelter and a meal. Fortunately, you come upon a warm cabin stocked with staples. You intend to eat, stay the night, leave your business card, and pay double any reasonable price that could be asked. Unfortunately, the cabin has a sign posted on the door: "Warning. Private Property. No Trespassing." Do you tamely go off into the woods and die?

<snip>

There are several grave problems with these critiques of the non-aggression axiom.

1. They misunderstand the nature of libertarianism. These arguments implicitly assume that libertarianism is a moral philosophy, a guide to proper behavior, as it were. Should the flagpole hanger let go? Should the hiker go off and die? But libertarianism is a theory concerned with the justified use of aggression, or violence, based on property rights, not morality. Therefore, the only proper questions which can be addressed in this philosophy are of the sort, if the flagpole hanger attempts to come in to the apartment, and the occupant shoots him for trespassing, Would the forces of law and order punish the home owner? Or, if the owner of the cabin in the woods sets up a booby trap, such that when someone forces his way into his property he gets a face full of buckshot, Would he be guilty of a law violation? When put in this way, the answer is clear. The owner in each case is in the right, and the trespasser in the wrong. If force is used to protect property rights, even deadly force, the owner is not guilty of the violation of any licit law.

2. These examples purposefully try to place us in the mind of the criminal perpetrator of the crime of trespass. We are invited, that is, to empathize with the flag pole hanger, and the hiker, not the respective property owners. But let us reverse this perspective. Suppose the owner of the apartment on the 15th floor has recently been victimized by a rape, perpetrated upon her by a member of the same ethnic or racial group as the person now hand walking his way down her flag pole, soon to uninvitedly enter her apartment. May she not shoot him in self-defense before he enters her premises? Or, suppose that the owner of the cabin in the woods has been victimized by several break-ins in the past few months, and has finally decided to do something in defense of his property. Or, suppose that the owner, himself, views his cabin as his own life preserver. Then, may he not take steps to safeguard his property? To ask these questions is to answer them, at least for the consistent libertarian.

3. The criticisms of libertarian property rights theory base their views on the philosophy of emergencies. The non-aggression axiom is all well and good in ordinary circumstances, but when there are life boat situations, all bets are off. The problem, however, with violating libertarian law for special exigencies is that these occurrences are more commonplace than supposed. Right now, there are numerous people dying of starvation in poor parts of the world. Some are suffering from illnesses which could be cured cheaply, e.g., by penicillin. We have all read those advertisements placed by aid agencies: "Here is little Maria. You can save her, and her entire village, by sending us some modest amount of money each month."

[Hawker]

@Hawker,

I would like to take this discussion in a slightly different direction, perhaps to illustrate a point.

I will assume that you own some kind of property, that you bought using funds that you honestly earned.  This kind of property doesn't need to be anything contriversial, let's say that you own a video game machine.  The common kind that can be bought at any toy store.  You own a video game, of a non-contriversial type; say Mario Kart.

You enjoy your game, and like to play it often.  You invite friends over to play with you.  When the night is over, one of your friends declares that he's taking your game with him.  He doesn't ask, he just states it as a fact.  I say it's obvious enough that you are within your rights to object, as it's your property and it's thus your's to do with what you like.  Even so far as to destroy it, if you so wish.  If you don't agree with this statement, then we have a greater chasm to cross than I presently assume.

So I will continue with the assumption that you agree with the above.

In light of this, here are my questions.

Who own's you?  Who own's your spouse?  Who own's your children?

The problem with your analogy is that society is not a group of friends playing a video game.  You don't get invited to be part of society and you can't ignore the fact that your actions have consequences for other people in society.

A better analogy is an apartment block.  At the owners AGM, one owner says "Hang on I never agreed to the stairs being cleaned 4 times a month.  When my father bought this place 40 years ago, stairs were cleaned twice a month.  You guys are spending money hand over fist and the management fee is going through the roof.  And its on stuff I've opposed at every meeting.  I want to withhold my management fee because I never agreed to all this stuff."

I've been the head of a residents company in financial difficulties where people who themselves were broke made this exact argument.  But if we have voted and the majority said to clean the stairs four times a month, I can enforce collection.  Mostly people realise that the administrative costs of fighting are a waste of money and pay up.

Taken to a bigger scale, we have common needs that must be met and taxation is the means we use to pay for them.  There is no invitation to join - you inherited the citizenship.  You may not agree with where the money goes but its up to you to change the system.  There isn't really a way to opt out/move away but that's the limit of the analogy rather than of the logic.

[MoonShadow]

@Hawker,

I would like to take this discussion in a slightly different direction, perhaps to illustrate a point.

I will assume that you own some kind of property, that you bought using funds that you honestly earned.  This kind of property doesn't need to be anything contriversial, let's say that you own a video game machine.  The common kind that can be bought at any toy store.  You own a video game, of a non-contriversial type; say Mario Kart.

You enjoy your game, and like to play it often.  You invite friends over to play with you.  When the night is over, one of your friends declares that he's taking your game with him.  He doesn't ask, he just states it as a fact.  I say it's obvious enough that you are within your rights to object, as it's your property and it's thus your's to do with what you like.  Even so far as to destroy it, if you so wish.  If you don't agree with this statement, then we have a greater chasm to cross than I presently assume.

So I will continue with the assumption that you agree with the above.

In light of this, here are my questions.

Who own's you?  Who own's your spouse?  Who own's your children?

The problem with your analogy is that society is not a group of friends playing a video game.  You don't get invited to be part of society and you can't ignore the fact that your actions have consequences for other people in society.

A better analogy is an apartment block.  At the owners AGM, one owner says "Hang on I never agreed to the stairs being cleaned 4 times a month.  When my father bought this place 40 years ago, stairs were cleaned twice a month.  You guys are spending money hand over fist and the management fee is going through the roof.  And its on stuff I've opposed at every meeting.  I want to withhold my management fee because I never agreed to all this stuff."

I've been the head of a residents company in financial difficulties where people who themselves were broke made this exact argument.  But if we have voted and the majority said to clean the stairs four times a month, I can enforce collection.  Mostly people realise that the administrative costs of fighting are a waste of money and pay up.

Taken to a bigger scale, we have common needs that must be met and taxation is the means we use to pay for them.  There is no invitation to join - you inherited the citizenship.  You may not agree with where the money goes but its up to you to change the system.  There isn't really a way to opt out/move away but that's the limit of the analogy rather than of the logic.

You didn't even attempt to address any of the questions that I asked.  Where do you get the idea that libs don't know that our actions affect others?

[Hawker]

@Hawker,
...snip...

Who own's you?  Who own's your spouse?  Who own's your children?

The problem with your analogy is that society is not a group of friends playing a video game.  You don't get invited to be part of society and you can't ignore the fact that your actions have consequences for other people in society.

A better analogy is an apartment block.  At the owners AGM, one owner says "Hang on I never agreed to the stairs being cleaned 4 times a month.  When my father bought this place 40 years ago, stairs were cleaned twice a month.  You guys are spending money hand over fist and the management fee is going through the roof.  And its on stuff I've opposed at every meeting.  I want to withhold my management fee because I never agreed to all this stuff."

I've been the head of a residents company in financial difficulties where people who themselves were broke made this exact argument.  But if we have voted and the majority said to clean the stairs four times a month, I can enforce collection.  Mostly people realise that the administrative costs of fighting are a waste of money and pay up.

Taken to a bigger scale, we have common needs that must be met and taxation is the means we use to pay for them.  There is no invitation to join - you inherited the citizenship.  You may not agree with where the money goes but its up to you to change the system.  There isn't really a way to opt out/move away but that's the limit of the analogy rather than of the logic.

You didn't even attempt to address any of the questions that I asked.  Where do you get the idea that libs don't know that our actions affect others?

Sorry I don't get where you get from a stolen video player to people owning you, your spouse or your children.  And as I said, comparing society, which is inherited by and large, with a group of friends playing a video game, which is voluntary by and large, doesn't make sense to me.  You can leave the group and it hurts no-one. Refuse to pay taxes and it does affect other people.