Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[BitterTea]

Why on Earth, considering that kind of history, would any rational person wish to grant any government (particularly their own) an exclusive monopoly on the use of force?

Laziness, fear, reprisal, frustration, apathy. Those may sound like irrational reasons for rational thinking persons, but most people despite their ability to discern other topics with alacrity, just don't understand, nor care for, the basic concepts of human law. They spend their time scurrying about just trying to keep from being robbed by their "leaders"; and in an attempt to stem that tide, vote in a fresh group of highwaymen to "represent" them, believing it will actually stop the plunder, when in reality it just feeds the voracious appetite of that self-same beast that consumed them before. Different wolf, same bite.

I thought this section of Molyneux's discussion with some students was rather interesting. (paraphrased via transcription):

You get a letter from your local drug store and you're not frightened. You get a letter from the government... Everybody knows what is really going on. Everybody knows that it is violence. People freeze, they tense up. That occurs at a psychological level, because it's not that hard. Taxation is force is about as tough as two and two make four. If people are having a great deal of difficulty with a very simple statement like taxation is force, we have to ask why. Why is this question so threatening to people? Why is identifying the foundation of violence that runs our society so tough for people? My answer is that if you want to look at why people have difficulty with abstract and remote concepts, you have to look at their personal lives first. What happens in the brain is when people experience anxiety, significant spikes of anxiety, their thinking centers shut down. They will make up magic words to get rid of the anxiety. The "social contract" is the most common magical spell that is invoked to keep the demon of truth at bay. But it's not because people are thinking, it's because "taxation is force' creates great anxiety within them, and they need to say these magic words to make the anxiety go away.

I recommend listening to the whole thing, if you have the time. He goes into some theories about people respond this way.

[1713408684]

1713408684

[1713408684]

1713408684

[1713408684]

1713408684

[1713408684]

1713408684

[1713408684]

1713408684

[Hawker]

...snip...

It was never a simple "no".  It's always a complex topic, and a common attack vector for others to 'box in' libertarian ideology.  The core principle is that, even though one can show that the risks are greater that any particular group of people could aquire a WMD, the current state of international meddling in other culture's affairs contributes to the growth of those same groupls.

...snip...

But it was a "no." The reasons are well meaning but ultimately people like b2c and Fred will allow death of innocents before regulation of dangerous materials.  

Fortunately it doesn't matter.  People don't sit around passively waiting for bombs to go off - they, rightly, pro-actively organise society in ways that make explosions less likely.  For example, sales of ammonium nitrate based fertiliser are regulated in Ireland and as a result, car bombings went from several per day to one every 5 or so years.  To argue that we have no right to regulate is pointless.  We do regulate because we don't like car bombs and won't stop unless a better way is found.  And for the record, Irish sectarian warfare is home grown. No international meddling needed

The same applies to intellectual property.  We create it because it makes life better with things like branded goods, patented research and movies.  We create IP laws because we want the good things that come with them - and we won't stop unless a better way is found.  Arguing we have no right to do so is pointless - no-one has the right to stop us.

[FredericBastiat]

Fortunately it doesn't matter.  People don't sit around passively waiting for bombs to go off - they, rightly, pro-actively organise society in ways that make explosions less likely.  For example, sales of ammonium nitrate based fertiliser are regulated in Ireland and as a result, car bombings went from several per day to one every 5 or so years.  To argue that we have no right to regulate is pointless.  We do regulate because we don't like car bombs and won't stop unless a better way is found.  Adn for the record, Irish sectarian warfare is home grown. No international meddling needed

Several potential solutions were proffered. You flatly turned them away as not useful because they don't suit your regulatory style. Nobody will ever know if they can't try. Monopolizing forces thru government never give the free market sufficient time nor space to work things out. They always intercede, and when they do, they make waves that easily capsize other opportunities from presenting themselves.

All monopolies of force are bad -every last one- without exception.

[Hawker]

Fortunately it doesn't matter.  People don't sit around passively waiting for bombs to go off - they, rightly, pro-actively organise society in ways that make explosions less likely.  For example, sales of ammonium nitrate based fertiliser are regulated in Ireland and as a result, car bombings went from several per day to one every 5 or so years.  To argue that we have no right to regulate is pointless.  We do regulate because we don't like car bombs and won't stop unless a better way is found.  Adn for the record, Irish sectarian warfare is home grown. No international meddling needed

Several potential solutions were proffered. You flatly turned them away as not useful because they don't suit your regulatory style. Nobody will ever know if they can't try. Monopolizing forces thru government never give the free market sufficient time nor space to work things out. They always intercede, and when they do, they make waves that easily capsize other opportunities from presenting themselves.

All monopolies of force are bad -every last one- without exception.

Lets test again   If I can demonstrate that regulating fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow regulation of fertiliser sales?

[FredericBastiat]

Lets test again   If I can demonstrate that regulating fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow regulation of fertiliser sales?

If I can make a surveilance camera small enough to fit in a collar, wirelessly transmit the images to a government enforcement facility, electrify it if necessary so as to mollify aggression, and that would reduce crime, would you wear it?

[FirstAscent]

Lets test again   If I can demonstrate that regulating fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow regulation of fertiliser sales?

If I can make a surveilance camera small enough to fit in a collar, wirelessly transmit the images to a government enforcement facility, electrify it if necessary so as to mollify aggression, and that would reduce crime, would you wear it?

How is that relevant? It's like one person is saying do X to save people, and you're saying, "No, because look how unacceptable Y is to reduce crime." Address X, not Y.

[Hawker]

Lets test again   If I can demonstrate that regulating fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow regulation of fertiliser sales?

If I can make a surveilance camera small enough to fit in a collar, wirelessly transmit the images to a government enforcement facility, electrify it if necessary so as to mollify aggression, and that would reduce crime, would you wear it?

Is that a 'yes' or a 'no' to my question?  It looks very like a 'no.'

[Anonymous]

Sure, you would wear it but the camera would probably break after 3 months and remain that way since the company failed due to the government's poor investment strategy.

[FirstAscent]

Sure, you would wear it but the camera would probably break after 3 months and remain that way since the company failed due to the government's poor investment strategy.

But nobody is proposing that, so it doesn't matter.

However, it's kind of moot, because a free market will allow everybody in the future to buy insect sized flying robotic spy probes, and they will be everywhere. For all you know, your neighbor will deploy them into your house, and you won't even know. Just like anti-virus software, you'll constantly be having to buy robotic hunter insects to seek out and destroy all these spying micro robots swarming around in your house.

There will be zero privacy in the future.

[Rassah]

Lets test again   If I can demonstrate that using government agencies to regulate fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow government regulation of fertiliser sales?

Fixed it for you, since we know this is what you really mean. Same question to you:
If I can demonstrate that voluntary and market-force driven regulation of fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow private, non-government regulation of fertiliser sales?

[Rassah]

A free market will allow everybody in the future to buy insect sized flying robotic spy probes, and they will be everywhere. For all you know, your neighbor will deploy them into your house, and you won't even know. Just like anti-virus software, you'll constantly be having to buy robotic hunter insects to seek out and destroy all these spying micro robots swarming around in your house.

There will be zero privacy in the future.

Sorry you set yourself up for this, but if we stick to your analogy, are you suggesting that most people out there have viruses on their computers, and having a virus on your PC is pretty much an accepted part of life?

[Hawker]

Lets test again   If I can demonstrate that using government agencies to regulate fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow government regulation of fertiliser sales?

Fixed it for you, since we know this is what you really mean. Same question to you:
If I can demonstrate that voluntary and market-force driven regulation of fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow private, non-government regulation of fertiliser sales?

Of course!  Regulation is a pain in the butt - if you have a better way it would be adopted immediately.

[Rassah]

Lets test again   If I can demonstrate that using government agencies to regulate fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow government regulation of fertiliser sales?

Fixed it for you, since we know this is what you really mean. Same question to you:
If I can demonstrate that voluntary and market-force driven regulation of fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow private, non-government regulation of fertiliser sales?

Of course!  Regulation is a pain in the butt - if you have a better way it would be adopted immediately.

Well, then the issue is understanding complexities of market incentives and voluntary regulation, versus understanding complexities of government bureaucracy and legal regulation, not whether nukes will go off, or even dumber, whether one group wants nukes to go off.

[Hawker]

Lets test again  If I can demonstrate that using government agencies to regulate fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow government regulation of fertiliser sales?

Fixed it for you, since we know this is what you really mean. Same question to you:
If I can demonstrate that voluntary and market-force driven regulation of fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow private, non-government regulation of fertiliser sales?

Of course!  Regulation is a pain in the butt - if you have a better way it would be adopted immediately.

Well, then the issue is understanding complexities of market incentives and voluntary regulation, versus understanding complexities of government bureaucracy and legal regulation, not whether nukes will go off, or even dumber, whether one group wants nukes to go off.

Correct.  So you are I are in agreement.  Regardless of the tool used, you cannot allow car bombs to be assembled too easily or life simply won't be worth living.

Fred and b2c have a very different view.  They believe that taking real world consequences into account is wrong and that all that counts is principles.  In principle regulation is bad so they will never agree to it.

I'm sure you see why the distinction matters

[MoonShadow]

...snip...

It was never a simple "no".  It's always a complex topic, and a common attack vector for others to 'box in' libertarian ideology.  The core principle is that, even though one can show that the risks are greater that any particular group of people could aquire a WMD, the current state of international meddling in other culture's affairs contributes to the growth of those same groupls. 

...snip...

But it was a "no." The reasons are well meaning but ultimately people like b2c and Fred will allow death of innocents before regulation of dangerous materials. 

Fortunately it doesn't matter.  People don't sit around passively waiting for bombs to go off - they, rightly, pro-actively organise society in ways that make explosions less likely. 

And the same would happen in a libertarian society, despite the objections of an absolutist minority.  I'm not going to say that b2c or Fred are wrong, because they are not wrong from a principled perspective.  They are just not pragmatic.  A mostly libertarian society is still much more free than what exists, and is one major reason that the framers of the US Constitution advocated for that document despite it being a relative centralization of political power as compared to the Articles of Confederation.  Precisely because under the Articles the states bickered like EU member states are now bickering over the sovereign debt crisis over there.  They both seek a perfect libertarian society, wherein the state is actually small enough to drown in a bathtub should the need arise.  Much more realisticly is that the drive towards more individual freedom and personal responsibility begins to approach a condition of diminishing returns.  At which point, most practical libertarians are satisfied with the achievements and leave the perfectionists to battle with the "social democrats" in the political realm while the vast majority returns to simply ignoring politics and pursuing their own personal interests.  That really is the end goal.

For example, sales of ammonium nitrate based fertiliser are regulated in Ireland and as a result, car bombings went from several per day to one every 5 or so years.  To argue that we have no right to regulate is pointless.  We do regulate because we don't like car bombs and won't stop unless a better way is found.  Adn for the record, Irish sectarian warfare is home grown. No international meddling needed

You have cited this before, but corrolation still isn't causation, even in Ireland.  The subject is too complex to attribute to a single regulation, and without even checking, I'm pretty sure that the political issues that motivated much of the IRA were resolved around that same time, were they not?

The same applies to intellectual property.  We create it because it makes life better with things like branded goods, patented research and movies.  We create IP laws because we want the good things that come with them - and we won't stop unless a better way is found.  Arguing we have no right to do so is pointless - no-one has the right to stop us.

No one has the power to stop you, which is not the same thing.  The framers recognized the need to incentivize creative works, and established both the 'authority' of Congress to establish a term limited copyright monopoly but also the Library of Congress (and thus the exceptions that libraries and schools enjoy) as well as explicitly rejecting the notion that copyright was a natural right.

[Hawker]

You have cited this before, but corrolation still isn't causation, even in Ireland.  The subject is too complex to attribute to a single regulation, and without even checking, I'm pretty sure that the political issues that motivated much of the IRA were resolved around that same time, were they not?

Regulation of fertiliser sales was 1975.  Car bombings became rare within a month.  The IRA reached a political settlement in 1997, 22 years later.

Rather than worry about Irish history, how about answering the question; if I can demonstrate that using government agencies to regulate fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow government regulation of fertiliser sales?

A simple 'yes' or 'no' is all that's needed.

[MoonShadow]

You have cited this before, but corrolation still isn't causation, even in Ireland.  The subject is too complex to attribute to a single regulation, and without even checking, I'm pretty sure that the political issues that motivated much of the IRA were resolved around that same time, were they not?

Regulation of fertiliser sales was 1975.  Car bombings became rare within a month.  The IRA reached a political settlement in 1997, 22 years later.

Rather than worry about Irish history, how about answering the question; if I can demonstrate that using government agencies to regulate fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow government regulation of fertiliser sales?

A simple 'yes' or 'no' is all that's needed.

I've already answered it three times.  The answer is a qualified no.  For many of the principled and practical reasons that have been presented to you, that apparently you have failed or willfully refused to consider.  For some it would be an unqualified no, but I'm not willing to undermine the 'good' in pursuit of the 'perfect'.  But I'm also openly stating that, by compromising my own priciples for a pragmatic victory, I'm still compromising my principles.

On the other hand, statists don't really have any principles to compromise as far as I can tell, so I'm not willing to meet in the middle either.  You're going to have to come a lot farther to my side with checks and balances against government abuse before I am willing to concede that the benefits to public safety outweigh the risks of future government "mission creep" or deliberate government corruption.

[FredericBastiat]

How is that relevant? It's like one person is saying do X to save people, and you're saying, "No, because look how unacceptable Y is to reduce crime." Address X, not Y.

It's relevant because it calls into question regulatory nuances. The collar represents regulation. I may not have phrased it that way but that's what it implies.

The government could just as easily lop our pointer fingers off because it's the finger most used to pull the trigger on a gun (hence, trigger finger). By doing so, there is a greater likelihood there will be less violent gun crimes. Funny thing is, gun manufacturers and criminals will find another way around given enough persistence.

The examples are numerous.

[Hawker]

You have cited this before, but corrolation still isn't causation, even in Ireland.  The subject is too complex to attribute to a single regulation, and without even checking, I'm pretty sure that the political issues that motivated much of the IRA were resolved around that same time, were they not?

Regulation of fertiliser sales was 1975.  Car bombings became rare within a month.  The IRA reached a political settlement in 1997, 22 years later.

Rather than worry about Irish history, how about answering the question; if I can demonstrate that using government agencies to regulate fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow government regulation of fertiliser sales?

A simple 'yes' or 'no' is all that's needed.

I've already answered it three times.  The answer is a qualified no.  For many of the principled and practical reasons that have been presented to you, that apparently you have failed or willfully refused to consider.  For some it would be an unqualified no, but I'm not willing to undermine the 'good' in pursuit of the 'perfect'.  But I'm also openly stating that, by compromising my own priciples for a pragmatic victory, I'm still compromising my principles.

On the other hand, statists don't really have any principles to compromise as far as I can tell, so I'm not willing to meet in the middle either.  You're going to have to come a lot farther to my side with checks and balances against government abuse before I am willing to concede that the benefits to public safety outweigh the risks of future government "mission creep" or deliberate government corruption.

If I read correctly, that's actually a 'yes.'

As I said earlier, if a way can be found to keep car bombs from being assembled that doesn't involve regulation, of course I would prefer that.  No-one wants regulation.  If it does exist, you have to worry about things like regulatory capture and raw incompetence.  So of course safeguards are needed.  But the key issue here is whether you accept that people who already are regulating fertiliser sales to prevent themselves being killed have a right to do so.  It seems to me that you think they do so we are in agreement.

[FredericBastiat]

Of course!  Regulation is a pain in the butt - if you have a better way it would be adopted immediately.

I believe in magic...

The more principled way takes more effort and introspection. Tyranny and slavery requires neither.