Awesome free state project open to bitcoin donations

[kiba]

You are proving my point exactly. You are saying that because novelty is non-material it is "a crackpot theory." So you're a materialist to the bone, and as a consequence an information Marxist.

I don't quite understand what you mean by that. All I am saying that competition in the marketplace will eliminate people who believes in IP right.

[EvanR]

For anyone interested in more of onarchy's moral convictions, here is the log from #bitcoin-politics.

http://codepad.org/3gJSjoux
last bit truncated on codepad http://codepad.org/Xfqo8e7k

Summary is that copying data is equal to rape and murder. We report, you decide.

I will spare the forum of my opinion on him.

[EvanR]

An interesting revelation (to me at least) is that the IP debate comes down to this... content authors or owners ideally would like to use state force to stop who can read and listen to what. This is an independent issue from digital copying and other technological details. Physics allows you to do this with secrecy, but current authors and owners feel that the costs and risks of secrecy are too high, so they want coercive force to help them. Market distortion?

[deadlizard]

Patents are state enforced disclosure of trade secrets in exchange for a limited monopoly before becoming public domain.
Originally intended to expand human knowledge because before patents trade secrets where closely guarded and no-one could build on those ideas. Of course now the term of the monopolies is ridiculous but the original idea was sound.

in short the patent system is a great idea let down by poor execution.

[EvanR]

There are ways to profit from ideas without protection from police. It's expected that your profit margin could be less if you used the same strategy, but you're a business man, change your strategy. If you invented something useful, and you think selling it is dangerous because of competition copy cats, then use the invention to earn money yourself. This is where the risk comes in because agents could always infiltrate or employees could give the secrets away, though it wouldn't be in their best interest. This is where contracts come in, if you buy this or you work here or you are allowed into the facility you agree not to reverse engineer anything.

Another argument for patents is public good is served somehow, and no one is going to 'donate' to the public good by researching and publishing without a profit. This could be solved in the same way as copyrightless book sales. Do your work offer the results at a high price. The millions of people who made you rich before will now have to pay into a pool to get you to release the secrets. Let the market work?

[onarchy]

If man has the right to himself, he must also have the right to sustain through physical resources. Easy.

However, when it comes to the intangible that creates no real wealth and doesn't allow people to truly sustain, it's hard to prove it can be considered property.

You claim that intellectual work is of no real value to human existence, yet you still choose to pirate what you consider worthless. Why do you do that? If something is worthless to you, why download it and spend your valuable time reading/listening/watching it?

Also, let's now consider the difference between species who use the mind as integral to their survival (humans) and species that don't, e.g. antelopes. Today there are 7 billion people on the planet. Without industrialization 6 of them would not have existed. It is only the radical improvements in agricultural productivity that enables so many people not merely to physically survive, but many of them to prosper. So then let's look at antelopes. How are they doing when it comes to agriculture and industrialization? Hmmmmm, they have none. Why is that? Because productivity increase is first and foremost an INTELLECTUAL feat, not a physical one. We have Gallilei, Newton and a whole host of intelligent people who used their minds to create the INFORMATION needed to improve agricultural productivity. Thus, not only is information of crucial value to our PHYSICAL survival, it is of so paramount importance that we can say for certain that 6 billion people owe their life to that information. In fact, without information produces by the human intellect there would be no wealth. The mind is the source of wealth. For thousands of years Africans have been living in dirt poverty with all sorts of natural physical resources all around them. Yet, to no avail because they didn't have the KNOWLEDGE to transform their physical surroundings into wealth. And then look at Singapore, which is an island with no natural resources, not even fresh water, and it has risen from nothing to become one of the most prosperous nations in the world in only 60 years. Before the economic liberalization of Singapore, the nation could at most support 1 million people. Now there are 5 million people who sustain themselves and not only survive but prosper. That would be impossible without the intellectual work of mind workers.

So since you think that intangibles create no real wealth I think you should take your own words seriously and give up everything in your life that would not exist without intangibles. In other words, you must give up your computer, electricity, sewage system, water pipes, anything made of steel, cars, boats, air travel, cheap industrial food etc. These are all dependent on intangibles. So let's see you put your money where your mouth is and give up all these things that allegedly are of no value to you, and creates "no real wealth and doesn't allow people to truly sustain." When you've done that, we can talk.

Furthermore, is human existence only about getting calories into your bread hole? Does art and entertainment have NO place in humanity? It is of NO value to humans since you can't eat it? And therefore it's ok to pirate it?

Also, I pirate books and all sorts of "intellectual property" undetected. How are you going to be able to do any different against me in your supposedly free state?

Against an individual pirate? Very little. Just like all other laws have to be constructed in such a way that they do not have negative effects for ordinary, innocent people the same is the case with IP laws. It's better that 10 pirates go free than that 1 innocent person's liberties are infringed. Therefore it is mostly organized and blatant piracy that will be targeted. Since most people are decent human beings piracy will in general be a minimal problem with proper laws and proper micro-payment solutions.

[kiba]

Patents are state enforced disclosure of trade secrets in exchange for a limited monopoly before becoming public domain.
Originally intended to expand human knowledge because before patents trade secrets where closely guarded and no-one could build on those ideas. Of course now the term of the monopolies is ridiculous but the original idea was sound.

in short the patent system is a great idea let down by poor execution.

A bunch of bollocks. See the case of James Watt, the monopolist.

In any case, what you have is a bunch of idiotic government bureaucrats, lawyers, lawsuit, and other costs involved with patents. Inventors are not focusing on innovating and responding to their competitors' innovation. Instead they waste their fucking time on the system.

Innovation and competition are a dynamic continuous real-time process of action and reaction. You stick a system in there which purposely slow down inventors and you'll reduce the rate of innovation.

[EvanR]

You claim that intellectual work is of no real value to human existence

You are latching onto trivial and easily dismissed positions. Please dismiss non-points quickly and get to the meat of the matter. Actually you would have a hard time filling pages doing that, because you dont have any meat beyond the circular argument beginning at rape = copying.

[­­­Atlas_]

If man has the right to himself, he must also have the right to sustain through physical resources. Easy.

However, when it comes to the intangible that creates no real wealth and doesn't allow people to truly sustain, it's hard to prove it can be considered property.

You claim that intellectual work is of no real value to human existence, yet you still choose to pirate what you consider worthless. Why do you do that? If something is worthless to you, why download it and spend your valuable time reading/listening/watching it?

Also, let's now consider the difference between species who use the mind as integral to their survival (humans) and species that don't, e.g. antelopes. Today there are 7 billion people on the planet. Without industrialization 6 of them would not have existed. It is only the radical improvements in agricultural productivity that enables so many people not merely to physically survive, but many of them to prosper. So then let's look at antelopes. How are they doing when it comes to agriculture and industrialization? Hmmmmm, they have none. Why is that? Because productivity increase is first and foremost an INTELLECTUAL feat, not a physical one. We have Gallilei, Newton and a whole host of intelligent people who used their minds to create the INFORMATION needed to improve agricultural productivity. Thus, not only is information of crucial value to our PHYSICAL survival, it is of so paramount importance that we can say for certain that 6 billion people owe their life to that information. In fact, without information produces by the human intellect there would be no wealth. The mind is the source of wealth. For thousands of years Africans have been living in dirt poverty with all sorts of natural physical resources all around them. Yet, to no avail because they didn't have the KNOWLEDGE to transform their physical surroundings into wealth. And then look at Singapore, which is an island with no natural resources, not even fresh water, and it has risen from nothing to become one of the most prosperous nations in the world in only 60 years. Before the economic liberalization of Singapore, the nation could at most support 1 million people. Now there are 5 million people who sustain themselves and not only survive but prosper. That would be impossible without the intellectual work of mind workers.

So since you think that intangibles create no real wealth I think you should take your own words seriously and give up everything in your life that would not exist without intangibles. In other words, you must give up your computer, electricity, sewage system, water pipes, anything made of steel, cars, boats, air travel, cheap industrial food etc. These are all dependent on intangibles. So let's see you put your money where your mouth is and give up all these things that allegedly are of no value to you, and creates "no real wealth and doesn't allow people to truly sustain." When you've done that, we can talk.

Furthermore, is human existence only about getting calories into your bread hole? Does art and entertainment have NO place in humanity? It is of NO value to humans since you can't eat it? And therefore it's ok to pirate it?

Also, I pirate books and all sorts of "intellectual property" undetected. How are you going to be able to do any different against me in your supposedly free state?

Against an individual pirate? Very little. Just like all other laws have to be constructed in such a way that they do not have negative effects for ordinary, innocent people the same is the case with IP laws. It's better that 10 pirates go free than that 1 innocent person's liberties are infringed. Therefore it is mostly organized and blatant piracy that will be targeted. Since most people are decent human beings piracy will in general be a minimal problem with proper laws and proper micro-payment solutions.

It wasn't the ideas themselves that created wealth. It was the actions of the individuals. They may have needed the input of information but in the end, the sweat of their own brow made it happen.

[kiba]

It wasn't the ideas themselves that created wealth. It was the actions of the individuals. They may have needed the input of information but in the end, the sweat of their own brow made it happen.

Or the key pressing.

[EvanR]

The main issue is a dispute over the social land rights to the word 'property.' Property, regardless of how you define it, will currently evoke fears and a scramble to protect it. You advocate a change to the concept of property for your own purposes not just because you want that concept to be protected, but because the word property will make it easier to rally support. This is disingenuous. To be fair, you should leave the normal definition of property alone as it is, and advocate state protection for your idea independently, and call it something else. If it sounds ludicrous to people, well, at least you lost fair and square. As a tip you should come up with a name for it that is definitely marketable, but property is already taken.

[wb3]

If I invent the "Cancer Cure Pill" should I expect to make Billions upon Billions of Dollars, or should I give it freely to the public at cost +1 and just make millions and be regarded as the greatest humanitarian that ever lived in the history books. Or the the evil Health Barron?

I should make money, but when you are Greedy and want it all, you curry favor of thugs. The whole IP argument is over how much do you deserve for your work. Sometimes; Nothing.  Other times; Something   But Never: Everything.

[­­­Atlas_]

Also, just because my mother gave birth to me doesn't mean I am indentured to her for life. That isn't a legitimate contract.

[­­­Atlas_]

If I invent the "Cancer Cure Pill" should I expect to make Billions upon Billions of Dollars, or should I give it freely to the public at cost +1 and just make millions and be regarded as the greatest humanitarian that ever lived in the history books. Or the the evil Health Barron?

I should make money, but when you are Greedy and want it all, you curry favor of thugs. The whole IP argument is over how much do you deserve for your work. Sometimes; Nothing.  Other times; Something   But Never: Everything.

Let's say I find the cure for cancer: a glass of water mixed with a handful of dirt. I patent it. Every time somebody mixes some water with dirt, I am being raped?

[EvanR]

The whole IP argument is over how much do you deserve for your work.

Seems like a good default is 'however much people will pay for it.'
But not 'however much I can get them to cough up at gunpoint'.

[wb3]

Also, just because my mother gave birth to me doesn't mean I am indentured to her for life. That isn't a legitimate contract.

Hey don't forget about Dad. His work product contributed to the work of Art.

[­­­Atlas_]

The whole IP argument is over how much do you deserve for your work.

Seems like a good default is 'however much people will pay for it.'

...Mr. Onarchy wants that to be left to the creator and if anybody else creates it and sells it for less... they should be charged with violent molestation?

[­­­Atlas_]

Also, just because my mother gave birth to me doesn't mean I am indentured to her for life. That isn't a legitimate contract.

Hey don't forget about Dad. His work product contributed to the work of Art.

I guess I have to pay him royalties too. Also, my thick hair got me a job modeling. That's another IP check in the mail.

[wb3]

The whole IP argument is over how much do you deserve for your work.

Seems like a good default is 'however much people will pay for it.'
But not 'however much I can get them to cough up at gunpoint'.

I agree, my point on IP is that just because someone Pirated your work doesn't mean they were going to buy it anyway. They accepted a lesser quality with less caveats, to look at your work.

[deadlizard]

Patents are state enforced disclosure of trade secrets in exchange for a limited monopoly before becoming public domain.
Originally intended to expand human knowledge because before patents trade secrets where closely guarded and no-one could build on those ideas. Of course now the term of the monopolies is ridiculous but the original idea was sound.

in short the patent system is a great idea let down by poor execution.

A bunch of bollocks. See the case of James Watt, the monopolist.

In any case, what you have is a bunch of idiotic government bureaucrats, lawyers, lawsuit, and other costs involved with patents. Inventors are not focusing on innovating and responding to their competitors' innovation. Instead they waste their fucking time on the system.

Innovation and competition are a dynamic continuous real-time process of action and reaction. You stick a system in there which purposely slow down inventors and you'll reduce the rate of innovation.

I should add that much like communism is a great idea in principal I don't think patents could work in the real world either