Awesome free state project open to bitcoin donations

[deadlizard]

Nope. Ideas are not property. Intellectual labor is property. No-one can own an idea without creating a totalitarian society.

good point

[1713559840]

1713559840

[1713559840]

1713559840

[1713559840]

1713559840

[1713559840]

1713559840

[onarchy]

This where it all falls apart. The definition of intellectual labor is only held up by subjective whims and desires.

This is an assertion. Can you provide an argument to back up your assertion? Are you saying that thinking or creativity is not work?

[kiba]

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

If it sucks in real life, it must sucks on paper.

[EvanR]

WHY do you own it? You did not create the atmosphere and according to the labor theory of property you therefore don't own it.

You also don't 'labor' over copies of your work or labor to help people read your book. They do the labor. So they should own the book after reading.

[deadlizard]

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

If it sucks in real life, it must sucks on paper.

if x then y

[­­­Atlas_]

This where it all falls apart. The definition of intellectual labor is only held up by subjective whims and desires.

This is an assertion. Can you provide an argument to back up your assertion? Are you saying that thinking or creativity is not work?

I am saying the idea of effort is completely subjective. It cannot be universally defined. There is no evidence for a true definition. It's like asking me to disprove the existence of God.

[NghtRppr]

Of course I claim that IP is legitimate. Just because we happen to agree that physical property is legitimate doesn't mean that we have the same reasons or that the burden of evidence for IP is any less. I base myself on the Lockean labor theory of property, and I am not a materialist. Hence both intellectual and physical work give rise to property.

Property rights aren't based on materialism. Property rights are based on the fact that certain things are rivalrous. As I've explained several times already, property rights arise because certain things can only be controlled by one or a few people at a time thereby causing the need to exclude others. If I have a cooking spoon and I want to use it at the same time that you do, we have a problem. How do we settle it? Well, that's why we have property rights. The only question left to decide is how are property rights assigned, flip a coin, whoever is stronger, etc. What sets Libertarianism apart is the rules on the assignment of property rights. We believe in homesteading which means that the first user has a better claim than any latecomers. If you are a latecomer with respect to me and you argue that you have a better claim then there's nothing stopping yet another latecomer from making the same argument against you. Therefore, the prior-later distinction is presupposed by anyone claiming they own property otherwise you would let anyone come along and take it.

Self-ownership means ownership of your labor. Since I don't own the ideas, but my labor, I have very limited rights of ideas.

This is demonstrably false. If you steal my marble and make a statue of it, you don't own the statue. You owe me for damages to my marble. You own your body which means you control what labor it does but you don't necessarily control the products of that labor. You have to own the raw materials to also own the product.

Because they owe ME protection, and my intellectual work is a part of ME.

Why is your intellectual work a part of you?

[EvanR]

You own your creative labor, fine. Now who gets to decide how much it is worth. You and guns or a free market.

[EvanR]

Guy walks into a public area and starts a conversation with someone. As it progresses, someone begins to reveal slowly the design of a valuable technology. Guy screams, 'No! Stop! I don't want the patent holder to own me.' Onarchy would claim that this situation is equivalent to doing something dangerous where you might end up in the hospital with astronomical debt. Better not to talk to people.

[­­­Atlas_]

Let's say somebody patented the idea of a car. Only one company can make cars. People go along with it and purchase these cruddy cars because it's the best option available at the time. However, a black market opens up due to the government restriction on car manufacturing. Wars occur on the streets due to "illegal car" smuggling. Lives are lost and "car thieves" are jailed at the taxpayer's expense but the car creator's "property right" is maintained.

Is this what you really want, onarchy?

[onarchy]

You own your creative labor, fine. Now who gets to decide how much it is worth. You and guns or a free market.

A store owner owns the candy in his store, fine. Now who gets to decide how much it is worth. You and guns or a free market.


I'm sure you'll agree that you don't HAVE to buy candy from a store if you think it's too expensive, so you can help decide the price of that candy by NOT CONSUMING it. I am also sure that you would say that it is still a free market even if the store owner uses guns to prevent you from taking candy without paying the price he demands. In other words, this entire line of argument is completely empty, because it ASSUMES THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. In other words, the real discussion here is what property IS, and once we agree on that then such arguments as you presented become valid. But by insisting on presenting such arguments even if the definition of property is in question, then your argument amounts to "I will ignore all your arguments about why intellectual work should be property and just insist without argument that it isn't, ok?"

[onarchy]

Let's say somebody patented the idea of a car.

Ideas can't be patented, only intellectual labor.

Only one company can make cars. People go along with it and purchase these cruddy cars because it's the best option available at the time. However, a black market opens up due to the government restriction on car manufacturing. Wars occur on the streets due to "illegal car" smuggling. Lives are lost and "car thieves" are jailed at the taxpayer's expense but the car creator's "property right" is maintained.

Is this what you really want, onarchy?

Nope, that's not what I really want. Normally when things like this happens it is a sign that SOMETHING in society is wrong. In the case of IP, there is a combination of a cultural/philosophical problems (the extensive appeal of Marxism) and legal problems (bad laws, particularly bad money/banking laws which prevent micropayment technology from taking off)

[­­­Atlas_]

You own your creative labor, fine. Now who gets to decide how much it is worth. You and guns or a free market.

A store owner owns the candy in his store, fine. Now who gets to decide how much it is worth. You and guns or a free market.


I'm sure you'll agree that you don't HAVE to buy candy from a store if you think it's too expensive, so you can help decide the price of that candy by NOT CONSUMING it. I am also sure that you would say that it is still a free market even if the store owner uses guns to prevent you from taking candy without paying the price he demands. In other words, this entire line of argument is completely empty, because it ASSUMES THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. In other words, the real discussion here is what property IS, and once we agree on that then such arguments as you presented become valid. But by insisting on presenting such arguments even if the definition of property is in question, then your argument amounts to "I will ignore all your arguments about why intellectual work should be property and just insist without argument that it isn't, ok?"

Fine, the candy is too expensive so I make my own and sell it cheaper. This is what you seem to be against because I supposedly infringed on the store owner's "intellectual labor" he used to make the candy.

[wb3]

Here's the real question:

Does enforcing the existence of intellectual property help individual happiness and prosperity?

It certainly makes the CREATOR of the intellectual work happy, and most people actually feel more happy when they are behaving like decent human beings too. Therefore their conscience is clear when they actually don't steal the hard labor of a mind worker. I know that this obviously don't apply to a lot of the people in here, but I'm talking about normal, decent human beings who have not been seduced by Marxism.

A "Mind Worker"?  What does Nature say about this? I can think of better ways of growing corn, but can't grow corn. So you want to charge the corn growers for increased efficiency from using your method. If you never told them, they would still grow corn.

A "Mind Worker"? is working in a fictitious world. He gets what he gets, and should be happy he gets it. However, if he grows corn and increases his own corn yields, he wins. But is he getting the reward from the Mind Work or the Corn Yield and his Physical Work.

Wonder what a world of "Mind Workers" would look like? How much would things cost?

[onarchy]

Guy walks into a public area and starts a conversation with someone. As it progresses, someone begins to reveal slowly the design of a valuable technology. Guy screams, 'No! Stop! I don't want the patent holder to own me.' Onarchy would claim that this situation is equivalent to doing something dangerous where you might end up in the hospital with astronomical debt. Better not to talk to people.

Well, let's take the more tangible case of books. Authors use a year of their life to write a novel which provides entertainment and afterthought to his readers. BUT instead of selling 1 million copies of the book with copyright protection, the book only sells 100 copies because there is no copyright protection. The market is flooded with cheap or free pirate copies of the book. Millions of people read his books and since various materialist libertarians have been very successful at spreading their morality that intellectual work has ZERO value. Hoards of people not only do not pay for his book, but actually scoffs at people who pay for it for being "irrational" and "wasting money on something that has no value." So these people who read his one year work not only do not pay, but have a really, really good conscience about not paying, thinking "he got paid exactly what he deserved: ZERO. That's free market capitalism for you" before he continues reading the exciting book which allegedly was of zero value.

So what you anti-IP libertarians are doing is something much, much, much, much worse than actually just reading a book without paying for it. You're spreading ideas to people that they should do it with a clear conscience! Then when all of society is like that you start wondering why there are no more new really good books being written, and why all the Hollywood films that come out are crap and regurgitations. But at least it's free!

[­­­Atlas_]

Here's the real question:

Does enforcing the existence of intellectual property help individual happiness and prosperity?

It certainly makes the CREATOR of the intellectual work happy, and most people actually feel more happy when they are behaving like decent human beings too. Therefore their conscience is clear when they actually don't steal the hard labor of a mind worker. I know that this obviously don't apply to a lot of the people in here, but I'm talking about normal, decent human beings who have not been seduced by Marxism.

A "Mind Worker"?  What does Nature say about this? I can think of better ways of growing corn, but can't grow corn. So you want to charge the corn growers for increased efficiency from using your method. If you never told them, they would still grow corn.

A "Mind Worker"? is working in a fictitious world. He gets what he gets, and should be happy he gets it. However, if he grows corn and increases his own corn yields, he wins. But is he getting the reward from the Mind Work or the Corn Yield and his Physical Work.

Wonder what a world of "Mind Workers" would look like? How much would things cost?

https://i.imgur.com/Gpeoq.png

[onarchy]

You own your creative labor, fine. Now who gets to decide how much it is worth. You and guns or a free market.

A store owner owns the candy in his store, fine. Now who gets to decide how much it is worth. You and guns or a free market.


I'm sure you'll agree that you don't HAVE to buy candy from a store if you think it's too expensive, so you can help decide the price of that candy by NOT CONSUMING it. I am also sure that you would say that it is still a free market even if the store owner uses guns to prevent you from taking candy without paying the price he demands. In other words, this entire line of argument is completely empty, because it ASSUMES THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. In other words, the real discussion here is what property IS, and once we agree on that then such arguments as you presented become valid. But by insisting on presenting such arguments even if the definition of property is in question, then your argument amounts to "I will ignore all your arguments about why intellectual work should be property and just insist without argument that it isn't, ok?"

Fine, the candy is too expensive so I make my own and sell it cheaper. This is what you seem to be against because I supposedly infringed on the store owner's "intellectual labor" he used to make the candy.

As long as you start from your OWN material and make your OWN candy it's perfectly ok to do that. That's capitalism. But when you COPY a book, is that then YOUR work of ART? Did you WRITE it? Did you spend thousands of hours working with your mind to create it?

[­­­Atlas_]

You own your creative labor, fine. Now who gets to decide how much it is worth. You and guns or a free market.

A store owner owns the candy in his store, fine. Now who gets to decide how much it is worth. You and guns or a free market.


I'm sure you'll agree that you don't HAVE to buy candy from a store if you think it's too expensive, so you can help decide the price of that candy by NOT CONSUMING it. I am also sure that you would say that it is still a free market even if the store owner uses guns to prevent you from taking candy without paying the price he demands. In other words, this entire line of argument is completely empty, because it ASSUMES THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. In other words, the real discussion here is what property IS, and once we agree on that then such arguments as you presented become valid. But by insisting on presenting such arguments even if the definition of property is in question, then your argument amounts to "I will ignore all your arguments about why intellectual work should be property and just insist without argument that it isn't, ok?"

Fine, the candy is too expensive so I make my own and sell it cheaper. This is what you seem to be against because I supposedly infringed on the store owner's "intellectual labor" he used to make the candy.

As long as you start from your OWN material and make your OWN candy it's perfectly ok to do that. That's capitalism. But when you COPY a book, is that then YOUR work of ART? Did you WRITE it? Did you spend thousands of hours working with your mind to create it?

It's my ink and my paper. I will sell it any form I damn well please.

[NghtRppr]

Then when all of society is like that you start wondering why there are no more new really good books being written, and why all the Hollywood films that come out are crap and regurgitations.

Yes, it's a good thing we had strong copyright laws back in the day to protect Bach, Beethoven, Plato, Aristotle, Chaucer, etc, or we'd be in such trouble.

If you're making art just for the money, you probably suck anyways.

[kiba]

As long as you start from your OWN material and make your OWN candy it's perfectly ok to do that. That's capitalism. But when you COPY a book, is that then YOUR work of ART? Did you WRITE it? Did you spend thousands of hours working with your mind to create it?

The Bitcoin Weekly is full of original essays, but it's under the public domain.

The only issue is finding enough money to pay writers. The fact is, revenues does flow to my coffer. It just needs to be more popular.