RoR: Forum

To Stephan:
I'll humor you. Obviously you need a lesson ;-)

I agree that every state currently in existence is shameful. I'll admit that the US government is disgraceful, but this was not always so.

Thinking that the state must become corrupt and unjust is irrational. Since some institution is necessary for the protection of rights, it does not follow that this institution must become unjust. If you disagree and think that it is unessential to have a government at all you had better put that in a new thread.

Capitalism requires a government because it requires freedom. There can be no freedom if one man my steal another mans creation. There is only one rational way to deal with this issue, as I see it. There must be an agent who can respond to force. That agent is the state.

Your arguments are great for a libertarian. Unfortunately for libertarians, that makes them great arguments for anarchists.

To Robert:
I cannot name a government that I could love. Not in theory or practice. If there were a government that protected me from criminals, the fraudulent and foreign armies, and if that government only did those things, I would be pleased. I would go about my life and devote love to someone meaningful.

But this is not the issue. The issue is whether is it rational to hate government of all forms. If someone wants to use what he has created, he had better choose a government that will protect his right to do so.

Post 41

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 1:55pm

However, many people from the formerly communist countries were brought up on atheism and have no more commitment to the truth as such than anyone else, Christian, Muslim, whatever.

Then (to borrow a Christian response), they aren't really atheists.

However trying to make atheism as such into more than a simple negative belief is silly. It doesn't map well at all to the set of people who are actual atheists and so then you would have to start saying that this or that person was not a real atheist, despite their absolute disbelief in any God...

What's wrong with that? What's wrong with clearing up the definition? Objectivists aren't just "some" atheists. They're THE atheists! There are so many concepts to define a person who claims to be an atheist but really isn't: Luddite (no faith in industry), Nihilist (no faith in values), Communist (no faith in man), Socialist (no faith in the market), Intrinsicist (no faith in the mind or discovery) etc. Objectivists aren't any of those things, they are true atheists.

Post 42

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 4:47pm

Name ONE government that one can love and trust - NOT in theory, but in practice...

I'd say ALL governments have at least some people who love and trust them (because they personally receive a net benefit from its deprivations, or at least think they do), and some who hate and distrust them. That use of the word "one" in this context verges on collectivist thinking.

Post 43

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 5:50pm

Even with the United States at its founding, tho its government was perhaps more desired than previous ones had been, the Founding Fathers were adament about not trusting it - "eternal vigilance" Jefferson called for.....

Post 44

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 6:22pm

I wrote, "Here is Rand's justification for rights:

'The right to life is the source of all rights -- and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.' ("Man's Rights", VOS)

"What's flawed and non-rigorous about that?"

Stephen replied,

Well... I am not sure what a "right to life" is, any more than a right to free speech. These it seems to me are derivative of your right to your body and things you homestead.

I thought it was obvious from the context. The right to life is the right to sustain your life by your own effort.

I wrote, "In your linked article on intellectual property, you say that property rights are applicable only to scarce resources, on the grounds that if resources aren't scarce, then no conflicts can arise over their use, and that since intellectual property is not 'scarce,' there should be no property rights governing its use. Does that mean that if I produce a non-scarce resource, I have no right to it and that you can rightfully deprive me of it without my consent?"

This is the whole point: if it's not scarce, no one can "deprive" you of it. As Jefferson said, it's like someone lighting their candle from yours: you still have your flame.

Suppose I don't want them to light their candle from mine. If it's my flame, why can't I deny them access to it?

Likewise, if you think of a way to use your property--configure it into some design or apparatus; think of a way to use it (method)--for example, a way to modify your fuel injector to get better gas mileage, then if someone else uses the same technique on their own car, it does not deprive you of your technique.

No, but suppose I want to sell my technique, and you agree to buy it, but after I give you the information, you refuse to pay me for it. Haven't you defrauded me? Why can't I profit from inventing the new technique?

I wrote, "You also say, 'Ayn Rand mistakenly assumes that the first to file [instead of "first-to-invent"] has priority (and then she is at pains to defend such a system).' I think Rand would agree that ideally the first to invent should have priority. The problem is, how do you establish this priority legally?"

Why do you assuem Rand would agree with this? She never says this, and explicitly defends the first to file idea.

She defends it, but not in opposition to the idea of "first-to-invent." She sees the filing process only as a way of making public one's invention so as to ensure a mechanism for its legal protection. If there were a better way to do this, I don't think she'd object to it.

Second, how would it be done? Like it's done here. There is a system in place, called "interference," to figure this out. Of course, it's based on an arcane and arbitrary set of state-invented rules about "conception," "due diligence," and "reduction to practice," but there are ways to do it. Rand was simply ignorant of it and in fact apparnetly did not even realize the US *has* a first to invent system alreayd.

Okay, but that lends further credence to the idea that if she were aware of it, she would not have had any strong objection to it.

Well, any patent system is a filing system, I suppose--but it can be either based on first to invent, or first to file. Moreoever, some here seem to think that the essence of patent infringement, is "stealing"--which means presumably copying and using someone else's idea without their permission. Now a similar requirement is the case in copyright law--independent creation *is* a defense, there--but it's not in patent law. So it seems that most pro-IP libertarians really favor some "copyright" based system even for protecting inventions--that is, patent would collapse into copyright (Rotbhard has a similar argument). But copyright is NOT a "filing" system. You get a copyright *automatically* in created works of authorship the moment they are "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression.

I really think most libertarian advocates of IP have no idea of the way the real system works, and of the bizarre system they are defending.

Perhaps, but this has little if any bearing on the issue of intellectual property rights.

- Bill

Post 45

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 6:44pm

Stephan:

This is the whole point: if it's not scarce, no one can "deprive" you of it.

Stephan I don't understand this view of rights. If someone can't deprive you of something, it doesn't mean you still don't have a right to it. And I would disagree that someone doesn't have the ability to deprive you of an abundant resource. Someone can deprive you of an abundant resource like locking you up in a jail cell and determining what resources you have access to, whether they be scarce or abundant. So your view of property rights seems rather lacking to me. That you repudiate then intellectual property rights because they are not scarce resources as your basis of what should determine is a right to property doesn't make much sense to me either. What is your standard for differentiating between scarcity and abundance? And why do we have the right to one but not the other?

Likewise, if you think of a way to use your property--configure it into some design or apparatus; think of a way to use it (method)--for example, a way to modify your fuel injector to get better gas mileage, then if someone else uses the same technique on their own car, it does not deprive you of your technique.

But how is this relevant to what is a scarce or abundant resource and why we have a right to own one but not the other? Only Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged. In that sense I would regard that to be a very scarce resource.

"Of course there is value created from taking granite and altering it into a statue. If you bought that statue, are you just paying for the value of a hunk of unsculpted granite?"

Technically, you don't pay for value. You pay for certain rights to be transferred to you--namely,t he rights to control a particular hunk of matter. The *reason* you pay for it is you value the statue.

Then you would be paying for a value! Right? Trading money, something the sculpter values, in exchange for the sculpted statue, something you value. You're trying to make some kind of philosophical distinction between paying for something for the reason it has value, and the right to buy something you value and dispose of that property as one wishes to, but there is no dichotomy there. You are trading value for value. Why do you think someone pays more for a sculpted granite statue then they would for just a hunk of unsculpted granite? As you say the individual values the sculpted granite more because physical and mental effort was needed to produce a product that would otherwise not be as valued, namely a hunk of unsculpted granite. Of course you pay for value, the price of a product always reflects a value. And of course you are paying for the transfer of that "valued" property.

But so waht if you "create value" by altering granite into a statue? Either you own the granite that you are altering, or you do not. If you do, then you already owned the matter that you re-shape into something that "has more value."

Yes, and that addition of more value is because the sculpter spent his mental and physical labor giving it more value, which is what he owns. He owned that physical and mental labor. So the sculpted granite is no longer "just a hunk of granite", it is now a product with mental and physical labor ADDED TO IT. Making it something that has MORE VALUE.

If you don't own the granite--say, it's someone else's; you are working under contract,

Then of course you would only be selling the value of your own labor. The hunk of granite is not yours since you spent no financial, physical or mental effort acquiring that hunk of granite, but the labor you put into making it a statue is your own labor that you can sell. It's no different than say hiring a contractor to build a house but you purchase the materials yourself. Just because it's your materials, doesn't mean you don't pay for the contractor's time and expertise. You still pay the contractor for that, and the contractor can dictate the terms for how he wants to trade that labor, time and expertise.

or you stole the granite--then creating a statue does NOT give you ownership of it.

Of course not. Because you deprived someone of their property, and you don't have a right to do that. Nor can you deprive someone of their labor, and enslave them to make them a granite statue for you either.

Again: creation is neither necessary nor sufficient.

But creation requires labor, both physical and mental, and as you seem to agree, you don't get to steal that either, correct? Unless slavery is ok with you? If it's your labor, physical and mental, you get to dictate the terms on how you want to trade that physical and mental effort. So when Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, she owns the fruit of that physical and mental effort, namely a "novel" and can dictate the terms of that transaction, including not being able to reproduce her novels without her consent or compensation to her.

"Why do you think a sculpted piece of granite has a higher price than a hunk of unsculpted granite? Physical and mental effort was exerted in producing that finished product of a sculpted granite statue,"

Sure. There's a reason people expend labor to transform their property. So what?

What do you mean so what? So you have a right to your labor, whether that be physical or mental, and you have the right to trade that how you wish to. You seem to suggest by denying we have a right to intellectual property means I don't have a right to dictate how I can offer my intellectual efforts? I.e. my mental effort, or in the case of the contractor his expertise. That has a value, that is intellectual property, and the owner of that intellectual property can set the terms for how he wants to trade that intellectual property.

"something that the sculpter is entitled to the fruits of that mental and physical exertion"

I don't know what this means. What "entitlement" is this exactly, other than the right to sell things you've transformed and improved?

You are entitled to own your own physical and mental work, which means you are entitled to trade that, which of course means you can set the terms of that trade agreement, i.e. contract.

Post 46

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 7:07pm

Ted Keer:

"During the middle ages, if your neighbor invented a better plow, you could look over the hedge at him tilling his field and copy his design. There was nothing that he could do to prevent this except to try to plow only at night or simply not to use his invention. The idea of offering patents came about when political thinkers saw that a limited form of monopoly granted for a limited period and backed up by political force would benefit all parties. If you knew that by inventing a better plow you could apply to the king for a patent and get a fee from those who wanted to license your idea you could invest the time in plow-research confident in the notion that your hard work would be rewarded.

In the state of nature, the idea of patents is unthinkable. One either hides one's secrets (like the formula for Coca Cola) or shares one's recipes or simply doesn't innovate. But if a state apparatus already exists, and the state can offer you a limited monopoly for a fee (you get royalties, the state gets taxes, the public gets the benefit of your invention, and free use of your idea after some period has elapsed) then all benefit and none is harmed."

Well, this is the theory, but there is no proof to back it up. Even if you swallow the problematic utilitarian rationale of this idea (it is utilitarian: clearly, it's not the case that *no one* is harmed--some people are harmed, badly; RIM had to pay $600M recently after extortion from NTP; so the argument is that on net, we are all better off), most studies conclude the patent system is a net drain on the economy, or are inconclusive. I've estimated that the system costs at least $31 billion a year in net losses.

Pro-IP people who deny this ought to tell us exactly what are teh costs, and benefits, of the system, so we can figure out the alleged net gain. They never do--they do not know. Yet they act as if they do. I find this to be dishonest.

Post 47

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 7:13pm

Steve:

I agree that every state currently in existence is shameful. I'll admit that the US government is disgraceful, but this was not always so.

It's more than "shameful" or disgraceful--it's criminal. Do I sense a reluctance here to call a spade a spade. From an Objectivist? Say it ain't so! :)

Thinking that the state must become corrupt and unjust is irrational. Since some institution is necessary for the protection of rights, it does not follow that this institution must become unjust. If you disagree and think that it is unessential to have a government at all you had better put that in a new thread.

I disagree. The state by definition is corrupt and unjust, since by its nature it either taxes, or outlaws competition. Either of these actions is corrupt/unjust. I don't see that "an entity that taxes or outlaws competition" is the institution necessary to protect rights. In fact, by its nature, it infringes rights.

Capitalism requires a government because it requires freedom. There can be no freedom if one man my steal another mans creation. There is only one rational way to deal with this issue, as I see it. There must be an agent who can respond to force. That agent is the state.

Do you think the case for IP depends on there being a state?

Your arguments are great for a libertarian. Unfortunately for libertarians, that makes them great arguments for anarchists.

Of course, I am an anarchist, since I oppose aggression, and since the state is necessarily aggressive.

But this is not the issue. The issue is whether is it rational to hate government of all forms. If someone wants to use what he has created, he had better choose a government that will protect his right to do so.

I don't know waht you mean by "government." The question is whether *the state* is justified.

Post 48

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 7:23pm

Dwyer:

This is the whole point: if it's not scarce, no one can "deprive" you of it. As Jefferson said, it's like someone lighting their candle from yours: you still have your flame.
Suppose I don't want them to light their candle from mine. If it's my flame, why can't I deny them access to it?

Sure! But if you don't, then the information gets out. As Tucker said, "You want your invention to yourself? Then keep it to yourself."

I wrote, "You also say, 'Ayn Rand mistakenly assumes that the first to file [instead of "first-to-invent"] has priority (and then she is at pains to defend such a system).' I think Rand would agree that ideally the first to invent should have priority. The problem is, how do you establish this priority legally?"
Why do you assuem Rand would agree with this? She never says this, and explicitly defends the first to file idea.
She defends it, but not in opposition to the idea of "first-to-invent." She sees the filing process only as a way of making public one's invention so as to ensure a mechanism for its legal protection. If there were a better way to do this, I don't think she'd object to it.

I am not sure you understand how the patent system works. The US system has a filing process. It happens to be based on first to invent, rather than first to file. So I am not sure what you are talking about.

Second, how would it be done? Like it's done here. There is a system in place, called "interference," to figure this out. Of course, it's based on an arcane and arbitrary set of state-invented rules about "conception," "due diligence," and "reduction to practice," but there are ways to do it. Rand was simply ignorant of it and in fact apparnetly did not even realize the US *has* a first to invent system alreayd.
Okay, but that lends further credence to the idea that if she were aware of it, she would not have had any strong objection to it.

This makes no sense to me. The US system at the time was based on first-to-invent. Rand assumed it was first to file and she wrote a defense of it. She was doubly wrong. I don't understand how this logic redeems her.

Well, any patent system is a filing system, I suppose--but it can be either based on first to invent, or first to file. Moreoever, some here seem to think that the essence of patent infringement, is "stealing"--which means presumably copying and using someone else's idea without their permission. Now a similar requirement is the case in copyright law--independent creation *is* a defense, there--but it's not in patent law. So it seems that most pro-IP libertarians really favor some "copyright" based system even for protecting inventions--that is, patent would collapse into copyright (Rotbhard has a similar argument). But copyright is NOT a "filing" system. You get a copyright *automatically* in created works of authorship the moment they are "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression.

Okay, but there has to be some way of making one's invention or creation public knowledge, and for that you need a legal system with certain rules that must be adhered to. I think you are quibbling over non-essentials.

Fine, but I find such comments to be maddeningly frustrating. I have no idea what you guys are *for*. You tend to agree with me on my concrete critiques. But what are the specifics of the system you are for? I don't know.

I really think most libertarian advocates of IP have no idea of the way the real system works, and of the bizarre system they are defending.

Perhaps, but this has little if any bearing on the issue of intellectual property rights.
It seems to me if you are advocating a state-implemented system of rights, it's incumbent on you to advocate what the hell you are talking about. This is similar, in my view, to the Objectivist critique of theism--theists are notoriously irrational in debate. They often say they believe in "God," but if you ask them what "God" is, they crawfish and say that no one can know, his nature is not definite, they are not sure, it's this and that contradictory thing, etc. I think IP advocates are actually similar to theists.

Post 49

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 7:37pm

John:

Stephan I don't understand this view of rights. If someone can't deprive you of something, it doesn't mean you still don't have a right to it.

Why do you need a right to something you can't be deprived of? Anyway, I was responding to an argument that said that it's wrong to deprive people of something. I countered that if you do the same thing wiht your property that someone else is doing with theirs, this doesn't deprive them of anything. IF you think "deprivation" is not essential to a rights violation claim, then don't make this argument.

And I would disagree that someone doesn't have the ability to deprive you of an abundant resource.

"Scarcity" here is economic scarcity--non-rivalrousness. NOt mere lack of abundance.

That you repudiate then intellectual property rights because they are not scarce resources as your basis of what should determine is a right to property doesn't make much sense to me either.

I repudiate them for this reason. To enforce a legal right *always* means to do something to or with someone else's *tangible property*. Thus, to grant rights in IP or any non-scarce resource, *necessarily means* granting or transferring rights in tangible things. I think the Lockean homesteading rule is sufficient; IP brings in a second rule that trumps it. All criminal or socialist ethics are incompatible with the Lockean homesteading rule, just as the property rule implicit in IP is.

Only Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged. In that sense I would regard that to be a very scarce resource.

copyright covers not only teh right to literally reproduce, but non-literal reproduction, and various "derivative rights." So by some accounts we could not even have this discussion. Or, you would be prevented from writing "John Armaos's Prometheus Blinked: A Sequel to Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged"--that is, if you wanted to write your own novel, with your imaginary rendering of what the characters might do next--you are physically prevented from doing so. Do you not see this as manifestly and obviously absurd and unjust?

Then you would be paying for a value! Right? Trading money, something the sculpter values, in exchange for the sculpted statue, something you value.

Some thing that I value is not "a value." It's a thing I value.

Yes, and that addition of more value is because the sculpter spent his mental and physical labor giving it more value, which is what he owns. He owned that physical and mental labor.

No, no one "owns" labor. Labor is just an action--something you do with your body. You own your body--that's enough.

But creation requires labor, both physical and mental, and as you seem to agree, you don't get to steal that either, correct?

Creation requires innumerable things--it requires that we have time, that there not be a storm, etc. Do we own every necessary condition of creating things?

Unless slavery is ok with you?

Solme slavery is of course justified--jailing or punishing criminals, for example. But innocent people have a right to their own bodies. That rules out slavery. You don't need to then talk about owning labor, any more than owning memory or emotions or ideas.

If it's your labor, physical and mental, you get to dictate the terms on how you want to trade that physical and mental effort.

Sure--b/c you own your body an can choose what to do with it. But you don't own your labor. This is a mystical, metaphorical confusion.

So when Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, she owns the fruit of that physical and mental effort, namely a "novel"

your "so" doesn't follow. Question begging.

and can dictate the terms of that transaction, including not being able to reproduce her novels without her consent or compensation to her.

this is yhet another confusion: you are attempting to say that copyright and patent could be based on private contractual arrangements. They cannot, since private contracts don't affect third parties; but IP necessarily does.

What do you mean so what? So you have a right to your labor, whether that be physical or mental, and you have the right to trade that how you wish to. You seem to suggest by denying we have a right to intellectual property means I don't have a right to dictate how I can offer my intellectual efforts?

NOt so; you own your body, and your property; you can do whatever you want with them.

I.e. my mental effort, or in the case of the contractor his expertise. That has a value, that is intellectual property,

question begging.

Post 50

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 9:21pm

Stephan:

"Stephan I don't understand this view of rights. If someone can't deprive you of something, it doesn't mean you still don't have a right to it."

Why do you need a right to something you can't be deprived of?

I meant it is physically possible you may not have the power to deny me an abundant resource that I own. I was making a distinction between philosophically denying someone has a right to own something of abundance to physically being able to prevent someone from owning something of abundance.

Anyway, I was responding to an argument that said that it's wrong to deprive people of something. I countered that if you do the same thing wiht your property that someone else is doing with theirs, this doesn't deprive them of anything.

I agree but you still have the right to sell your idea of how you changed your property to someone else. For example I could invent a product, and sell you the design. You don't have a right to steal that design, i.e. take it without my consent. Because that design was mine.

"And I would disagree that someone doesn't have the ability to deprive you of an abundant resource."

"Scarcity" here is economic scarcity--non-rivalrousness. NOt mere lack of abundance.

I don't think I ever recall economic scarcity defined this way. I believe economic scarcity means the supply of a product or resource cannot meet the demand.

http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Economic_Scarcity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/scarcity.asp

"That you repudiate then intellectual property rights because they are not scarce resources as your basis of what should determine is a right to property doesn't make much sense to me either."

I repudiate them for this reason. To enforce a legal right *always* means to do something to or with someone else's *tangible property*. Thus, to grant rights in IP or any non-scarce resource, *necessarily means* granting or transferring rights in tangible things. I think the Lockean homesteading rule is sufficient; IP brings in a second rule that trumps it. All criminal or socialist ethics are incompatible with the Lockean homesteading rule, just as the property rule implicit in IP is.

So basically you are saying no one should be able to sell their ideas, or expertise? I can't sell you the design for my invention? I can't sell you my novel?

"Only Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged. In that sense I would regard that to be a very scarce resource."

copyright covers not only teh right to literally reproduce, but non-literal reproduction, and various "derivative rights." So by some accounts we could not even have this discussion. Or, you would be prevented from writing "John Armaos's Prometheus Blinked: A Sequel to Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged"--that is, if you wanted to write your own novel, with your imaginary rendering of what the characters might do next--you are physically prevented from doing so. Do you not see this as manifestly and obviously absurd and unjust?

I'm sorry I'm not arguing with currently how copyright laws work, we are or at least I thought we were engaging in a discussion of whether there is such a thing as intellectual property rights. I thought your position also includes that I don't have the right to copyright my literary piece even from a literal reproduction without my consent?

"Then you would be paying for a value! Right? Trading money, something the sculpter values, in exchange for the sculpted statue, something you value."

Some thing that I value is not "a value." It's a thing I value.

Your quibbling over a non-essential here. The fact that we use the term value as both a verb sometimes and other times a noun does not necessarily mean the term has that much of a philosophical distinction in either of these grammatical uses in the context of this conversation. When I say you pay for a value, I mean you are paying for something that you value. Value is something that you give importance to, something that has meaning. Any random object may not be necessarily something of value to you, it must be some object that you want or desire. Something that is meaningful to you. You trade money for a sculpted granite statue, there is an exchange of values, i.e. the sculpter values the specific amount of money the price indicates more than the statue, and the purchaser values the statue more than the specific amount of money the sculpter is asking for. I honestly don't understand the contention you have on this and I should think this particular point doesn't warrant any more discussion.

"Yes, and that addition of more value is because the sculpter spent his mental and physical labor giving it more value, which is what he owns. He owned that physical and mental labor."

No, no one "owns" labor. Labor is just an action--something you do with your body. You own your body--that's enough.

Again you're just quibbling over a non-essential. With the premise that one own's his own body, the logical extension of that is you own what your body can do. When an employer hires an employee, the employee doesn't just trade his body for a specific period of time. He isn't just some motionless robot sitting in the corner doing nothing, like "Ok you have my body, do what you want with it for 8 hours". The employee moves his body and uses his mind, thus producing something fruitful, i.e. something of value (please, don't quip back you can't value a value, when I mean something of value I mean something that someone values, ok?). That is his labor, and he owns that labor can trade it for something in return.

"But creation requires labor, both physical and mental, and as you seem to agree, you don't get to steal that either, correct?"

Creation requires innumerable things--it requires that we have time, that there not be a storm, etc. Do we own every necessary condition of creating things?

Well we own what our bodies can do, so that of course means we own our own time, and our own labor. You can own your own mind and body and what it can do. And what it can do can be traded obviously as I said before. You don't just trade your body with someone, although you can if you have a will that states you are trading your organs for medical research, but you can also trade what your body can do for something in return. A service, something that requires action to produce something, is what is paid for, not just a motionless body.

"If it's your labor, physical and mental, you get to dictate the terms on how you want to trade that physical and mental effort."

Sure--b/c you own your body an can choose what to do with it. But you don't own your labor. This is a mystical, metaphorical confusion.

Of course you own your own labor and this is not some mystical or metaphorical confusion. Your labor is what is necessary to produce something of value to someone else or to yourself. A car is not just some hunk of metal we find in nature, it requires action to first extract the resources necessary for assembling a car and action to assemble the car, and you have the right to trade that action for something in return.

"So when Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, she owns the fruit of that physical and mental effort, namely a "novel""

your "so" doesn't follow. Question begging.

Please explain.

"and can dictate the terms of that transaction, including not being able to reproduce her novels without her consent or compensation to her."

this is yhet another confusion: you are attempting to say that copyright and patent could be based on private contractual arrangements. They cannot, since private contracts don't affect third parties; but IP necessarily does.

This is a non-sequiter. A private contract between two parties also doesn't mean a third party can steal the product. If I sell you a car, that doesn't mean Bill gets to steal that car from you because he wasn't a party to that contract. I don't need a contract with all third parties stating they can't take my property without my consent. So likewise if I sell you a novel and retain a copyright to that novel, I'm saying that I am only selling you the book itself with the words printed in it, I'm not selling you the right to reproduce those words. That is the condition that I can put on that contract, and a third party has no right to steal my property, or use it without my consent.

"I.e. my mental effort, or in the case of the contractor his expertise. That has a value, that is intellectual property,"

question begging.

Please explain.

Post 51

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 11:51pm

John:

I agree but you still have the right to sell your idea of how you changed your property to someone else. For example I could invent a product, and sell you the design. You don't have a right to steal that design, i.e. take it without my consent. Because that design was mine.

Well, a contract between A and B is fine. But IP requires that third parties--C--be bound. Suppose A has a design for a house, and "sells" it to B. Now somehow someone leaks the design, or it gets independently invented, or widely known, whatever. Everyone knows about the design now, just as people knw of FallingWater's design, or the general plot and characters of Star Wars, even if they have never seen the movie. How is C bound by the contract or sale between A and B?

I don't think I ever recall economic scarcity defined this way. I believe economic scarcity means the supply of a product or resource cannot meet the demand.

Just look up non-rivalrousness, and you'll see what I mean.

So basically you are saying no one should be able to sell their ideas, or expertise? I can't sell you the design for my invention? I can't sell you my novel?

Technically, no; practically, it depends. Let's take the classic employment contract as an example. I don't think you "own" your labor, so you don't technically "sell" it. What happens is a laborer or employee and employer agree that the employer will pay $X for certain services, if the employee performs them. This is really a unilateral agreement: Employer simply agrees to pay, IF employee does certain things. This does not require the awkward presumption that one "owns" one's labor. It's just that being in control of one's body allows one to profit off of using it.

I'm sorry I'm not arguing with currently how copyright laws work, we are or at least I thought we were engaging in a discussion of whether there is such a thing as intellectual property rights. I thought your position also includes that I don't have the right to copyright my literary piece even from a literal reproduction without my consent?

If you are not endorsing current copyright law, then I am not sure exactly what "intellectual property rights" you are in favor of. This is typical of libertarian advocates of IP: they deny they favor current IP law, but are devoid of specifics of what they do favor. Again, it's reminiscent of the tactics used by theists when cornered.

Again you're just quibbling over a non-essential. With the premise that one own's his own body, the logical extension of that is you own what your body can do. When an employer hires an employee, the employee doesn't just trade his body for a specific period of time. He isn't just some motionless robot sitting in the corner doing nothing, like "Ok you have my body, do what you want with it for 8 hours". The employee moves his body and uses his mind, thus producing something fruitful, i.e. something of value (please, don't quip back you can't value a value, when I mean something of value I mean something that someone values, ok?).

I think the title-transfer theory of Evers-Rothbard is basically correct. A contract is a way to transfer title to things that are owned (ownable). The employment agreement is what I specified above: it's usually simply a one-way, unilateral, conditional transfer of the employer's property to the employee. It's triggered by, conditioned on, the employee's doing certain tasks. I don't see that this is all that complex nor does it imply "ownerhsip" or one's "labor." I find this talk to be very slippery, non-rigorous, metaphorical--the kind of talk that would be engaged in by liberal arts majors :)

"That is his labor, and he owns that labor can trade it for something in return." I guess you can look at it this way, if you must, if you are unable to comprehend what a conditinal, unilateral title transfer is. Whatever helps you.

Well we own what our bodies can do, so that of course means we own our own time, and our own labor.

This is a great example of the absurdity that results from overreliance on metaphor. You think we "own" our own "time"...? What the heck does this mean??

"You can own your own mind and body and what it can do. And what it can do can be traded obviously as I said before."

I can trade... what my mind can "do", because I "own" it? ... this is so confused.

Of course you own your own labor and this is not some mystical or metaphorical confusion.

Really? Can you leave it to someone in your will?

Let me guess: you think we own our actions too. Do we own our intentions? Our love? Our memories?

"So when Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, she owns the fruit of that physical and mental effort, namely a "novel""

your "so" doesn't follow. Question begging.

Please explain.

It's question-begging to assume that she owns the fruit of her labors. that'st he question here.

"and can dictate the terms of that transaction, including not being able to reproduce her novels without her consent or compensation to her."

this is yhet another confusion: you are attempting to say that copyright and patent could be based on private contractual arrangements. They cannot, since private contracts don't affect third parties; but IP necessarily does.

This is a non-sequiter. A private contract between two parties also doesn't mean a third party can steal the product. If I sell you a car, that doesn't mean Bill gets to steal that car from you because he wasn't a party to that contract.

That's b/c the car is an ownable, an owned, thing. The question is whether IP is.

I don't need a contract with all third parties stating they can't take my property without my consent. So likewise if I sell you a novel and retain a copyright to that novel, I'm saying that I am only selling you the book itself with the words printed in it, I'm not selling you the right to reproduce those words.

This is essentially Rothbard's argument. The thing is, a car is owned. If a third party uses it without the owner's consent, he's a trespasser, even if he's an innocent one.

But suppose I think of a way to use my own property in a more efficient way. How is this even possibly a trespass on the "idea" of some other guy who registered his similar idea with a state agency? Or suppose I am shopping at Wal-Mart and see a new fishing rod with a cool mechanism. I can't afford it but I am handy, so I modify my own fishing rod in a similar way. How am I trespassing? HOw does an agreement between the inventor, and some second party, implicate me?

suppose waht I see inspires me and I think of an improvement. Who owns that?

Etc.

Post 52

Monday, April 7, 2008 - 7:13am

Taking notes in class is a violation of copyright.

Perhaps teaching someone else what you learned in class is also a violation of copyright. Shades of Galambos!

Post 53

Monday, April 7, 2008 - 8:33am

Stephan,

Your posts are confusing, because you're not clearly separating your own comments from those you're responding to. The casual reader would have no idea who is saying what. I happen to know, only because I wrote the comments you're addressing.

Secondly, you seem so intent on attacking Rand that you won't for a second entertain any reasonable explanation on what her position might have been. Look, Rand didn't, and Objectivists haven't, to my knowledge, given this issue any kind of in depth analysis or treatment. The best one can say is that Rand favored legal protection of patents and copyrights, period! She didn't address the distinction between "first-to-file" and "first-to-invent." She may not even have been aware of it.

In any case, this is an issue for the philosophy of law. As far as I know, Objectivism has no stated position on it.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 4/07, 8:38am)

Post 54

Monday, April 7, 2008 - 9:03am

Bill Dwyer: "Your posts are confusing, because you're not clearly separating your own comments from those you're responding to. The casual reader would have no idea who is saying what. I happen to know, only because I wrote the comments you're addressing."

Sorry... I was trying to keep the length down.

"Secondly, you seem so intent on attacking Rand that you won't for a second entertain any reasonable explanation on what her position might have been. Look, Rand didn't, and Objectivists haven't, to my knowledge, given this issue any kind of in depth analysis or treatment. The best one can say is that Rand favored legal protection of patents and copyrights, period! She didn't address the distinction between "first-to-file" and "first-to-invent." She may not even have been aware of it."

But she said, "patents are the heart and core of property rights"! She clearly favored IP rights, strongly; and also reputation rights, which is a similar type of argument. To claim so strongly that patent rights are so important, and to be so adamant about it--then one has an obligation to know what one is talking about and have a clear argument. My point is her argument is confused, and her confusion and ignorance of the filing/invention priority issue is illustrative of this.

Look: when I devoured Rand's stuff in HS and college, I initially accepted her comments on patents and copyrights. But something about it always bugged me as too utilitarian, too incomplete, lacking. After law school, as I began to practice patent law, my gnawing doubts about her argument resurfaced and I began thinking harder about it. I became convinced Rand's argument for IP was flawed, so I tried to find a better argument for IP. After a while I realized I was striking out, simply because IP is NOT justified. This realization hit me like a ton of bricks, but once I accepted this as a possible conclusion, the arguments all came together.

"In any case, this is an issue for the philosophy of law. As far as I know, Objectivism has no stated position on it."

Objectivists are almost universally strongly in favor of IP. If they don't understand what they are really advocating, maybe they ought to be a little less strident about it. (Or am I missing your point?)

"Secondly, you seem so intent on attacking Rand that you won't for a second entertain any reasonable explanation on what her position might have been."

I am not intent on attacking Rand. As I noted above, I tried for a long time to square her IP views, but they just don't work. I also came to be more skeptical of her whole approach to rights, partly b/c of this, but that's another story. Anyway--I am not sure what you mean here: why do we need an explanation for what her position might have been? She is explicit about her position: she thinks first-to-file is justified, and defends it. She just didn't realize what she was favoring was the patent system in place in most countries other than the US. I think her position is that the first to file should win. She says this. Why do you doubt her?
(Edited by Stephan Kinsella on 4/07, 9:09am)

Post 55

Monday, April 7, 2008 - 11:18am

Stephan:

Well, a contract between A and B is fine. But IP requires that third parties--C--be bound.

Stephan, as I already said before, third parties are always bound to NOT STEAL YOUR PROPERTY. You don't need a contract with a third party stating that they can't steal your property. The mere fact that theft is a violation of your rights is sufficient enough. You are always legally bound to not steal, regardless of whether there is a contract or not.

You wrote:

I don't think you "own" your labor, so you don't technically "sell" it.

And bizarrely, you then try to make some distinction but end up saying almost the exact same thing as selling one's labor:

What happens is a laborer or employee and employer agree that the employer will pay $X for certain services, if the employee performs them.

Yes Stephan, SERVICES, what do you think SERVICES means? That means selling your LABOR. That means exactly the same as selling your labor and the employer buying that labor. Please explain what the distinction you're trying to make here?

Dictionary.com

Labor: 1. productive activity, esp. for the sake of economic gain.

Service: employment in any duties or work for a person, organization, government, etc.

And what are "duties or work", that would be LABOR!!!!

"I'm sorry I'm not arguing with currently how copyright laws work, we are or at least I thought we were engaging in a discussion of whether there is such a thing as intellectual property rights. I thought your position also includes that I don't have the right to copyright my literary piece even from a literal reproduction without my consent?"

If you are not endorsing current copyright law, then I am not sure exactly what "intellectual property rights" you are in favor of. This is typical of libertarian advocates of IP: they deny they favor current IP law, but are devoid of specifics of what they do favor. Again, it's reminiscent of the tactics used by theists when cornered.

Your accusation is unwarranted Stephan. You don't need to understand what the current laws are in order to have a definition of rights. Do you think without laws there would be no way to meaningfully define rights? Can't we define free speech in the absence of a legal code? It seems you think we derive our rights from the law? Is that your position?

Intellectual property rights are the creations of the mind for the use of economic gain, such as music, literature, artistic works, inventions, logos, designs used in commerce, etc.

Now, how the legal code is set-up to interpret what is a theft of that creation, for example whether it only be restricted to literal reproductions or more broad an interpretation is not integral to the philosophical discussion of whether intellectual property rights is a legitimate concept or not. You think there is no such thing as IP, I think there is. You point out a PARTICULAR OBSERVATION about the CURRENT legal code, that being even vague interpretations of a literary piece as being a violation of copyright. But your issue is not just vague interpretive reproductions, your issue is that you think someone should be able to reproduce a literary work in any which way and that the author has no right to copyright his work against ANY KIND OF REPRODUCTION.

I don't see that this is all that complex nor does it imply "ownerhsip" or one's "labor." I find this talk to be very slippery, non-rigorous, metaphorical--the kind of talk that would be engaged in by liberal arts majors :)

I don't need the thinly disguised insults with a smiley face Stphan. So thanks but no thanks, I'll choose to ignore these idiotic comments.

"You can own your own mind and body and what it can do. And what it can do can be traded obviously as I said before."

I can trade... what my mind can "do", because I "own" it? ... this is so confused

You mean confusing? Stephan no offense, but is English your second language? That may explain why don't understand.

Of course you own your own labor and this is not some mystical or metaphorical confusion.

Really? Can you leave it to someone in your will?

No, since labor requires ACTION, and the presumption of leaving something in your will means you have become a CORPSE, i.e. a motionless body, then NO YOU CAN'T LEAVE YOUR LABOR.

But you even use the term "service" as a legitimate concept that one can TRADE. So the fact that you are accusing me of using mystical metaphors only demonstrates your gross hypocrisy. You think someone can trade a service for something in return, is that also a mystical metaphor Stephan? Can I accuse you of being just like a theist? You are of course equivocating the words "SERVICE" that is indistinguishable from "LABOR".

Let me guess: you think we own our actions too. Do we own our intentions? Our love? Our memories?

You are equivocating the concept labor with "intention" and "love". It's not just ANY ARBITRARY KIND OF ACTION. It is a SPECIFIC KIND OF ACTION. Labor is an activity for economic production, a synonym would be "service" as I stated above that you seem to agree is a valid concept. You can trade your SERVICES for something in return. Our "love" is not an activity for economic production.

"I don't need a contract with all third parties stating they can't take my property without my consent. So likewise if I sell you a novel and retain a copyright to that novel, I'm saying that I am only selling you the book itself with the words printed in it, I'm not selling you the right to reproduce those words."

This is essentially Rothbard's argument. The thing is, a car is owned. If a third party uses it without the owner's consent, he's a trespasser, even if he's an innocent one.

But suppose I think of a way to use my own property in a more efficient way. How is this even possibly a trespass on the "idea" of some other guy who registered his similar idea with a state agency?

As Bill stated above "She defends it, but not in opposition to the idea of "first-to-invent." She sees the filing process only as a way of making public one's invention so as to ensure a mechanism for its legal protection. If there were a better way to do this, I don't think she'd object to it."

The fact that the current legal code has set up a way to have some way that an individual can meet a burden of proof their creation was their own and prove someone else has stolen their property doesn't negate the philosophical concept of intellectual property rights. That you are quibbling over how patents and copyrights are LEGALLY ISSUED is not at all important to whether you think intellectual property rights exist or not. You think they don't exist at all, regardless of how the law is designed to establish the due process for PROTECTING THOSE RIGHTS.

Or suppose I am shopping at Wal-Mart and see a new fishing rod with a cool mechanism. I can't afford it but I am handy, so I modify my own fishing rod in a similar way. How am I trespassing?

I don't understand how you are using the term trespassing here. I'm familiar with the legal definition, that of entering onto someone's property without their consent. I should think "theft" is sufficient enough a word to describe taking someone's property without their consent. So I don't understand how Rothbard is using the concept trespassing here if you are in fact correctly interpreting his ideas. Trespassing doesn't have the element of theft added to it, it is only entering onto someone's property without their consent, for it to be theft would require TAKING property, not merely ENTERING onto the property. So I think the term trespassing is lacking here.

Post 56

Monday, April 7, 2008 - 2:56pm

John:

Stephan:
Well, a contract between A and B is fine. But IP requires that third parties--C--be bound.

Stephan, as I already said before, third parties are always bound to NOT STEAL YOUR PROPERTY. You don't need a contract with a third party stating that they can't steal your property.

I agree, but the question is whether there IS intellectual property. If there is not, there is no stealing.

So for example, suppose I'm generally aware of the plot for Star Wars, but have never even seen it. Suppose I write "Stephan Kinsella's Further Adventures of Luke Skywalker". What am I "stealing"? Or suppose I am generally aware of how lasers work, and decide to make my own. Of course, I learned about this b/c of the efforts of the original inventors. What am I "stealing" if I make a laser?

You are always legally bound to not steal, regardless of whether there is a contract or not.

which is why you shouldn't bring up the contract between A and B; it's irrelevant to C.

You wrote:

I don't think you "own" your labor, so you don't technically "sell" it.

And bizarrely, you then try to make some distinction but end up saying almost the exact same thing as selling one's labor:

What happens is a laborer or employee and employer agree that the employer will pay $X for certain services, if the employee performs them.

Yes Stephan, SERVICES, what do you think SERVICES means? That means selling your LABOR. That means exactly the same as selling your labor and the employer buying that labor. Please explain what the distinction you're trying to make here?

I didn't mean to distinguish between labor and service. They are the same for purposes of this point. My point was it's imprecise to say you are "selling" your labor (or services). The reason we say this is shorthand, b/c it's similar to the structure of a normal bilateral exchange, where A and B trade items they own, exchange them. One pays for the other.To have an exchange you have to have owned things--title for one is transferred to the other party, "in ecxchange for" and conditioned on the other party doing the same.

In a service contract, there is only one title transfer: the "buyer"'s money transfers to the laborer. The title is trasnferred conditionally: upon the laborer's performing some action. By performing the action, by fulfilling a condition, the actor does not necessarily transfer title to anyhthing to the buyer; he just does something the buyer wants. Take another example: suppose I agree to pay you $100 *if it rains tomorrow*. The raining is just a trigger or condition. If it does rain, then title to the $100 trasnfers. But that does not mean "title" to the "raining" transferred to you, or that anyone owned "the raining." Likewise, in a service contract, the service is just the trigger for the payment. It's a one-way title transfer. The point is to show that despite common description of this as a "sale" of labor, which seems to imply labor is owned, this assumption is not necessary, nor is it coherent. We do not own our actions. We own property--our bodies. Owning one's body is sufficent to allow one to act with the body however one likes. Just as having property rights is sufficient to allow me to print books or speak on my property.

Dictionary.com

Labor: 1. productive activity, esp. for the sake of economic gain.

yes, yes, I agree w/ this.

If you are not endorsing current copyright law, then I am not sure exactly what "intellectual property rights" you are in favor of. This is typical of libertarian advocates of IP: they deny they favor current IP law, but are devoid of specifics of what they do favor. Again, it's reminiscent of the tactics used by theists when cornered.

Your accusation is unwarranted Stephan. You don't need to understand what the current laws are in order to have a definition of rights. Do you think without laws there would be no way to meaningfully define rights? Can't we define free speech in the absence of a legal code? It seems you think we derive our rights from the law? Is that your position?

Intellectual property rights are the creations of the mind for the use of economic gain, such as music, literature, artistic works, inventions, logos, designs used in commerce, etc.

Now, how the legal code is set-up to interpret what is a theft of that creation, for example whether it only be restricted to literal reproductions or more broad an interpretation is not integral to the philosophical discussion of whether intellectual property rights is a legitimate concept or not. You think there is no such thing as IP, I think there is. You point out a PARTICULAR OBSERVATION about the CURRENT legal code, that being even vague interpretations of a literary piece as being a violation of copyright. But your issue is not just vague interpretive reproductions, your issue is that you think someone should be able to reproduce a literary work in any which way and that the author has no right to copyright his work against ANY KIND OF REPRODUCTION.

I don't think it's unfair; I see this all the time. I think those who have an inkling of how the patent and copyright system really work would realize there are hundreds of questions and doctirnes that have arisen out of necessity to refine IP law--so any IP system will have to answer these questions: scope; duration; exceptions; jusfication; damages or remedies for infringement; geographic scope; etc. I think the advocates of IP mostly have no clue as to what kind of system they are really in favor of; they just think "the lawyers can figure it out; it's just a detail." It's NOT just a detail. Every injustice I point to, you guys agree with me. So I say, well that would render IP meaningless.. so waht are you in favor of. You don't know. I don't know how to respond to this. Why are discoveries exempt? What about fair use? Why is the term finite? Why is it 17 years and life-plus-70 years? Is the DMCA justified? Injunctions in patent cases? Should the loser pay? Etc etc.

If you say you are just making a general statement about rights, as Tibor did, "anything you create that has value is property," then I can point to -- as I have -- many obviously unjust implications of such a broad or general statement. So it obviously has to be refined before we can talk about what exactly you are proposing. As far as I can tell you guys are in favor of "some" kind of "IP" protection--not exactly like we have no, of course; and not with the dozens of types of injustices I can point out in the current system; exactly what, you are not sure, after all, you're not a "legal expert". were I still an Objectivist I might use Rand's phrase "blank out" here. :)

I don't see that this is all that complex nor does it imply "ownerhsip" or one's "labor." I find this talk to be very slippery, non-rigorous, metaphorical--the kind of talk that would be engaged in by liberal arts majors :)

I don't need the thinly disguised insults with a smiley face Stphan. So thanks but no thanks, I'll choose to ignore these idiotic comments.

Well, no one ever accused Objectivists of not having a sense of humor. (Or have they? :) Look, I was only kidding--it's my analytical engineering background that has me poking fun at liberal arts types. Engineers are just as bad as liberal arts majors, when it comes to philosophy.

"You can own your own mind and body and what it can do. And what it can do can be traded obviously as I said before."

I can trade... what my mind can "do", because I "own" it? ... this is so confused

You mean confusing? Stephan no offense, but is English your second language? That may explain why don't understand.

No! I should perhaps have said "confusing" but I think "confused" is grammatically correct there. BUt I'll defer to the liberal arts majors on this.

Of course you own your own labor and this is not some mystical or metaphorical confusion.
Really? Can you leave it to someone in your will?
No, since labor requires ACTION, and the presumption of leaving something in your will means you have become a CORPSE, i.e. a motionless body, then NO YOU CAN'T LEAVE YOUR LABOR.

Good. I agree. However, you can leave your corpse to a designated recipient. This helps illustrate why it's mystical nonsense to talk about owning action.

But you even use the term "service" as a legitimate concept that one can TRADE. So the fact that you are accusing me of using mystical metaphors only demonstrates your gross hypocrisy.

It's hard to avoid using the common parlance. I'm simply trying to avoid being tedious, while pointing out the dangers of using imprecise language. It's okay to say sell or trade, if you keep in mind that this describes the economic reasons one engages in the agreement, and its similarity to a normal barter or title exchange--so long as one keeps in mind this is not literally the case.

You think someone can trade a service for something in return, is that also a mystical metaphor Stephan?

Look, it's really just semantics. It depends on what you mean by "sell" or "trade." If you mean by this what I said before--describing a unilateral, conditional title transfer, where the labor said to be "sold" is really the object of the title transfer, or the goal of the buyer, that's fine. But the problem is that people use this term too literally and then extrapolate from that that you "own" your labor; and therefore, you "own" whatever you "create" with it, no matter what ontological kind of thing it is. This lets them skip the inquiry of whether the thing is an ownable type of thing.

Can I accuse you of being just like a theist?

Yes, you can, and you may. But you would be incorrect.

You are of course equivocating the words "SERVICE" that is indistinguishable from "LABOR".

I agree they are the same. That is not my point.

Let me guess: you think we own our actions too. Do we own our intentions? Our love? Our memories?

You are equivocating the concept labor with "intention" and "love". It's not just ANY ARBITRARY KIND OF ACTION. It is a SPECIFIC KIND OF ACTION.

So only some kinds of actions can be owned? What kinds, exactly? What are the criteria for ownability? I say it's the rivalrous character of a good.

Labor is an activity for economic production, a synonym would be "service" as I stated above that you seem to agree is a valid concept. You can trade your SERVICES for something in return.

Sure, but not b/c we "own" them.

Our "love" is not an activity for economic production.

No offense, Elliot Spitzer. :)

"I don't need a contract with all third parties stating they can't take my property without my consent. So likewise if I sell you a novel and retain a copyright to that novel, I'm saying that I am only selling you the book itself with the words printed in it, I'm not selling you the right to reproduce those words."

This is essentially Rothbard's argument. The thing is, a car is owned. If a third party uses it without the owner's consent, he's a trespasser, even if he's an innocent one.

But suppose I think of a way to use my own property in a more efficient way. How is this even possibly a trespass on the "idea" of some other guy who registered his similar idea with a state agency?

As Bill stated above "She defends it, but not in opposition to the idea of "first-to-invent." She sees the filing process only as a way of making public one's invention so as to ensure a mechanism for its legal protection. If there were a better way to do this, I don't think she'd object to it."

I think you guys may be confused: *filing* is required in both first-to-file, and first-to-invent, systems. In a first to file system, if A and B each file similar patent applications, the one who filed first wins. In a first to invent system, you have an interference and the one who can prove he *conceived* of the idea first wins (assuming he can prove "diligence" in reducing it to practice and/or filing) even if he filed second.

The fact that the current legal code has set up a way to have some way that an individual can meet a burden of proof their creation was their own and prove someone else has stolen their property doesn't negate the philosophical concept of intellectual property rights.

It shows that Rand was unwittingly justifying the European way of doing things rather than the US way, while thinking she was defending the American system. Who konws, maybe the European way is right--the US Congress is considering changing to a first to file system as a matter of fact.

That you are quibbling over how patents and copyrights are LEGALLY ISSUED is not at all important to whether you think intellectual property rights exist or not.

It's important to illustrate *why* RAnd was wrong, why her argument is flawed, why it's incomplete and that she was confused. It's just a supplementary point. Helps flesh things out.

You think they don't exist at all, regardless of how the law is designed to establish the due process for PROTECTING THOSE RIGHTS.

correct. And every concrete criticism I make of various injustices flowing from the Ip system, is met by pro-IP libertarians with agreement--"Oh, we're not in favor of THAT".

Or suppose I am shopping at Wal-Mart and see a new fishing rod with a cool mechanism. I can't afford it but I am handy, so I modify my own fishing rod in a similar way. How am I trespassing?

I don't understand how you are using the term trespassing here.

I just mean--how am I stealing? infringing, invading, violating anyone's rights?

I'm familiar with the legal definition, that of entering onto someone's property without their consent. I should think "theft" is sufficient enough a word to describe taking someone's property without their consent. So I don't understand how Rothbard is using the concept trespassing here if you are in fact correctly interpreting his ideas. Trespassing doesn't have the element of theft added to it, it is only entering onto someone's property without their consent, for it to be theft would require TAKING property, not merely ENTERING onto the property. So I think the term trespassing is lacking here.

Ho-kay. I'm just asking: how did my actions of making the fishing pole violate anyone else's right? What did it "steal"? (Which is the claim implicit in pro-IP views.)

BTW I view trespass as the general category that all rights violations fall under, even theft. Trespass means unconsentd to use of property, to my mind. All crimes are types of trespass, just as all rights are property rights. D'you agree?

Post 57

Monday, April 7, 2008 - 3:25pm

Stephan,

The state by definition is corrupt and unjust, since by its nature it either taxes, or outlaws competition. Either of these actions is corrupt/unjust.

That's inaccurate. It's a definition-by-nonessentials. What's essential for a governing body, or a state, is that it enforces rules of conduct somewhere. The "enforcement" is law enforcement. The "rules of conduct" are the laws. And the "somewhere" is the region. Without any one of these 3 essential characteristics, you can't -- by definition -- have a governing body or state.

Your definition smuggles-in the irrelevant non-essential of "mandated, general taxation" (MGT), and also the unacceptable "argument-against-non-competition" (AANC). What makes MGT irrelevant is that the state can exist without it (it's a nonessential). For instance, the US government existed without MGT for its first 75 years.

What makes AANC unacceptable (as an argument) is that it relies on prior acceptance of the faulty premise that "competition's always best" (CAB). As a proper government administration doesn't have sovereign "authority to determine" objective law (only Reason can do that), neither do the people have the authority to determine objective law. The CAB premise doesn't apply to the rule of objective law precisely because it presumes that objective law cannot be known (objectively) -- but instead, erroneously believes that correct law must be that which is found out empirically, via repeated social (market) experiments.

Here is a more accurate definition of "govern" from Merrium-Webster. It shows that it's not essential for governments to have sovereign power, but only the power granted to them (by the "consent of the governed"), and it shows that it's not essential for governments to have the authority to determine basic policy (e.g., objective rule of law) -- because Reason can perform that function without any help from authorized Force, or from repeated social (market) experiments, for that matter ...

to rule without sovereign power and usually without having the authority to determine basic policy

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/07, 7:05pm)

Post 58

Monday, April 7, 2008 - 3:30pm

Taking the example of the fishing rod with the 'cool' mechanism - what if you decided not just to make one for yourself, but to make many of them, and in turn sell them..... is that theft, violating another's rights [the one who first made those rods], or enroaching on that other's ability to keep selling?

Post 59

Monday, April 7, 2008 - 4:54pm