About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 140

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 11:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So Dr. Machan, in your opinion, it's *never* appropriate for a person to point out any perceived hypocrisy? Even if that person is *not* using it as the basis for attempting to invalidate another person's argument (which, as I pointed out, is the context here)? I certainly disagree with that idea.

Post 141

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 11:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It isn't appropriate on a discussion forum designed to argue out various positions.

Post 142

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 12:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Machan, various positions came up in this thread. Including intellectual property rights, and the perceived hypocrisy or intellectual fraud from Stephan. I brought up the fact he was an IP attorney because I originally thought he was defrauding his intellectual position by playing devil's advocate with us and not letting us know his true position. After learning that wasn't the case, that his actual position really was he was against the recognition of IP rights, his explanation left open the question of his hypocrisy. I don't think I or the others on this thread who called that into question were out of bounds. Someone ought to practice what they believe lest the sincerity of their positions be doubted.

Either Stephan is lying to us or defrauding his client. Either way we has a moral obligation to be honest.


(Edited by John Armaos on 4/11, 12:33pm)


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 143

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 12:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This kind of remote moralism is not only inappropriate on this forum but entirely unreliable.  Moral judgments require a full context and, in any case, whether Kinsella is a hypocrite or not isn't germane to whether his position is sound.  And that is what is at issue here.  But if folks insist on moralizing here, those of us interested in addressing philosophical, political, legal matters, including matters of philosophical ethics, will just have to decide whether it is worth continuing.  I sure as heck don't want to deal with slip shod moralizing by people who hardly know me, who know next to nothing of my life.

Post 144

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 12:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Armaos:

Machan I'm not using ad hominem attacks. Hypocrisy and fraud are not ad hominem arguments especially if they are true.
In any event, they are if nothing else *irrelevant*. The question is whether IP is justified, not whether I am a hypocrite. In fact, from your point of view, I am heroic, b/c I help defend and secure intellectual property for American corporations--why do my private thoughts detract from this heroic effort? Aren't you being a hypocrite for not worshipping my heroism?! (I'm joshing here, people, relax.)

As for "fraud," this concept is widely misused by libertarains--very imprecisely, vaguely. See The Problem with "Fraud": Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression; Trademark and Fraud.

I even stated Stephan's hypocrisy does not validate or invalidate his arguments on intellectual property. Did you miss that post where I stated this?
I missed it, but good.

If anything Stephan has been guilty of ad hominem attacks by initially attacking my college education and presuming liberal arts majors can't make coherent arguments.
Actually, I had no idea what your education was, and was only joking anyway. Plus, I apologized when you kept complaining.

Should Stephan have the impression Objectivists are more interested in personal attacks, I should think I should legitimately get the impression anarchists are only interested in personal attacks.


Look: bygones, okay? My feelings are not hurt. But I'm really just interested in the issues and truth and justice.

Armaos, your continual questions about my way of grappling with my career and trying to stay true to my political views -- I don't think this is the right forum. Maybe such a discussion could be interesting--how does one live morally in an unfree world, etc.--but why would it focus on me, just b/c I have the temerity to disagree with most of my fellow patent lawyers?

Dwyer:
Just to understand your basic position, you're saying that if a drug company puts million of dollars into researching and developing a drug, another drug company, who did not put any money into its research and development, should have the same right to produce and sell the drug at a profit as the original company? Is this correct?
Sure, as long as they didn't commit theft to obtain the information and are not under any kind of contractual obligation not to do this. But who know what cartels or inter-company agreements would exist in a free market?

Ed: apology accepted. I think we all ought to try (me too) to just be civil and have a nice discussion without assuming ill-will or stupidity etc. We are all libertarians here, after all. (I kid, I kid :)

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 145

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 1:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Trager: "So Dr. Machan, in your opinion, it's *never* appropriate for a person to point out any perceived hypocrisy? Even if that person is *not* using it as the basis for attempting to invalidate another person's argument (which, as I pointed out, is the context here)? I certainly disagree with that idea."

I'll respond to part of this, b/c there is an aspect I find interesting, though it is off-topic so a bit sidetracking (but not personal). I have noticed this kind of tactic is often used in political campaigns: Obama will say, "I wish Hillay Clinton would really denounce XYZ." Now he is basically saying that she is a hypocrite if she does not; but it's funny, because why does he want her to denounce XYZ--does he want her to be more like him, and be a better candidate? Etc.

Other times, hypocrisy is pointed out, but the goal is to persuade listeners that the person so accused is *dishonest*--so don't vote for him.

My point is, I suppose you can point out hypocrisy if it's relevant. But I'm not sure why or how it's relevant in a discussion like this. Suppose I am a patent atty and patents should be abolished; you say, "aren't you being a hypocrite"? Now, maybe I am, but what is the relevance of this? Are you politely asking if I'm lying about what I am in favor of? But then, is the issue here really whether I'm telling the truth about opposing IP? No, not realy. In fact this was about Tibor's views, and whether they make sense. The only way I could think it could be relevant in this context, would be if you argued that if Stephan Kinsella practices IP law, that proves it's legitimate; and therefore, to deny it, is self-contradictory or something. But how does my practicing IP prove that it's legitimate? At most, it could prove that Kinsella himself *believes* it's legitimate (demonstrated preference or something); but how does the fact that I (apparently) believe something to be justified, mean that it *is*? Etc.

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 146

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 2:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I consider looking at deeper motives behind arguments quite appropriate as I observed in my article "Questions and Motives" years ago.

Because discussions like this consume so much time, and so frequently involve sophistry, one really has to ask whether a troublesome participant argues in "good faith" or has ulterior, malevolent motives.

So I do not consider accusations of fraud and hypocrisy at all out of place in this forum.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 147

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 3:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke

Because discussions like this consume so much time, and so frequently involve sophistry, one really has to ask whether a troublesome participant argues in "good faith" or has ulterior, malevolent motives.


Luke I share your sentiments.

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 148

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 3:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Ad hominem is an inappropriate argument when it involves a fallacy of relevance.  “You once smoked crack so nothing you say could have any validity.”  

 

In Stephan’s case, his work is obviously relevant because it clearly implies a lack of genuine conviction.  Would you give serious thought to the animal rights arguments of a vegetarian butcher?  If a Muslim contends that arms sales to terrorists are against Islamic teachings, then negotiates a deal for nuclear warheads with Osama bin Laden, somehow I think most people might regard it as relevant. His actions directly contradict his words, and it is absurd to suggest that this should not be pointed out.  When a person does not act consistent with his own beliefs, he has no business expecting others to accept his arguments.


Post 149

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 3:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Moral judgments require a full context and, in any case, whether Kinsella is a hypocrite or not isn't germane to whether his position is sound. "

John, et al: you have to understand that this is the noble position of a scholar, a view from intellectual high ground, and the matrix of seeking truth.  Note that Bill isn't making any claims about Stephen's morality either, and the reason for this was stated above by Machan.

An opponent's personal life has nothing to do with his arguments. Period.  (Otherwise, you'd all be kicked off the debate team. Go Spartans! a la SNL) 


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 150

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 4:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
TSI wrote:

An opponent's personal life has nothing to do with his arguments. Period.  (Otherwise, you'd all be kicked off the debate team. Go Spartans! a la SNL)

I have long considered a Toastmasters speech called "Lewd and Lascivious" expounding upon the evils of "public master debating" and how its very structure encourages and rewards dishonest, immoral, time-wasting, monkey-spanking, chicken-choking, truth-twisting, trophy-chasing, clever-Dick, smart-ass, word play, mind game sophistry unworthy of further consideration, much less formal debate.

Perhaps this thread will finally motivate me to write it.

An alternative title and theme would be "In Defense of (So-Called) Ad Hominem" in which I would make many of the same points.

I do not consider it "high and noble" to offer a patch of ground from which sophists can spew nonsense.

As I stated on the first page of this thread, fundamental arguments against the standard Objectivist position like those Kinsella advance belong in the Dissent Forum of an Objectivist site.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 4/11, 4:21pm)


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 151

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 4:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

John, et al: you have to understand that this is the noble position of a scholar, a view from intellectual high ground, and the matrix of seeking truth….

So if someone is arguing that gambling is immoral while playing blackjack in Vegas, we are supposed to be “scholarly” and take his argument seriously, when he clearly does not?

 

This sort of “reasoning” explains why so many debates go on forever and never get anywhere—because “scholars” assume that anything and everything that anybody says passes as “rational.”  If truth is really what we are after, we need to evaluate everything that is relevant, and that includes a participant’s fundamental consistency.  People rarely admit when they are wrong, but their brazen lack of consistency speaks volumes.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 152

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 5:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Stephan:

Dwyer:

Just to understand your basic position, you're saying that if a drug company puts million of dollars into researching and developing a drug, another drug company, who did not put any money into its research and development, should have the same right to produce and sell the drug at a profit as the original company? Is this correct?
Sure, as long as they didn't commit theft to obtain the information and are not under any kind of contractual obligation not to do this.
 Stephan

Why is it not acceptable to you when a rival company commits theft to obtain a design of a drug when those two drug companies don't have a contract with each other? But it is acceptable that a drug company can stipulate with the sale of every drug that the design of that drug cannot be reproduced, so in essence no other drug company could possibly get the design for that drug without either violating a contract, because afterall how can the rival drug company obtain a copy of the drug without first buying the drug from the rival drug company and thus must abide by the stipulations of that contract, or else simply break into a store or the company's factory and steal a copy of the drug.

Either way through just an added stipulation to a contract, and the recognition that outright theft of a tangible product is banned with or without a contract, we have a de facto recognition of intellectual property rights.

Your argument thus sounds incoherent to me. It sounds like really you just object to the current legal form for how intellectual property should be protected from unauthorized reproduction, but not that it can't or shouldn't be protected.

(Edited by John Armaos on 4/11, 5:54pm)


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 153

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 6:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Several of my friends, Objectivists and libertarians, are CPAs and handle tax returns, calculate the amount government will extort, etc.  None believe in taxation. Neither do most of their clients.  Not one of them is a hypocrite.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 154

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 6:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tibor that's not at all the same thing.

First I am not presuming I know Stephan is a hypocrite. I am presuming there are only two believable explanations for his comments, that he is either a hypocrite or defrauding his client. Do you have reason to believe any of your CPA and tax attorney friends are not acting in their clients' best interests? Or do you believe any of them are lying about their distaste for compulsory taxes? I've already explained why I feel that way. But I'm content in dropping the matter as I'm curious to see how Stephan responds to my post 152 where he agrees:

1) You can stipulate in a contract for the sale of a tangible product the buyer can't reproduce the product.

and

2) Under his view of justice theft of property is not acceptable and I presume retaliatory force can be used.

So how can a rival drug company under Stephan's view of jurisprudence, lawfully reproduce their competitor's drug? They would either have to break the conditions of a contract when buying the drug product, or they would have to resort to theft to obtain the drug product in order to reproduce it. Essentially Stephan's view of jurisprudence has created the same consequence, the protection of intellectual property rights.
(Edited by John Armaos on 4/11, 6:48pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 155

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 9:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Several of my friends, Objectivists and libertarians, are CPAs and handle tax returns, calculate the amount government will extort, etc.  None believe in taxation. Neither do most of their clients.  Not one of them is a hypocrite.

 

And it certainly is not hypocrisy for a CPA to use his expertise to minimize his client’s losses.  Both the CPA and taxpayer are acting consistently with their principles.  No one has a choice about whether to pay taxes.  Seeking patents is optional, as is the legal work to make it happen.  A patent attorney is not helping clients minimize the damage done by a law neither of them likes; he is actively helping clients get the maximum benefit from a law both are free to disregard if they so choose. 

 

Tax attorneys help their clients deal with a harsh reality no one can avoid.  Patent attorneys enable their clients to gain access to an optional legal protection.  Choosing to make use of such legal sanctions implies agreement with those sanctions.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 156

Saturday, April 12, 2008 - 4:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
An alternative title and theme would be "In Defense of (So-Called) Ad Hominem" in which I would make many of the same points.

Awesome. I eagerly await active peer review.
 
I do not consider it "high and noble" to offer a patch of ground from which sophists can spew nonsense.
 
Obviously, that's how Objectivism gets rejected in so many academic realms, isn't it?  Reject the man, not the nonsense. I see.  So all of the critics of Objectivism who use the life of Rand as fodder are correct? 
 
 Who needs to argue with ideas and ideals when we have the lives of mortals at our disposal? 
 
Tibor's saying you don't know enough about the man to reject his ideas based on that scant knowledge alone.  You're calling the man a hypocrite without any evidence at all, and issuing that as a valid argument.  But the question remains: How do you know?
 
As I stated on the first page of this thread, fundamental arguments against the standard Objectivist position like those Kinsella advance belong in the Dissent Forum of an Objectivist site.
 
I still think you're mistaken.  Stephen's disagreement is severe, but it in no way appears to be a deliberate attempt to under-mind Objectivism.  Because his disagreement is severe, I expected the defending posters to come up with better arguments. Bill, as usual, has done that. Others have gone out of there way to discover dirt on the man to use as ammunition.  I'm disappointed by that.  I don't care that Stephen is a patent attorney.  I don't give a hoot about vegetarian butchers, either.  I care about theories that lead to larger truths that I can adopt and use in my own life, regardless of where they come from.  
 
 


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 157

Saturday, April 12, 2008 - 8:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
When you cast aspersions on someone's character you're engaging in ad hominem.

When I cast aspersions on someone's character I merely stating facts.

One of my favorite lines from the skit "So That's The Way You Like It" from the original Beyond the Fringe:

"Wise words do oft themselves in mouths of fools themselves belie."

Post 158

Saturday, April 12, 2008 - 11:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke:

I consider looking at deeper motives behind arguments quite appropriate as I observed in my article "Questions and Motives" years ago.

Because discussions like this consume so much time, and so frequently involve sophistry, one really has to ask whether a troublesome participant argues in "good faith" or has ulterior, malevolent motives.

So I do not consider accusations of fraud and hypocrisy at all out of place in this forum.
I don't know how I feel about this as a general matter; I don't find it that interesting of a question nor one that lends itself to some rigorous analysis... it seems to me that basic rules of civility and courtesy apply, and this is more of an art than a science. But in any case, Tibor posted a thoughtful article on IP; and I tried to comment sincerely and thoughtfully on it. Anyone who thinks that I've been "troublesome" or that I have "malevolent motives"--well, let's just say I disagree, and am not sure it's worth even debating the matter with such a person. Anyone making this assertion will have to suffer the judgment of their peers--i.e., they'll lose credibility.

Dennis:
Ad hominem is an inappropriate argument when it involves a fallacy of relevance.  �You once smoked crack so nothing you say could have any validity.�  

 

In Stephan�s case, his work is obviously relevant because it clearly implies a lack of genuine conviction.

But this is really not "about me"; if it were, I could go into the internal details of my life and career, were that not so boring and beside the point. It would take a bit more sophistocated understanding of the practice of law and in particular IP law for laymen to even understand the nuances and my "defense," as it were--if I were on trial.

If anything, to be honest, I could try the opposite tactic--using my authority as IP attorney as part of my argument--that I know more about it than you laymen, so just trust me. I could try to talk over your heads, use inside jargon, etc. I could try to act superior as if I'm better-qualified to opine on these matters, *because* of my experience. But I do not, and indeed to not think any of these things is valid or true. I think your average thinking person is as "qualified" as me and I try to explain things in normal terms where possible, etc. So here I am, arguing in a fair manner, giving my sincere views and trying to discuss an important and interesting issue fairly and rationally, and not resting on my status as IP attorney becaues that could be an illegitimate debating tactic... and then I get accused of the opposite, of being a fraud for not mentioning it loudly enough, or of being a hypocrite for having dissenting opinions about something I know a lot about, blah blah blah. It's so distracting and tiresome, and pointless. And it's not the way we would talk to each other at a dinner or cocktail party. Come on.

John:
Why is it not acceptable to you when a rival company commits theft to obtain a design of a drug when those two drug companies don't have a contract with each other?
Because as a libertarian, indeed as a pro-civilization person, I oppose theft, which is to say, I favor institutionalized respect for property rights. If A breaks into B's building to learn A's secrets, it is committing trespass, and ought to be punished. One thing taken into account in punishing is of course the harmful consequences to the victim. Sure.

But it is acceptable that a drug company can stipulate with the sale of every drug that the design of that drug cannot be reproduced, so in essence no other drug company could possibly get the design for that drug without either violating a contract, because afterall how can the rival drug company obtain a copy of the drug without first buying the drug from the rival drug company and thus must abide by the stipulations of that contract, or else simply break into a store or the company's factory and steal a copy of the drug.
The difficulty here is ensnaring third parties. I believe that to assume the third party is necessarily caught in this web of contracts, you have to presuppose information is ownable, which is question-begging. I explain this in detail in Against Intellectual Property, pp. 33-41. Let's take a concrete example. Suppose A sells his drug to B, with every contractual stipulation you can think of. B is not permitted to tell anyone about the drug, or let anyone see it or use it unless that person also signs a similar agreement, etc. Okay? fine. But what if B *violates the contract*? Let's say B erects a billboard on his lawn that displays the formula for the drug. B's neighbor, see, from his own house, sees the information on the billboard, and thus now knows how to make a drug that does certain useful things. So he starts making this drug, and selling it, cutting into A's market share. Yes, yes, A can sue B for damages. But can A sue C? On what grounds? What did C do? C never saw the drugs B possessed, never used them, never touched them. There is no possible argument that he was holding "A"'s property without A's consent, so he can be ensnared. In this case, C only got knowledge, and he got it by doing nothing illegal or rights violative; he merely peered out of his own window, and saw information displayed in a billboard on his neighbor's lawn.

Should C now be forced not to act on information he has in his head? Why? On what basis? The only way to argue this is to say that *information* itself -- ideas, patterns of information, recipes, designs, whatever -- is property. I think this is obviously pernicious, but in any case, it is the question here, so to assume it is question-begging.

Either way through just an added stipulation to a contract, and the recognition that outright theft of a tangible product is banned with or without a contract, we have a de facto recognition of intellectual property rights.
This is not correct, again, as I explain in detail in the paper noted above.

So how can a rival drug company under Stephan's view of jurisprudence, lawfully reproduce their competitor's drug? They would either have to break the conditions of a contract when buying the drug product, or they would have to resort to theft to obtain the drug product in order to reproduce it.
Why do you assume this? All the competitor needs is *information*. They need not ever obtain a sample of the first company's product to be able to recreate it. In fact, information about the drug is publicly avialable--part of the FDA process etc. In a free market surely it would be publicly available so doctors and certifying agencies could inspect it and verify its safety, efficacy, etc. Even if it's secret, the purpose of the drug is known--what it does. If the competitor reverse engineers it, and comes up w/ basically the same compound as the first one did, to produce the desired effect, they are STOPPED today by patent law. Why should they be, esp. if they independently invent it?

Dennis:
And it certainly is not hypocrisy for a CPA to use his expertise to minimize his client�s losses. Both the CPA and taxpayer are acting consistently with their principles. No one has a choice about whether to pay taxes. Seeking patents is optional, as is the legal work to make it happen. A patent attorney is not helping clients minimize the damage done by a law neither of them likes; he is actively helping clients get the maximum benefit from a law both are free to disregard if they so choose.
If you do not apply for a patent, there are at least two risks. First, a competitor could later file a patent on this and shut you down. Second, you are relatively defenseless if a competitor sues you for infringing its patents. Applying for a patent is a very good way of preventing others from obtaining a patent on the same idea, later. So that is purely defensive. Second, if you obtain an arsenal of patents, it makes others afraid to sue you. They are VERY defensive in nature. Given that the system allows your competitors to obtain patents, it would be self-sacrificial to not obtain your own for defensive purposes.

I must say I am a bit flabbergasted most of my critics here seem unable to grasp this point. Any typical businessperson would have no trouble grasping this argument.

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 159

Saturday, April 12, 2008 - 12:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Stephan, my main point is that no matter how "thoughtful" your arguments, you still knowingly waltzed into an Objectivist forum to argue against a cornerstone concept of Objectivist politics, namely that of intellectual property rights defended properly by government.  Others have ably argued against your position and its numerous foibles, thus saving me the trouble of doing so.  Moreover, unlike TSI, I still maintain that your arguments do in fact seek to undermine Objectivism and thus belong to the Dissent Forum.  So I still question the nobility of your motives, though I will not speculate further as I hardly know you.  I think the facts and the philosophy of Objectivism merit my approach in dealing with you and your posts.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.