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


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 160

Saturday, April 12, 2008 - 1:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Stephen, I haven't read but a few of the early posts on this thread, but I want to express an apology for the vitriolic attacks that I know have been directed at you. Such attacks are standard operating procedure for far too many who comment on this website. And I thank you for posting your comment on Tibor Machan's article.

On reading your first post a week ago, I sensed that I view the concept of property differently than you do. I'll have to think more about it, but my guess is that one difference might be what I assume to be the moral agnosticism of many (but not all!) Austrians, versus the idea among objectivists of moral value objectivity. For if one were agnostic about moral values, a primary purpose of private property would be, as you expressed it, the resolution of disputes. (It's not just coincidence, I think, that Austrian-steeped thinkers also tend to see the purpose of private defense agencies as "dispute resolution" rather than enforcing justice.) In contrast, if one thinks of moral values as conditions of human (flourishing) life, then property derives its justification and purpose from the moral goal, appropriate to each and every human individual, of seeking a good life--i.e. one that is appropriate to the requirements of being human, appropriate to one's personal attributes and needs, appropriate to achieving a successful and happy existence.

I realize the discussion encompasses a lot more than this simple point of difference, but I need to take some time to read the posts and think about the arguments. Thanks again for sharing your ideas here.  


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 161

Saturday, April 12, 2008 - 3:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with Denis's posts on this thread, especially his reponse to Tibor Machan in post 155. Dr. Machan, you thought a CPA and a patent lawyer was a good analogy in this context? Really?

Machan: "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."

I don't want to deal with "slip shod moralizing" either, if by that you mean condemning people as such without evidence. Of course, I haven't done that or seen anyone else do that on this thread. I did morally judge a person's particular action based on the objective evidence required to make that judgment. If that's what you call "slip shod moralizing", then I think your real beef is with Ayn Rand.

Stephan: "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?"

That's a fair question. Here's my answer: I never posted on this thread to argue about whether state-granted patents are just (a topic I do admit that I find less than fascinating). I'm just baffled by your choice to work in this particular field when you've taken the position you have. It implies a Platonic disconnect between abstract ideas and real-life actions.

Teresa: "You are calling the man a hypocrite without any evidence at all, and issuing that as a valid argument."

Um, excuse me, Teresa, but this statement is false. There certainly *is* evidence to point out hypocrisy here. The evidence is that Stephan says he's a patent lawyer. Part of that job involves securing legal protection for intellectual property, something he believes to be morally wrong. Of course, that's not sufficient to prove that his IP position is invalid, and I never claimed it was.

Mark: "Stephen, I haven't read but a few of the early posts on this thread, but I want to express an apology for the vitriolic attacks that I know have been directed at you. Such attacks are standard operating procedure for far too many who comment on this website."

First, Mark, you can only really apologize for what you do, not for what others do. Second, I must have missed the "vitriolic attacks" that you read. All of the posts that I've read, even the negative ones, have been relatively calm and logical. I don't believe noting perceived hypocrisy is a "vitriolic attack" per se. Maybe you do.


(Edited by Jon Trager on 4/12, 4:55pm)


Post 162

Saturday, April 12, 2008 - 4:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon says:

I don't want to deal with "slip shod moralizing" either, if by that you mean condemning people as such without evidence. Of course, I haven't done that or seen anyone else do that on this thread. I did morally judge a person's particular action based on the objective evidence required to make that judgment.

Then says: [mine]

Um, excuse me, Teresa, but this statement is false [which statement, I'm not sure]. There certainly *is* evidence to point out hypocrisy here. The evidence is that Stephan says he's a patent lawyer. Part of that job involves securing legal protection for intellectual property, something he believes to be morally wrong. Of course, that's not sufficient to prove that his IP position is invalid, and I never claimed it was.

Of course you did. You want it both ways?   Talk about hypocrisy!  What does his profession have to do with his argument?  To make his profession part of the argument IS slip shod moralizing, Jon, and denying this fact is the height of hypocrisy.  You're basically trying to establish that what he says invalidates what he does, and vice verse, which is complete nonsense.  If you don't like it, take it up with Aristotle.  

This is embarrassing, it really is.  



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 163

Saturday, April 12, 2008 - 4:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Me: "Of course, that's not sufficient to prove that his IP position is invalid, and I never claimed it was."

Teresa: "Of course you did."

Where exactly did I claim that his hypocrisy was sufficient to prove that his argument was invalid?

Teresa: "You want it both ways? Talk about hypocrisy! What does his profession have to do with his argument? To make his profession part of the argument IS slip shod moralizing, Jon, and denying this fact is the height of hypocrisy. You're basically trying to establish that what he says invalidates what he does, and vice verse, which is complete nonsense. If you don't like it, take it up with Aristotle."

I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding that I wasn't trying to invalidate his argument. I've made it as clear as I can. I'm not remotely interested in having a lengthy debate about the legitimacy of state-granted IP protection. I know that some Objectivists and libertarians find this topic fascinating, but I don't and never have. *On a completely different note* I said that it's strangely hypocritical for someone who holds that opinion to work as a patent lawyer. That's a moral judgment about an action, which is justified by the evidence Stephan himself provided. It's *not* a blanket condemnation of a man without objective reason (e.g., moralizing). I thought this distinction would be obvious, but I guess I was wrong.

Teresa: "This is embarrassing, it really is."

I agree.

Post 164

Saturday, April 12, 2008 - 5:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've made it as clear as I can. I'm not remotely interested in having a lengthy debate about the legitimacy of state-granted IP protection.

Yet, you've chosen to write posts on a thread about a man you don't know, who just happens to be arguing just that.  Interesting.  Is there some reason I, or anyone, should be riveted to your moral pronouncements, or "perceptions," about a man you don't even know?  Or was yours just an objectobot knee jerk reaction?

If you have nothing to add to the argument, why are you here? To poison the well?



Post 165

Saturday, April 12, 2008 - 7:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Incidentally, to be clear, I agree w/ the 4 main tenets of Objectivism--
1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism
So if that makes me an Objectivist, I am one. I also view IP a bit like Rand viewed animal rights. She loved her cat, and said, IIRC, she would love to find a way to justify rights for it, but just couldn't. Likewise for IP, for me. I have every reason to be open to an argument that IP is justified. I searched for it for years. I have come down against it despite being biased against this.

BTW here's an interesting note to me from a fellow patent attorney--a senior partner in the patent department of a major national law firm, not even a libertarian; here were his/her honest observations based on his/her long experience in the field:

Stephan, Your letter responding to Joe Hosteny's comments on Patent Trolls nicely states what I came to realize several years ago, namely, it is unclear that the U.S. Patent System, as currently implemented, necessarily benefits society as a whole. Certainly, it has benefited [Hosteny] and his [partners] and several of their prominent clients, and has put Marshall, Texas on the map; but you really have to wonder if the "tax" placed on industry by the System (and its use of juries or lay judges to make the call on often highly complex technical issues that the parties' technical experts cannot agree on) is really worth it. Of course, anyone can point to a few start-up companies that, arguably, owe their successes to their patent portfolios; but over the last 35 years, I have observed what would appear to be an ever increasing number of meritless patents, issued by an understaffed and talent-challenged PTO examining group, being used to extract tribute from whole industries. I have had this discussion with a number of clients, including Asian clients, who have been forced to accept our Patent System and the "taxes" it imposes on them as the cost of doing business in the USA. I wish I had the "answer". I don't.
I do: scrap the system, and let people compete using only real property rights.
(Edited by Stephan Kinsella on 4/12, 7:55pm)


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 166

Sunday, April 13, 2008 - 11:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Probably the thing that gives me greatest pause when it comes to rejecting intellectual property rights is that the physical product is less important than the idea behind it.

If Rand writes a novel, what is it exactly that she "produced." Is it only physical marks on paper? Or is it the story itself, which is not a physical thing? If it's the story itself, then no one else has a right to reproduce that story and sell it at a profit (without Rand's permission). If there are no intellectual property rights, then no one can be said to produce an idea. All he or she can be said to produce are physical objects. But this surely distorts the real meaning of "production."

In fact, the idea that production is only physical is antithetical to the spirit of Objectivism, which stresses that all wealth is ultimately an intellectual product produced by man's mind. The Marxists take the opposite view. They are "materialists" in the crudest sense of that term. For them, physical labor is the only thing that counts. Intellectual labor is of little or no consequence.

So, I guess one's position on the question of intellectual property rights turns on one's view of production. If production is viewed as a strictly physical process, then there are no intellectual property rights. But if it is viewed as a fundamentally intellectual process in which intelligence and creativity are key components, then intellectual property rights are indispensable.

- Bill

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 167

Sunday, April 13, 2008 - 11:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa: "Is there some reason I, or anyone, should be riveted to your moral pronouncements, or "perceptions," about a man you don't even know? Or was yours just an objectobot knee jerk reaction?"

A reason why you should be riveted to my moral pronouncements? No. Did I say that you should find them riveting? As for knee-jerk reactions, look in the mirror. You seem to be hostile to the very principle of morally judging particular actions when there's sufficient basis to do it. The fact is that some moral judgments require more (or less) information than others, and not every moral judgment is a wholesale condemnation of an individual. Yet this fact, so crucial to Objectivism, escapes you and others who seem to believe that every moral judgment, excluding those pertaining to foreign dictators or domestic criminals, is unjustifiable "Objectobot" moralizing. You can have the last word here if you want, but I stand by what I've said, and I appreciate the Atlas points I've received from those who agree with me.

Stephan, you're clearly an intelligent, articulate guy. But I don't think you agree with the essential principles of Objectivism, even excluding this issue. The reason is that Objectivism explicitly rejects the idea of anarchism, for reasons given by AR in C:UI as well as by Peikoff in OPAR. You obviously already know that, given your association with the Mises Institute, which despises AR and passes up no opportunity to ridicule her and her philosophical adherents (all while relying on the "non-agression principle" that *she* identified and without actually engaging her more fundamental ideas, of course).

Post 168

Sunday, April 13, 2008 - 12:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am someone who agrees with Rand on the requirement of government in a free society but this is by no means an "essential principle of Objectivism."  

Post 169

Sunday, April 13, 2008 - 1:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Interesting thought there, Bill - it is true the notion of production has been heavily influenced by the Marxist notion of it, even among those who disagree with it... [a bad case of subliminal seduction?]

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 170

Sunday, April 13, 2008 - 2:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have no idea how Tibor Machan can credibly make the statement he just made in Post 168.  Ayn Rand repeated throughout her writings on the subject of capitalism that government must exist with a monopoly on force to enforce an objective set of laws to protect the foundations of capitalism, namely private property rights.  How that could not qualify as an essential principle of Objectivism eludes me completely.

"Without property rights, no other rights are possible," and so society would degenerate back to primitive tribalism, collectivism, brute force, and unreason, all opposites of the Objectivist ideal of life as it might be and ought to be.


Post 171

Sunday, April 13, 2008 - 2:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Stephan, you arguments lack any moral foundation to them.

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.


You're saying that C should not take on any expectation that A may have put conditions on the reproductive rights to their product when they sold the product to B? Or that C shouldn't cease production once realizing the information they received was not through honest means? What if B stole from A an automobile, and then sold it to C? You are saying A can't make a claim against C that the property he now has was not obtained through an honest transaction and should be returned to the rightful owner A, and if C wishes can sue B for defrauding him?

Perhaps I should have demanded your definition of rights. How do you define rights?
(Edited by John Armaos on 4/13, 2:26pm)


Post 172

Sunday, April 13, 2008 - 5:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You seem to be hostile to the very principle of morally judging particular actions when there's sufficient basis to do it.
 Unbelievable. Yeah, right... please do to me what you're trying to do to Stephan.  Brilliant.  Jon, I mean this with the greatest possible respect, so don't take it the wrong way, but you're clueless. 
The point you keep ignoring is that there isn't a sufficient basis. There's only your claim of sufficient basis.  
To you, disagreement doesn't imply moral deficiency, except where Stephan, and now myself, or anyone who disagrees with you is concerned.  

You can have the last word here if you want, but I stand by what I've said, and I appreciate the Atlas points I've received from those who agree with me.
Great, I'll take it.  I'm making a moral judgment, so hang on to you hat:  The only reason you're standing by what you've said is due to those points. You're implying this yourself by even bringing them up, so, wtf?  What do you care if anyone agrees with you? So what? Aren't you good enough on your own?

Why am I doing this? I gave up arguing with Atlas thumpers years ago.


Post 173

Sunday, April 13, 2008 - 6:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Prof. Machan,

Is it true that the following statement was made due to the idea that Capitalism isn't, and shouldn't be, viewed as an isolated principle which exists in a vacuum, but that Capitalism is a resulting principle, borne of it's preceding foundation, namely those of rational egoism, reason, and existence?

I am someone who agrees with Rand on the requirement of government in a free society but this is by no means an "essential principle of Objectivism."  

Given only the foundations of Reality, Reason, and Rational Selfishness, Capitalism, or something similar, would necessarily result.

Or perhaps you're thinking of human beings removed from one another, which isn't easy to relate to. 

Am I on the right track? 



Post 174

Sunday, April 13, 2008 - 6:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Without property rights, no other rights are possible,"
Definitely correct. Who do you think disagrees with that?
and so society would degenerate
Your syntax is a little confusing but I assume you mean "If rights, in particular property rights are not respected." If that is what you mean then, again, you are definitely correct. Who do you think disagrees with that?
back to primitive tribalism, collectivism, brute force, and unreason,
Well, this last is actually the reason for, the cause of, the degeneration.
all opposites of the Objectivist ideal of life as it might be and ought to be.
Once more, definitely true. Who do you think disagrees with that?

The non-sequitur is assuming that only a monopoly government can defend rights based on objective laws.

Let me ask this question, one I don't recall having seen discussed in Objectivist circles: How are these objective laws arrived at? By a legislature, i.e. by a political process? How objective is a political process? By a philosopher (-king?) a la Judge Narragansett?

It's not sufficient to just wave your magic wand and claim that a monopoly government is required to enforce objective laws that somehow exist. (How? Blankout.) You have to prove your case and this has not been done — it has only been endlessly asserted. (And no, saying that you can conceive of no other way is not a valid argument.)

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 175

Sunday, April 13, 2008 - 7:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick wrote:

The non-sequitur is assuming that only a monopoly government can defend rights based on objective laws.

Ayn Rand showed the flaws in the "competing government" argument in various writings and so made the "monopolistic government" model central to her view of capitalism.

I would consider any theory advanced on the basis of a "competing government" model suitable for the Dissent Forum rather than the main forums of this site.

That said, Objectivist scholars need to do more work on what a constitution for a proper Objectivist government would resemble.

If Rick wants to pursue a contrary "anarchist" thread, I suggest he start one in the Dissent Forum rather than hijack this thread.


Post 176

Sunday, April 13, 2008 - 7:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I can see how what Dr. Machan said can be true.

To say that minarchy (the minimum level government that humans require) is not an "essential principle of Objectivism" is true if -- by "essential principle" -- one means "irreducible primary."

Minarchy is not an irreducible primary, even though it is ultimately justified "a priori" -- or, another way to say the same thing: by the nature of things.

Dr. Machan, is that the sense in which you meant the phrase "essential principle"?

Ed





Post 177

Sunday, April 13, 2008 - 9:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dwyer:
Probably the thing that gives me greatest pause when it comes to rejecting intellectual property rights is that the physical product is less important than the idea behind it.

If Rand writes a novel, what is it exactly that she "produced." Is it only physical marks on paper? Or is it the story itself, which is not a physical thing? If it's the story itself, then no one else has a right to reproduce that story and sell it at a profit (without Rand's permission). If there are no intellectual property rights, then no one can be said to produce an idea. All he or she can be said to produce are physical objects. But this surely distorts the real meaning of "production."
Bill: your reasoning above presupposes that anything you produce, no matter what it is, is ownable, and thus owned by the creator.

I would agree with you that if a "story" is ownable property, then it has to be owned by the creator. But I think it is not, and the idea that we obtain property rights primarily from acts of creation is flawed, IMO. We do not create property; we acquire it. We make it more valuable by transforming property we already own. The anti-IP view does not say that ideas used to transform property are "less important" than property. It only says that production is not an independent source of rights in the first place. When you produce, you are transforming property--either yours, or someone else's. If it's your already, then your production makes it more valuable to you or to some buyer, but doesn't give you property rights--you already owned the property that you transformed. If you transform someone else's property, then presumably the owner of that property owns the newly-transformed item.

Post 178

Sunday, April 13, 2008 - 9:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Trager: "Stephan, you're clearly an intelligent, articulate guy. But I don't think you agree with the essential principles of Objectivism, even excluding this issue. The reason is that Objectivism explicitly rejects the idea of anarchism, for reasons given by AR in C:UI as well as by Peikoff in OPAR. You obviously already know that, given your association with the Mises Institute, which despises AR and passes up no opportunity to ridicule her and her philosophical adherents (all while relying on the "non-agression principle" that *she* identified and without actually engaging her more fundamental ideas, of course)."

I was not aware that Rand was the one who identified the NAP.

As I noted above, I agree w/ the 4 main tenets of Objectivism, which do not necessitate a view of anarchy v. minarchy.

Malcom: "Interesting thought there, Bill - it is true the notion of production has been heavily influenced by the Marxist notion of it, even among those who disagree with it... [a bad case of subliminal seduction?]"

Actually, it's kind of Marxian to focus on the right to get rewarded for your labor...

John:
You're saying that C should not take on any expectation that A may have put conditions on the reproductive rights to their product when they sold the product to B? Or that C shouldn't cease production once realizing the information they received was not through honest means?
Of course C shouldn't stop production. D and E won't! Look: suppose I email you in the very next message, "Hey, John, do you konw, if you combine aspirin, baking soda, and vinegar, it is the BEST headache pill!" And you try it; and sure enough, it works. So you start selling Aspergar Soda for headache relief, and you become a billionaire.

Then you get a letter from some dude who says he is the inventor of that (and he has copious lab books to prove it) and that he told Kinsella only on the condition that he not tell anyone else.

Now: do you give him your billion bucks? Do you stop taking the pill? Do all the people who have a bottle of it at home have to throw it in the toilet?

What if B stole from A an automobile, and then sold it to C? You are saying A can't make a claim against C that the property he now has was not obtained through an honest transaction and should be returned to the rightful owner A, and if C wishes can sue B for defrauding him?
But the automobile is property; we all agree to this. Is information? That is the question we disagree on.

Teresa: "Atlas thumpers"--that's a new one on me! funny.

Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 179

Sunday, April 13, 2008 - 10:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This, from Staphan, seems to be ad hoc: "We do not create property; we acquire it." It may apply to a tree standing in the wild but does it to a desk that's made from the tree? Even the former is arguably a result of the act of acquisition, a kind of production since it involves thought and action (brining the thing one finds of value under one's control). But the latter, the making of a desk or table or house or factory from raw materials one has bought or found in the wilds, surely comes under one's control, becomes one's property unless someone else has already acquired it. Auden's poems, Zola's or Rand's novels, Gerschwin's compositions, etc., etc., do very plausibly come to be the property of their creators, no one else's unless they are made under consignment. 

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.