Intellectual property rights

Tom Burroughes's picture
Submitted by Tom Burroughes on Fri, 2012-04-20 08:40

As I expected, the issue of intellectual property rights gets objectivists, and others in the the broad free market/classical liberal school really fired up. In my piece about natural rights, I briefly mentioned it, and it had the predictable effect. http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

I think this is a massively important issue to get right, precisely because it involves people who on 90 per cent of other issues are in the trenches, fighting the same side. And as an Objectivist pal of mine said to me once, ultimately, all property is intellectual in one sense.

For instance, here is what I was going to say in response to Shayne and others, but here it is here:

"Shayne, your locus of interference point is one point of the issue that really matters, because for some classical liberals, the only real defence of property rights they give is the "non-initiation-of-force" principle, which relates to the "physical property is scarce, so we have to resolve boundary disputes", version."

But remember that for Rand, and those in that broad tradition including Locke, Rothbard, Spooner , and so on, it was the need to have secure protection for the things/inventions/creations that one has produced by mental/physical effort that is the key for justifying IP. (The objectivist writer Greg Perkins gives such a defence. http://www.philosophyinaction....)

And the reason for such protection is that property is central to the means by which man can survive and flourish. It is not just about resolving boundary disputes, but about LIFE.

However, I do think the independent inventor issue is a very difficult one for the defence of patents, which is why I would like to see Michael's comments on it. After all, taking up the point made by Greg Perkins, if I have the right to produce and create to sustain my life, the fact that the things I devise might have been invented also by someone else, hundreds of miles away, say, is irrelevant. I am not taking from him because - and this is the kicker - ideas are not diminished when they are held in the heads of more than one person. Quite the opposite.

Now IP defenders will say, "Well, the guy should have checked the patent records first, just as if a property developer in the condo business should have checked the title deeds". But is that really going to work? For example, a key definition of a patentable invention is that it should be "non-obvious", but I read about how a lot of actually pretty obvious stuff can get patented, or at least people attempt to do so. And in the software business, it appears that a lot of very similar things are patented, and in vast numbers, all the time. Keeping track of this is a serious headache and one key requirement for a good, coherent legal system is that it should be easy to understand, not a bewildering mass.

Now I think I'd like to see this issue resolved, or debated out, because it is a real bugbear for me and I don't see an easy way out yet.


Shayne's "Syllogism"...

Michael Moeller's picture

Notice no attempt by Shayne to rebut the falsity of premise #2, nor any attempt to rework his pathetic attempt at definitions. And anybody who offers THIS:

"Major premise: All non-interfering actions are not to be interfered with.
Minor premise: Ownership is non-interfering action with respect to (aka it is use of) a given object.
Conclusion: Ownership is not to be interfered with."

As a syllogism has no business speaking of "rational communication". His syllogisms were just downright pathetic. Then Lunkhead states that *I* am off-topic when I tear apart his "syllogism". Nice.

And when Lunkhead gets torn apart, he merely starts ranting and raving and snarling, as he is doing now. He makes no attempt to improve, but merely retreats to earlier assertions that have already been debunked. Shayne argues himself in circles because he is treating certain principles as self-evident, as Linz pointed out to him, and as evidenced when his definition of "prerogative" was substituted into his assertions. He can't justify his principles, so he gets angry and nasty and desperate.

That's what happens to rationalists when reality is pointed out to them, they desperately and feverishly cling to floating abstractions that they cannot justify. He does not point to reality to justify his definitions, he merely asserts: "Well that is the way I define it!".

Useless. And hopeless.

Michael

Buffoon

Shayne Wissler's picture

Premise #2 (minor premise????)

So he doesn't know what "i.e." means, and he doesn't know what a syllogism is either.

I'm not wasting anymore time dissecting this moron's dishonesty.

Here is the post that Linz ignored

Shayne Wissler's picture

Here is the post that Linz ignored regarding why I think rights are metaphysical. This "rights as prerogative" definition is sense 2. Rand's is sense 3.

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Tweaking formulations

Shayne Wissler's picture

I'm not playing rationalist word games. I simply substituted for "prerogative" your definition of the word.

Just because I don't formulate something perfectly the first time doesn't mean:

I think that made clear the incoherent weaving between metaphysics and epistemology/ethics that you were previously displaying, and you have now reformulated to something I can agree with.

The trouble with you and Moeller is that you are trying to play a game of "gotcha" rather than actually having a rational communication about what someone thinks. And then you accuse *me* of rationalism.

Unlike Moeller though it looks like you can get back on topic once the formulation's flaws are cleared up. And yes, there's something technically wrong if you can't just plug in the definition as you did. I don't mind trying to get it precise, I do mind your bad faith tea leaf reading about what it allegedly must mean about what I actually think.

The point of all this is that rights are not metaphysical, as your first formulation (and, from memory, your book) implies, and as some Objectivists here are still arguing—and failure to recognise this, along with a willingness to embrace the intrinsicist view of rights embodied in the Declaration of Independence, has held Objectivism (and Rights Theory) back. This is no mere game.

As I have told you before, my primary definition IS metaphysical, because the genus of a right is "human action." And your memory about my book is way off base too because all I did was attack Rand's definition in my book, on roughly similar grounds you use here, which was a minor error of mine. There's nothing wrong with having different senses of the term "right" so long as 1) you keep them straight and 2) you recognize the proper fundamental, metaphysical sense.

And it doesn't become you to accuse me (or Moeller) of dishonesty, though I well remember that's been your stock-in-trade since time immemorial in dealing with those who engage you. Lift your game here and stick to the argument.

Lift your game and stop tossing around insulting epithets about me being a "rationalist" when you haven't the slightest clue. Moeller is a pathetic liar. If you didn't support him, I could look past your other remarks because you are relatively civil, but I can't comprehend how any sane reasonable and honest person could possibly believe that that ape has anything useful to add here.

Naturally...

kinsella's picture

tom:

what the anti-IPers cannot do, as far as I can see, is keep hammering away about how IP is "unnatural". Property rights to physical stuff as humans conceive them don't exist "in nature"; fences and locks on front doors don't exist "in nature".

this is not my argument against IP. I have explained very clearly what the argument is.

Tom you say that property in scarce resources is not natural. The implication is that we support it even though it's not natural, so why would we object to property in information, since it's merely not natural either. this is not a good argumet. First, it is critical that you and I and others already DO support property in scarce resources. Whether it's natural or not. The point is we agree on property in scarce things. ANd IP is inconsistent with this. So that's really the end of the story. You should oppose IP for the same reason you oppose welfare: it can only be enforced if it violates property rigths.

And I'll repeat something else before I head off to my office. The opponents of IP say that physical stuff is scarce, but ideas are not. That's not true: good ideas that people can use are scarce.

This is an oft-trotted out fallacy. Scarcity means RIVALROUSNESS. No ideas are rivalrous, whether "good" or not.

It takes time to come up with them.

That does not mean the ideas are rivalrous.

The first-mover advantage is not always going to be enough to solve this issue, hence the time-constrained idea of IP.

Notice how utilitarian this is. Is this really how Randians want to think about law and rights and property? Instead of being principled and thinking about justice...?

Shayne

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'm not playing rationalist word games. I simply substituted for "prerogative" your definition of the word. I think that made clear the incoherent weaving between metaphysics and epistemology/ethics that you were previously displaying, and you have now reformulated to something I can agree with.

But what's worse is that you are evading the issue at hand. I say that you should leave people alone unless they violated your rights -- unless they interfered with you.

So do I. But the key word is "should." It's not a metaphysical given, an "is"; it's a normative conclusion, an "ought" derived from the "is."

Remember your first formulation was men have the prerogative etc., as though it were so in nature. Then you switched to saying it was a "principle" "granted" unto us. Which, insofar as it echoes Rand's "a right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context" is entirely correct, though she would not like the word "granted" as though by permission.

The point of all this is that rights are not metaphysical, as your first formulation (and, from memory, your book) implies, and as some Objectivists here are still arguing—and failure to recognise this, along with a willingness to embrace the intrinsicist view of rights embodied in the Declaration of Independence, has held Objectivism (and Rights Theory) back. This is no mere game.

And it doesn't become you to accuse me (or Moeller) of dishonesty, though I well remember that's been your stock-in-trade since time immemorial in dealing with those who engage you. Lift your game here and stick to the argument.

Lindsay writes:"You don't

Tom Burroughes's picture

Lindsay writes:

"You don't have a prerogative; you have a nature. If we are to live in accordance with that nature, we need concepts that identify and ratify it. These are after the event. We don't have them, we conceive them."

Bullseye.

Hence why we have property rights. Because, we draw out, from Man's nature, certain concepts, like property rights. Property rights are "Man made", but they are not arbitrary in that sense.

And that is why there is nothing wrong, in my view, in someone saying the following: "Humans have certain natures that we can identify. We form concepts that identify and ratify that nature. And one concept is property. We do so as we think about Man's need to produce, and protect and keep what he has produced with his mind. He needs to live in peace as a pre-condition of production, and he needs to be able to have a legal system to help clarify where he stands. So we conceive of property rights, and the borders of property, of fences, of boundaries, of rules on how to transfer this, and so on. And recognising that mental effort, and invention, and creation create new values that people enjoy and sustain their lives, we conceive of extending the property idea, and come up with the concept of intellectual property". This argument, you might say, is consequentialist but only in the sense that rights are a consequence of what happens when people try and conceive of what Man, by his nature, requires.

Now, you can dismiss the specifics of IP, and argue until your head explodes that the independent inventor issue is a serious problem, that patents are a statist lottery, that the time-limit is non-objective, or whatnot. Fair enough. But what the anti-IPers cannot do, as far as I can see, is keep hammering away about how IP is "unnatural". Property rights to physical stuff as humans conceive them don't exist "in nature"; fences and locks on front doors don't exist "in nature". Sonnets, space rockets and iPhone Apps don't exist in nature, they had to be created. And we seek to propertise such things, in certain ways, by working out from how we conceive Man's needs, etc. So the accusation that IP is artificial, and therefore "evil" (as some say), just doesn't follow, in my view. Human civilisation is, in a sense, "artificial". That's part of its glory. What we see from the anti-IP crowd is almost a sort of primitivsm where nothing is "natural" unless it can dropped onto your foot.

And I'll repeat something else before I head off to my office. The opponents of IP say that physical stuff is scarce, but ideas are not. That's not true: good ideas that people can use are scarce. It takes time to come up with them. Now, oddly enough, the Austrians/ancaps who often decry IP understand, or say they do, the importance of time when thinking about capital and money (time preference and interest rates, for example). So one might think that the importance of how creative ideas and inventions need time to be produced would be more appreciated than it is. If it takes X amount of time to produce a painting, but only a very short time to copy it, there is a problem. The first-mover advantage is not always going to be enough to solve this issue, hence the time-constrained idea of IP.

Try and be nice to each other.

Oh Man...

Michael Moeller's picture

This is GREAT! Now Lunkhead tries to reword his argument to avoid his previous fallacies, but then goes ahead and commits another one instead. Lunkhead just wrote:

"Major premise: All non-interfering actions are not to be interfered with."

Tautology, much? That's awesome, but it gets better.

Premise #2 (minor premise????) is false. When I cross the street, I am not interfered with, but that does not mean I own the street.

Keep digging, Lunkhead, keep digging.

Michael

Logic 101

Shayne Wissler's picture

Major premise: All non-interfering actions are not to be interfered with.
Minor premise: Ownership is non-interfering action with respect to (aka it is use of) a given object.
Conclusion: Ownership is not to be interfered with.

I don't know if I can make it any more obvious what a total whack job Moeller is. He is a total embarrassment to this site and to Objectivism.

Hume

kinsella's picture

"But "hypothetical" is the wrong word. It's not a hypothesis that man has reason and volition; it's a fact. So to say that if man is to live as man his social context must leave him free to exercise his reason and volition, is not "hypothetical"; it's objective. It's reality-based. That fact is not altered by the "if." The "if" is part of the reality. Hume was toxically wrong. Where the hell else do you get an "ought" from, if not the "is"?"

What is hypothetical is the proposition "you should act in such-and-such a way"--there is an "if" there: IF you choose to live, or IF you want to live as a man. That's why Rand says the choice to live or not is itself pre-moral. Right?

I agree that if man is to live as man then he needs individual rights to be free from aggression, so that he can use his body and other scarce means he acquires, unmolested--without violent conflict with other humans. I just disagree with all this loosey goosey talk about having a right to acquire property in "material values". this "values" talk as if values are things, nouns rather than a verb: I value that; I demonstrate that I value it by acting to gain and/or keep it--it creates this weird fiction that we go around creating these ownable entities or things called values. It leads to equivocation and sloppy thinking. If I homestead some raw materials (scarce resources) and have property rights in them and in my body, then I am free to use my labor and effort and ingenuity and intelligence to transform these things into some more-valuable arrangement. But I am not creating "a value" that I now own. Rand's justification for rights justifies the non-aggression principle, which is exactly what she said in Galt's speech, that no man may initiate the use of force. This NAP is basically a condensed version of, or corresponds to, a particular view of property: that man has a property right in his person, his body, and also in scarce resources that he legitimately acquires. For that is what aggression is: it is the use of someone's body or other owned resource without his permission. Aggression and non-initiation of force require a property theory to be filled in: if I take an apple from you by force, it is only aggression if it is your apple and not mine; if it is my apple it is not initiation of force. So your view of who owns what resources--your property assignment rules--is more fundamental than just saying you are against aggression. You have to know who owns what, to know what aggression means or is. And the Randian and libertarian view is simply this: that each person initially owns his own body (so, if I hit your body without your consent, that is aggression), and each person owns scarce resources that he homesteads or that he acquires contractually from a previous owner (so that if I use your owned resources without your consent that is aggression).

It is true that when I acquire a resource by original appropriation, or by contract, I demonstrate my preference for it--I show that I value it. I am valuing it. But it is misleading and sloppy to refer to the owned item as "a value". For then you start to think of intrinsic values or substances that can be owned apart from the physical object that is being valued. And then you can equivocate and talk about owning "values" that you "produce", when in truth all you need to own is the material resource that you transform. That allows you to "get" the value "in" the thing, since you own it. Producing does not mean bringing a new thing into the world. It means rearranging your owned resources so that they are more valuable. You are now more "wealthy" i.e. wealth has been created but that is just another way of saying your property is now more useful or valuable to you.

Rand explicitly recognized this in her comments on rearranging that I quoted earlier.

In short, Rand nowhere justifies "owning values." In fact we do not own values; we own scarce resources that we value, or that have value to us. We do not create these things, as Rand noted; production involves transforming owned objects into more valualbe shape. We do not even own the value of objects that we own: there is no property right in the value of these things but only in their physical integrity--this corresponds to the non-initiation of force which only prohibits others from physically, forcefully using or interfering with or invading the borders of our bodies or other property without consent. But the "value" of my property is dependent on how others assess it. I can not have a property right in that. If you cut down your pretty rose garden then it might make my next door house worth less. I have no property right in its value. If you compete with my business you might reduce my company's "value". So?

This mistaken notion of "creating values" and then of "owning values"--which is essential in the argument for IP, which shows why Rand went off on the wrong track in extending property rights in scarce goods to other, non-scarce "values", some disembodied floating spiritual essences or things--is related to another mistake, which is rooted in sloppiness in Locke's original argument and in those of his followers. Locke says that you own scarce goods that you appropriate and mix your labor with "because" you own your labor. But this is both false, and unnecessary, as Hume pointed out. Labor is just an action; it is what you do with your body; how you move it around. You don't own your action, or your labor. It's not separate from your property right in your body. Once you own your body you are free to labor with it, true, but that is a consequence of your self-ownership, not a separate right. And owning your labor would not imply you own things you mix it with--maybe you lose the title to the labor, as when you spit in the ocean you lose your spit you do not homestead the ocean. And you do not need the labor-ownership assumption anyway for Locke's argument to work, as Hume pointed out: if I appropriate an unowned resource then I have a better claim to it than latecomers do because I had it first. For the latecomer to claim he has a better title to the resource even though I came first, he has to disregard the importance of the prior-later distinction. but if he does that then HE doesn't own it either b/c guy #3 can come along and take it from HIM. I.e., if you don't respect the prior-later distinction you don't respect property rights at all and are advocating a lawless state of might makes right. In other words, Locke was wrong to say that you own your labor, and he was wrong to say that owning your labor is an essential reason for your right to property you appropriate.

If he had not made this mistake then it would have been harder for the entire confused labor theory of value to arise as well as Rand's confusions about labor, and her and others' related confusion about the source of property rights, which I call 'creationism". This is the erroneous belief that there are 3 ways to acquire property rights in some thing: 1. by homesteading 2 by contract. 3 by production or "creating" the thing. Rand's own remarks on rearrangement that i quoted earlier show that category 3 is a confusion and empty set. Production always involves pre-existing ownership of some factors and transforming those factors into some new configuration--obviously no new property rights come from this. Creation is NOT a source of rights. If THIS had been clear then the whole IP notion could not have arose because you would not then make the mistaken argument: if I own things I create then ... I own useful ideas that I create. This whole way of putting it is confused. You cannot just say that all "things" that exist are ownable. Only some type of things are ownable. To assign IP rights in patterns of information is literally impossible, so this is a disguised way of assigning control rights in property that others already own. It is a state-imposed transfer of or redistribution of property rights: from owner to idea-innovator. Specifically, as I have explained, in patent and copyright the state simply grants the idea-creator a negative servitude over others' already-owned property. Now there is nothing wrong with negative servitudes if they are contratually granted: for example people in a neighborhood agree to not build a house more than 2 stories, without the unanimous permission of all the others. But in the case of IP the state simply grants this property right from owner to idea-creator, by decree. This is theft.

There is nothing wrong with using ideas, with learning from others, from copying or emulating them, from competing.

Let's Take a Look at His Argument

Michael Moeller's picture

His argument was as follows:

"1) he has a prerogative to act in any way that does not interfere with others; 2) his actions in relation to a given object not formerly being acted on by others is an action, and by #1 it therefore should not be interfered with; i.e., upon first use he "owns" the object in question, it is his property."

The bolded part follows the conclusory lead-in "therefore", and is nothing but a restatement of premise #1. In fact, lunkhead just admitted that what followed the "therefore" was a "restatement of the conclusion". Ergo, he is admitting that his restatement of premise #1 is also a restatement of the conclusion. Clear fallacy of petitio principii.

Now if we take the restated premise out, we get:

"1) he has a prerogative to act in any way that does not interfere with others; 2) his actions in relation to a given object not formerly being acted on by others is an action, and by #1 it therefore upon first use he "owns" the object in question, it is his property."

Total non sequitur, I.E. the conclusion does not follow from the premises. He tried to make the argument fit by restating one of the premises in the conclusion. Lunkhead needs a remedial course in elementary logic.

And all he can do is scream "Liar, liar pants on fire" because he is dumb.

Michael

Linz -- rationalist

Shayne Wissler's picture

You don't have a prerogative; you have a nature. If we are to live in accordance with that nature, we need concepts that identify and ratify it. These are after the event. We don't have them, we conceive them.

It is ironic that a rationalist is calling me a rationalist. You have the same problem Kinsella has: an inability to see things from various points of view.

I don't say you have a prerogative as if that's the one true way of looking at things. You have a prerogative because a proper legal standard grants you one, because of your nature. There is no dichotomy here. You are confused.

But what's worse is that you are evading the issue at hand. I say that you should leave people alone unless they violated your rights -- unless they interfered with you. Now you're dishonestly switching to a silly rationalist word game. Shame on you.

Also, your integration of the two phrases is wrong. It should read:

"So, you dispute that a person should be granted a principle of action, by a proper legal standard, to take whatever action he desires, so long as he does not interfere with the right of others to do likewise?"

Stop playing rationalist word games and answer the damn question.

Context-dropping liar lawyer

Shayne Wissler's picture

"therefore" is the beginning of the conclusion

The "therefore" I was referring to was obviously his bolded form of my phrase by #1 it therefore should not be interfered with, not the mere word "therefore."

He clearly didn't know what "i.e." means and is trying to hide.

Linz, come on, you're not that stupid. He's a total clown.

You ARE a Lunkhead

Michael Moeller's picture

Lunkhead wrote:

"Geez Moeller, do I have to teach you stuff you should have learned in grammar school? The "therefore" is not followed by a conclusion, it is followed by a restatement of the conclusion."

And he just gave a paradigm argument structure:

"Nonsense. It's a simple deduction, akin to "all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal."

Numnuts does not realize that "therefore" is the beginning of the conclusion, which certainly is something he should have learned a long time ago. Or at least he doesn't want to acknowledge it because he was too stupid to realize that he was simply restating a premise when he first tried to make the argument. If you strike out the restatement part after the "therefore" and before the "i.e.", then his argument goes from question-begging to non sequitur.

In other words, not realizing the logical fallacy he was committing, he tried to stick one of the premises in the conclusion so that his conclusion does not fall apart into a non sequitur.

Either way, lunkhead, you are hopeless.

Michael

Shayne

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Compare your two statements:

So, you dispute that a person has a prerogative to take whatever action he desires, so long as he does not interfere with the right of others to do likewise?

And:

A prerogative is a principle of action that you are granted by a proper legal standard. It specifies that you have the right to act in a given way without being interfered with.

And integrate them as follows:

So, you dispute that a person has a principle of action that he is granted by a proper legal standard to take whatever action he desires, so long as he does not interfere with the right of others to do likewise.

I contend you're equivocating between the "is" and the "ought." Your rationalism consists in unilaterally and arbitrarily treating the latter as the former and making circular deductions therefrom.

You don't have a prerogative; you have a nature. If we are to live in accordance with that nature, we need concepts that identify and ratify it. These are after the event. We don't have them, we conceive them.

Here you go you dumb lawyer

Shayne Wissler's picture

http://ancienthistory.about.co...

Don't worry, I won't charge you the obscene rates you get.

Stupid lawyer doesn't know what "i.e." means

Shayne Wissler's picture

Geez Moeller, do I have to teach you stuff you should have learned in grammar school? The "therefore" is not followed by a conclusion, it is followed by a restatement of the conclusion.

I can't believe Linz is fond of your "thought."

No, Lunkhead

Michael Moeller's picture

Here is what you wrote:

"Moeller, a logical argument has is a chain of reasoning. E.g., "a man has a right to property because: 1) he has a prerogative to act in any way that does not interfere with others; 2) his actions in relation to a given object not formerly being acted on by others is an action, and by #1 it therefore should not be interfered with; i.e., upon first use he "owns" the object in question, it is his property."

You see the "therefore" part? That is followed by a conclusion, which assumes one of your premises. It does not follow a valid logical structure. You don't even smuggle it in, you explicitly restate it in your conclusion!

Try again.

Michael

Yes, Mr Kinsella ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

But "hypothetical" is the wrong word. It's not a hypothesis that man has reason and volition; it's a fact. So to say that if man is to live as man his social context must leave him free to exercise his reason and volition, is not "hypothetical"; it's objective. It's reality-based. That fact is not altered by the "if." The "if" is part of the reality. Hume was toxically wrong. Where the hell else do you get an "ought" from, if not the "is"?

Prerogative

Shayne Wissler's picture

A prerogative is a principle of action that you are granted by a proper legal standard. It specifies that you have the right to act in a given way without being interfered with.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

(1) I do agree with you on this. The problem with Kinsella's argument is that he is skipping a key piece of the reasoning where Rand justifies property rights. Namely, man needs to act to retain material values, and he needs those material values to sustain his life. If somebody else proposes to dispose of those values, man has no means to sustain his life and he is in the position of a slave.

Kinsella is ignoring that key piece of the reasoning because, obviously, he is proposing to dispose of the material values created by IP. Any technology being sold in the commercial market can be copied without the owner's consent, according to Kinsella, which is nothing more than a proposal to turn the creator's property into communal property that can be plundered by any and all comers. He is denying the inventor the fruit of his labors.

(2) I do not see it as different that land. Do you agree that exclusivity is needed as an essential part of ownership? As the old aphorism goes: "two people cannot plow the same land". If the second to land proposed to use it in a different way (like farming) than the first (like building a house on it), you have a conflict over use, a conflict of rights.

Similarly, the same holds true when you do not have exclusivity in IP. The second inventor would also have the rights to use and dispose of the invention, which includes the ability to put it in the public domain for anybody to use. This would ALSO be disposing of the first inventor's property rights without his consent, without him being able to do anything about it.

Again, without the exclusivity, you end up with a conflict of rights just like land. The only way to objectively settle this dispute while maintaining the exclusivity necessary for ownership is to grant rights to the one that arrives first in time.

Michael

if

kinsella's picture

Perigo: "Kinsella's critique of Rand's explication of rights sounds very similar to my own, leaving aside "yadda yadda, blah, blah," etc. I think it's accurate, though I do not regard the "if" factor as negating the status of rights, as he obviously does. "

Not sure what you mean. I think Rand's ethics are hypothetical, but I don't see that as a problem--it has to be b/c Hume was right that you can't get an ought from an is, as Rand implicitly recognizes when she talks about the choice to live being outside the province of morals b/c it is the basis of morals.

Shayne

Lindsay Perigo's picture

That's a good way of phrasing the question, and that's the question you should be asking me. So please, indulge me a little further. Define "prerogative."

Linz -- Natural Rights are not "rationalism"

Shayne Wissler's picture

(and Shayne, who supplies such a thing in the form of his "prerogative"). You and I identify this as rationalism/intrinsicism.

So, you dispute that a person has a prerogative to take whatever action he desires, so long as he does not interfere with the right of others to do likewise? This, at least, is an interesting admission. At least we can now comprehend the precise difference between our views. It is a total repudiation of the classical liberal tradition, but at least it explains why you support patents.

Michael

Lindsay Perigo's picture

This post to which I'm replying, "Are you blind, too, Lunkhead?" is outstanding. But I am left with two observations at the end of it:

1) Kinsella's critique of Rand's explication of rights sounds very similar to my own, leaving aside "yadda yadda, blah, blah," etc. I think it's accurate, though I do not regard the "if" factor as negating the status of rights, as he obviously does. I thought you agreed with me on this? Kinsella would appear to want something pre-cast in stone, like Leonid and Baade (and Shayne, who supplies such a thing in the form of his "prerogative"). You and I identify this as rationalism/intrinsicism.

2) I'm still stuck on the second inventor issue. If we establish, non-rationalistically, that a man has the right to the product of his mind, why is that right denied the second inventor? I remain inclined to the view that there has to be a better way of protecting the first inventor's right than "tough titty" and carting the second inventor off to jail.

There's a problem with your equating land (where I entirely agree with first sight first right, to paraphrase) with an invention, but I haven't fingered it. I have to let this percolate.

Rand's non-initiation of force principle

Shayne Wissler's picture

But let me just point out why your argument is question-begging. You are just asserting that one's actions should not be interfered with, and then you are assuming it in your conclusion.

Nonsense. It's a simple deduction, akin to "all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal." You're merely complaining that I didn't justify "all men are mortal". Well, no, I didn't. Is that something you take exception to? If so, it highlights why my logical presentation is far better than your disordered string of assertions, because at least you can identify the premise you disagree with that leads to everything else and we can debate about it.

So evidently you disagree with the non-initiation of force principle, and with Herbert Spencer's law of equal liberty?

I Am Not Sure Why I Am Even Bothering....

Michael Moeller's picture

But let me just point out why your argument is question-begging. You are just asserting that one's actions should not be interfered with, and then you are assuming it in your conclusion. In other words, your premise states one's actions should not be interfered with, then you go on to conclude that the first possessor should not be interfered with (i.e. "1 it therefore should not be interfered with"), which thereby gives him ownership in the property.

This is a prime example of the logical fallacy of petitio principii.

You give absolutely no justification for WHY one's right to action should not be interfered with. You are a rationalist, so you treat that premise as a given, and that is precisely why all your arguments downstream collapse into a complete mess (see, e.g., your assertions about the second inventor).

Now go look at the what I quoted from Rand to see what a real argument and justification look like.

Michael

Reason

Shayne Wissler's picture

Moeller, a logical argument has is a chain of reasoning. E.g., "a man has a right to property because: 1) he has a prerogative to act in any way that does not interfere with others; 2) his actions in relation to a given object not formerly being acted on by others is an action, and by #1 it therefore should not be interfered with; i.e., upon first use he "owns" the object in question, it is his property." This is a chain of reasoning that connects a deeper natural rights premise to the more specific case of property. Sure, it doesn't give all the details, but at least it's a basic logical structure. You have no structure whatsoever. You just have a mish-mash.

What I'm asking for is not that hard if you actually have a logical case and if you know how to think. But you don't have a case, and you have no clue what thinking even is. So you fume and posture instead.

Great Counter Arguments, Lunkhead!

Michael Moeller's picture

I am surprised you didn't also offer "Yo Mama!!" as a counter argument as well. It probably would have been your best counter argument to date.

But you have proven my point nicely. You are an intellectual zero with no grasp of the substantive issues. Thus, your posts are nothing but bilge spewed forth for the purpose of distraction, picking fights, and generally annoying people.

Get lost, already!

Michael

Strings of assertions

Shayne Wissler's picture

The lawyer thinks that if he strings enough assertions together then he can transmute his inability to formulate a logical argument into ability.

What's your strategy in court Moeller, to bore the jury to death with enough irrelevancy that they relent just to get you to shut your boring yap? You have no argument. You just have a case of verbal diarrhea.

Are You Blind Too, Lunkhead?

Michael Moeller's picture

I posted a defense of Rand's position based on man's nature as a rational being awhile back, and then reupped here on the theft part. Not only do you not know what you are talking about, you cannot even read!

Here's the original post again, for those who cannot read (see, e.g., Lunkhead Shayne). (Will Shayne now do us all a favor and get lost? One can only hope, but there seems to be no end in sight when it comes to his useless babbling and his generally annoying behavior.) The first third of the post is particularly pertinent, Lunkhead.

"Kinsella mangled Rand's position as follows:
"Not sure what your question is. But Rand's theory of rights is confused, incomplete, and internally inconsistent. She talks about rights being moral claims that man needs to live in a social context--yadda yadda. this is all vague and nondescript. And it's consequentialist despite her disavowing this. She says rights come from ethics which comes from the choice to live, so that the choice to live is pre-ethical or outside the realm of ethics--which means it's a hypothetical type of argument: IF you choose to live, THEN blah blah blah."

"Blah blah blah" and "yadda yadda" just about sum up Kinsella's understanding of Rand's position. It is amazing to me that Kinsella has allegedly studied Rand since 1982, and comes up with THIS? The only thing "all vague and nondescript" is Kinsella's pathetic attempt to summarize Rand's position.

Here is what Rand actually says:

Rand: "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)

Now compare what Rand actually said with Kinsella's mangled rendition. Notice anything? I bolded the important piece for clarity so Kinsella can't miss it this time.

Indeed, as Rand has stated, man does not exist as a ghost. He needs material values to sustain his life, and without the ability to acquire and retain those material values, he "has no means to sustain his life".

Further, his life is sustained by his own effort, and without the ability to enjoy the fruits of his own labor, he cannot sustain his life. As Rand states, man would exist as a slave under those circumstances. Again, we see that the foundation of the right to property is the right to the products of one's efforts. Rand expanded upon Locke to include mental effort, as the production of all values is some combination of mental and physical effort.

This is true of real property, and this is true of IP. Barren land simply exists, it is only when I take action to possess and put it to use does it gain the status of property. But this is not simply physical effort, as assumed by Locke, but also involves mental effort. I use my mind to direct the action, like fence in the property, build a house on it, farm it, graze cattle on it, etc etc. This is not mindless action, but rather physical action directed by the mind.

As to IP, innovations and writings also do not exist as such, but have to be created by man's mind. An MRI, a new drug, a piece of software, a new book, a new painting, etc etc do not exist as such, they have to be created by man's mind. And Shayne and Kinsella want to dispose of these products of man's mind without their consent. To make it clearer, Shayne's and Kinsella's proposal to dispose of these products of the mind -- without the the consent of the creators -- is a proposal to enslave these creators.

There is no "question-begging" on theft under this theory. Theft is assuming the right to dispose of somebody else's effort without their consent, and that is the case with both patent and copyright when the copying is unauthorized.

Shayne and Kinsella both have the audacity to suggest this is a moral position. In reality, both are advocates for looters.

In an attempt to get around the obvious observation that inventions and writings are the products of man's mind, and to get around his advocacy of looting, Kinsella states the following:

"No one creates matter; they just manipulate and grapple with it according to physical laws. In this sense, no one really creates anything. They merely rearrange matter into new arrangements and patterns."

AND

"just b/c a pattern of information may be objectively classified as a "discrete" thing and only 'from" the mind of a "discrete" author does not mean it is "thus" property. Property is not a thing. It is a socially recognized right between a person and a given scarce resource."

Straight from the horse's mouth. Kinsella has no use for the role of man's mind in production. He forgets that the mind plays a role in land, it is not acquired as property through mindless action, but rather active use and possession by the combinations of mental and physical labor.

And why is the right in this "scarce resource" "socially recognized" in the first place? He gives no answer. What compels people to "socially recognize" this right? Kinsella provides no justification. Like everything else about the scarcity non-theory of property, it is pure assertion. AGain, the question-begging here is all on Kinsella's side.

Next, Kinsella reduces cars and new drugs and MRI's to mere "arrangements" and "patterns". Who created these "patterns" and "arrangements"? Blank out. By what means were these "patterns" and arrangements" created? Who cares, they are here, now let's divvy them up to avoid "conflicts"!

As I previously stated, he completely eviscerates the role of man's mind in the production of these values. The reason is obvious: he wants to leave others free to plunder and loot these objects.

This argument is nothing more than a desperate attempt to sever man's efforts -- particulary his mental effort -- from the right to retain the products of those efforts. Furthermore, once that link is severed, Kinsella can proceed to fool people that he is not advocating the looting of one's effort, the looting of the products of one's mind.

Here's another example from Kinsella:

"Creation just means rearranging already-owned scarce resources into a more valuable shape--as RAND HERSELF RECOGNIZED:"

Besides the fact that "scarce resources" are not always "already owned", as is the case with homesteading, Kinsella is leaving out one crucial fact: this re-arranging is done with man's mind. Further, this new "arrangement" would not exist but for the efforts of the individual mind. The individual mind and the right to use and dispose of the products is sacrosanct. Kinsella, however, is offering to dispose of those products -- without the consent of the creators -- and has the audacity to call this a defense of liberty.

Sometimes the veil is lifted and we get a glimpse of Kinsella's collectivism, as he wrote to Tom:

"Bu the point is that amongst libertarians and objectivists we all agree in private property rights in scarce resources, assigned by something like Lockean homesteading rules--first use first own. Right? So what the commies and cranks think is irrelevant. You and I presumably both agree in assigning ownership rgihts in scarce goods, by Lockean homesteading and contract. Right?"

No, we do not all agree in the scarcity theory of property, as I just debunked in my last post. Speak for youself! And no, scarcity theory does not comport with Lockean theory, as Lockean theory uses action as the basis for acquiring property rights. Scarcity theory treats those resources as already here, and then becomes simply a matter of divvying them up to avoid "conflict resolution" and maintain the "efficient allocation of resources".

But the most important part of this quote is when Kinsella speaks of Tom and him assigning rights in scarce goods. Unclaimed property is NOT "assigned" by others, it is acquired by the actions of an individual. The only role others play is the recognition of the property's boundaries with which they cannot interfere or trespass. Assignment refers to the transfer of property that is already owned.

His statement and whole approach is that of a collectivist. The property is here, now let's find the best way to "assign" it for the purpose of "conflict resolution" and the "efficient allocation of resources". One's hears the exact same thing communists.

Anarchists and leftists share this same mentality, and simply disagree about the methods of seizing the product of somebody else's effort. Leftists would leave it to the government to perform that function, while anarchists would leave it to "private" gangs of armed thugs. Both seek the ultimate goal of crushing the role of the mind in production by seizing the fruits of one's mind.

Hubbard

Shayne Wissler's picture

This and many of your latter points against Kinsella are getting my notice. My lack of knowledge leading me to conflate copyright with patents blinkered me from your posts - well, that and your manner - but I'm getting more interested in looking at your book after all.

Thanks Mark. I'll set aside our previous differences in future posts.

My manner is a result of the continuous failure of the parties here to deal with the simple logic of the issue:

1. A person is innocent until proven guilty, and should not be deprived of life liberty or property without having been presented a proof that they violated someone's natural rights.

2. The burden of proof is therefore on the party advocating the punishment of second inventors (and other alleged infringers), not merely to demonstrate "infringement," but also to demonstrate that patents embody a natural right that the second inventor (and others) trespassed upon.

This is trivial to analyze and a simple request and no one has met it, yet they jabber, jabber, jabber about everything but this central issue.

Fuming lawyers

Shayne Wissler's picture

Look Moeller, I've pointed out repeatedly why the burden of proof is on you to either point to or provide the theory of why patents are a natural right. You have continuously and utterly failed.

If I am wrong about this, anyone can post a link to where you proved that patents embody a natural right, and I will leave the forum permanently. If you're getting so tired of me as you say, you think you'd be motivated to learn how to use your web browser and give us a citation.

Put up or shut up, lawyer.

Anna

Shayne Wissler's picture

I'm not going to respond to your post point by point Anna, I've already identified the problem with scarcity here:

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Also, throughout Kinsella has utterly failed to argue for his arbitrary dogma of founding rights on scarcity.

Bottom Line, Lunkhead

Michael Moeller's picture

I've written Galt knows how many pages of arguments on this thread. Every time you tried to attack one, you got steamrolled. Then you move on to new assertions and pretend like nothing ever happened. You are worthless on this topic, you do not know what you are talking about, and you are nothing but a obnoxious distraction. With my self-interest in mind, there is nothing to be gained from even reading your nonsense -- certainly not an intelligent counter argument.

I'm not "fuming", I am just tired of listening to your useless babbling. You have no arguments -- you have nothing to contribute -- so just get out of the way for Galt's sake.

Michael

You lawyers have one thing in common

Shayne Wissler's picture

When your basic framework is questioned, you froth and fume and insult, precisely because you are utterly incapable of saying anything coherent. Is this dishonesty? Or are you simply brainwashed cultists stuck inside a little box? Maybe we'll never know.

Lunkhead

Michael Moeller's picture

I was not addressing you, as you have made no arguments to begin with. You just assert nonsense, and when that gets debunked, you move on to the next assertion...and the next and the next and the next. Like I said before, you are totally hopeless.

I was talking Kinsella about his arguments against Rand's positions, you lunkhead. This has nothing to do with you and your mindless blathering.

Kinsella and I probably agree on very little, but on you being a "fool", I am in full agreement. Now get lost.

Michael

Moeller

Shayne Wissler's picture

The burden of proof is on you, not Kinsella or me. You've failed to meet that burden.

Whatever, Kinsella

Michael Moeller's picture

You've done nothing here but misrepresent Rand's position, misrepresent the law, and use fallacies that apply to your positions, not your opponents. And this is precisely why nobody pays your arguments any mind in the legal community. Written by and for anarchist cretins, and that's where it will stay.

Michael

mOeller

kinsella's picture

Moeller, I am done discussing this with you. I have systematically explained what is wrong with IP and Rand's arguments. You have done zero to debunk any of this or even to discuss this honestly or intelligently. My time was wasted on you. The point remains that IP is unlibertarian, contrary to property rights, and inconsistent even with the more sound aspects of Rand's own thought. She was jsut wrong on this, off her rocker. Period.

Bueller? Anybody? Bueller? Kinsella?

Michael Moeller's picture

Kinsella,

Now that youhave been corrected on Rand's actual position, and your position has been shown to amount to utilitarianism and question-begging, do you want to address the actual arguments? Or are you just going to pretend they don't exist and therefore you can make up your own strawmen as you go along? If so, then I will just go ahead and debunk the last of your remaining points.

Michael

Silly man...

Olivia's picture

It's not about what *I'm* prepared to admit, I've been clear all along on this, it's *you* who needs to admit your "slave-raper" conclusion of Jefferson has been proven to be wrong - at least in regard to his fathering of Tom Woodson, the first smear publicly leveled at him during his Presidency and continually alleged by half-wits like you. It is a nonsense.

You're dishonest.

negro raper

kinsella's picture

"Olivia-the-nym":

The evidence is compelling * (though not conclusive) that he did NOT father children with his slaves, let alone RAPE them

so... you admit it's possible, as the evidence is not conclusive (as I admitted). But note that you imply that if he did father children with slaves it might, or might not, have been rape. Uh, I think if a master screws his slave it's per se rape. Hellooo. But I'm glad you are reduced now to attempting to worship the "great man" Jefferson while higgling over how he did or did not handle his ... slaves. Ahem.

Kinsella

Olivia's picture

... trying to worm out.

Actually, I'll double down: Jefferson was not only a racist slaveowner, but he also founded the KKK.

Jefferson the racist slaveowner is not what you flippantly brandished here, it was "Jefferson the slave rapist". Quite different things - even in the 1800s.

The evidence is compelling * (though not conclusive) that he did NOT father children with his slaves, let alone RAPE them.

Are you going to continue with this and look like a bumbling hypocrite yourself?

*The strongest case against Jefferson was the fact that the 15 year old Sally Hemings concieved a son, Tom Woodson, in Paris. Since she and Jefferson were residing there at the same time, it was rumoured that he was likely to be Tom Woodson's father.

But the DNA results show differently - no match between Woodson's line and the Jefferson line.

Ad hominem from Chief Question Begger

gregster's picture

randroid moron

He strongly senses his argument is mortally wounded.

Cultist moron

kinsella's picture

Gregster: "With Anti-trust laws is that they are non-objective. Anti-trust is an abomination. There is no comparison with patents, which are the means of placing the inventor's rights under objective law."

Really, is any comment necessary? "objective law"? What a randroid moron.

The difference

gregster's picture

With Anti-trust laws is that they are non-objective. Anti-trust is an abomination. There is no comparison with patents, which are the means of placing the inventor's rights under objective law. Despite the garbage SKinsella spouts.

Voluntary copyright?

Tom Burroughes's picture

This comment by Shayne caught my eye:

"The thing is, his [Kinsella's] professed principles of non-interference with the rights of others would sanction a consent-oriented system of copyright. He knows this. Obviously, a statist implementation of copyright is going to lead to egregious injustice, as it has with our current systems of copyright. But that's not an inherent aspect of the idea of granting the author control their works within certain well-defined and fairly adjudicable limits."

It would be interesting to see how that would work, just as, with Stephan's idea about scrapping anti-trust and seeing what might happen with firms pooling their ideas (a bit like re-working "patent pools"?) in voluntary form. There might be all kinds of ways that people could agree to form groups to respect creators' efforts in return for their own works being respected and paid for in some way. We should not shut down the possibility that such voluntary interactions could happen, notwithstanding any sort of third-party issues (what about those who don't get involved and free-ride, as it were? But then, if we could arrive at such arrangements from a bottom-up approach rather than through the "positive law" that Stephan attacks, what is, in essence, the difference when it comes down to substance?

Tom

I agree with Michael, that if

Tom Burroughes's picture

I agree with Michael, that if you want to debate anarcho-capitalism, I created a new thread for that. This one is now so long that anyone trying to pick up the ebb and flow is going to be lost.

scarcity and the labor theory of ownership

Anna Christa's picture

"Scarcity? No. Property in self? No. Human action that does not interfere with another? Yes."

there is no interference without scarcity. You want to throw out scarcity and then secretly smuggle it back via "non-interference" or "first in time, first in right". Without acknowledging scarcity you'd have to recognize the supposed rights of any latecomer (re)inventor on the labor theory - because he performed exactly the same labor as the first inventor. The moment you invoke time (being or not being first) you're back with scarcity - which in case of ideas there is none, so you have to decree it artificially using violent state authority.

Btw without scarcity (real or artificially decreed) it doesn't even matter how the "second inventor" "produced" the "invention" - he might have even copied it. This theory would still have to grant him the same rights as to the "first inventor", because he still used his labor and resources available to him to produce it - he just used a much more efficient method with the knowledge already in his mind.

"without the ability to retain those material values, man has no means to sustain his life. If somebody else proposes to dispose of those values with the creator's consent -- like patent infringers want to dispose of somebody else's creation -- then they are reducing the patent holder to a slave"

If this is not an utilitarian argument I don't know what is. Anyway, in the case of non-material non-scarce application attempt it presupposes an unfounded notion that the creator is somehow harmed by his creation being "disposed of" allegedly "without his consent" or that he can't sustain his life without a monopoly grant in non-scarce things. However the opposite seems to me to be true: man can sustain his life even in a competitive environment (ie. without IP).

If a man (by his nature and by the nature of reality) cannot sustain his life by selling stargazing in a competitive environment, should everybody else be violently prevented from looking at stars for free by the government so that this man can earn his living?

Btw I'm intrigued how this labor/value theory of property allows for trade. I mean there are at least two interesting difficulties: first, authorship (ie. who "was first") can't change even using a title transfer contract because it's a fact of history. So even after a trade attempt, the traded thing would still have to be "owned" by the original creator (because he's the one who first produced it). On the other hand, if selling the thing does successfully transfer the ownership title, then contrary to the theory 1) authorship (or who was first) doesn't always matter and 2) the creation can be disposed of because it's no longer the property of the first producer.

Second, let's say that person A trades her X with person B for his Y. Obviously they did this because A values Y more than X and B values X more than Y. Therefore after the trade some value is created: A has more value because she now owns the more valuable Y and B has more value because he now owns the more valuable X. But if value creation gives rise to property titles for their creators, who owns the additional values A and B gained? The one of them who initiated (offered to) trade? Or they both own each other's gained value?

you cannot click on a link to this WIPO study that I have provided THREE TIMES NOW.

does the study try to assess both the costs and benefits of patents or they just try to establish a correlation between patents and the respective industry growth? I wouldn't be surprised if they found out that industries more "protected" by patents would grow faster at the expense of "unprotected" industries, after all IP is a redistribution scheme too.

bizarre brown nosing accusation

kinsella's picture

Shayne the engineer keeps accusing me of being a brown noser. But it's not clear who i am sucking up to. The dead Rothbard? Who? The accusation simply makes no sense whatsoever.

Shayne

Mark Hubbard's picture

The question is: what is the proper foundation for rights? Scarcity? No. Property in self? No. Human action that does not interfere with another? Yes.

This and many of your latter points against Kinsella are getting my notice. My lack of knowledge leading me to conflate copyright with patents blinkered me from your posts - well, that and your manner - but I'm getting more interested in looking at your book after all.

Human liberty

Shayne Wissler's picture

What Kinsella is too petty and dogmatic to admit is that what we are arguing about here is perspectives, ways of looking at the idea of human liberty. The question at hand is: what is more powerful and explanatory? An idea of liberty based on the concept of scarcity, of "property in self", or the idea that a human being has the prerogative to take any action whatsoever so long as it does not interfere with the equal actions of others?

He has unrelentingly refused to even lift a finger to make his case. Instead, he pretends that I do not understand the meaning of human liberty, pretending to himself that I am "stupid" because I use an idea of liberty related more to Herbert Spencer (see his law of equal liberty) than to Murray Rothbard.

This is pure silliness, pure dogmatism, pure brown-nosing on Kinsella's part. He has to play the part of Mr. Anarcho-Capitalist for his foolish followers, and that's what he's stuck with, for the rest of his life. Such is the meaning of not being a "nobody" in his book, as he likes to accuse me of being.

Dishonest "Kinsella"

Shayne Wissler's picture

yeah, let someone point a gun at your head and ask you that question, and see what you say. You fool. I'm done.

Is the gun pointing interference with my rightful action, the part of my statement you snipped? You're patently dishonest.

Again, the issue at hand is: what is the proper foundation of rights? Sure, we can think in some terms about how we "own our own body", but is that the right basis for an entire legal theory? Or is "don't take any action that initiates interference with others" the right foundation? "Kinsella" flounces when I point this out. Telling. He knows I'm right but has to brown nose, so he's gone.

Shayne

Richard Goode's picture

There is no distinction between him and his living body -- he is himself.

Wrong. Kinsella's living body is an instantiation of himself. There may be others. Kinsella, you see, is an information structure. He's an arrangement, a pattern, a process realised in his living body.

You of course believe in the soul as something separable from the body

The soul is separable from the body, but a living soul is not separable from a living body. Objectivism survived the death of Ayn Rand but, if it is to be a living philosophy, it needs live human hosts to parasitise.

more stupid shayne

kinsella's picture

"Simple question, Shayne: who owns your body? You, or someone else? Very very simple."

Irrelevant.

ahah. yeah, let someone point a gun at your head and ask you that question, and see what you say. You fool. I'm done.

Wrong again...

Shayne Wissler's picture

The reason the law is correct is because the judges have rightly argued that it would be putting the copyright holder in the position of proving a negative.

You are utterly detached with the proper foundation of law: natural rights. A law isn't correct merely because a judge "argues" about "proving a negative". You must relate the law to natural rights or it's a non-starter. You have continuously failed to do that.

In other words: prove that IP is a natural right. It's a simple question. What's your answer?

"Kinsella" the dogmatist

Shayne Wissler's picture

Simple question, Shayne: who owns your body? You, or someone else? Very very simple.

Irrelevant. The question is: what is the proper foundation for rights? Scarcity? No. Property in self? No. Human action that does not interfere with another? Yes.

shayne the engineer

kinsella's picture

Shayne:

Kinsella's "body ownership" points are all irrelevant. The question at hand is how to frame natural rights. None of what he is saying makes any case whatsoever that the way we should think about rights is, at root, "property in self". On the contrary, it is the concept of property that we seek to justify by referring to a theory of rights. He has it exactly backwards.

It is true that we can think in some loose terms about "owning ourselves", but that does not mean that this should be the technical foundation of legal theory. He has no case. Just as he has no case for scarcity being at the foundation of a legal theory.

Simple question, Shayne: who owns your body? You, or someone else? Very very simple.

The answer is obvious. You do. This does not involve spooky metaphysics; it's just repudiating slavery. ANd yes, your body is a scarce resources. That's why it can be conflicted over. The civilized and libertarian answer is: each person prima facie owns his own body. Only a statist, sophist or pettifogging moron would deny this.

How many more times need this be stated?

Michael Moeller's picture

Exactly. Not your statement, but my position. I am not saying it is valid because copyright law says so. Obviously, the law can be flawed. The reason the law is correct is because the judges have rightly argued that it would be putting the copyright holder in the position of proving a negative. Same thing if independent creation was applied to patent law.

Jeez Louise, Tom and I have said this umpteen times already, and you've totally failed to grasp this point. What do you want us to do -- dispense with logic so we can agree with you? Sorry, lunkhead, but if you can't grasp the logic behind the policy like Tom, I, and the judges have, then too bad for you. Nothing else can be done to help you.

Michael

"Kinsella" pettifogging

Shayne Wissler's picture

Kinsella's "body ownership" points are all irrelevant. The question at hand is how to frame natural rights. None of what he is saying makes any case whatsoever that the way we should think about rights is, at root, "property in self". On the contrary, it is the concept of property that we seek to justify by referring to a theory of rights. He has it exactly backwards.

It is true that we can think in some loose terms about "owning ourselves", but that does not mean that this should be the technical foundation of legal theory. He has no case. Just as he has no case for scarcity being at the foundation of a legal theory.

An insult is not an argument

Shayne Wissler's picture

Moeller ironically calls me a "lunkhead" while being totally oblivious after hundreds of posts of the issue I pointed out early on:

The burden of proof is on the patent holder to prove infringement, i.e. show that the product is the same or substantially similar. That is your "innocent until proven guilty", lunkhead. Once the patent holder has made the prima facie case for infringement, the burden of proof should then shift to the alleged second inventor to prove he independently created that product.

You make exactly the same legal positivism error as Tom. You take the law as a given, when in fact it is the law that is on trial here. This is pure question-begging. The burden of proof is on you (and the patent holder) to prove that the law is just.

How many more times need this be stated?

owning body

kinsella's picture

"Shayne":

"There is no distinction between him and his living body -- he is himself."

You of course believe in the soul as something separable from the body, so for you, it makes sense to talk about Kinsella owning his body. But for him it makes no sense whatsoever. "I own I"? That means "I have the prerogative to take certain actions with respect to I". It's circular nonsense.

you do not have to have a mystical view of things to believe in body-ownership. I do own my body, and "I" as a legal personality is conceptually different or distinct from my body. The quesiton is simply: who owns that body? The libertarian answer is: he does, where he is the person that is or is associated with the body. You can believe in a soul, or not--irrelevant. That is why we should speak of ownership of the body, not of the "self."

Consider a woman named Sally. She "is" a woman; a person. She "has" a body. sure, she cannot exist without the body, but she is not the same as her body, conceptually speaking--any more than your brain is your mind (when you die there is still a brain--but not a mind; you can change your mind, but not your brain; etc.). Who has the right to decide who touches her vagina? Her, or someone else? The libertarian answer is: HER. If it's someone else, this is slavery or rape. To object to the libertarian answer by saying "well she is her body so she can't own her body" is pettifogging to the extreme.

Mind-body dichotomy

Shayne Wissler's picture

I'm going to go out on a limb here ... I think Kinsella's body is wholly owned and operated by Kinsella.

There is no distinction between him and his living body -- he is himself.

You of course believe in the soul as something separable from the body, so for you, it makes sense to talk about Kinsella owning his body. But for him it makes no sense whatsoever. "I own I"? That means "I have the prerogative to take certain actions with respect to I". It's circular nonsense.

Here's a Novel Idea, Kinsella...

Michael Moeller's picture

Why don't you try addressing my *actual* moral justification for patent rights, and the theft thereof. Here is the second time I've given it. You wrote:

"see, moron, calling it "ripping off" is implying that the thing "ripped off" (stolen) is property. You are using this assumption in a supposed argument to show that ideas are or should be property."

Look, Kinsella, my justification did not boil down to simply saying it was "ripped off". Read that post and deal with the full moral case I provided. Here is the "theft" part again:

"
Michael (previous post):'There is no "question-begging" on theft under this theory. Theft is assuming the right to dispose of somebody else's effort without their consent, and that is the case with both patent and copyright when the copying is unauthorized.'

Michael (linked post): 'This is a cogent definition of theft -- i.e. somebody disposing of the products of somebody else's effort. Again, this stems from man's nature as a rational being who needs material values to sustain his own life. When somebody else disposes of those values an individual has created -- be it a book or an innovation -- that is theft. When a drug company spends hundreds of millions to develop a new drug, and another company proposes to copy it and sell it without their consent, the second company is proposing to dispose of the value created by the other company. No question-begging whatsoever.'

That was much of the argument, so stop slicing and dicing parts in an attempt to evade my full argument. I would also like to see your rebuttal to my arguments that your position is utilitarian and question-begging.

As to "value", yes, obviously the person possessing it regards it as a "value", otherwise why would he want to keep it and use it? When he uses it and it serves some useful purpose for enhancing his life, he is possessing a valuable object. Furthermore, when he puts it in the market and other people buy it and use it to further their lives, obviously they are placing value on it as well. Pretty simple, no matter how you try to twist yourself into a pretzel in order to deny man creates values.

Michael

jefferson and self-ownership

kinsella's picture

goode:

"You are an atheist. Just what is owning your body?"

I'm going to go out on a limb here ... I think Kinsella's body is wholly owned and operated by Kinsella.

Of course. You do not need mystical or religious assumptions to distinguish between a person and the material he owns (including his body). Any more than it's mystical to distinguish between action and behavior, or between mind and brain. These are purely conceptual distinctions. Misesian dualism--a way of looking at human behavior differently from human action--is a helpful approach to this, IMO.

I deal with this in How We Come To Own Ourselves.

"Olivia"--

"
why take it back? Why does a statist politician deserve it?"

You're fudging. Take it back because it is not established as a fact, that's what honest men do.

Meh. I think it's reasonable to infer that he fathered Hemings. It's not conclusive.

I'm surprised at you. Most men find the accusation of being a rapist so awful that they are usually more considered in brandishing around the term in respect to other men. Stop spouting off like a hysterical feminist with PMS and man the fuck up.

If a slaveowner has sex with his slave that is per se rape. So the question is: did he. You seem to admit there is some evidence of genetic connection, but you pawn it off to the retard brother. Okay. Maybe. But this is almost as bad. If you have a bunch of slaves and you put them in the position to be raped by your family or visitors is still horrible.

"You say he's heroic--what did he do that was heroic? He was a fricking politician."

He was an inventor, agriculturalist, scientist, philosopher, musician, architect, lawyer, multi-linguist, father and diplomat. You summing him up as just a "fricking politician" is as trite as it is untrue. Are you really that wet?

Millions of great inventors, lawyers, etc. thru our history.

I hate adolescent males like you, who slam dunk your betters because they don't fit your reactive, knee-jerk, tough-talking "no rules for me", pseudo intellectual, half-baked, anarchic, immature bullshit.

I am glad you hate me, because you are a nobody, a nothing, a cowardly, statist nym. I would rather be hated than liked by scum like you. I am better than a slaver and politician like Jefferson precisely because I'm not a slaver or politician (read: criminal).

Jefferson was a giant of a man who you would do well to learn a thing or two from. For now, just take back the allegation of slave rapist, for you have no factual basis to add that to your sad little list of gripes about him.

Actually, I'll double down: Jefferson was not only a racist slaveowner, but he also founded the KKK.

Shayne

Richard Goode's picture

You are an atheist. Just what is owning your body?

I'm going to go out on a limb here ... I think Kinsella's body is wholly owned and operated by Kinsella.

Your brain? But that's part of your body. Your mind? An aspect of your brain.

What are you? See here.

Nice Try, Lunkhead

Michael Moeller's picture

I am ignoring you because you cannot comprehend basic English. I answered the questions at least five times, and either you are playing dumb or you really are dumb. At this point, I have little doubt it is the latter.

One last time, although I know trying to reason with you is hopeless. You are just plain hopeless, and out of your depth on these issues, in particular.

The burden of proof is on the patent holder to prove infringement, i.e. show that the product is the same or substantially similar. That is your "innocent until proven guilty", lunkhead. Once the patent holder has made the prima facie case for infringement, the burden of proof should then shift to the alleged second inventor to prove he independently created that product.

It makes absolutely no sense for the patent holder to try and prove that he did NOT independently create the object because that puts the patent holder in the position of trying to prove a negative. This is precisely the reason why -- in copyright law where independent creation IS an affirmative defense -- the burden is placed on the defendant to show independent creation. Copyright law is logical here, while you certainly are not, lunkhead.

I gave my arguments to Linz here as to why I would not grant rights in the second inventor, which I have given more than once. Even if one disagrees with my arguments, this is still not an argument for denying patent rights altogether. As Linz correctly surmised, it would be an argument for granting patent rights in the second inventor, and there goes your whole "initiation of force" claptrap along with it. Obviously, if the second inventor is granted the right to use what he independently created, then there is no force against him.

It is not difficult to grasp, lunkhead. If the second inventor's inventive activity is the basis for asserting property rights, then it is illogical and absurd not to grant the rights in the first inventor based on his independent creation.

I am sorry you are not smart enough to grasp these arguments, I truly am, because then I would not have to repeat myself over and over. But don't blame me for your intellectual incapacities.

Michael

Dense One

Olivia's picture

why take it back? Why does a statist politician deserve it?

You're fudging. Take it back because it is not established as a fact, that's what honest men do. I'm surprised at you. Most men find the accusation of being a rapist so awful that they are usually more considered in brandishing around the term in respect to other men. Stop spouting off like a hysterical feminist with PMS and man the fuck up.

You say he's heroic--what did he do that was heroic? He was a fricking politician.

He was an inventor, agriculturalist, scientist, philosopher, musician, architect, lawyer, multi-linguist, father and diplomat. You summing him up as just a "fricking politician" is as trite as it is untrue. Are you really that wet?

I hate adolescent males like you, who slam dunk your betters because they don't fit your reactive, knee-jerk, tough-talking "no rules for me", pseudo intellectual, half-baked, anarchic, immature bullshit.

Jefferson was a giant of a man who you would do well to learn a thing or two from. For now, just take back the allegation of slave rapist, for you have no factual basis to add that to your sad little list of gripes about him.

This thread is dead, you helped kill it

Shayne Wissler's picture

As amusing as it is to see the two vultures go at it on anarcho-capitalism, can you both please take that debate to the thread Tom started on the issue?

It is amusing to see you so concerned about the purpose of this thread while at the same time refusing to deal with its substance. You have yet to address the burden of proof issue I raised on the first or second page. Everything else in this thread, especially your posts, is off topic.

Hey Lunkhead

Michael Moeller's picture

Shayne wrote:

"The vast majority of the value in companies like Google is not from their patented algorithms, but from their past performance at meeting market needs and their existing infrastructure and technology that's hidden from view. The former means that a newcomer is not just going to be able to knock them over, because nobody is going to trust them. The latter means that the newcomer is going to need masses of money, and more importantly, an army of competent engineers who can rebuild the infrastructure."

Nobody gives a damn about your theories of business success. Your useless babbling has no bearing on the issue of whether patents spur innovation, or whether they are moral. Obviously the market has said differently, considering that all the hardware technologies that you mentioned were primarily developed in the US, and protected by patents -- the country with the strongest patent protection, I might add. If patents were such a drag, why aren't the innovations happening elsewhere to avoid the alleged patent impediment?

You also need a history lesson. Jefferson was not there during the constitutional debates. His opinion on patents so influential on those that were there that the Patent and Copyright Clause passed with hardly any debate. That's how controversial it was among the Framers.

Educate yourself on the topic.

Michael

olivia the politician lover

kinsella's picture

"Olivia":

I'm responding to your allegation of Jefferson the rapist, for which you have no proof. So take it.

It is not conclusive but there is some proof of this.

Allowed his brother to fuck his slaves? Ever heard of the saying "not my brother's keeper?" I have a brother and I don't know who he fucks - and we're pretty close.

oh, good defense.

Jefferson fought to have slavery abolished during his life time, you can't doubt that.

Good for him. I guess maybe one place to start would be, you know, free your slaves (and not letting your brother screw them?)

Were there any contradictions in his life about that issue? Probably, considering it was a very far fetched idea to abolish slavery in America. Acknowledge the heroic things he did do, not what he may have failed to do. There's no pleasing Anarcho Capitalists on any front I have learned.

If you have any shred of integrity, you'll take back the Jefferson the rapist comment. Would you want that said about you?

why take it back? Why does a statist politician deserve it? You say he's heroic--what did he do that was heroic? He was a fricking politician. While in office he collected TAXES which is mass theft. He violated the Constitution to buy the Louisiana territory. He helped start the 1776 war with his Declaration which resulted in free men and even slaves in being conscripted to fight, and to be shot for desertion. And to leave Britain which resulted in the statist Constitution which has resulted in what we have now, and ultimately permitted consolidation and mass murder under Lincoln and to intervention in WWI which helped cause WWII, communism, fascism, the Cold war, etc. What did he do that was heroic? He was a politician who owned slaves and helped found the biggest tyrnnical empire the world has ever seen. Okay, his Kentucky Resolutions were okay as far as statist opposition to centralized power goes, but it was too late and a flash in the pan and never really effective. And I am sure most Objectivists dislike the Kentucky Resolves anyway--they like a nice, neat, tidy "final answer" from a central world court.

"Kinsella" cherry picks

Shayne Wissler's picture

good argument, engineer.

The argument, which you snipped the reference to, is based in the inductive observation about the nature of life. As Ayn Rand observed, "life is self-sustaining and self-generated action". A right recognizes a human's prerogative to act in whatever way he deems fit, so long as he doesn't interfere with the equal rights of others to do likewise. (A property right is action in relation to a given object.)

that's why I talk about owning one's body

You are an atheist. Just what is owning your body? Your brain? But that's part of your body. Your mind? An aspect of your brain.

Anarcho-capitalism

Michael Moeller's picture

As amusing as it is to see the two vultures go at it on anarcho-capitalism, can you both please take that debate to the thread Tom started on the issue?

Listen fuckhead...

Olivia's picture

I'm responding to your allegation of Jefferson the rapist, for which you have no proof. So take it.

Allowed his brother to fuck his slaves? Ever heard of the saying "not my brother's keeper?" I have a brother and I don't know who he fucks - and we're pretty close.

Jefferson fought to have slavery abolished during his life time, you can't doubt that. Were there any contradictions in his life about that issue? Probably, considering it was a very far fetched idea to abolish slavery in America. Acknowledge the heroic things he did do, not what he may have failed to do. There's no pleasing Anarcho Capitalists on any front I have learned.

If you have any shred of integrity, you'll take back the Jefferson the rapist comment. Would you want that said about you?

shayne's body--who owns it?

kinsella's picture

"The concept of owning oneself, while poetic, is nonsense."

that's why I talk about owning one's body, not one's "self". It was you who talked about the "self."

" If you are trying to walk across the room, and someone blocks your progress, normal humans do not think "you are violating my scarce resource in myself.""

good argument, engineer.

Question-begging "Kinsella"

Shayne Wissler's picture

There's no point in dissecting "Kinsella's" nonsense point by point. Just observe these few points:

[the right to pursue justice] is not some separate right.

Separate from what? Property rights in self? Blatant question-begging.

There is ownership of one's BODY. And your body is of course a scarce resource as Hoppe and Rothbard explain. If you don't understand that, you are not worth talking to.

It's trivial to understand. You confuse disagreement with lack of understanding -- typical religious zealotry. "If you agree, no explanation is necessary. If you don't, none is possible."

The concept of owning oneself, while poetic, is nonsense. If you are trying to walk across the room, and someone blocks your progress, normal humans do not think "you are violating my scarce resource in myself." They think some equivalent of "you are interfering with my non-interfering action." Action is the root of rights, not property, because life is action, it is not a static "thing."

weak defense of jefferson

kinsella's picture

"Olivia", an apparent nym, says Jefferson never impregnated his slave Sally Hemings. I see. He merely owned her, and many other negroes. But he is heroic because he didn't insert his penis into them. He "only" owned them. And allowed his brother to f*ck them. How heroic! He was a slaver, and he violated the constitution--ever heard of the Louisiana PUrchase? hellooo

Jefferson.

Olivia's picture

Racist slave raper? WTF!

Without wanting to derail this thread from topic... I just can't let this pass.

He was a racist slave raper politician hypocrit

The DNA testing done on the decendants of Sally Hemmings' children concluded that "some" Jefferson (one of a possible eight Jeffersons) fathered some of her children. Given that serveral Jefferson males were hanging around Monticello whenever Thomas was at home, lets us know that it has never been conlclusive that Thomas fathered any children with her.

Randolph Jefferson, Thomas's allegedly simple brother, spent most of his time out in the fields with the slaves playing his violin. It is far more likely that it is he who fathered children with Sally. So you can stick your "Thomas Jefferson the Rapist" conclusion straight up your ass. You do not know that as a fact.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...

anarchy and free markets

kinsella's picture

"shayne":

It's a system based on free market competition of defense agencies as the fundamental underlying rule of law. You dispute this?

An anarchist is not someone who supports a "system" and whose ideas rest on that system's "working" or "being viable." For example, if I am for property rights and individualism then the "system" that results is one where... property rights are respected. One outcome of such a "system" would be the free market--but this is jsut a consequence of property rihgts being respected. If property rights are widely respected the state could not exist since it would not have the widespread degree of support for its legitimacy that it does now. the various private institutions that would arise absent the state, are just details.

If you actually supported individual rights, you'd support the right of individuals to form a rights-respecting government, even one that did not operate on anarcho-capitalist economics-worship ideals. For my part, I think we should worship natural rights, not economics.

I don't respect their "right" to form a STATE (the word governemnt is ambiguous and used often by statists like you in an equivocating way), since that imposes aggression on innocent third parties. I'm getting tired of libertarianism 101 with disrespectful nitwits. I can handle a disrespectful intelligent person, or a respectful nitwit .but the combination is unacceptable.

"IF you support individual rights--which means property rights"

No, it doesn't. Property rights is but one important class of right."

Rothbard explains why all rights are proprty rights. hello. this is exactly why IP is invalid.

There is the right to self (not a property right except in the minds of confused anarcho-capitalists)

there is no rihgt to "self". this is equivocating nonsense. There is ownership of one's BODY. And your body is of course a scarce resource as Hoppe and Rothbard explain. If you don't understand that, you are not worth talking to.

, there is the right to consent,

? to what? to some use of your ... hellooo body? a scarce resoure? the right to consent is just an implication or part of the property right in one's body. hellooo. you are such an amateur typical unequipped engineer.

to make contracts (again, not property right),

contracting is simply exercising your property rights. ever heard of Rothbard's title theory of contract. you are hopeless. pontificating on things you have not read about, and don't understand. typical arrogant idiot engineer.

there is the right to pursue justice (again, not a property right.)

This not some separate right. You really don't know what you are talking about.

I'm done talking to you or others on this topic since all I get is amateur crap or dishonest halfassed utilitarianism and repeated question-begging. this is pathetic.

Anarcho-capitalism

Shayne Wissler's picture

It is not a system, you nitwit. It is just the result of consistently supporting individual rights.

It's a system based on free market competition of defense agencies as the fundamental underlying rule of law. You dispute this?

If you actually supported individual rights, you'd support the right of individuals to form a rights-respecting government, even one that did not operate on anarcho-capitalist economics-worship ideals. For my part, I think we should worship natural rights, not economics.

IF you support individual rights--which means property rights

No, it doesn't. Property rights is but one important class of right. There is the right to self (not a property right except in the minds of confused anarcho-capitalists), there is the right to consent, to make contracts (again, not property right), there is the right to pursue justice (again, not a property right.) This impetus to turn everything into a property right is closely related to this perverse approach of Rothbard's to found everything on economics. This too is somewhat the fault of Rand, who named her system "Capitalism" and put property at the center. In some sense, all Rothbard did was take Rand's error of wrong emphasis and amplify it to Frankenstein proportions.

"Stephan"

Shayne Wissler's picture

Is there some particular reason "Stephan" why you keep calling me "Shayne" instead of Shayne?

anarchy

kinsella's picture

"Shayne":

"did it ever occur to you, lover of the state, that I arrived at anarcho-capitalism because I was searching the truth and came to believe a-c is true? hellooo"

You are a dogmatist.

This is not an argument. It does not justify the criminal state that you support.

At least Objectivists try to justify government in terms of abstract principle. You're fixated on some narrowly defined subset of what is possible.

This is not an argument. It does not justify the criminal state that you support.

At best, anarcho-capitalism is a system ... Anarchy and capitalism? No. How about individual and rights.

It is not a system, you nitwit. It is just the result of consistently supporting individual rights. IF you support individual rights--which means property rights--which means you are against aggression, or the initiation of force (as Rand was: as she wrote: "So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate — do you hear me? No man may start — the use of physical force against others." -- or am I in trouble, "Shayne," with your "private copyright" for using this quote? Or do you have a fleshed out theory of "fair use" to enlighten us with? do tell. Maybe it's in your "book"). If you are against aggression, you are against both private aggression, wielded by private criminals, and public or institutionalized aggression, wielded by the state. To be an anarchist simply means you recognize that state commit aggression, and that you therefore condemn it. But I know, sophisticated "engineers" who write "books" know that sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. F*ck individualism, right "Shayne"--? If a few people's desires are overridden, it's "necessary" to have a final answer!

Anarcho-capitalism is not "true"

Shayne Wissler's picture

did it ever occur to you, lover of the state, that I arrived at anarcho-capitalism because I was searching the truth and came to believe a-c is true? hellooo

You are a dogmatist. At least Objectivists try to justify government in terms of abstract principle. You're fixated on some narrowly defined subset of what is possible.

At best, anarcho-capitalism is a system that only a very tiny subset of humanity might possibly consensually subscribe to if given the choice. Most of humanity? Not a chance. They would not consensually go with this insanity. Here is what most people think when they hear about anarcho-capitalism, and rightly so:

http://www.alternet.org/story/...

This fixation anarcho-capitalists have on economics as a central concern is just Murray Rothbard's weird perversion of Objectivism. His theoretical reach exceeded his grasp, so he came up with anarcho-capitalism, a crude amalgamation of Objectivist tenets: he appropriates Rand's capitalism and constructs a Frankenstein form of government out of it. But it's not government! It's the market speaking! Well guess what -- the current form of government is the market speaking. Most Americans are all for what is going on. Anarcho-capitalism, if forcibly implemented as a total system as anarcho-capitalists want, would lead to the same kind of majoritarian tyranny that anarchist Marxism led to in Soviet Russia, if for no other reason that it is total dishonesty; it misrepresents itself.

Anarchy and capitalism? No. How about individual and rights.

Stephan

Richard Goode's picture

Is he really religious? (I am not)

Yes. (Since you asked.)

did it ever occur to you, lover of the state, that I arrived at anarcho-capitalism because I was searching the truth and came to believe a-c is true? hellooo

One day last year, to my surprise, I woke up to find that a minimalist Christian worldview actually made more sense to me than naturalism. So I made the sensible choice and adopted it.

The trouble with gadfly/amateurs

kinsella's picture

"Shayne" wrote:

The trouble with nihilists/anarchists like Kinsella is that all they care about is tearing things down. Kinsella really doesn't care about how an artist is going to profit when society grants him no moral or legal right to prevent copying.

This is utter bullshit. I "care" about it and in fact it is one reason I despise the state and IP. This sounds like a typical emotive argument by a liberal attacking people who are against welfare b/c they don't "care" about the poor. Screw off, buddy, until you can show respect to your betters.

The thing is, his professed principles of non-interference with the rights of others would sanction a consent-oriented system of copyright.

You literally do not know what you are talking about. You are manipulating a bunch of symbols and twiddling knobs with signs on them you don't quite grok. Maybe your "book" lays this out in full clarity, but somehow I doubt it--let's see the PDF link. somehow I doubt you are brave enough to do that.

brown nosing and distraction

kinsella's picture

Shayne:

"What else would you love?"

Well, since you asked.

It was rhetorical. Trying to point out that what "you" like etc. is utterly irrelevant, since that is just a preference, and moreover, a preference of just some random guy wiht an opinion. So you might as well stick to substance and not waste our time by telling us what you "love".

I'd love it if you used your intelligence in a positive way rather than as an instrument of nihilism. I'd love if truth and not brown nosing was your primary motive.

who am I brown nosing? do tell. this will be fun.

I'd love it if you were rational. I'd love it if you actually cared about whether an idea was true rather than whether it meshes with anarcho-capitalism.

did it ever occur to you, lover of the state, that I arrived at anarcho-capitalism because I was searching the truth and came to believe a-c is true? hellooo

But barring that, yes, I'd love it if you had the courage to debate me in a rational manner, because I would utterly trounce your sorry pseudo-intellectual ass.

"debate" you about what, shayne? What in the world are you jabbering about? As far as I can tell what we disagree on are some of your weird bugaboos:

--you don't like when scholars insist on footnotes and references, since you probably don't know how to do them or normal references or research, so like a typical engineer you just want to brute-force it and reinvent the wheel in clunky/crude fashion;
--you don't like "arrogance"--a non-substantive irrelevant evasion;
--you mostly agree with me on IP but still think "copyright" can be justified though you equivocate and flop back and forth with squishy definitions and an incomplete understanding of both copyright and contract law, mixing them together
--you somehow think the coercive state is justified, probably by the amateur trick of saying anarchists haven't shown that anarchy will work...

Why don't you post your "book" PDF link here?

The trouble with nihilists/anarchists

Shayne Wissler's picture

The trouble with nihilists/anarchists like Kinsella is that all they care about is tearing things down. Kinsella really doesn't care about how an artist is going to profit when society grants him no moral or legal right to prevent copying.

It is as if he were arguing that because the roads are funded by the state, he is against roads. He of course doesn't make such a crudely misguided argument, but that is precisely the kind of argument he makes when he attacks copyright.

The thing is, his professed principles of non-interference with the rights of others would sanction a consent-oriented system of copyright. He knows this. Obviously, a statist implementation of copyright is going to lead to egregious injustice, as it has with our current systems of copyright. But that's not an inherent aspect of the idea of granting the author control their works within certain well-defined and fairly adjudicable limits.

Nihilist Kinsella

Shayne Wissler's picture

What else would you love?

Well, since you asked. I'd love it if you used your intelligence in a positive way rather than as an instrument of nihilism. I'd love if truth and not brown nosing was your primary motive. I'd love it if you were rational. I'd love it if you actually cared about whether an idea was true rather than whether it meshes with anarcho-capitalism.

But barring that, yes, I'd love it if you had the courage to debate me in a rational manner, because I would utterly trounce your sorry pseudo-intellectual ass.

Die, Jefferson, Die

kinsella's picture

Shayne:

I'm not going to defend Jefferson's hypocrisy.

Who cares, really?

But he had aspects worthy of appreciation, he doesn't deserve the total condemnation you give him.

He was a racist slave raper politician hypocrit who violated rights and the Constitution. but sure, he had his good points. Nuance is sooo important.

SEcond: you are wrong. it was never "benign."

I said "relatively", as in relative to the hideous mess we have nowadays.

not b/c of Jefferson, which you implied. if it was more benign it was b/c it was newer or the economy was more primitive and less dependent on this horrible patent system. but it grew to what we have now so I blame that asshole slave-raping racist Jefferson as much as anyone.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.