You are comparing violence that is against the rules of society with violence by society. Ultimately we control society and the way to change it is to change people's minds. In our societies, the rules we choose are based on commonly accepted ideas of what is good. For example, you can talk about homesteading forever, but if you are being cruel to the animals that you own, society will take them off you, fine you a lot of money and forbid you from owning more animals. Is that a breach of some right you thought you had? Of course not.
All rights are social constructs and as such will be messy. We want films so we allow movie makers copyright. We want consumer goods so we allow brand owners have trademarks. We want people to make the most of resources so we allow security of tenure. We don't want cruelty so we confiscate dogs that are being tortured. But we don't care as much if its a dog in a laboratory and we don't care at all if its a rat. Is this logically consistent? Yes - rights are what society uses to achieve its goals and to see them as ends in themselves is to confuse the tool with the task.
Thats why I object to people saying intellectual property infringes some other right. It misses the point of what a right is and why you are given it.
Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 107. (Read 105875 times)
The answer is the Turks and Israelis. Any other answer ignores reality. Any philosophy that says otherwise is better suited to castles in the sky than the world we live in. I personally find the reality very ugly and have had heated discussions with Turks on the value of restitution and reconciliation. I've been about the lake Van and Rize areas; its pretty clear who owns what and any effort to make the world a better place must start with the reality of where we are now.
In ethical terms we are evolving. Those who owned slaves were not evil brutes any more than woman who has an abortion is an evil brute. Today we see slavery as wrong and abortion as tolerable. If we were having this conversation 1000 years ago, the situation would be exactly reversed. Thats precisely why I object to people saying intellectual property is illegitimate. It implies there is some kind of eternal ethical standard and that they are on the right side of it and that those who happen to like the benefits on intellectual property are moral pygmies. When if fact, they simply find it ugly and would do better to communicate a better alternative.
In ethical terms we are evolving. Those who owned slaves were not evil brutes any more than woman who has an abortion is an evil brute. Today we see slavery as wrong and abortion as tolerable. If we were having this conversation 1000 years ago, the situation would be exactly reversed. Thats precisely why I object to people saying intellectual property is illegitimate. It implies there is some kind of eternal ethical standard and that they are on the right side of it and that those who happen to like the benefits on intellectual property are moral pygmies. When if fact, they simply find it ugly and would do better to communicate a better alternative.
I think I comprehend you a little better now, but you don't seem to understand the is-ought problem or the consequences of your position. If property begins and ends with simply "that under one's control", then how can disputes be resolved? "The guy down the street may say that car is his, but my guns make me the strongest power in the realm. Hand over the keys!"
I'm not saying that those who owned slaves were evil, just that I'm not willing to advocate a system in which people can become slaves at the whim of the powerful.
And if you start with the principle that possessions ought to be acquired only by homesteading or voluntary transfer, then you must logically reject the concept of Intellectual Property. Either you accept the starting principle, or you accept a different principle, or you are truly neutral on the means through which possessions ought to be acquired (i.e., trade/theft = po-tay-to/po-tah-to). Which is it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights#Thomas_Hobbes_.2817th_century.29
"Hobbes' reflection began with the idea of "giving to every man his own," a phrase he drew from the writings of Cicero. But he wondered: How can anybody call anything his own? He concluded: My own can only truly be mine if there is one unambiguously strongest power in the realm, and that power treats it as mine, protecting its status as such."
"Hobbes' reflection began with the idea of "giving to every man his own," a phrase he drew from the writings of Cicero. But he wondered: How can anybody call anything his own? He concluded: My own can only truly be mine if there is one unambiguously strongest power in the realm, and that power treats it as mine, protecting its status as such."
So, the forwarded definition of property is "that which the unambiguously strongest power in the realm treats as property"? Void for circularity. Also void for lack of context (what defines "unambiguously"? "strongest"? "the realm"?). Even if those issues get resolved, you still have to deal with the following exhaustive methods by which material could be granted or lose the label of "one's property":
- change in opinion of the unambiguously strongest power in the realm
- replacement of the unambiguously strongest power in the realm
- transition away from a valid assignment of unambiguously strongest power in the realm (death of a monarch, competing factions, invasion, collapse of a state, etc.)
- this one is especially bad, because it results in the immediate revocation of all property in "the realm"!
Since the result is essentially a codification of "might makes right", I suppose you are compelled to acknowledge that slaves were property in the the States ultimately joining into the Confederate States of America until 1860(ish; depending on definition of the "unambiguously strongest power in the realm"), and property in Maryland and Missouri until 1864 and 1865, respectively. And that people can again become permissible as property at the whim of any "unambiguously strongest power in the realm". Is this really the position you want to take?
You haven't answered. Who is the legitimate owner -Turks and Israelis or the descendents of the dispossessed Armenians, Arabs and Greeks?
The answer is the Turks and Israelis. Any other answer ignores reality. Any philosophy that says otherwise is better suited to castles in the sky than the world we live in. I personally find the reality very ugly and have had heated discussions with Turks on the value of restitution and reconciliation. I've been about the lake Van and Rize areas; its pretty clear who owns what and any effort to make the world a better place must start with the reality of where we are now.
In ethical terms we are evolving. Those who owned slaves were not evil brutes any more than woman who has an abortion is an evil brute. Today we see slavery as wrong and abortion as tolerable. If we were having this conversation 1000 years ago, the situation would be exactly reversed. Thats precisely why I object to people saying intellectual property is illegitimate. It implies there is some kind of eternal ethical standard and that they are on the right side of it and that those who happen to like the benefits on intellectual property are moral pygmies. When if fact, they simply find it ugly and would do better to communicate a better alternative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights#Thomas_Hobbes_.2817th_century.29
"Hobbes' reflection began with the idea of "giving to every man his own," a phrase he drew from the writings of Cicero. But he wondered: How can anybody call anything his own? He concluded: My own can only truly be mine if there is one unambiguously strongest power in the realm, and that power treats it as mine, protecting its status as such."
"Hobbes' reflection began with the idea of "giving to every man his own," a phrase he drew from the writings of Cicero. But he wondered: How can anybody call anything his own? He concluded: My own can only truly be mine if there is one unambiguously strongest power in the realm, and that power treats it as mine, protecting its status as such."
So, the forwarded definition of property is "that which the unambiguously strongest power in the realm treats as property"? Void for circularity. Also void for lack of context (what defines "unambiguously"? "strongest"? "the realm"?). Even if those issues get resolved, you still have to deal with the following exhaustive methods by which material could be granted or lose the label of "one's property":
- change in opinion of the unambiguously strongest power in the realm
- replacement of the unambiguously strongest power in the realm
- transition away from a valid assignment of unambiguously strongest power in the realm (death of a monarch, competing factions, invasion, collapse of a state, etc.)
- this one is especially bad, because it results in the immediate revocation of all property in "the realm"!
Since the result is essentially a codification of "might makes right", I suppose you are compelled to acknowledge that slaves were property in the the States ultimately joining into the Confederate States of America until 1860(ish; depending on definition of the "unambiguously strongest power in the realm"), and property in Maryland and Missouri until 1864 and 1865, respectively. And that people can again become permissible as property at the whim of any "unambiguously strongest power in the realm". Is this really the position you want to take?
You haven't answered. Who is the legitimate owner -Turks and Israelis or the descendents of the dispossessed Armenians, Arabs and Greeks?
Therein lies the conundrum.
Is vs. Ought.
Examples:
You are the current possessor of land/objects. This is factual. I can observe it, therefore it is.
1.) You acquired the land via force. You evicted an individual from off of a piece of land because you merely have superior might and strength. You conquered them. You ought to own the land?
2.) You acquired the land via force. You were evicted from the land by late-comers (invaders, conquerers). You defended yourself against their onslaught and reclaimed the land. You ought to own the land?
3.) You acquired the land via force. The land was abandoned and it required little effort (almost no force) to homestead it, and there were no occupiers to contest your claim. You ought to own the land?
4.) You possess an object. This tangible physical thing is in your possession. You acquired it in trade or it was previously abandoned (no known owner). You ought to own the object?
5.) You possess an object. This tangible physical thing is in your possession. You acquired it in trade or it was previously abandoned (no known owner). You modifiy the composition of the object. This object is now similar to another object in the possession of another man. You ought to own the object?
See where I'm going with this?
Is vs. Ought.
Examples:
You are the current possessor of land/objects. This is factual. I can observe it, therefore it is.
1.) You acquired the land via force. You evicted an individual from off of a piece of land because you merely have superior might and strength. You conquered them. You ought to own the land?
2.) You acquired the land via force. You were evicted from the land by late-comers (invaders, conquerers). You defended yourself against their onslaught and reclaimed the land. You ought to own the land?
3.) You acquired the land via force. The land was abandoned and it required little effort (almost no force) to homestead it, and there were no occupiers to contest your claim. You ought to own the land?
4.) You possess an object. This tangible physical thing is in your possession. You acquired it in trade or it was previously abandoned (no known owner). You ought to own the object?
5.) You possess an object. This tangible physical thing is in your possession. You acquired it in trade or it was previously abandoned (no known owner). You modifiy the composition of the object. This object is now similar to another object in the possession of another man. You ought to own the object?
See where I'm going with this?
With respect, you are avoiding answering the question. I didn't ask about your possessions. I asked about the nature of ownership. Where do you believe that property rights come from somewhere other than society? If property rights don't come from society, then who owns the farms in Eastern Turkey, Israel and Northern Cyprus that were taken by force when once society destroyed another?
The factual nature of ownership is that owners are those who successfully defend a claim. An philosophical definition of ownership requires that it only be granted with homesteading or voluntary transfer, and only revoked with abandonment or voluntary transfer. The two perspectives disagree.
But, to quote you to yourself:
You haven't answered. Who is the legitimate owner -Turks and Israelis or the descendents of the dispossessed Armenians, Arabs and Greeks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights#Thomas_Hobbes_.2817th_century.29
"Hobbes' reflection began with the idea of "giving to every man his own," a phrase he drew from the writings of Cicero. But he wondered: How can anybody call anything his own? He concluded: My own can only truly be mine if there is one unambiguously strongest power in the realm, and that power treats it as mine, protecting its status as such."
I suppose its a very English way of looking at things I'll grant you as all property in England came from the conquest in 1066. I'm Irish and all our property rights came from the conquest in 1641.
Anyway, you may have a different philosopher ? There are many and I'm not sure how you'd select one over another if you are not going to look at the "factual nature" of things. What is the point of a philosophy that is not based on facts?
With respect, you are avoiding answering the question. I didn't ask about your possessions. I asked about the nature of ownership. Where do you believe that property rights come from somewhere other than society? If property rights don't come from society, then who owns the farms in Eastern Turkey, Israel and Northern Cyprus that were taken by force when once society destroyed another?
The factual nature of ownership is that owners are those who successfully defend a claim. An philosophical definition of ownership requires that it only be granted with homesteading or voluntary transfer, and only revoked with abandonment or voluntary transfer. The two perspectives disagree.
But, to quote you to yourself:
You haven't answered. Who is the legitimate owner -Turks and Israelis or the descendents of the dispossessed Armenians, Arabs and Greeks?
Like I said, these are the problems of large-scale aggression. You seem to be defending the concept by stating that "society" are justified in imposing their will upon peaceful people.
My possessions were not given to me by "society", they were given to me by individuals, some of whom offered them as gifts, some of whom I traded with directly, and some of whom I traded with as representatives of voluntarily-joined organizations. Possessions have been also taken from me, some by individuals acting alone and some by individuals representing organizations claiming the power to unilaterally demand things of me, their implicit serf.
The reality is that force (or more specifically, the threat thereof) is frequently used to distort the chain of ownership that would otherwise exist. Intellectual property is the description given to one such distortion, by which force is threatened often and used occasionally against people who would use their own resources to implement ideas copied or derived from others. It is both a bad idea and a rejection of the principle that possessions ought only be acquired by homesteading or voluntary transfer.
My possessions were not given to me by "society", they were given to me by individuals, some of whom offered them as gifts, some of whom I traded with directly, and some of whom I traded with as representatives of voluntarily-joined organizations. Possessions have been also taken from me, some by individuals acting alone and some by individuals representing organizations claiming the power to unilaterally demand things of me, their implicit serf.
The reality is that force (or more specifically, the threat thereof) is frequently used to distort the chain of ownership that would otherwise exist. Intellectual property is the description given to one such distortion, by which force is threatened often and used occasionally against people who would use their own resources to implement ideas copied or derived from others. It is both a bad idea and a rejection of the principle that possessions ought only be acquired by homesteading or voluntary transfer.
With respect, you are avoiding answering the question. I didn't ask about your possessions. I asked about the nature of ownership. Where do you believe that property rights come from somewhere other than society? If property rights don't come from society, then who owns the farms in Eastern Turkey, Israel and Northern Cyprus that were taken by force when once society destroyed another?
Like I said, these are the problems of large-scale aggression. You seem to be defending the concept by stating that "society" are justified in imposing their will upon peaceful people.
My possessions were not given to me by "society", they were given to me by individuals, some of whom offered them as gifts, some of whom I traded with directly, and some of whom I traded with as representatives of voluntarily-joined organizations. Possessions have been also taken from me, some by individuals acting alone and some by individuals representing organizations claiming the power to unilaterally demand things of me, their implicit serf.
The reality is that force (or more specifically, the threat thereof) is frequently used to distort the chain of ownership that would otherwise exist. Intellectual property is the description given to one such distortion, by which force is threatened often and used occasionally against people who would use their own resources to implement ideas copied or derived from others. It is both a bad idea and a rejection of the principle that possessions ought only be acquired by homesteading or voluntary transfer.
My possessions were not given to me by "society", they were given to me by individuals, some of whom offered them as gifts, some of whom I traded with directly, and some of whom I traded with as representatives of voluntarily-joined organizations. Possessions have been also taken from me, some by individuals acting alone and some by individuals representing organizations claiming the power to unilaterally demand things of me, their implicit serf.
The reality is that force (or more specifically, the threat thereof) is frequently used to distort the chain of ownership that would otherwise exist. Intellectual property is the description given to one such distortion, by which force is threatened often and used occasionally against people who would use their own resources to implement ideas copied or derived from others. It is both a bad idea and a rejection of the principle that possessions ought only be acquired by homesteading or voluntary transfer.
"Running for your life and then doing nothing about it for 37 years is a strange definition of "property held"."
Be fair - Armenians, Palestinians and Greeks have been clamouring to get back home from the day they were expelled. And there is no question of arbitration. The Turks and Israelis have the land and will not be negotiating anytime soon. But that is not the victims fault so don't accuse them of "doing nothing."
What I am trying to illustrate is the nature of ownership. Some are posting here like private property and ownership are some kind of ethereal creations that have existed since before men walked the Earth while intellectual property is a violent imposition. Whereas, looking at real ownership, you can see property of any kind is something that is given to you by the society you are in. If you agree with this, the question become "Is intellectual property a good idea or a crap idea?" not "Is intellectual property legitimate?"
Be fair - Armenians, Palestinians and Greeks have been clamouring to get back home from the day they were expelled. And there is no question of arbitration. The Turks and Israelis have the land and will not be negotiating anytime soon. But that is not the victims fault so don't accuse them of "doing nothing."
What I am trying to illustrate is the nature of ownership. Some are posting here like private property and ownership are some kind of ethereal creations that have existed since before men walked the Earth while intellectual property is a violent imposition. Whereas, looking at real ownership, you can see property of any kind is something that is given to you by the society you are in. If you agree with this, the question become "Is intellectual property a good idea or a crap idea?" not "Is intellectual property legitimate?"
Running for your life is a strange definition of "property abandoned." In the Armenians case, the ones that didn't run fast enough were slaughtered. But thats history now.
In simple terms, do you believe the Turks and Israelis to be the legitimate owners today?
In simple terms, do you believe the Turks and Israelis to be the legitimate owners today?
Running for your life and then doing nothing about it for 37 years is a strange definition of "property held".
And I'm still not exactly sure what you mean by adjectives like "real" and "legitimate". A principled arbitrator would need to determine on a case-by-case basis who has the best claim to any given property given the facts presented. If the facts lead to a conclusion that the original owner has in fact abandoned the property, then it was available for homesteading.
It would also be expedient for an arbitrator to satisfy all parties to the greatest possible extent. In the hypothetical case I've already discussed, it might be accomplished by having the homesteader compensate the abandoner for profiting from eir loss. The amount of compensation would depend on, among other things, how long ago the events took place and how active the abandoner has been in reacquiring possession.
Edit: It would also hugely depend upon whether the homesteader was involved in chasing out the abandoner. In my hypothetical, I've been assuming that it was someone who came in after the fact.
Also, I'd like to hear your answer to the question. In simple terms, do you believe the Turks and Israelis to be the legitimate owners today?
gibson042 my question was 'which owners are the "real" owners?' The present day Turks and Israelis or the descendents of the dispossessed Armenians, Arabs and Greeks?
As I already stated, you were correct in asserting that the factual owners are those who successfully defend a claim.
If by "real" owners you mean who ought to be able to do so, that's something for the involved parties to work out theirselves through peaceful dispute resolution. If I were an arbitrator dealing with such a dispute right now (i.e., decades after the fact), I would be inclined to declare the property abandoned in 1974, but might insist that the aggrieved is owed some compensation for the circumstances by which the new owner took possession. In 1976, I'd probably have sided with the original owner.
It's messy, and these are the kinds of problems caused by large-scale aggression.
Running for your life is a strange definition of "property abandoned." In the Armenians case, the ones that didn't run fast enough were slaughtered. But thats history now.
In simple terms, do you believe the Turks and Israelis to be the legitimate owners today?
gibson042 my question was 'which owners are the "real" owners?' The present day Turks and Israelis or the descendents of the dispossessed Armenians, Arabs and Greeks?
As I already stated, you were correct in asserting that the factual owners are those who successfully defend a claim.
If by "real" owners you mean who ought to be able to do so, that's something for the involved parties to work out theirselves through peaceful dispute resolution. If I were an arbitrator dealing with such a dispute right now (i.e., decades after the fact), I would be inclined to declare the property abandoned in 1974, but might insist that the aggrieved is owed some compensation for the circumstances by which the new owner took possession. In 1976, I'd probably have sided with the original owner.
It's messy, and these are the kinds of problems caused by large-scale aggression.
gibson042 my question was 'which owners are the "real" owners?' The present day Turks and Israelis or the descendents of the dispossessed Armenians, Arabs and Greeks?
You might be splitting hairs here. No doubt the present day Turks/Israelies are the current "possessors" of the land they squat, but that in and of itself doesn't make them the owners per se. Ownership should imply one of two things. One, that they homesteaded an abandoned piece of land, or two they acquired the land via contract (non-coerced, non-violent).
So while it is necessary from time to time to defend ones property from invaders, the act of doing so is not prima facie evidence that you're the legitimate owner. I could go to Times Square and set up a bunker in the middle of the street, arm it to the teeth, and hold everybody at bay for weeks. However, even for that brief period of time while I was holding out, it is certain I'm not the owner of said land I occupied.
Ownership and expropriation (or even occupier and possessor) are different concepts. An auditable paper trail or chain of custody, may illuminate the situation for the Cypriots. It could reveal the true owners. Reuniting property with owner might be a bit tricky though.
You haven't answered. Who is the legitimate owner -Turks and Israelis or the descendents of the dispossessed Armenians, Arabs and Greeks?
gibson042 my question was 'which owners are the "real" owners?' The present day Turks and Israelis or the descendents of the dispossessed Armenians, Arabs and Greeks?
You might be splitting hairs here. No doubt the present day Turks/Israelies are the current "possessors" of the land they squat, but that in and of itself doesn't make them the owners per se. Ownership should imply one of two things. One, that they homesteaded an abandoned piece of land, or two they acquired the land via contract (non-coerced, non-violent).
So while it is necessary from time to time to defend ones property from invaders, the act of doing so is not prima facie evidence that you're the legitimate owner. I could go to Times Square and set up a bunker in the middle of the street, arm it to the teeth, and hold everybody at bay for weeks. However, even for that brief period of time while I was holding out, it is certain I'm not the owner of said land I occupied.
Ownership and expropriation (or even occupier and possessor) are different concepts. An auditable paper trail or chain of custody, may illuminate the situation for the Cypriots. It could reveal the true owners. Reuniting property with owner might be a bit tricky though.
gibson042 my question was 'which owners are the "real" owners?' The present day Turks and Israelis or the descendents of the dispossessed Armenians, Arabs and Greeks?
Thats the way life works. If you want to restrict yourself to physical property, consider visiting these places; Eastern Turkey, Israel and Northern Cyprus. In each you have prosperous successful people who own their own land. They have title papers and by any definition of ownership, this is theirs. But across the borders, there are other people who have title deeds to the same property and in the cases of the Greek Cypriots, often still have the keys of the doors of the houses they left behind as they fled for their lives in 1974.
My question to you is this; which owners are the "real" owners. My personal view is that ownership is something that comes from the society and if you can't enforce your claim, then you don't actually own anything. Do you have some less "naked and ugly" view?
My question to you is this; which owners are the "real" owners. My personal view is that ownership is something that comes from the society and if you can't enforce your claim, then you don't actually own anything. Do you have some less "naked and ugly" view?
The part in bold is factually correct, but the preceding clause is not; it is possible for those with enough might to enforce "ownership" claims against the wishes of most members of society (e.g., copyright extension, bank bailouts, deepwater drilling, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, and a host of tragedies of the commons).
However:
I want everyone to witness the rhetorical retreat of Hawker, who began by claiming that force ought to be initiated against those who discredit the concept of intellectual property, and now merely notes that force is used in an essentially arbitrary fashion by people who purport to act on behalf of "society".
There are lots of nasty things that people do. If your defense of a position is that you can find people willing and able to employ violence upon those who don't share it, then I suppose chattel slavery only became wrong after the Enlightenment... and let us hope that "society" never again condone with their collective might outright ownership of people—rather, let us push "society" into further abandoning even the watered-down serfdom that subjugates everyone under a monopoly government.
Which brings me to a direct answer of your request. I advocate that people not employ force against those who implement the ideas of others with their own materials, though they may publicly or privately shame, censure, or ostracize the "pirates" if so inclined. It is a specialization of the more general principle that people ought always repair the damage caused when they escalate the level of force. The more this ideal is adhered to, the less ugly the world will be.
hashman you are confusing 2 issues; namely ownership and enforcement.
As you say, a company would be idiotic to make a lawsuit over someone copying a sheet of music or a single song file. The enforcement cost would exceed the value. But someone were to make many photocopies of many sheets and start selling the copies, it might be worth it. Thats an enforcement question - the ownership is not in doubt.
Right now, Bioware is investing $150 million in a game called Star Wars: The Old Republic. If you are into gaming, its launch may well the the gaming event of the decade. Could they make that investment if there was no Star Wars brand that people love and no way to protect themselves from illegal copies after they launch? I would content they need that intellectual property protection in order to have a viable business model. And people like it...branded goods make people happy. An abstract freedom to make copies of other people's creations won't make many people feel half as good.
As you say, a company would be idiotic to make a lawsuit over someone copying a sheet of music or a single song file. The enforcement cost would exceed the value. But someone were to make many photocopies of many sheets and start selling the copies, it might be worth it. Thats an enforcement question - the ownership is not in doubt.
Right now, Bioware is investing $150 million in a game called Star Wars: The Old Republic. If you are into gaming, its launch may well the the gaming event of the decade. Could they make that investment if there was no Star Wars brand that people love and no way to protect themselves from illegal copies after they launch? I would content they need that intellectual property protection in order to have a viable business model. And people like it...branded goods make people happy. An abstract freedom to make copies of other people's creations won't make many people feel half as good.
k.
Our society recognises that intellectual property can be owned.
Our society recognises that intellectual property can be owned.
Hogwash. What person really believes that the fictitious person "time warner" really owns the song happy birthday, and has a legitimate grievance if you sing it? You claim society recognizes that as some kind of legitimate ownership? What person believes that Microsoft will be able to prevent people from using old versions of XP they downloaded? I know they wouldn't want to prevent that, but I think most people realize they couldn't anyway. What portion of society is morally outraged when you photocopy a piece of sheet music for your class?
Society recognizes that we have backwards laws which can from time to time be taken advantage of for personal short-term gain. It is 100% clear that the only way to keep ideas "owned" is to not publish them. Once they are public, claims of ownership are basically ludicrous but sometimes still accepted in corrupt courts.
k.
[]..Because it makes us better off.
[]..Because it makes us better off.
Somehow your claim here without any example is not as compelling to me as articles by e.g. the Economist, inventors, musicians, researchers, and a growing chorus of people from all walks of life screaming how so-called IP laws make us MUCH WORSE OFF. Medically, academically, technologically, economically, and ecologically IP laws have been DEVASTATING. Seriously. Don't take my word for it, read about it and think it through.
k.
You keep trying to pretend that this reality can't make sense but it does. Everyone understands it. The system works. You can go anywhere in the world and buy a can of Coca-Cola and you get what you wanted.
You keep trying to pretend that this reality can't make sense but it does. Everyone understands it. The system works. You can go anywhere in the world and buy a can of Coca-Cola and you get what you wanted.
You get what you wanted if indeed the bottler put what you expected and what they claimed into the bottle. If not, they committed fraud. This has nothing to do with Intellectual Property. Budweiser of Czech is not committing fraud, they have a product also named "Budweiser" and they tell you it was brewed in the Czech republic. Do you agree with the IP lawyers who don't think that should be legal?
k.
We have a super-abundance of good things based on intellectual property.
We have a super-abundance of good things based on intellectual property.
You might as well claim that we have a super-abundance of good things because you prayed for them on sunday. The same quality of evidence exists backing up that statement.
In short, if you don't like the concept of intellectual property, come up with something that will produce more goods for us as a society.
OK: here's something. Abolition of IP laws. That would clearly produce more goods for us as a society. The proof is trivial: IP laws explicity prevent production, allowing only one party (the monopoly) to produce in a given area. Opening up production to other parties could only encourage production of goods.
In short, if you don't like the concept of intellectual property, come up with something that will produce more goods for us as a society. Arguing that the intellectual property rights that society gave you conflict with the property rights that society gave you is not convincing. You may as well argue that property is theft and all should be abolished.
There it is, naked and ugly. You have the right to do only what the masses—or rather, the group of people claiming to represent "society"—will not forcefully prevent you from doing. No reason. No consistency. No principle. Just the might of a few amoral people with costumes and the apathy or fear of everyone else.
Thats the way life works. If you want to restrict yourself to physical property, consider visiting these places; Eastern Turkey, Israel and Northern Cyprus. In each you have prosperous successful people who own their own land. They have title papers and by any definition of ownership, this is theirs. But across the borders, there are other people who have title deeds to the same property and in the cases of the Greek Cypriots, often still have the keys of the doors of the houses they left behind as they fled for their lives in 1974.
My question to you is this; which owners are the "real" owners. My personal view is that ownership is something that comes from the society and if you can't enforce your claim, then you don't actually own anything. Do you have some less "naked and ugly" view?
Jump to: