Topic: Read this before having an opinion on economics - page 13. (Read 25946 times)

So you're saying if I build some gigantic gizmo on my property and you see it, you won't try to copy it? Cause that's not what you're implying.


If my intended use was to profit out of it, how am I gonna do that hmm?


That's part of property rights, you are starting to deny the whole thing now.


Physics and Medicine are some of the fields that require the most funds to research, how is that research to be financed if there is no profit to be made at the end?

I imagine a lot of people losing motivation to create new products if they can't copyright and patent them.
Obviously it hasn't happen so we can't be for sure.

What inspires people to create new products in this world where they can't hold on to their IP?
I'm talking about business and profit minded individuals not products that are designed to make the world a better place / non profit art etc.
I'm saying would we have a "microsoft windows" etc, (maybe we'd be better without in this case).

You're mistaken. I never advocated that. You have the right to keep whatever you like on your private property and I won't make any illegitimate attempts to obtain it. However, the minute you release it to the public, all bets are off.


Forcing you to do labor or depriving you of the fruits of it, when it is tangible, is depriving you of something. If I copy your idea, you still get to keep the idea and use it yourself. Like I said, you are only being deprived of the ability to profit, which isn't a right that I recognize.

That's your choice, not mine, and I have clearly stated that I don't intent to let you take what I create for free. Are you still going to try and take it? You do understand the aggression comes from you in that case. Being a "libertarian" as you pretend, you ought to be respecting my wish to not be involved with you, don't you? Or how do you explain the breaking and entering to "rightfully acquire" the blue print of my gizmo?

It is not ad hominem since you are trying to discuss the nature of actions I perform, and the principles of ownership (of my body and mind) says that I set the premise. As such your arguments only have merit based upon the set premise of this discussion.


Where are you going with this exactly? That the muscle is off limit but the brain isn't? Last time I checked it's part of my body.

That's an ad hominem. I'm either right or wrong based on the merits of my arguments, not on my motivation for putting them forth. However, just so you know, I've made over a million dollars as a computer programmer selling software directly to customers. I've sold over 100,000 copies of a certain piece of software. Piracy has always been a concern for me. I was a Libertarian long before I even considered intellectual property laws. I went into the debate wanting to find support for them, biased as I was. However, I had to be intellectually honest with myself and admit that intellectual property laws are incompatible with Libertarianism. Being that as it may, I abandoned my support of the former rather than the latter, even if it means giving up all those juicy profits.


The property in question is your body, which you own. Slavery is just stealing ownership of it from you.

You choose to not regard it as property, which allows you rationalize taking it from me without my consent, kinda like religious people with their loonie book, ya know. Nevertheless, it needs not be property for it to be charity. Last time I checked labor can be given (read taken) for free, and thinking is a form of labor, unless you're going to step that far in your delusion...

As for the ability to profit, it can't be my right if you are not willing to recognize it as such. There are no guaranteed rights. Which will naturally drive people to stop trying to make a profit off of such practices (read they gonna stop doing it altogether, instead of giving it up for free like you're expecting them to)

It's not charity because I'm not taking any property from you. I'm depriving you of the ability to profit, a right which you were never guaranteed in the first place.


argumentum ad consequentiam

How could I possibly enforce them? You people don't acknowledge that the fruit of my mind is my property and are going to take away from me my ability to make a profit with my brains, so be it. I can't rise against a mass of thieves, nor do I need to. As long as I have nothing to steal, I'll be fine.


There is a fine line between "voluntary" charity and "mandatory" charity, which is technically slavery, and there is but one way to put an end to slavery, to refuse to produce. You like libertarianism, so you should understand that the absence of rules certainly doesn't imply the absence of rights. If you do not wish to recognize the right I have to my intellect, I just have no incentive to produce anything that you can use, and hide whatever it is that i need to come up with anyways.

Your stand point implies that the fruit of the mind does not belong to the bearer, as such you are effectively rendering professions such as mathematician, physicist, philosopher, economist or doctor unprofitable. Looking back at the early years of USSR much? Where wealth was considered to only possibly be labor, that intellect belonged to the people and that scientists were put to death for stealing it from the masses?


You make no sense. There is a clear difference between besting me in a race and letting me run the race alone, walking to the charter, erasing my name, putting yours where mine used to be, and cashing my prize.

Intellect is the one most valuable resource known to mankind, no wonder people want to take it away for free.

Anyways, the problem is quite easy to fix. You don't pay, I don't think, and I'll be asking for front payments.


Spare us the riddle and expose your point.


I wonder. When it takes on average 10 billion dollars to develop an anti cancer drug, I'm pretty sure that stubborn medical researcher that can't give up his evil demand for funds is going to take you guys down in the crapper with himself.

But the concept of property is not property.

OK b2c, basically you think that intellectual property shouldn't exist and property should. Interesting considering the concept of property has to come from the mind of a human.

Every person and business has costs of exclusion.

This argument is mostly moot anyways as the internet has effectively removed any effective means of enforceable copyright.  Those who adapt will prosper, those who fight the change will stagnate and die.

Great works of art existed long before copyrights. There are ways to make money while giving away content. Just ask Google or the developers of "Angry Birds".

Unnecessary for making a living in some industries. I'd say almost necessary for others.
Honestly I'd be fine with them all going away, I just don't see how it wouldn't kill certain industries though.
You have to admit neither side is perfect.

Yes. If you disagree, please tell me where you live and I'll be by with a truck, ASAP.


It was a question. That's not putting words in your mouth.


I'm against all forms of intellectual property laws.

Hmm? Copyright and patents are unnecessary for making a living. How do I know that? I run bitcoinweekly.com.

I'm really torn on this. I'm more on the libertarian side but I just don't see the motivation to write a book / make a movie / program if I know that everyone is going to bittorent my file and I'll actually lose money writing it. Not saying that should stop me from making it or the end result would justify IP laws or not. I'm just saying I wouldn't want to go in to a project knowing I'll lose money due to copying.

As it stands now you can still make a movie and profit. If copying / pirating or whatever you want to call it was 100% legal I'd imagine more people would do it.
I can't see people making movies at a loss. The same with programs and books etc.

I live in a country where it's basically legal to buy a copied book.
People pay $4usd for a copied book when it's $4.50 for an original.
It's not even actually legal just not enforced, if it were completely legal it would be more widespread.
We had a libertarian type group publish a book talking about a whole bunch of good stuff publish a small book.
Tons of good stuff and the $1 they charged went to pay for the book / raise funds for the cause.
People found out they could copy it for $.85 and the cause lost money on the books and died  

Eh I guess I just see both sides of it and realize there's no happy medium and that pisses me off.

It's OK to enforce property laws?


I never said anything of the sort. Is it necessary to put words in my mouth?


You would not have been able to "make an exact duplicate" without the original or the plans. Are you against copyright laws as well? Thanks for comparing me to a child though. It's always a nice addition to any discussion.

How do you think intellectual property laws are enforced? Harsh language?


That's begging the question. We haven't established that it is or isn't theft. I claim it isn't. In any case, even the courts don't consider copyright infringement to be theft.


What about if I make a better machine than yours? I'm also hurting your ability to profit. Is that OK? Did the the automobile industry damage the horse and buggy industry? You betcha'. I don't see the problem. Maybe you want to outlaw competition? Some people do.

If you can't understand the difference between making an exact duplicate of X and stealing X then I really don't know what to say. I think even children understand that.

So if you can't stop me from taking something, it wasn't yours to begin with?

But property laws are OK?

I just came up with a design for a machine that can save everyone time and money. I draw up the plans. You take a picture of the plans with a telescopic lens. You build the machine, sell it and profit. This is OK?

I build the machine and as I'm about to sell it at the market, you take it when I turn my back. You sell the machine and profit. This isn't OK?

So... what is the difference? In both cases you are hurting my ability to profit from my creation.