Read this before having an opinion on economics - page 5.

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: BitterTea on May 02, 2011, 06:01:06 PM

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 05:54:32 PM

People do have the right to defend themselves with the minimum force needed to repel the attack, and only as a last resort.
When did I say that people doesn't have the right to live? Please stop putting words in my mouth.

My first question was "Do you think an individual has the right to defend himself against aggression?" and your first answer was "No". Am I misunderstanding something?

Quote

We now live in the real world where there is IP.
You infringe, I find out, I send you a notice, you ignore it. You are now the agressor. I had a rightful claim that you ignored.

By this same logic... when slavery was legal, a slave that ran away was aggressing against his master, who had a rightful claim the slave ignored. Do you agree with this? If not, what's the difference?

Quote

If you start shooting at the police you have a problem, as they have the right to defend themselves.

I don't know about you, but if armed men come to my house and threaten me with imprisonment, I consider that an act of aggression. I never agreed to the terms you placed upon the use of your idea.

I thought the first question was "If you support.... something something ... you support killing them".

Owning someone isn't morally right. So no rightful claim.

If you break the law armed men will come to your house and threaten you with imprisonment. That's not agression, thats defence on behalf of the community.
If you don't like the law you try to get it changed, or use civil disobedience, but civil disobedience means that you are willing to accept the punishment.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 06:00:42 PM

So even though I'm the only one with access to the content, it's not scarce?

No, as has been explained to you many times, for something to be scarce it has to be the case that only one person can possibly control its usage at a time. Are you saying that it's the case that only a single person at a time can possibly use the information contained on a set of blueprints? I hope not because that's obviously not true.

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 06:03:39 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on May 02, 2011, 05:58:45 PM

According to Libertarianism, no. According to the current laws, yes. The law used to be that you could own black people. I guess you would have supported that back then too, huh?

Dear lord. First I'm anti life. Now I'm also pro-slavery.
Let's be civil please. Don't do that.

So you admit then that just because a law is on the books doesn't make it justified? Good, now we are back to square one, providing a justification of intellectual property laws.

The Script

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 05:54:32 PM

People do have the right to defend themselves with the minimum force needed to repel the attack, and only as a last resort.
When did I say that people doesn't have the right to live? Please stop putting words in my mouth.

No one is putting words in your mouth. Bitter Tea asked you five questions, you gave five answers.

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 05:22:25 PM

Quote from: BitterTea on May 02, 2011, 02:20:35 PM

If you support the use of force against individuals that make use of your ideas against your will, you ultimately support killing them.

Do you think an individual has the right to defend himself against aggression?

Do you think you have the right to fine me for infringing on your copyright?

Do you think you have the right to send armed men to my house if I don't pay your fine?

Do you think those men have the right to kill me if I defend myself against them?

Can you answer my question regarding a world where physical goods are as easy to copy as intellectual goods? Does it make sense that the above escalation of force is justified if I copy your lawnmower?

No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.

First question: "Do you think an individual has the right to defend himself against aggression?"

Your first answer: "No."

If this is not what you meant then you need to be more clear when you write.

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 05:22:25 PM

We now live in the real world where there is IP.
You infringe, I find out, I send you a notice, you ignore it. You are now the agressor. I had a rightful claim that you ignored. If money can't be extracted by any other means police will show up at your door, as a last resort. If you start shooting at the police you have a problem, as they have the right to defend themselves. Again, with minimal force.
However if you are a normal member of society things will never go that far.

I think the point that Bitcoin2Cash and BitterTea have made is a good one. Namely that if you agree that the right to life and the right to property are the two fundamental rights, you have to prove how the "right" to IP is not superseding either of those. In your own example it is, because you are limiting their freedom to use their property (paper, ink, computer hard drives, etc.) in ways they choose.

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: NghtRppr on May 02, 2011, 05:58:45 PM

According to Libertarianism, no. According to the current laws, yes. The law used to be that you could own black people. I guess you would have supported that back then too, huh?

Dear lord. First I'm anti life. Now I'm also pro-slavery.
Let's be civil please. Don't do that.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 05:54:32 PM

People do have the right to defend themselves with the minimum force needed to repel the attack, and only as a last resort.
When did I say that people doesn't have the right to live? Please stop putting words in my mouth.

My first question was "Do you think an individual has the right to defend himself against aggression?" and your first answer was "No". Am I misunderstanding something?

Quote

We now live in the real world where there is IP.
You infringe, I find out, I send you a notice, you ignore it. You are now the agressor. I had a rightful claim that you ignored.

By this same logic... when slavery was legal, a slave that ran away was aggressing against his master, who had a rightful claim the slave ignored. Do you agree with this? If not, what's the difference?

Quote

If you start shooting at the police you have a problem, as they have the right to defend themselves.

I don't know about you, but if armed men come to my house and threaten me with imprisonment, I consider that an act of aggression. I never agreed to the terms you placed upon the use of your idea.

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: NghtRppr on May 02, 2011, 05:51:47 PM

Yet, once it does exist, it's no longer scarce. Unfortunately, you can't own something that doesn't exist yet so that doesn't help you at all. The paper the blueprints are printed on would still be scarce but not the content therein. This seems pretty simple so maybe you are trying very hard not to understand?

How do you know. Perhaps I have the blueprints in front of me. Wink

So even though I'm the only one with access to the content, it's not scarce?

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 05:54:32 PM

We now live in the real world where there is IP.
You infringe, I find out, I send you a notice, you ignore it. You are now the agressor.

According to Libertarianism, no. According to the current laws, yes. The law used to be that you could own black people. I guess you would have supported that back then too, huh?

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: BitterTea on May 02, 2011, 05:35:45 PM

The way I read your answers, it appears that you feel an individual does not have the right to defend himself from aggression. This is equivalent to stating that individuals do not have a right to live. Is this what you believe?

Based on this interpretation of my answers, here is how I see the situation playing out.

I infringe on your copyright. When you find out, you respond by notifying me of the fine you have levied. Since I don't agree that I have done anything wrong, I ignore the fine. In response, you send men with guns to my house to extract the fine by force if necessary. Seeing this as an invasion and threat to my life, I defend myself from the men, killing some and driving the rest off.

This is where it gets confusing, because you have stated both that I do not have the right to defend myself, but also that they do not have the right to kill me. Only one of us can be the aggressor, who is it?

As far as your question, bitcoin2cash answered it the same way I would have.

People do have the right to defend themselves with the minimum force needed to repel the attack, and only as a last resort.
When did I say that people doesn't have the right to live? Please stop putting words in my mouth.

We now live in the real world where there is IP.
You infringe, I find out, I send you a notice, you ignore it. You are now the agressor. I had a rightful claim that you ignored. If money can't be extracted by any other means police will show up at your door, as a last resort. If you start shooting at the police you have a problem, as they have the right to defend themselves. Again, with minimal force.
However if you are a normal member of society things will never go that far.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 05:39:25 PM

You know what else is scarce. The blueprints for a room temperature superconductor. It's so scarce there aren't any yet.

Yet, once it does exist, it's no longer scarce. Unfortunately, you can't own something that doesn't exist yet so that doesn't help you at all. The paper the blueprints are printed on would still be scarce but not the content therein. This seems pretty simple so maybe you are trying very hard not to understand?

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 05:39:25 PM

You know what else is scarce. The blueprints for a room temperature superconductor. It's so scarce there aren't any yet. Are they ownable? If I invent one I get to control the use of a bed, but not the thing that I and no one else in the whole world could create? Doesn't seem right.

Can two or more people make exclusive use of a bed? No.

Can two or more people make exclusive use of a copy of the blueprints? Yes.

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: NghtRppr on May 02, 2011, 05:21:36 PM

Correct, but it's the fact that I can't possibly use it, even if I don't want to. That's what makes it scarce. That's what makes it ownable. Once I own it, I get to control the use of it, even if I'm not using it all the time. Of course, this assumes that things have objectively defined uses, which is false. Maybe I collect beds. Maybe I derive joy from knowing I have a clean bed with pristine sheets on it. In that sense, I'm always using it and you would be depriving me of something just by laying on it. However, as mentioned already, that's irrelevant.

You know what else is scarce. The blueprints for a room temperature superconductor. It's so scarce there aren't any yet. Are they ownable? If I invent one I get to control the use of a bed, but not the thing that I and no one else in the whole world could create? Doesn't seem right.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

The way I read your answers, it appears that you feel an individual does not have the right to defend himself from aggression. This is equivalent to stating that individuals do not have a right to live. Is this what you believe?

Based on this interpretation of my answers, here is how I see the situation playing out.

I infringe on your copyright. When you find out, you respond by notifying me of the fine you have levied. Since I don't agree that I have done anything wrong, I ignore the fine. In response, you send men with guns to my house to extract the fine by force if necessary. Seeing this as an invasion and threat to my life, I defend myself from the men, killing some and driving the rest off.

This is where it gets confusing, because you have stated both that I do not have the right to defend myself, but also that they do not have the right to kill me. Only one of us can be the aggressor, who is it?

As far as your question, bitcoin2cash answered it the same way I would have.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 05:22:25 PM

Quote from: BitterTea on May 02, 2011, 02:20:35 PM

If you support the use of force against individuals that make use of your ideas against your will, you ultimately support killing them.

Do you think an individual has the right to defend himself against aggression?

Do you think you have the right to fine me for infringing on your copyright?

Do you think you have the right to send armed men to my house if I don't pay your fine?

Do you think those men have the right to kill me if I defend myself against them?

Can you answer my question regarding a world where physical goods are as easy to copy as intellectual goods? Does it make sense that the above escalation of force is justified if I copy your lawnmower?

No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.

Since we don't live in la-la land the question is quite pointless. There is a difference between physical and intellectual property. And there's no labour involved in the lawnmover example. If you did copy my "lawnmover" while the rest of you used a scythe to cut your grass, then yes, I would mind. The above escalation, no, I don't condone killings.
And why did you ignore my questions?

If you don't condone killing then your threats have no teeth. Good luck collecting your fines. I will be balling them up in the trash or using them to light my grill.

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: BitterTea on May 02, 2011, 02:20:35 PM

If you support the use of force against individuals that make use of your ideas against your will, you ultimately support killing them.

Do you think an individual has the right to defend himself against aggression?

Do you think you have the right to fine me for infringing on your copyright?

Do you think you have the right to send armed men to my house if I don't pay your fine?

Do you think those men have the right to kill me if I defend myself against them?

Can you answer my question regarding a world where physical goods are as easy to copy as intellectual goods? Does it make sense that the above escalation of force is justified if I copy your lawnmower?

No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.

Since we don't live in la-la land the question is quite pointless. There is a difference between physical and intellectual property. And there's no labour involved in the lawnmover example. If you did copy my "lawnmover" while the rest of you used a scythe to cut your grass, then yes, I would mind. The above escalation, no, I don't condone killings.
And why did you ignore my questions?

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 02:06:19 PM

So I can move into your house, use your bed when you're not using it? Use your kitchen when you're not using it? I'm not depriving you of anything as long as I stay out of your way, correct?

Correct, but it's the fact that I can't possibly use it, even if I don't want to. That's what makes it scarce. That's what makes it ownable. Once I own it, I get to control the use of it, even if I'm not using it all the time. Of course, this assumes that things have objectively defined uses, which is false. Maybe I collect beds. Maybe I derive joy from knowing I have a clean bed with pristine sheets on it. In that sense, I'm always using it and you would be depriving me of something just by laying on it. However, as mentioned already, that's irrelevant.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

If you support the use of force against individuals that make use of your ideas against your will, you ultimately support killing them.

Do you think an individual has the right to defend himself against aggression?

Do you think you have the right to fine me for infringing on your copyright?

Do you think you have the right to send armed men to my house if I don't pay your fine?

Do you think those men have the right to kill me if I defend myself against them?

Can you answer my question regarding a world where physical goods are as easy to copy as intellectual goods? Does it make sense that the above escalation of force is justified if I copy your lawnmower?

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Also relevant... http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: BitterTea on May 02, 2011, 01:41:02 PM

Because we both cannot use your property at the same time (thus, if I were to use it against your will, I would deprive you of its use). We can both use your idea at the same time, so I can use it against your will without depriving you of its use. You don't seem to realize that the reason theft is bad is because it deprives the rightful owner of its use.

Think about it this way. If we could make copies of physical things as easily as we could information, there would be no need for property rights. If you had a lawnmower and I made a copy of it, have I diminished your use of the lawnmower in any way? Perhaps you sell lawnmowers... well, it's kind of dumb to try to sell copies of things that can easily be copied. Should you be able to kill me in order to stop me from copying your lawnmowers?

Intellectual property is just as stupid.

So I can move into your house, use your bed when you're not using it? Use your kitchen when you're not using it? I'm not depriving you of anything as long as I stay out of your way, correct?
I do realize theft is bad, I just extend it to "think-work" too. I do believe IP could do with some reform, but eliminating it is bad imho.
Copyrights are good for preventing you from just copying my work. You can still write your own song, book. Just don't take mine. Your work is yours, mine is mine.
Patents are good for protecting an implementation. If you can find another way of doing the same thing, go right ahead. Don't copy my way of doing it. Your work is yours, mine is mine.

Killing you? That's a little extreme don't you think? I never suggested that anyone should be killed over IP.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 12:49:57 PM

Why I have the right to control my ideas? Because they're mine perhaps? I spent time and by extension money on it. You don't have the right to wander into my property, why doesn't that apply to IP? Why does the right to property supersede your right to liberty?

Because we both cannot use your property at the same time (thus, if I were to use it against your will, I would deprive you of its use). We can both use your idea at the same time, so I can use it against your will without depriving you of its use. You don't seem to realize that the reason theft is bad is because it deprives the rightful owner of its use.

Think about it this way. If we could make copies of physical things as easily as we could information, there would be no need for property rights. If you had a lawnmower and I made a copy of it, have I diminished your use of the lawnmower in any way? Perhaps you sell lawnmowers... well, it's kind of dumb to try to sell copies of things that can easily be copied. Should you be able to kill me in order to stop me from copying your lawnmowers?

Intellectual property is just as stupid.

djoot

newbie

Activity: 13

Merit: 0

ITT: Religious argument about rights.

Rights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E
Law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPn84m1pvh4

Topic: Read this before having an opinion on economics - page 5. (Read 25946 times)