Topic: This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism - page 14. (Read 33901 times)

In Canada, generic drug makers are not allowed to use the IP that big pharma made for 15 years after the the drug hits market.  If one has to spend many millions to develop something that can be exploited by someone else at almost zero cost, what incentive to invest in innovation?

Hardly. Does Folgers deprive Starbucks of their "rightful slice of market share"? Or vice-versa?

But that's not the words they used. Words do matter, and they used "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This implies a preexisting right which a law forbidding gun ownership would infringe upon.

I am being deprived of my rightful slice of market share.

And I tend toward the former, and if you read the 2nd amendment, you'll see that it supports that position as well:
[/quote]

The 2A can also be interpreted to mean that without individuals with arms, there is no free state.

"Mine" is a recognition of scarcity. If you can conjure at will a lawnmower that is identical in every way to yours, can it be said to be scarce? As for the squatter, I agree that he did violate your property rights. He deprived you of the use of your property (regardless of the fact that you weren't, at the time, using it), so he should leave some additional compensation. But that is exactly why it is a bad comparison to IP. you're not being deprived of anything when someone uses your invention.

And I tend toward the former, and if you read the 2nd amendment, you'll see that it supports that position as well:

They evidently had very few, if any, rights.  It took force of arms to secure their rights, which did not exist until there was enough force to procure them.

This seems to deny the "mine" behavior.  I like my lawnmower, and feel better knowing that no squatters have slept in my bed.  As to how I would know, my security company would have photos.

Would you know? Have you lost anything, even if you did know? While I'll agree that your property rights were violated by the squatter, he put everything back exactly the way you left it before you returned, which is the essence of restitution. You're no worse off after you get back than you were when you left.

[/quote]
Restitution also includes punitive action.  I don't care if he left my fridge full of filet mignon and tiger shrimp, he violated my property rights.

Someone else's use of your invention doesn't prevent you from using it, nor does it deprive you of your invention. If you had come home early and found the squatter in your home, he would be depriving you of your use of your home. At no time does someone else using your invention deprive you of its use.

I never said it does.  Market share is not artificially scarce.

I am a philosophical libertarian, and do believe that rights are inherent in the human condition. You say that rights must be enforced by human-built structures, and I agree. But in order for them to be enforced, they must exist first. Rights are not created by laws, rather they are recognized or violated by them.
[/quote]

Touché! It's a chicken-and-egg argument:  Do the rights exist, and thereby get enforced, or is it the enforcement that grants existence to the rights?  I tend towards the latter, that's why I believe in the 2A, etc.

To this I always ask, did slaves in America have rights while being slaves? They obviously lacked any might, and the human-built structure they lived under did not consider them to have any rights either. So if they had no rights, what were they fighting for? Where did they get the idea that they should have rights, if that idea does not exist naturally?

Property rights are instituted to avoid conflict. If you could conjure a new lawnmower at will, is there any need for conflict over whose lawnmower it is? If the earth were infinite, would there be any need for conflict over who owns a portion of land?

Would you know? Have you lost anything, even if you did know? While I'll agree that your property rights were violated by the squatter, he put everything back exactly the way you left it before you returned, which is the essence of restitution. You're no worse off after you get back than you were when you left.

Someone else's use of your invention doesn't prevent you from using it, nor does it deprive you of your invention. If you had come home early and found the squatter in your home, he would be depriving you of your use of your home. At no time does someone else using your invention deprive you of its use.

I am a philosophical libertarian, and do believe that rights are inherent in the human condition. You say that rights must be enforced by human-built structures, and I agree. But in order for them to be enforced, they must exist first. Rights are not created by laws, rather they are recognized or violated by them.

Artificially restricting the use of non-scarce ideas is not creating artificial scarcity?

And that's where NDAs and similar contracts come in. You don't show a company your design until they've agreed not to produce it without your consent.

Well, I read "Alongside Night", and the little essay "Against Intellectual Property", and "The Mote in God's Eye" again, it's been over a decade since I read that one.

"Alongside Night" was interesting, but I don't see any evidence of large capital investments into agorism/AnCap as things currently stand.  Here in Canada (esp in Quebec), it is the custom for businesses to keep 2 sets of books, one showing minimal profits, for the gov., and one that has the real info.  I work for cash, as does my boss, so we are already part of the alt. economy.
As far as the IP essay is concerned, I don't buy that "Artificial Scarcity" argument, it's a logical fallacy.  He does make a good point about how IP rights (seem to) violate other's property rights, however.  While I do not dispute that existing state-enforced patent, copyright, trade secret, and trademark laws are broken, I think that declaring "Zero IP rights" is equivalent to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  I can think of several scenarios in which zero IP rights would result in noncompetitive market manipulation, monopolies by the already well-established, and a reduced level of production/diversity in broadcast services.  If you're intersted, I will describe the first and third possibilities, as we have already discussed the second.
In the second, (monopolies by the already well-established) you said an entrepreneur should sell the rights to a non-state capitalist, but what if said entity just takes a look at my design (on which I spent millions), says "no thanks" and just goes ahead into production?  That would destroy much incentive to innovate.

Yes, I know who the consumer is. And IP law harms the consumer by enforcing a higher price than would otherwise be marketable.

Have a good week.

I will read that later this week, as it is time for me to head back out to the bush.
I look forward to continuing this discussion in a week or so, in the meantime, I will leave you with this:

con·sum·er  
/kənˈso͞omər/
Noun
1.A person who purchases goods and services for personal use.
2.A person or thing that eats or uses something.

Take care, and all the best to you and yours!

The problem is, that it helps the entrepreneur at the expense of the consumer, and the market itself.

Have a read of this, with an open mind: https://mises.org/document/3582

I tend to agree, having just looked up agorism:

Konkin's class theory does seem to have some implications for the IP rights discussion:  The existence of IP rights helps the Entrepreneur, whereas zero IP rights helps the Non-State Capitalist.

The fact is, I am under no obligation to convince you of anything, and you have yet to convince me that you are anything but deceptive, in that by your own word, you have become bored with what would for most be 2 or 3 lifetimes worth of experience.   Your veiled insults are not funny, and you can spare me your Beatles lyrics, daddio.
Oh, and you never answered my PM.  Just goes to show, eh?

... and you have not convinced me that you have the life experience beyond the traumatic decisions you face at Starbucks.

If your proposed economic / political system does not assume a significant portion of your society is mentally prepared to lock you in a cage and take your wealth at the first opportunity, don't bother proposing it.  Actually if that is all they do, it will be remarkably humane of them.

Might I recommend some light reading?

http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/revoluti.htm

You started it, pal.

I am curious about your reference to USSR sniper training.  A coworker was an officer in the USSR military (SA-6 missile battery commander?) and has a passionate interest in rifles.  Much more than mine, in fact.

I have contemplated volunteering for the "Mars Mission" reality show crap coming out but I would like to see my grandson grow up.  Guess I will be keeping my feet wet.

Sadly the experience does not automatically generate wealth, I still work for a living.  I just am lucky enough to be in a job that I enjoy.  Some would consider that to be the ultimate in wealth.

Not much into totalitarianism.  I much prefer to lead by consensus whenever possible.  I endeavor to put the person most technically competent at the task in charge of the effort.  I have made some "command decisions" outside of the consensus path however when the pace slows down again I ensure that all hands understand the decision point, the decision and are given the opportunity to raise any concerns.  I don't enjoy oppressing people.

I referenced the Marksmanship Medal since I don't consider myself a good shot but I met the requirements.  I still do well at the firing range but I tire and my aim drifts after more than a hundred rounds.  That is probably fine for a fire fight.

You were doing fairly well until you added "liar" at the end.  Your belief in my reported work history doesn't really matter however calling me a liar is offensive.  I was asked so I answered.  I have no particular incentive to lie since "credentials" on the 'net are a joke.  If you feel a particular need to confirm any of those work experience items, PM me and we can chat.