Anyone else object to being called "Libertarian"?

[noneedtoaggress]

I guess a plain tomato is not a good example. A plain tomato is like an un-original idea or idea whose patent has run out... anyone can grow one. An original idea is like a tomato that I invested time and money into make it taste like cherries. If I spent 10 years of my life breeding my cherry-flavored-tomato and some big corporation came along and cloned it and started selling before I could even sell one I would consider that stealing (they stole 10 years of my life). I should be able to sell my cherry-flavored-tomato for a while without a big corporation coming in and making money off my investment.

The point he was trying to make is that tomatoes are scarce, physical material and ideas are not. The reason we have property rights in physical material is because we need a way to determine use-rights of scarce objects. You can't "copy" a particular instance of a tomato and have 2 tomatoes made of the same material. You can copy the idea of growing a tomato and create 2 different tomatoes. When you grow a tomato, you don't obtain the rights to "tomato" as a concept, even if you have a recipe that makes the tomato taste like cherries. You don't suddenly own "all cherry-flavored-tomatoes", because you created one. Even if you created the first one. You have the right to the particular physical tomato you mixed your labor with scarce material to transform into something new. Copying ideas cannot be theft because there is no loss to the original. What you're doing is rearranging physical material into a similar pattern. Intellectual "Property" which is a misnomer, claims to take precedence over actual physical property, and it's a flimsy concept. Ultimately IP is detrimental to innovation and works in favor of establishment rackets, the internet is challenging and (undermining) the entire notion. It's a protectionist dinosaur which will ultimately be recognized as such and new business models will be built around a market without IP. These things are already happening.

I'm a creative individual, (I know heavenlyboy is one as well) and understanding the argument against "IP" took me a little bit to really wrap my head around. Here's a good start though:


Against Intellectual Property - Stephan Kinsella

 

[Butchie]

The first thing you should ask yourself is, do you object to being called a libertarian because they are lumping you into a collective even though you are an individual?

Or is it because the term "libertarian" may have some bad conotations? And if it does, who do you think has given it that bad name?

In its most basic, the term refers to those who support liberty. Liberty being freedom from arbitrary or despotic government.

Why would someone object to being referred to as someone who is against arbitrary or despotic government? Unless you have been trained to object to it.


First and foremost, I am an individual. I have my own thoughts and ideals. When someone puts a label on me it tells me more about them than it does about me.

I say for both reasons, there are Libertarian principles I don't agree with and also just the word is not something I care to be associated with since as I said it's either confusing to people, or they view it in a negative way. I ofcourse believe in Liberty and Freedom, and on 80% of the issues I'd agree with a Libertarian, but freedom can be defined as different things: ie abortion - do you stand up for the rights of mother or the rights of the child? If you believe the child is a life, obviously you must stand up for it, if not, you'll likely side with the mother.

 

[cheapseats]

The point he was trying to make is that tomatoes are scarce, physical material and ideas are not. The reason we have property rights in physical material is because we need a way to determine use-rights of scarce objects. You can't "copy" a particular instance of a tomato and have 2 tomatoes made of the same material. You can copy the idea of growing a tomato and create 2 different tomatoes. When you grow a tomato, you don't obtain the rights to "tomato" as a concept, even if you have a recipe that makes the tomato taste like cherries. You don't suddenly own "all cherry-flavored-tomatoes", because you created one. Even if you created the first one. You have the right to the particular physical tomato you mixed your labor with scarce material to transform into something new. Copying ideas cannot be theft because there is no loss to the original. What you're doing is rearranging physical material into a similar pattern. Intellectual "Property" which is a misnomer, claims to take precedence over actual physical property, and it's a flimsy concept.

I'm a creative individual, (I know heavenlyboy is one as well) and understanding the argument against "IP" took me a little bit to really wrap my head around. Here's a good start though:


Against Intellectual Property - Stephan Kinsella

Don't worry, be happy?

Tho others replicate & peddle your original work irrespective of your investment therein, you still HAVE your painting/book/whatever. Look! There it is...right there on your wall/shelf/whatever. You still HAVE your Original, no matter how many replicas we profitably peddle. Be GLAD to be an inspiration to entrepreneurs who are short on ideas but savvy about manufacturing and marketing.

It's for the greater good.

Like Obama.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Don't worry, be happy?

Tho others replicate & peddle your original work irrespective of your investment therein, you still HAVE your painting/book/whatever. Look! There it is...right there on your wall/shelf/whatever. You still HAVE it, no matter how many replicas we profitably peddle. Be GLAD to be an inspiration to entrepreneurs who are short on ideas but savvy about mass-production and marketing.

It's for the greater good.

Like Obama.

That's not what I said though, was it?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Tho others replicate & peddle your original work irrespective of your investment therein, you still HAVE your painting/book/whatever. Look! There it is...right there on your wall/shelf/whatever. You still HAVE your Original, no matter how many replicas we profitably peddle. Be GLAD to be an inspiration to entrepreneurs who are short on ideas but savvy about manufacturing and marketing.

It's for the greater good.

I know you're being sarcastic, but you're also right.

 

[BuddyRey]

No, it doesn't bother me at all to be called a libertarian. I want everyone who interacts with me to know that I have nothing to do with the stupid right or the naive left and what they've done to this country. And though I was once comfortable with the term "conservative", I now reject it outright, because it's being used, both by right-wingers to absorb us into their movement, and by left-wingers to justify ignoring the relevance of our ideas.

Frank Chodorov had the right idea...don't tolerate even the most sneaking implications that we are anything other than an incipient and growing third-option for American political life.

 

[Narmical]

So if I put work into growing a tomato and someone steals that tomato is that not stealing? I may try to sell that tomato for money or eat it myself but either way it’s my tomato. An original idea is like a tomato it takes time and energy to make it grow and if someone steals it you don't have anything to eat.

Like heavily boy said, you equating physical objects which are a limited scarce resource with an idea which is an unlimited resource.

The only rights you have to the products of your labor is to not be deprived of them. No where ever are you entitled to remuneration for you labor. If I work 100 hours to knit a blanket, no one will pay me anything for the blanket (i don't know how to knit), but if i spend 100 hours programming a computer thousands of dollars come my way. I spent the same time, but in one case i get a blanket, the other i loose my software, but i get money. Just because i spent the effort does not give me the right to the money.

That's what the argument for IP hinges on, the possibly of lost money. If someone else uses your idea, you still have your idea. all the work you put into it is not lost, you still have the fruits of your labor. But if when they use your idea, they earn money instead of you, boo hoo. You are not entitled to payment, only the idea, which you still have.

I point again to the fashion industry, creative field, no patent, no copyright. Yet people are still willing to spend thousands on a coach bag, when the could get a chinatown knockoff for 50 bucks. Funny story, the people who spend thousands on a leather bag, are not the same that would spend the money on the knockoff. Coach is not loosing any money in this situation. If the knock offs did not exist, those knockoff-buyers would probably by a 50 dollar leather bag from some other maker anyhow.

If you research the fashion industry, the big players are lobbying for copyright and patent protection, because the demands of there market make them innovate TOO MUCH!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080327/002456664.shtml

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Like heavily boy said, you equating physical objects which are a limited scarce resource with an idea which is an unlimited resource.

The only rights you have to the products of your labor is to not be deprived of them. No where ever are you entitled to remuneration for you labor. If I work 100 hours to knit a blanket, no one will pay me anything for the blanket (i don't know how to knit), but if i spend 100 hours programming a computer thousands of dollars come my way. I spent the same time, but in one case i get a blanket, the other i loose my software, but i get money. Just because i spent the effort does not give me the right to the money.

That's what the argument for IP hinges on, the possibly of lost money. If someone else uses your idea, you still have your idea. all the work you put into it is not lost, you still have the fruits of your labor. But if when they use your idea, they earn money instead of you, boo hoo. You are not entitled to payment, only the idea, which you still have.

I point again to the fashion industry, creative field, no patent, no copyright. Yet people are still willing to spend thousands on a coach bag, when the could get a chinatown knockoff for 50 bucks. Funny story, the people who spend thousands on a leather bag, are not the same that would spend the money on the knockoff. Coach is not loosing any money in this situation. If the knock offs did not exist, those knockoff-buyers would probably by a 50 dollar leather bag from some other maker anyhow.

If you research the fashion industry, the big players are lobbying for copyright and patent protection, because the demands of there market make them innovate TOO MUCH!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080327/002456664.shtml

+rep

 

[Ivash]

+rep

I notice you still haven't responded to my post.

Historically the value of a product is determined by the amount of money the creators gains from it. Most people will not be able to put in hundreds of hours working on artwork, or music, or even a video game if others could come in and claim the artwork as their own and redistribute it, or reproduce the music without any payment, or steal the software codes of the video game. It is a simple point, but one rarely addressed in these type of arguments.

Edit: Though at this point I'm not sure if we are arguing over the same issue, or related but different issues. The debate has been to long for me to read everything but two or three posts. If I am in the wrong on that just say so and I'll apologies and withdraw.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Historically the value of a product is determined by the amount of money the creators gains from it

Value is subjective. The "value of a product" is determined by subjective preferences. You're basically arguing that no one would spend time doing artwork, writing music, coding, etc if they didn't believe they'd receive a monetary profit from artificially induced scarcity. This is simply not the case, and you don't have to look far to confirm it. People create things for a variety of reasons, and IP isn't the only way to monetize creativity at that.

The fashion industry which was just brought up is a great example showing how creativity and innovation not only can exist without IP, but flourish and be profitable. IP doesn't foster innovation, it ultimately stifles it.

These topics have certainly been addressed. I'd recommend checking out this book for more:

http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intel...7262/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338344852&sr=8-1

"Intellectual property" - patents and copyrights - have become controversial. We witness teenagers being sued for "pirating" music - and we observe AIDS patients in Africa dying due to lack of ability to pay for drugs that are high priced to satisfy patent holders. Are patents and copyrights essential to thriving creation and innovation - do we need them so that we all may enjoy fine music and good health? Across time and space the resounding answer is: No. So-called intellectual property is in fact an "intellectual monopoly" that hinders rather than helps the competitive free market regime that has delivered wealth and innovation to our doorsteps. This book has broad coverage of both copyrights and patents and is designed for a general audience, focusing on simple examples. The authors conclude that the only sensible policy to follow is to eliminate the patents and copyright systems as they currently exist.

 

[Tenbobnote]

I say for both reasons, there are Libertarian principles I don't agree with and also just the word is not something I care to be associated with since as I said it's either confusing to people, or they view it in a negative way. I ofcourse believe in Liberty and Freedom, and on 80% of the issues I'd agree with a Libertarian, but freedom can be defined as different things: ie abortion - do you stand up for the rights of mother or the rights of the child? If you believe the child is a life, obviously you must stand up for it, if not, you'll likely side with the mother.

Being a libertarianism does NOT mean that you are for abortion. I would argue that a libertarian must be pro-life because I strongly believe that the only logical start of human life is at the moment of conception. Using the libertarian axiom of non aggression a libertarian cannot aggress on a human that has not initiated any violence or threat of violence on the mother or her womb. The mother most likely by having sex invited the baby there. If she was raped the baby was still there not under the babys will but of that of another. Therefore aggression against this baby is completely illegitimate.

YOU are a libertarian, you have just had it defined to you incorrectly.

 

[Ivash]

Value is subjective. The "value of a product" is determined by subjective preferences. You're basically arguing that no one would spend time doing artwork, writing music, coding, etc if they didn't believe they'd receive a monetary profit from artificially induced scarcity. This is simply not the case, and you don't have to look far to confirm it. People create things for a variety of reasons, and IP isn't the only way to monetize creativity at that.

The fashion industry which was just brought up is a great example showing how creativity and innovation not only can exist without IP, but flourish and be profitable. IP doesn't foster innovation, it ultimately stifles it.

These topics have certainly been addressed. I'd recommend checking out this book for more:

http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intel...7262/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338344852&sr=8-1

Certainly people would spend some of their time creating such artwork- but it is difficult to see people devoting their lives to it, as great artists and writers do, unless they were already independently wealthy. It is common sense that if the choice is between coding a new video game or spending dozens of hours writing a novel and getting enough money to pay the rent people will gravitate towards the latter choice- and for most people that would be the choice they'd have to make.

I guess I just disagree with your basic judgement that people would be able to devote their lives to art if they couldn't afford to eat (as the art itself isn't bringing in any money). I don't think you'll be able to convince me otherwise.

Do I believe that patent trolls and the rest of it have become outrageous? Sure, the patent system needs to be improved. But to remove it completely would be disastrous. In the end I am just thankful that my opinion is the law of the land and will likely not change in the upcoming future, and I'll leave this argument at that.

 

[Paul4Prez]

Why would anyone object to being called libertarian? Ron Paul doesn't object. You can be a libertarian Republican, or a libertarian leaning Republican, and most people will react more positively to that.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Certainly people would spend some of their time creating such artwork- but it is difficult to see people devoting their lives to it, as great artists and writers do, unless they were already independently wealthy. It is common sense that if the choice is between coding a new video game or spending dozens of hours writing a novel and getting enough money to pay the rent people will gravitate towards the latter choice- and for most people that would be the choice they'd have to make.

Yes I understand that you feel like IP is "common sense" and don't really get how things could work without IP. Like I said earlier, I struggled with it as well.

I guess I just disagree with your basic judgement that people would be able to devote their lives to art if they couldn't afford to eat (as the art itself isn't bringing in any money). I don't think you'll be able to convince me otherwise.

Lol, where did I say that at all?? You're putting your preconcieved notions about the benefits of IP into my mouth. Let's see what I said:

People create things for a variety of reasons, and IP isn't the only way to monetize creativity at that.

The fashion industry which was just brought up is a great example showing how creativity and innovation not only can exist without IP, but flourish and be profitable. IP doesn't foster innovation, it ultimately stifles it.

Get it? One of the recent musician's I've been into, Pretty Lights, releases all their albums for free. He's got a record label with the same name, with several artists, whose albums are free to download as well. He's not unknown at this point, toured at Coachella and whatnot. Business models adapt.



Or when Louie C.K. decided to let people download his new show directly from his site without DRM for a one time fee of $5, cheaper than a DVD or whatever, and asked them not to file share and made $1 million in 2 weeks. He donated a chunk of it to charity because he felt like he made "too much" (lol wtf).

All you're telling me is that you have your opinion that IP is absolutely necessary and you don't want to change it. Whatever. If you want to just stubbornly cling to an opinion because you're too lazy to really consider the possibility without it that's all you, my friend.

Do I believe that patent trolls and the rest of it have become outrageous? Sure, the patent system needs to be improved. But to remove it completely would be disastrous. In the end I am just thankful that my opinion is the law of the land and will likely not change in the upcoming future, and I'll leave this argument at that.

But this? Really? "In the end I am just thankful that my opinion is the law". C'mon now. You've already clearly shown that you're not interested in understanding how things could function without it, and now you're wallowing in those ignorant laws because they're in line with your opinionated attachment to IP? Alright, congratulations I guess. Seems silly to me, like someone gloating about marijuana being illegal even though the failed "Drug War" has caused devastating damage rather than any sort of positive improvement to society. But the Drug War makes total "common sense" when your comprehension of a world without it is one where an epidemic of addicts are terrorizing society and you refuse to consider otherwise.

And as far as "the upcoming future", I guess you haven't really been paying much attention. The internet has been pretty revolutionary when it comes to IP.

 

[Xhin]

Being a libertarianism does NOT mean that you are for abortion. I would argue that a libertarian must be pro-life because I strongly believe that the only logical start of human life is at the moment of conception.

On the other hand, the fetus does cause harm to the mother's body. The mother should have the right to be secure in her own person.

As for IP, saying you own an idea is fucking ridiculous. You do own whatever the implementation of the idea is though.

 

[buffed]

It's not that I made some deliberate ideological changes or adaptations which transformed me into a Libertarian. I picked-up a brochure from the SLS office (Students for a Libertarian Society) in college when I was about 19 or 20. I was astonished to learn that there were other people shared my identical perceptions of freedom.

 

[anaconda]

I think libertarian sounds a lot like vegetarian. The vegetarian leaning Republican. The vegetarian wing of the Republican Party.

 

[Chrysamere]

It makes me happy, the republican party is a disgrace to mankind. I'd love to see completely destroyed, I would be very offended if someone referred to me as a republican.

 

[Dogsoldier]

"Why would anyone object to being called libertarian? Ron Paul doesn't object. You can be a libertarian Republican, or a libertarian leaning Republican, and most people will react more positively to that."

I know I would have words with anyone who refered to me as a republican or a democrat.I would take serious issue with that.

 

[Ivash]

But this? Really? "In the end I am just thankful that my opinion is the law". C'mon now. You've already clearly shown that you're not interested in understanding how things could function without it, and now you're wallowing in those ignorant laws because they're in line with your opinionated attachment to IP? Alright, congratulations I guess. Seems silly to me, like someone gloating about marijuana being illegal even though the failed "Drug War" has caused devastating damage rather than any sort of positive improvement to society. But the Drug War makes total "common sense" when your comprehension of a world without it is one where an epidemic of addicts are terrorizing society and you refuse to consider otherwise.

And as far as "the upcoming future", I guess you haven't really been paying much attention. The internet has been pretty revolutionary when it comes to IP.

I'm going to point out that 'my opinion differs heavily from yours' does not equal 'ignorance' or 'not interested in understanding how things function without it'. To trade an insult for an insult, you are being... well, an idiot if you think that anyone with a different opinion does not understand the issue. I could use as easily accuse you of ignorance for ignoring basic economic realities, and that you're wallowing in the ignorance of a history that has been clear of what happens without IP laws. And I could claim that your arrogance is blinding you to the extremely simple idea that 'opinions can legitimetly differ', which is typically the 'black and white, right or wrong!' viewpoint of a child, etc.

I actually typically dislike throwing insults around (usually going back to moderate my own posts to make sure that there are few insults in it- unless it is to a certain type of person, but I don't think you are that type of person) but I see this 'black and white' viewpoint all the time on the internet, and it gets under my skin. So I apologies if you take this as being harsher than it was meant to be.