Intellectual Property rights

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I find it interesting that the "libertarians" abandon Ayn Rands philosophy completely on individual property.Very fascinating modern transitions when it comes to philosophy of "individual liberty" if you ask me.

Ayn Rand wasn't even a libertarian and she called us abhorrent, furthermore for someone so adverse of emulating others ideas and profligating them she didn't have an original idea -- she took everything from two superior thinkers Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson (two actual libertarians). Besides, you act as if Ayn Rand was some originator. Individual Liberty, Natural Law, and self-ownership are ideas far older than the 20th Century. You have a lot of learning to do. As Jefferson said -- a book is capital. Best get to accumulating actual capital.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Yeah, that's what I'm really curious to know.

EDIT: I like RT though, lol.

My honest opinion which people bash me for? RT NEWS subtly advocates marxist ideals such as anti-intellectual property which opens the doors wide open to exactly that mentality, except its wrapped in a beautiful packaging and labeled "individual liberty".

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Ayn Rand wasn't even a libertarian and she called us abhorrent, furthermore for someone so adverse of emulating others ideas and profligating them she didn't have an original idea -- she took everything from two superior thinkers Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson (two actual libertarians). Besides, you act as if Ayn Rand was some originator. Individual Liberty, Natural Law, and self-ownership are ideas far older than the 20th Century. You have a lot of learning to do. As Jefferson said -- a book is capital. Best get to accumulating actual capital.

You really get off on yourself condescending on me as if I don't know what the dark ages were.

 

[nobody's_hero]

But, AED,

Your quote from Bastiat does not mean that IP was not considered property before patent laws were made.

You know what I mean? If IP wasn't widely considered property, then the laws of our Constitution which gave Congress the power of patent would never have been adopted by the states.

This wasn't some instant government decree that made IP some 'new invention', as the anti-IP crowd seems to think.

This was government law being created to preserve something that already existed, which is how most laws in our nation's early history came about.

This wasn't like the Federal Reserve Act that suddenly declared FRNs to be money. I could certainly see where the anti-IP crowd gets its fury if that were the case, since government decree alone does not make a thing true.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

But, AED,

Your quote from Bastiat does not mean that IP was not considered property before patent laws were made.

You know what I mean? If IP wasn't widely considered property, then the laws of our Constitution which gave Congress the power of patent would never have been adopted by the states.

This wasn't some instant government decree that made IP some 'new invention', as the anti-IP crowd seems to think.

This was government law being created to preserve something that already existed, which is how most laws in our nation's early history came about.

This wasn't like the Federal Reserve Act that suddenly declared FRNs to be money. I could certainly see where the anti-IP crowd gets its fury if that were the case, since government decree alone does not make a thing true.

stock trades had already existed before the ratification of the Articles of Confederation had even happened.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

But, AED,

Your quote from Bastiat does not mean that IP was not considered property before patent laws were made.

You know what I mean? If IP wasn't widely considered property, then the laws of our Constitution which gave Congress the power of patent would never have been adopted by the states.

This wasn't some instant government decree that made IP some 'new invention', as the anti-IP crowd seems to think.

This was government law being created to preserve something that already existed, which is how most laws in our nation's early history came about.

This wasn't like the Federal Reserve Act that suddenly declared FRNs to be money. I could certainly see where the anti-IP crowd gets its fury if that were the case, since government decree alone does not make a thing true.

As has been demonstrated all ready, there is no where in IP law where it states that IP is property, and that copying or emulating IP constitutes thievery. The only reason IP was even put into the Constitution was because many of the Founders thought it necessary for innovation, or they themselves profited off the writ of monopoly. That is all IP is -- a writ of monopoly. It's about as protectionist and anti-property as you can get. IP is a rather new idea -- for most of human history it would have been laughable to even suggest such a thing and if you go back through Western Philosophy you will find nary a mention when it comes to property. It's a remnant of the Mercantilist age. A pox on that house.

In any event, you should read the rest of my post and address that argument, which you seem to have skipped right over. Figures.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Well, I don't think you're going to get any "new" arguments from either side, lol. We're 433 posts from the start and I doubt any minds have changed.

Don't be so sure of that. Prior to reading this thread, I was fairly disinterested in the topic and didn't really have a take. The anti-IP side has made a sequential, logically consistent and reasoned case that I can't find any holes in.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Ayn Rand wasn't even a libertarian and she called us abhorrent, furthermore for someone so adverse of emulating others ideas and profligating them she didn't have an original idea -- she took everything from two superior thinkers Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson (two actual libertarians). Besides, you act as if Ayn Rand was some originator. Individual Liberty, Natural Law, and self-ownership are ideas far older than the 20th Century. You have a lot of learning to do. As Jefferson said -- a book is capital. Best get to accumulating actual capital.

Yeah, I'm not sure why we're expected to bow at the Ayn Rand altar. That's Glenn Beck's shtick, I think. Atlas Shrugged was moving to me, but she was kind of a kook, from what I know of her...

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Don't be so sure of that. Prior to reading this thread, I was fairly disinterested in the topic and didn't really have a take. The anti-IP side has made a sequential, logically consistent and reasoned case that I can't find any holes in.

what is fraud?

 

[guitarlifter]

IP is a rather new invention. It has no natural basis, that is to quote Bastiat:


Simply put, IP is an artificial construct that has nothing to do with property. It's very essence is anti-property. Like I brought up earlier, we can go back to the Lockean-Rothbardian idea of property. Furthermore, IP is nothing more than rent-seeking, an idea opposed to ownership. IP denies the very reason property was conceived of in the first place. Without scarcity there is no such thing as property, except insofar as self-ownership is concerned. To own implies a set of rule-sets. If I were to own an idea, I would literally be owning the body of other individuals. If I am to own a certain configuration of property, and the use of force to prevent others from configuring their property in the same manner is that not an injunction of anothers property? Honestly, it's that simple. Furthermore, the fact that another individual creates an identical yet wholly new good does not detract from the original individual who assembled the first good in such a manner. You have lost nothing, but I have lost ownership of my property due to IP -- it is an imposition on the authority of me to choose how to use my own property.

IP is not property! If there was ever a misnomer, that would be it.

Repped for being the voice of reason and stating that not only is IP not for property protect, it's actually anti-property protection in that it violates the rights of those who have possessed an idea (regardless of the source) and own themselves, therefore have full control of themselves and anything contained within their minds.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Here's some quick reading for the IP folks. Chew on this for a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623

The Statute of Monopolies was an Act of the Parliament of England notable as the first statutory expression of English patent law. Patents evolved from letters patent, issued by the monarch to grant monopolies over particular industries to skilled individuals with new techniques. Originally intended to strengthen England's economy by making it self-sufficient and promoting new industries, the system gradually became seen as a way to raise money (through charging patent-holders) without having to incur the public unpopularity of a tax. Elizabeth I particularly was a great abuser of the system, issuing patents for common commodities such as starch and salt. Unrest eventually persuaded her to turn the administration of patents over to the common law courts, but her successor, James I, was even more abusive. Despite a committee established to investigate grievances and excesses, Parliament made several efforts to further curtail the monarch's power. The result was the Statute of Monopolies, passed on 25 May 1624.

Intellectual Property as we know it didn't even come to fruition until the mid to late 19th Century, and wasn't commonplace until well into the 20th.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

what is fraud?

Is there a point? Why don't you just cut to the chase and call me a marxist, okay?

 

[nobody's_hero]

As has been demonstrated all ready, there is no where in IP law where it states that IP is property, and that copying or emulating IP constitutes thievery. The only reason IP was even put into the Constitution was because many of the Founders thought it necessary for innovation, or they themselves profited off the writ of monopoly. That is all IP is -- a writ of monopoly. It's about as protectionist and anti-property as you can get. IP is a rather new idea -- for most of human history it would have been laughable to even suggest such a thing and if you go back through Western Philosophy you will find nary a mention when it comes to property. It's a remnant of the Mercantilist age. A pox on that house.

In any event, you should read the rest of my post and address that argument, which you seem to have skipped right over. Figures.

Lol, I skipped over it because we're operating on two different planes of debate, which usually happens in the IP debate (among other controversial issues). Unless both parties come to some mutual fundamental agreement about what property is, it's quite difficult to address each other's points. It's like . . . a foreign language.

But I don't understand the concept of how IP creates monopolies. To say that, you'd have to argue that only one person ever has the power to create a new thing, which is not true. If someone else creates invention A, then you can still create a totally different invention B. The possibilities are limitless. IP doesn't grant you exclusive access to a market. It grants you protection of a product you created to sell in that market. If I build a DVD player, it doesn't mean I own the entertainment electronics market. I own the design of my DVD player. Anyone else has the same exact right that I do to tap the entertainment electronics market, BUT with their own inventions.

Like I said, I'm still trying to figure out where this utter paradox came into play.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Is there a point? Why don't you just cut to the chase and call me a marxist, okay?

you said that you had seen no flaw in the anti-IP argument. So I just threw something at you and I expect an answer.
Tell me what is fraud?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Lol, I skipped over it because we're operating on two different planes of debate, which usually happens in the IP debate (among other controversial issues). Unless both parties come to some mutual fundamental agreement about what property is, it's quite difficult to address each other's points. It's like . . . a foreign language.

But I don't understand the concept of how IP creates monopolies. To say that, you'd have to argue that only one person ever has the power to create a new thing, which is not true. If someone else creates invention A, then you can still create a totally different invention B. The possibilities are limitless. IP doesn't grant you exclusive access to a market. It grants you protection of a product you created to sell in that market. If I build a DVD player, it doesn't mean I own the entertainment electronics market. I own the design of my DVD player. Anyone else has the same exact right that I do to tap the entertainment electronics market, BUT with their own inventions.

Like I said, I'm still trying to figure out where this utter paradox came into play.

We can't get anywhere without the pro-IP folks knowing when and where IP originated from. This woeful ignorance of the issue at hand is a major reason for the disconnect. There is no paradox. Honestly, I do not know how people get so mixed up -- perhaps because you focus on the 'property' in IP, which I said was a misnomer because you cannot have ownership in such a concept. If you propose that you do, that means you contradict private property because having ownership in an idea, patent, configuration of property, means you own other individuals and their property. It's quite simple -- what is so hard to understand? IP is a goddamn Monarchical Mercantilist invention, and it had nothing to do with property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623

IP is such a contradictory notion in regards to property.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

We can't get anywhere without the pro-IP folks knowing when and where IP originated from. This woeful ignorance of the issue at hand is a major reason for the disconnect. There is no paradox. Honestly, I do not know how people get so mixed up -- perhaps because you focus on the 'property' in IP, which I said was a misnomer because you cannot have ownership in such a concept, and if you propose that you do, that means you contradict private property because having ownership in an idea, patent, configuration of property, means you own other individuals and their property. It's quite simple -- what is so hard to understand? IP is a goddamn Monarchical Mercantilist invention, and it had nothing to do with property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623

And in your theory "fraud" does not exist. touche

 

[A Son of Liberty]

you said that you had seen no flaw in the anti-IP argument. So I just threw something at you and I expect an answer.
Tell me what is fraud?

It's really not consequential to the case they're making.

You can read what a person says, even if it is contrary to your viewpoint, synthesize it and respond to it, or you can take out your megaphone and shout the same thing over and over again.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

And in your theory "fraud" does not exist. touche

I only engage in conversation with people who exhibit an ability to understand the nature of a debate. In any event, you cannot point out where I ever said such a thing -- I've been ignoring you since you are ignoring all of my arguments. How about you continue to parrot your ad hominem. Obviously I'm a Marxist.

 

[nobody's_hero]

We can't get anywhere without the pro-IP folks knowing when and where IP originated from. This woeful ignorance of the issue at hand is a major reason for the disconnect. There is no paradox. Honestly, I do not know how people get so mixed up -- perhaps because you focus on the 'property' in IP, which I said was a misnomer because you cannot have ownership in such a concept. If you propose that you do, that means you contradict private property because having ownership in an idea, patent, configuration of property, means you own other individuals and their property. It's quite simple -- what is so hard to understand? IP is a goddamn Monarchical Mercantilist invention, and it had nothing to do with property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623

IP is such a contradictory notion in regards to property.

But it is not just the property itself, it is the time and effort to go along with it that are being protected. Why is that so hard to understand?

Do we not believe that the fruits of one's labor should be protected?

We don't just protect tangible things. I cannot touch your 'right to free speech', but yet we have laws protecting it. Should we do away with the laws then, because there is nothing physical to protect?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

But it is not just the property itself, it is the time and effort to go along with it that are being protected. Why is that so hard to understand?

Do we not believe that the fruits of one's labor should be protected?

We don't just protect tangible things. I cannot touch your 'right to free speech', but yet we have laws protecting it. Should we do away with the laws then, because there is nothing physical to protect?

Can you point out to me what property you have lost if I replicate one of your recipes or ideas? Please do not tell me you believe you have a right of monopoly and profit through the exclusion of the rest of society to do with their property as they wish -- and this means replicating their own property to be configured in a matter matching yours. It's simply astonishing how someone who says they grasp private property makes this fundamental and tragic leap. IP has never been about property, period.

Think for a moment before you respond. No one is denying that the products of ones labor should not be protected, but another replicating an idea is no loss of property to yourself, or any other. To copy, emulate, replicate, duplicate, etc. is to create a new tangible good. Here I'll use math 1+1 = 2. If I take something from you it means a transfer of ONE good from one individual to another. It's quite simple really. You are at no loss if someone else replicates a configuration of property you originally thought of. You cannot own a discovery. It's ludicrous.

PS: Free speech is a Government construct. There is no such thing as Free Speech in regards to private property. It's only when you get into 'public' and State-owned property that the need for such a construct arises.