Intellectual Property rights

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yeah. My point there being that you don't have to coin the abstract, ethereal concept of intellectual property. When you frame the argument in terms of a legal contractual agreement, the supposed difficulties evaporate, we can get to the real meat of issue and have a real discussion.

Discussions have merit if they pertain to the real world. It does no good to posit abstract esoteric points that will never, nor have ever had anything to do with reality. (Case in point with post #397)

Honestly, I do not have much of an idea what you are arguing about here as its near universal that anti-IP advocates support the right to restrict ones ideas in a market based fashion in regards to consenting parties in a contract vis a vis NDA for instance. The point we made is that a contract only binds consenting parties, and furthermore, that contracts are not universal in acceptance and that they can be reproached when they violate principles of private property or self-ownership. Saying a murder contract is valid, or that all contracts are valid approaches Nihilism which has nothing to do with private property or self-ownership.

 

[Mustang]

Not sure if you are arguing for this, or just as an esoteric point, but are you actually arguing for a society in which you rent and do not own? How exactly, is that desirable or in the spirit of private property? Obviously we know your point is impossible in reality, but for the sake of argument, I think we as individuals and society as a whole would be a decrepit hell if people actually supported universal renting over ownership....

The problem is Mr Tansill believes contracts trump everything, even in a libertarian society with no exceptions (at least none he as admitted to yet, that could change). Based on the fact that he doesn't qualify this claim, I assume he's trolling us and it's best to move on.

 

[KingRobbStark]

There's no need for the personal attack. Also, I have continued to point out that when private property conflicts with the terms of a contract, that private property must win out or else it's nothing more than a meaningless label. IMO, contracts that attempt to turn private property into a form of renting should be found unconscionable and I've been stating that all throughout my posts.

You also never addressed my counterpoint of a contract that forces someone to kill another person, which would also be found unconscionable despite it being a contract. Since there is no attempt at actual discussion here, I'll have to assume you will continue to disagree and I'll leave it at that.

It depends on who's enforcing the contract. If it's a US constitutional government, then its illegal. It's illegal, because you are infringing on another persons rights.

 

[Mr Tansill]

There's no need for the personal attack. Also, I have continued to point out that when private property conflicts with the terms of a contract, that private property must win out or else it's nothing more than a meaningless label. IMO, contracts that attempt to turn private property into a form of renting should be found unconscionable and I've been stating that all throughout my posts.

You also never addressed my counterpoint of a contract that forces someone to kill another person, which would also be found unconscionable despite it being a contract. Since there is no attempt at actual discussion here, I'll have to assume you will continue to disagree and I'll leave it at that.

Sorry about the personal attack. The point is that nothing is obligating you enter that agreement. Why is it unconscionable? Do you disagree with Ron and Rand Paul's position on certain injunctions the Civil Rights act of 1964 makes regarding what private businesses must do? i.e. serve customers they don't want to...

Regarding your counterpoint of a contract that forces one person to kill another...I honestly didn't even see it...I've been trying to keep up. Would that be a valid contract if it was forcing someone else's action? I'll simply say that a contract of that flavor would obviously violate the most basic rights of another individual (obviously their life) - how would that be a valid contract?

 

[Mustang]

It depends on who's enforcing the contract. If it's a US constitutional government, then its illegal. It's illegal, because you are infringing on another persons rights.

I should have qualified my position. I assume we're discussing contracts in a libertarian society based on the nonaggression principle, which in that case would maintain the illegality of contracting someone to kill another innocent (key word I should have included) person.

 

[KingRobbStark]

Yeah. My point there being that you don't have to coin the abstract, ethereal concept of intellectual property. When you frame the argument in terms of a legal contractual agreement, the supposed difficulties evaporate, we can get to the real meat of issue and have a real discussion.

What you are saying is that right is not right unless its enforced. I agree.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The problem is Mr Tansill believes contracts trump everything, even in a libertarian society with no exceptions (at least none he as admitted to yet, that could change). Based on the fact that he doesn't qualify this claim, I assume he's trolling us and it's best to move on.

Exactly. If you believe that any and all contracts are valid you advocate Nihilism, not private property, Natural Law, self-ownership, individual liberty, etc. They are incompatible.

 

[KingRobbStark]

I should have qualified my position. I assume we're discussing contracts in a libertarian society based on the nonaggression principle, which in that case would maintain the illegality of contracting someone to kill another innocent (key word I should have included) person.

Interesting. But in this libertarian utopia,when does it become necessary to use violence? Or are we also assuming that people are inherently nonviolent?

 

[Mr Tansill]

Not sure if you are arguing for this, or just as an esoteric point, but are you actually arguing for a society in which you rent and do not own? How exactly, is that desirable or in the spirit of private property? Obviously we know your point is impossible in reality, but for the sake of argument, I think we as individuals and society as a whole would be a decrepit hell if people actually supported universal renting over ownership....

Simply? No. I don't think renting would be a good way to run a society, and it's not in the spirit of private property. Ownership is inherent in human interaction.

Let's abstract your idea of universal renting...

Who are we all renting from? Someone obviously owns something if they have the right to form a contract with which to charge you rent.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It depends on who's enforcing the contract. If it's a US constitutional government, then its illegal. It's illegal, because you are infringing on another persons rights.

If I am to infer you are saying that our rights come from the US Government, or in the more abstract, that might makes rights. I'll sternly disagree.

 

[KingRobbStark]

Simply? No. I don't think renting would be a good way to run a society, and it's not in the spirit of private property. Ownership is inherent in human interaction.

Let's abstract your idea of universal renting...

Who are we all renting from? Someone obviously owns something if they have the right to form a contract with which to charge you rent.

You can expand that even further, and claim that you are renting your skills to your employer. You don't have to own in order to rent.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Simply? No. I don't think renting would be a good way to run a society, and it's not in the spirit of private property. Ownership is inherent in human interaction.

Let's abstract your idea of universal renting...

Who are we all renting from? Someone obviously owns something if they have the right to form a contract with which to charge you rent.

You would only own that which you have not traded for. All trade would be based on renting, not ownership. That would be a very poor society. It is essentially the Feudal system on steroids. Imagine never being able to own any land (and I sincerely doubt homesteading would be respected in a society of universal rentership). In any event, I think we've reached the end of the argument.

 

[KingRobbStark]

If I am to infer you are saying that our rights come from the US Government, or in the more abstract, that might makes rights. I'll sternly disagree.

I don't. I believe rights come from our inherently selfish nature.

 

[Mustang]

Sorry about the personal attack. The point is that nothing is obligating you enter that agreement. Why is it unconscionable? Do you disagree with Ron and Rand Paul's position on certain injunctions the Civil Rights act of 1964 makes regarding what private businesses must do? i.e. serve customers they don't want to...

Regarding your counterpoint of a contract that forces one person to kill another...I honestly didn't even see it...I've been trying to keep up. Would that be a valid contract if it was forcing someone else's action? I'll simply say that a contract of that flavor would obviously violate the most basic rights of another individual (obviously their life) - how would that be a valid contract?

I appreciate the apology, and I apologize for suggesting you may have been trolling us in a previous post.

By unconscionability, I'm referring to the the examination of a contract to see if the provisions contained are considered excessively unfair and seen as unenforceable. When taken in a libertarian society, my position is that contracts that seek to minimize private property and turn it into a form of renting without explicitly calling it renting would be found to be invalid due to the language involved.

As for the point about a contract to kill an innocent, I was merely trying to show that not all contracts are automatically assumed to be valid. We do agree on the point that when basic rights are violated (such as life) that a contract (or at least the offending provision) would be voided. I extend that to include these excessive abridgments on private property, which I find unacceptable if a company attempts to control how you use a certain product long after you paid for it.

 

[Mr Tansill]

You can expand that even further, and claim that you are renting your skills to your employer. You don't have to own in order to rent.

I'm confused...you don't own your skills? Your time, energy, etc?

 

[Mustang]

Interesting. But in this libertarian utopia,when does it become necessary to use violence? Or are we also assuming that people are inherently nonviolent?

Once someone has committed aggression against you, you are free to use self-defense to protect yourself and your private property.

 

[KingRobbStark]

I'm confused...you don't own your skills? Your time, energy, etc?

The last sentence was supposed to be attached to something else. It was supposed to mean that you can rent something that was rented to you. (Houses for example)

 

[KingRobbStark]

Once someone has committed aggression against you, you are free to use self-defense to protect yourself and your private property.

OK

 

[Mr Tansill]

I appreciate the apology, and I apologize for suggesting you may have been trolling us in a previous post.

Word. It was sincere - and I'm not trolling...but intentionally ignored that comment to prevent a downward spiral.

By unconscionability, I'm referring to the the examination of a contract to see if the provisions contained are considered excessively unfair and seen as unenforceable. When taken in a libertarian society, my position is that contracts that seek to minimize private property and turn it into a form of renting without explicitly calling it renting would be found to be invalid due to the language involved.

I don't think there can EVER be anything unfair about a voluntary contract. Ever. Nothing. No matter what. I think it is tautological (logically speaking). After reading the definition of "unconscionability," I think it would be extraordinarily difficult to demonstrate that a contract made between a music consumer and an artist would be unconscionable because it restricted the consumer's usage - I mean we're not talking about something like food or shelter here.

As for the point about a contract to kill an innocent, I was merely trying to show that not all contracts are automatically assumed to be valid. We do agree on the point that when basic rights are violated (such as life) that a contract (or at least the offending provision) would be voided. I extend that to include these excessive abridgments on private property, which I find unacceptable if a company attempts to control how you use a certain product long after you paid for it.

I agree with the above, obviously. My WHOLE point here is to wrestle away the concept that we consumers can dispose of someone else's work because it has now become so easy to replicate it - there are effectively no barriers. My discussion of contracts was meant to show it is tenable that there is another construct completely separate from the idea of property that makes it so artists, idea-producers, whatever, can protect and sell their work. Of course most arguments grow into the absurd when taken to the logical extremes - hence the concept of intellectual property.

 

[Mr Tansill]

The last sentence was supposed to be attached to something else. It was supposed to mean that you can rent something that was rented to you. (Houses for example)

Roger.