On 09/02/2016 01:03 PM, juan wrote:
Why should rand get to write novels using ideas she stole from other pople?
Because she was a LIBERTARIAN. That means your ethics STOP if they interfere with taking what you want. Feudalism with a less-frowned upon name to fool the rubes. Rr
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 07:16:19 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
This doesn't mean that I object to the current patent system.
For the record, the current patent system has nothing to do with libertarian philosophy. The patent system is a system of state-granted privileges that are not compatible with private property rights. And it comes from the middle ages and the monarchies of that time.
Not surprisingly it was adopted by the american slave state that was 'founded' in 1776 or thereabouts...
In her book Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand came out on the side of private intellectual property,
It's funny that all 'her' ideas about political philosophy were 'stolen' from libertarians. Why should rand get to write novels using ideas she stole from other pople? Did she pay royalties to the libertarian thinkers she plagiarized?
(as a side note : not only she stole 'her' political ideas from libertarians - she never really understood libertarianism...)
She also stole all the rest of 'her' ideas from rationalists, individualists, atheists, and the like.
objecting to the theft by government of metal-maker Henry Reardon's special metal alloy, "Reardon metal", by means of blackmail. Of course, I understand that by citing Ayn Rand's reasoning (and I am by no meansa Randian, having learned I was a libertarian years before knowing about Ayn Randand her books) it may seem I am committing the rhetorical sin of 'appealing toauthority'.
It's OK to appeal to technical authority. Doesn't mean the particular appeals are valid though =P
And in the case of rand she was pretty mediocre from a technical point of view anyway.
And, I realize that there is something of a conundrum about advocating a 'free market' and yet implicitly supporting the one remaining control, that ofa patent system somewhat akin to what the world uses today.
Yes. The patent system is an anti-competitive contraption that goes against the competitive nature of the free market.
(Who enforces sucha patent system, except a government?) Let me propose an outline of a solution which could square the circle: At some early point, say age 18, each person would be asked whether he wishes to livehis life WITH Intellectual Property rules, or not.
There are so many...statist...assumptions and implications in that. So, no, that is not workable in a libertarian framework.
He can choose either way, butif he refuses, manufacturers can band together to agree to sell only to people who agree to those rules. Correspondingly, those who sign the pro-IntellectualProperty agreement agree thereby to bar themselves from buying products fromnon-intellectual-property agree-er manufacturers. Violations could be policed byan AP-type system.
You mean murdering people who copy 'patented' ideas - ideas the patent holders most likely stole from other people anyway?
This wouldn't have to be a permanent decision, for any person.
That's OK, because the kind of 'contract' needed to get the system you want to work is not a valid contract. So in practice it is not 'enforceable'
Other manufacturers may make products that are made for sale to non-Intellectual Property agree-ers, but they will be shut out from dealing with what I expect will be the majority, let's call them "Pro-Intellectual Property"people and manufacturers.
Let's call them anti-competitive corporatists.
I am fairly confident that the advantages of dealing withwhat I believe will be the majority, those that comply with Intellectual Property rules,will be sufficient to keep all but a small minority of the public willing to livevoluntarily with such rules. Put simply, I suggest that there are some rather powerfuladvantages to having a system which rewards inventors.
Inventors do get the rewards they deserve when there's no patent system. Of course the rewards they deserve are a lot smaller than the 'rewards' they can get from monopolistic, state-granted privileges.
Jim Bell