[WAR] ... and AP - now IP

[Razer]

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 at 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 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>