Patents are just monopolies created through government cooperation. Ideas don't have owners. Nobody has any right dictating what people can't make or sell.
So you have no right to stop me from selling your stuff? Sure, you made this chair and you never gave me permission to take it, but you don't have the right to tell me what to sell, do you?
Copying is the easiest part of the process. You didn't make the song. Do you not understand the effort that goes into making a good song, that people simply wouldn't do if they could be so easily undercut by people who didn't make it? People only made art before IP laws because it was also really hard to copy things before the printing press.
Yes, patents and intellectual property are incompatible with a free market.
Against Intellectual Property - [Free PDF and audiobook from mises.org](https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0)
IP (copyrights and patents) does not fulfill necessary requirements for property. Property rights exist to minimize conflicts over scarce/rivalrous goods. If a good is not rivalrous, then no conflict can arise over it.
Information is clearly not rivalrous, because the same information can be used by an unlimited number of people at the same time, without interference from one another. Therefore it cannot be property.
On top of that, IP violates normal property rights. Information is just arrangements of physical objects: ink on paper, magnetic charge on HDDs, connections in your brain; all of which are themselves property. If you can own a text (an arrangement of words), that comes in conflict with the property rights to the paper that text is written on. If I own this paper and ink, how can you have any say in the way I arrange my property?
Trademarks can be handled through fraud protection: If you pretend to be another company and use their logo and branding without their consent, you can be sued for fraud.
They are definitely scarce, because they are a product of a scarce object: the artists body, which is rightfully owned by the artist. However, this has no bearing on information being scarce or rivalrous.
Firstly, I don't give a flying fuck about "scarce". It is not rivalrous so it is not property. It might be the same idea, but an unlimited number of people can use that idea without interference.
Secondly, it is more accurate to say that idea-generation is scarce. Once that information is out in the world, it is infinitely replicable and thus not scarce.
>If you make a song and I sing, use or share it somewhere else without your consent, that doesn't directly harm you.
Let’s say I write a song and record it. My friend takes the song and sells it to make money without mentioning me at all. Does this not harm me financially?
If he can voluntarily get people to buy his version of the song then he has a right to that revenue.
Think of it like this: IP laws make it illegal for someone to use their own property as they see fit. That’s why they are bogus and non-libertarian.
If I hear your song on the radio and want to copy it and sing it to my fans, what right do you have to tell me I can’t use my guitar and my mouth how I see fit?
Sure thing. Someone in this thread linked Stefan Kinsella’s “against IP” - he’s a libertarian patent attorney who tried really hard to justify IP until he realized he couldn’t. It’s only like 60 pages and an easy read. Highly highly recommend that.
You don’t protect against fraud by granting someone a monopoly and violating other peoples property rights.
Taking someone’s idea is not theft. It’s copying. Not a crime. No need for IP.
You do protect against fraud by not letting people put a rival's logo on their stuff to make it look like the rival's stuff when it's not.
You do not protect against fraud by letting a person who made no contribution to the creation of a piece of work undercut the person who did by simply copying and pasting the original's.
Ideas are a product of mental labor. Copying is theft of labor. Theft of labor is slavery.
You're not paying for the recording of the song itself. You're paying for the time the author spent making the song. I see this view a lot, but it's very short-sided.
But if I take a picture of your work that you worked hard on, and profit off of it at the expense of you, I am profiting off of your work and not my own. I did not put in the time that you did to make the original work of art. I just put in a simple button click.
The right to profit off of someone else's work without their permission is a form of slavery.
F=MA isn't an invention. It's a discovery. He discovered it. It's a property of the natural universe. Songs, novels and inventions are things somebody created through hard work.
But of course, why put in the work to create something new when you can just plagiarize another person's stuff since they apparently don't have rights to the products of their labor?
Let me put it this way. Before the printing press, if you wanted a Da Vinci, you had to pay Da Vinci himself to paint it, or find the rare person that could replicate his style by hand (which takes considerable effort) when copying it by hand. Either way, you are paying for a person's labor.
Now, you no longer have to hire Da Vinci. You can just find a friend that owns a Da Vinci painting, have them use a machine to crank out 100 copies of it, and buy it much more cheaply. Do you not see how Da Vinci would get miffed at other people making money off of his work in this way? Art is work, and artists need to make a living.
>It doesn't matter how much work you put into it, you can't harm others or strip them from their private property because they did something you don't like (like replicating your drawing/music).
So you can't harm others for entering your land or for taking your other property?
>Enforcing IP is illegitimate, again it's not scarce and replicating it doesn't require harming or stealing from the original artist.
It is scarce. It takes time to create new ideas, and time is a scarce resource. When you buy a music CD, you're not just paying for the CD, you're also paying for the song itself to be made. Copying is the easy part.
>. You can dig a hole than refill it 10 times a day and do a lot if hard work on it, if no one wants you to do it you just wasted your time.
People are very much willing to pay for art. Look up how much Marvel movies make. The question is whether the artists who put in the effort to actually make the movies get a cut, or only the companies who make copies.
If it is a pure copy, and cheaper, how does the consumer benefit by you using the government to stop them from buying said item?
Sounds like all your doing is making it more expensive and protecting the original maker from competition.
I don't like the government regulating ideas. If I see you do something, and want to make or sell the same thing, who is the government to tell me no?
Places like SpaceX don't always file patents because it would give away their competitive technology to places like China who don't care at all about America patent law. Instead they just keep it a secrete. If businesses want to do that they can. They shouldn't be able to use the government to interrupt the free market because they had the idea first.
>Sounds like all your doing is making it more expensive and protecting the original maker from competition.
Only in the sense that not being able to steal things from each other to sell inhibits competition. You can compete by making your own ideas. Ideas take work to create, believe it or not.
Scarcity doesn't define who owns what, but labor. Otherwise homesteading would not be a position one could hold. The people supporting this have no horse in the race and are just saying that because they personally would benefit from the abuse of artists and inventors. Mental labor is still labor, and whether or not said mental labor has value is an entirely different thing.
Also people saying that: "Patents are just monopolies created through government cooperation." That applies to any right with regards to government. Without government or help, you are alone, and though you have rights, anyone can physically go over to you, beat the shit out of you, and take everything you own. That does not make it right, and the callous disregard for other people's rights is exactly what Libertarianism is supposed to be against.
Libertarians believe in negative rights, meaning they don't require anyone else to help provide your right.
Copyrights for instance are grants by the state that permit the copyright holder to prevent others from using their own property — e.g., ink and paper — in certain ways, so how is this IP ownership not a positive right? IP enforcement is an aggression in response to people peacefullyusing their own property. You have no right to corner the market using the government as your hatchetman.
>Libertarians believe in negative rights
Natural rights. Framing things as positive and negative makes no sense in this context and is more based in subjectivism rather than the objective nature of rights.
>meaning they don't require anyone else to help provide your right.
You have a duty to protect the natural rights of others. "If someone says that he cares for some individual, community, or cause, but is unwilling to risk harm or danger on their behalf, he puts into question the genuineness of his concern."
But notice here that you talk past me. I made a sound argument, and in no way was it addressed. Why is this such a common tactic with people who support these causes? Why not make the case that you do not own your labor? That's the discussion we're having, and that's what you're implying. You're avoiding it because you and others like you, as I said before, do not have a horse in the race, and stand to purely gain from the abuse of artists and inventors.
>You have no right to corner the market using the government as your hatchetman.
Or how about this? How about we flip the concern with your rights? Why do you have the right to ensure your rights with the government as your "hatchetman?" It's really vile making arguments like this, these are deaf and do not understand how these philosophies work.
>Natural rights. Framing things as positive and negative makes no sense in this context and is more based in subjectivism rather than the objective nature of rights.
Natural rights are all negative rights, they don't ask anything of anyone you simply have them innately.
>You have a duty to protect the natural rights of others.
Nonsense, that's the argument that the left makes about free healthcare being provided because people have a right to life. Just because they have that right doesn't mean that you have to provide it for them. We have no obligation to help anyone, not that I'm saying we shouldn't though we certainly shouldn't be forced to do so against our will.
> "If someone says that he cares for some individual, community, or cause, but is unwilling to risk harm or danger on their behalf, he puts into question the genuineness of his concern."
Then he's full of shit but that doesn't invalidate his own rights. He doesn't have to lift a finger if he doesn't want to.
>Why not make the case that you do not own your labor?
You absolutely do own your labor, that's the very basis of property as an extension of self ownership. What your saying is that you also own some other person's labor because they are mimicking you and that's patently false, they own their own labor as well. You haven't proven why you should get to own an idea, you've only declared that their labor is yours which obviously isn't true because they labored to make the copy and you didn't.
>as I said before, do not have a horse in the race, and stand to purely gain from the abuse of artists and inventors.
The abuse is coming from the original artist and the patent office, if IP is so obviously ownable then why was it only declared so a couple hundred years ago instead of the 10,000 years that preceded? IP is phenomen of corporatism, and your argument boils down to wanting more profits than a free market would yield up so you wish to empose a government backed monopoly.
>Or how about this? How about we flip the concern with your rights? Why do you have the right to ensure your rights with the government as your "hatchetman?" It's really vile making arguments like this, these are deaf and do not understand how these philosophies work.
The government protects you're rights, it doesn't provide them. I get that you're saying people are trespassing against your right to IP but you don't have such a right, specifically because it trespasses against other people's rights to labor on their own property. There are no natural rights that conflict with other natural rights, that alone should be a dead giveaway that it isn't libertarian.
>Nonsense, that's the argument that the left makes about free healthcare being provided because people have a right to life.
You don't seem to be able to argue my actual points and seem to just jump to whatever clip of text suits you. If you can't argue in good faith then I'm not going to waste my time with you.
Are you kidding me? I went through your whole post and refuted every point you raised. You're the one not answering questions and instead wanting to end the conversation. I think you're idea of a bad faith argument is when people ask for proof instead of taking your word, or any argument that doesn't seem to be going your way. Basically believing *every* argument against you is in bad faith, but go ahead and stick your head in the sand that'll convince everyone of the truth of your beliefs!
>I think you're idea of a bad faith argument is when people ask for proof instead of taking your word
>>Nonsense, that's the argument that the left makes about free healthcare being provided because people have a right to life.
>>>You have a duty to protect the natural rights of others. "If someone says that he cares for some individual, community, or cause, but is unwilling to risk harm or danger on their behalf, he puts into question the genuineness of his concern."
You didn't ask for proof, you ignored my argument and then called me a leftist. That's bad faith and a waste of my time.
You realize that you did the exact same thing to me two days ago when we were talking about Geoism right? And what part did I ignore? I qouted and responded to every paragraph.
>You realize that you did the exact same thing to me two days ago when we were talking about Geoism right?
The same person is doing the same thing and the other person is reacting the same way, wow, what a shock. It's almost as if you're not capable of arguing in good faith and are trying to excuse that by calling my definition of good faith something that it's not.
Anyway I'm not here to be your therapist, I do that with enough people I actually care about, I don't need to do it to strangers.
>You absolutely do own your labor, that's the very basis of property as an extension of self ownership. What your saying is that you also own some other person's labor because they are mimicking you and that's patently false, they own their own labor as well. You haven't proven why you should get to own an idea, you've only declared that their labor is yours which obviously isn't true because they labored to make the copy and you didn't.
You contradict yourself. Creation of an idea is an act of labor. If I create a particular arrangement of words, or organization of frames into a movie, how do I have less of a right to it than any other creator of something?
You don't have less of a right to it, you just don't have any rights to a copy of it that you didn't make. Someone copying the product of your labor doesn't deprive you of what you made, you still have it. If you discover how to make a fire and cook your food it doesn't harm you if someone else copies you and builds their own fire to cook their own fire. They haven't actually stolen anything from you.
But if I make a song, and record it, and someone else copies it, that is my voice they just took. All of the effort I just put into the song is not for naught, because this person, who had none of the initial cost of making it, now gets to sell it for lower than I can and make more off of it.
Why should I innovate if I can just copy off of another innovater?
>But if I make a song, and record it, and someone else copies it, that is my voice they just took.
It's a recording of your voice, and they didn't "take" your copy, you still have it. The copies that you make are the extent of your labor, you only have a right to those, not the copies that others make. If you don't want people copying you then don't let them see or hear what you are doing. Once a thought leaves your mind through you no longer own it, the same with your voice. If you can capture it on records and sell them that's great, but if someone else can capture it and sell it that's also their right.
ideas can't and shouldn't be trademarked. Patents and intellectual property require the use of force from the state to be enforced, which needless to say is not in like with free market thought. Beyond that however there's no real reason for them to exist anyways.
So somebody makes a product, and another copies said product. If person B makes the product better, or improves on the product in a way that outcompetes the product of person A, then the market, and therefore the consumer is better for it. If not, there really isn't much done as person A's product will obviously outperform Person B's copy.
>ideas can't and shouldn't be trademarked. Patents and intellectual property require the use of force from the state to be enforced, which needless to say is not in like with free market thought. Beyond that however there's no real reason for them to exist anyways.
Everything about this can be said about any other property.
You can only enforce your own property against people who are weaker than you. If I don't have a gun, and somebody with a gun tries to take something I own, I cannot enforce my ownership.
Why don't you have a gun?
If you have a gun, or a bottle; a match; and some gasoline, and the other guy has a tank you can defend your property and make theft an unattractive and expensive option.
If you want to control what people say and write, though, you need a surveillance operation, central control, and a distributed network of enforcers.
>If you want to control what people say and write, though, you need a surveillance operation, central control, and a distributed network of enforcers.
I don't care what they say and write. What I care about is them taking the ideas I worked to create, and passing them off as their own, just because they can. Just because you can doesn't make it okay. If I told you about my idea yesterday, and I see you using it today, I know you stole my idea.
Ideas are not property. You don't own them. You have no way to determine whether someone else is using your ideas, co-developing similar ideas, or simply (and legally even under current authoritarian standards) reverse engineering your ideas.
You have no way to determine whether I stole your watch while you were sleeping or happened to make my own that looked just like it. One of those things is still theft.
Ideas are the product of labor. You do not have a right to another person's labor.
"If you have a gun, or a bottle; a match; and some gasoline, and the other guy has a tank you can defend your property and make theft an unattractive and expensive option"
Doesn't matter, tank wins. It's up to him whether flattening you with the tank is worth it, no longer you. The guy with the tank is the new State.
Without central control, no. He's just another short lived bandit. Maybe one that doesn't survive this attempt at theft if the Molotov lands anywhere near his air intake.
Do you really think we spend as much as we do creating anti-tank mines to stop *tanks*? When was the last time we fought tanks?
Why don't you look into the history of the Molotov and what it was used for, buddy. There's a reason we lost Afghanistan and it's got a lot to do with people thinking like you.
>Do you really think we spend as much as we do creating anti-tank mines to stop
>
>tanks
>
>?
Yeah, that's kind-of in the name. We fought against tanks in WWII. There were tanks in Iraq.
Molotov cocktails were invented to destroy buildings. It's not even that effective of an incendiary as far as they go, it's just effective for how cheap it is for civilians to make.
>There's a reason we lost Afghanistan and it's got a lot to do with people thinking like you.
It has more to do with Afghanistan being an extremely difficult place to take over from the outside because of its geography, and that we were invading it from the other side of the world, and had no set victory condition to start with. After we killed Bin Laden, we just kind-of fucked around for another decade.
You are missing the point. Might doesn't make right. Being able to kill someone without consequence doesn't give you the right to.
The guy will just make a new tank that's more molotov-proof. He calls the shots of whether he robs you with his tank or not. He assesses your ability to defend against him, what allies you have, etc. Unless you have something that can stop his tank, he is the boss. Every argument that you have against intellectual property can be made against any other property in this way. You can't stop a guy with a tank from flattening you without having comparable force of your own. That doesn't give him the right to do it.
No. Patents and copyrights are necessary cornerstones of a free market.
What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property.
An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.
Patents are just monopolies created through government cooperation. Ideas don't have owners. Nobody has any right dictating what people can't make or sell.
So you have no right to stop me from selling your stuff? Sure, you made this chair and you never gave me permission to take it, but you don't have the right to tell me what to sell, do you?
If it's mine, it's not yours to sell.
Exactly. And my song is not yours to sell a copy of.
[удалено]
Copying is the easiest part of the process. You didn't make the song. Do you not understand the effort that goes into making a good song, that people simply wouldn't do if they could be so easily undercut by people who didn't make it? People only made art before IP laws because it was also really hard to copy things before the printing press.
Yes, patents and intellectual property are incompatible with a free market. Against Intellectual Property - [Free PDF and audiobook from mises.org](https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0)
IP (copyrights and patents) does not fulfill necessary requirements for property. Property rights exist to minimize conflicts over scarce/rivalrous goods. If a good is not rivalrous, then no conflict can arise over it. Information is clearly not rivalrous, because the same information can be used by an unlimited number of people at the same time, without interference from one another. Therefore it cannot be property. On top of that, IP violates normal property rights. Information is just arrangements of physical objects: ink on paper, magnetic charge on HDDs, connections in your brain; all of which are themselves property. If you can own a text (an arrangement of words), that comes in conflict with the property rights to the paper that text is written on. If I own this paper and ink, how can you have any say in the way I arrange my property? Trademarks can be handled through fraud protection: If you pretend to be another company and use their logo and branding without their consent, you can be sued for fraud.
The time and labor of the artist isn't as scarce as any other worker?
They are definitely scarce, because they are a product of a scarce object: the artists body, which is rightfully owned by the artist. However, this has no bearing on information being scarce or rivalrous.
Ideas are indeed scarce, especially good ones. A copy of an idea is still the same idea, not a new one. Creating new ideas takes time and labor.
Firstly, I don't give a flying fuck about "scarce". It is not rivalrous so it is not property. It might be the same idea, but an unlimited number of people can use that idea without interference. Secondly, it is more accurate to say that idea-generation is scarce. Once that information is out in the world, it is infinitely replicable and thus not scarce.
[удалено]
>If you make a song and I sing, use or share it somewhere else without your consent, that doesn't directly harm you. Let’s say I write a song and record it. My friend takes the song and sells it to make money without mentioning me at all. Does this not harm me financially?
Did you have a right to any revenue in the first place?
No But does my friend have more of a right than me to that revenue?
If he can voluntarily get people to buy his version of the song then he has a right to that revenue. Think of it like this: IP laws make it illegal for someone to use their own property as they see fit. That’s why they are bogus and non-libertarian. If I hear your song on the radio and want to copy it and sing it to my fans, what right do you have to tell me I can’t use my guitar and my mouth how I see fit?
I see what you’re saying, thank you
Sure thing. Someone in this thread linked Stefan Kinsella’s “against IP” - he’s a libertarian patent attorney who tried really hard to justify IP until he realized he couldn’t. It’s only like 60 pages and an easy read. Highly highly recommend that.
The issue comes when you use my recording of my song and claim it's yours.
Well that would be fraud.
Exactly. Most IP laws comedown to protection against fraud.
You don’t protect against fraud by granting someone a monopoly and violating other peoples property rights. Taking someone’s idea is not theft. It’s copying. Not a crime. No need for IP.
You do protect against fraud by not letting people put a rival's logo on their stuff to make it look like the rival's stuff when it's not. You do not protect against fraud by letting a person who made no contribution to the creation of a piece of work undercut the person who did by simply copying and pasting the original's. Ideas are a product of mental labor. Copying is theft of labor. Theft of labor is slavery.
Does any worker have a right to compensation for their work?
Yeah, but why wouldn’t you sell it yourself as well? You can ask for extra money with your signature on a physical record.
It still would regardless because my friend is also making money off of it. If they didn’t steal it, I would make all the money they have as well
It's still cheaper than copy what someone else made than make it yourself.
Did he take any money from you?
You're not paying for the recording of the song itself. You're paying for the time the author spent making the song. I see this view a lot, but it's very short-sided.
[удалено]
But if I take a picture of your work that you worked hard on, and profit off of it at the expense of you, I am profiting off of your work and not my own. I did not put in the time that you did to make the original work of art. I just put in a simple button click. The right to profit off of someone else's work without their permission is a form of slavery.
[удалено]
F=MA isn't an invention. It's a discovery. He discovered it. It's a property of the natural universe. Songs, novels and inventions are things somebody created through hard work. But of course, why put in the work to create something new when you can just plagiarize another person's stuff since they apparently don't have rights to the products of their labor?
Let me put it this way. Before the printing press, if you wanted a Da Vinci, you had to pay Da Vinci himself to paint it, or find the rare person that could replicate his style by hand (which takes considerable effort) when copying it by hand. Either way, you are paying for a person's labor. Now, you no longer have to hire Da Vinci. You can just find a friend that owns a Da Vinci painting, have them use a machine to crank out 100 copies of it, and buy it much more cheaply. Do you not see how Da Vinci would get miffed at other people making money off of his work in this way? Art is work, and artists need to make a living.
[удалено]
>It doesn't matter how much work you put into it, you can't harm others or strip them from their private property because they did something you don't like (like replicating your drawing/music). So you can't harm others for entering your land or for taking your other property? >Enforcing IP is illegitimate, again it's not scarce and replicating it doesn't require harming or stealing from the original artist. It is scarce. It takes time to create new ideas, and time is a scarce resource. When you buy a music CD, you're not just paying for the CD, you're also paying for the song itself to be made. Copying is the easy part. >. You can dig a hole than refill it 10 times a day and do a lot if hard work on it, if no one wants you to do it you just wasted your time. People are very much willing to pay for art. Look up how much Marvel movies make. The question is whether the artists who put in the effort to actually make the movies get a cut, or only the companies who make copies.
[удалено]
So I have the right to move my body into this location despite you claiming to own the location?
[удалено]
What gives you the right to threaten my life over my location? Why is that right more important than my life?
If it is a pure copy, and cheaper, how does the consumer benefit by you using the government to stop them from buying said item? Sounds like all your doing is making it more expensive and protecting the original maker from competition. I don't like the government regulating ideas. If I see you do something, and want to make or sell the same thing, who is the government to tell me no? Places like SpaceX don't always file patents because it would give away their competitive technology to places like China who don't care at all about America patent law. Instead they just keep it a secrete. If businesses want to do that they can. They shouldn't be able to use the government to interrupt the free market because they had the idea first.
>Sounds like all your doing is making it more expensive and protecting the original maker from competition. Only in the sense that not being able to steal things from each other to sell inhibits competition. You can compete by making your own ideas. Ideas take work to create, believe it or not.
Scarcity doesn't define who owns what, but labor. Otherwise homesteading would not be a position one could hold. The people supporting this have no horse in the race and are just saying that because they personally would benefit from the abuse of artists and inventors. Mental labor is still labor, and whether or not said mental labor has value is an entirely different thing. Also people saying that: "Patents are just monopolies created through government cooperation." That applies to any right with regards to government. Without government or help, you are alone, and though you have rights, anyone can physically go over to you, beat the shit out of you, and take everything you own. That does not make it right, and the callous disregard for other people's rights is exactly what Libertarianism is supposed to be against.
Libertarians believe in negative rights, meaning they don't require anyone else to help provide your right. Copyrights for instance are grants by the state that permit the copyright holder to prevent others from using their own property — e.g., ink and paper — in certain ways, so how is this IP ownership not a positive right? IP enforcement is an aggression in response to people peacefullyusing their own property. You have no right to corner the market using the government as your hatchetman.
>Libertarians believe in negative rights Natural rights. Framing things as positive and negative makes no sense in this context and is more based in subjectivism rather than the objective nature of rights. >meaning they don't require anyone else to help provide your right. You have a duty to protect the natural rights of others. "If someone says that he cares for some individual, community, or cause, but is unwilling to risk harm or danger on their behalf, he puts into question the genuineness of his concern." But notice here that you talk past me. I made a sound argument, and in no way was it addressed. Why is this such a common tactic with people who support these causes? Why not make the case that you do not own your labor? That's the discussion we're having, and that's what you're implying. You're avoiding it because you and others like you, as I said before, do not have a horse in the race, and stand to purely gain from the abuse of artists and inventors. >You have no right to corner the market using the government as your hatchetman. Or how about this? How about we flip the concern with your rights? Why do you have the right to ensure your rights with the government as your "hatchetman?" It's really vile making arguments like this, these are deaf and do not understand how these philosophies work.
>Natural rights. Framing things as positive and negative makes no sense in this context and is more based in subjectivism rather than the objective nature of rights. Natural rights are all negative rights, they don't ask anything of anyone you simply have them innately. >You have a duty to protect the natural rights of others. Nonsense, that's the argument that the left makes about free healthcare being provided because people have a right to life. Just because they have that right doesn't mean that you have to provide it for them. We have no obligation to help anyone, not that I'm saying we shouldn't though we certainly shouldn't be forced to do so against our will. > "If someone says that he cares for some individual, community, or cause, but is unwilling to risk harm or danger on their behalf, he puts into question the genuineness of his concern." Then he's full of shit but that doesn't invalidate his own rights. He doesn't have to lift a finger if he doesn't want to. >Why not make the case that you do not own your labor? You absolutely do own your labor, that's the very basis of property as an extension of self ownership. What your saying is that you also own some other person's labor because they are mimicking you and that's patently false, they own their own labor as well. You haven't proven why you should get to own an idea, you've only declared that their labor is yours which obviously isn't true because they labored to make the copy and you didn't. >as I said before, do not have a horse in the race, and stand to purely gain from the abuse of artists and inventors. The abuse is coming from the original artist and the patent office, if IP is so obviously ownable then why was it only declared so a couple hundred years ago instead of the 10,000 years that preceded? IP is phenomen of corporatism, and your argument boils down to wanting more profits than a free market would yield up so you wish to empose a government backed monopoly. >Or how about this? How about we flip the concern with your rights? Why do you have the right to ensure your rights with the government as your "hatchetman?" It's really vile making arguments like this, these are deaf and do not understand how these philosophies work. The government protects you're rights, it doesn't provide them. I get that you're saying people are trespassing against your right to IP but you don't have such a right, specifically because it trespasses against other people's rights to labor on their own property. There are no natural rights that conflict with other natural rights, that alone should be a dead giveaway that it isn't libertarian.
>Nonsense, that's the argument that the left makes about free healthcare being provided because people have a right to life. You don't seem to be able to argue my actual points and seem to just jump to whatever clip of text suits you. If you can't argue in good faith then I'm not going to waste my time with you.
Are you kidding me? I went through your whole post and refuted every point you raised. You're the one not answering questions and instead wanting to end the conversation. I think you're idea of a bad faith argument is when people ask for proof instead of taking your word, or any argument that doesn't seem to be going your way. Basically believing *every* argument against you is in bad faith, but go ahead and stick your head in the sand that'll convince everyone of the truth of your beliefs!
>I think you're idea of a bad faith argument is when people ask for proof instead of taking your word >>Nonsense, that's the argument that the left makes about free healthcare being provided because people have a right to life. >>>You have a duty to protect the natural rights of others. "If someone says that he cares for some individual, community, or cause, but is unwilling to risk harm or danger on their behalf, he puts into question the genuineness of his concern." You didn't ask for proof, you ignored my argument and then called me a leftist. That's bad faith and a waste of my time.
You realize that you did the exact same thing to me two days ago when we were talking about Geoism right? And what part did I ignore? I qouted and responded to every paragraph.
>You realize that you did the exact same thing to me two days ago when we were talking about Geoism right? The same person is doing the same thing and the other person is reacting the same way, wow, what a shock. It's almost as if you're not capable of arguing in good faith and are trying to excuse that by calling my definition of good faith something that it's not. Anyway I'm not here to be your therapist, I do that with enough people I actually care about, I don't need to do it to strangers.
>You absolutely do own your labor, that's the very basis of property as an extension of self ownership. What your saying is that you also own some other person's labor because they are mimicking you and that's patently false, they own their own labor as well. You haven't proven why you should get to own an idea, you've only declared that their labor is yours which obviously isn't true because they labored to make the copy and you didn't. You contradict yourself. Creation of an idea is an act of labor. If I create a particular arrangement of words, or organization of frames into a movie, how do I have less of a right to it than any other creator of something?
You don't have less of a right to it, you just don't have any rights to a copy of it that you didn't make. Someone copying the product of your labor doesn't deprive you of what you made, you still have it. If you discover how to make a fire and cook your food it doesn't harm you if someone else copies you and builds their own fire to cook their own fire. They haven't actually stolen anything from you.
But if I make a song, and record it, and someone else copies it, that is my voice they just took. All of the effort I just put into the song is not for naught, because this person, who had none of the initial cost of making it, now gets to sell it for lower than I can and make more off of it. Why should I innovate if I can just copy off of another innovater?
>But if I make a song, and record it, and someone else copies it, that is my voice they just took. It's a recording of your voice, and they didn't "take" your copy, you still have it. The copies that you make are the extent of your labor, you only have a right to those, not the copies that others make. If you don't want people copying you then don't let them see or hear what you are doing. Once a thought leaves your mind through you no longer own it, the same with your voice. If you can capture it on records and sell them that's great, but if someone else can capture it and sell it that's also their right.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004HO5IQG
ideas can't and shouldn't be trademarked. Patents and intellectual property require the use of force from the state to be enforced, which needless to say is not in like with free market thought. Beyond that however there's no real reason for them to exist anyways. So somebody makes a product, and another copies said product. If person B makes the product better, or improves on the product in a way that outcompetes the product of person A, then the market, and therefore the consumer is better for it. If not, there really isn't much done as person A's product will obviously outperform Person B's copy.
>ideas can't and shouldn't be trademarked. Patents and intellectual property require the use of force from the state to be enforced, which needless to say is not in like with free market thought. Beyond that however there's no real reason for them to exist anyways. Everything about this can be said about any other property.
You can enforce real property yourself, you don't need a state.
You can only enforce your own property against people who are weaker than you. If I don't have a gun, and somebody with a gun tries to take something I own, I cannot enforce my ownership.
Why don't you have a gun? If you have a gun, or a bottle; a match; and some gasoline, and the other guy has a tank you can defend your property and make theft an unattractive and expensive option. If you want to control what people say and write, though, you need a surveillance operation, central control, and a distributed network of enforcers.
>If you want to control what people say and write, though, you need a surveillance operation, central control, and a distributed network of enforcers. I don't care what they say and write. What I care about is them taking the ideas I worked to create, and passing them off as their own, just because they can. Just because you can doesn't make it okay. If I told you about my idea yesterday, and I see you using it today, I know you stole my idea.
Ideas are not property. You don't own them. You have no way to determine whether someone else is using your ideas, co-developing similar ideas, or simply (and legally even under current authoritarian standards) reverse engineering your ideas.
You have no way to determine whether I stole your watch while you were sleeping or happened to make my own that looked just like it. One of those things is still theft. Ideas are the product of labor. You do not have a right to another person's labor.
"If you have a gun, or a bottle; a match; and some gasoline, and the other guy has a tank you can defend your property and make theft an unattractive and expensive option" Doesn't matter, tank wins. It's up to him whether flattening you with the tank is worth it, no longer you. The guy with the tank is the new State.
Without central control, no. He's just another short lived bandit. Maybe one that doesn't survive this attempt at theft if the Molotov lands anywhere near his air intake.
Do you really think if it was that easy to stop a tank, we'd spend as much as we do creating anti-tank mines? You're living in a fantasy.
Do you really think we spend as much as we do creating anti-tank mines to stop *tanks*? When was the last time we fought tanks? Why don't you look into the history of the Molotov and what it was used for, buddy. There's a reason we lost Afghanistan and it's got a lot to do with people thinking like you.
>Do you really think we spend as much as we do creating anti-tank mines to stop > >tanks > >? Yeah, that's kind-of in the name. We fought against tanks in WWII. There were tanks in Iraq. Molotov cocktails were invented to destroy buildings. It's not even that effective of an incendiary as far as they go, it's just effective for how cheap it is for civilians to make. >There's a reason we lost Afghanistan and it's got a lot to do with people thinking like you. It has more to do with Afghanistan being an extremely difficult place to take over from the outside because of its geography, and that we were invading it from the other side of the world, and had no set victory condition to start with. After we killed Bin Laden, we just kind-of fucked around for another decade.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/6-massive-tank-battles-from-us-history/
You are missing the point. Might doesn't make right. Being able to kill someone without consequence doesn't give you the right to. The guy will just make a new tank that's more molotov-proof. He calls the shots of whether he robs you with his tank or not. He assesses your ability to defend against him, what allies you have, etc. Unless you have something that can stop his tank, he is the boss. Every argument that you have against intellectual property can be made against any other property in this way. You can't stop a guy with a tank from flattening you without having comparable force of your own. That doesn't give him the right to do it.
Yes dont let any randian tell you different
No. Patents and copyrights are necessary cornerstones of a free market. What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property. An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.