Nicky

All rights are derived from the right to life, and all rights violations are a threat to life (by being a threat to the means by which men sustain their lives).

Somewhat unrelated: this same principle (of identifying the source of some object's value to determine who owns it) is applied when determining to whom a piece of land belongs. That is why land can in fact be owned: because its value comes not from "nature" or the dead dinosaurs buried under it, but from the man who discovered a use for that piece of land or for that oil under it.

Ayn Rand answers that so perfectly that it would be a shame to add anything: 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...(Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal) And you should always acknowledge that fact, and never claim that everything you know is solely the product of your own efforts. That's the whole point of patents: you don't have to take the time to do that, there's a system in place. The reason for that system, I believe, is fully given in the above Rand quote.

If you lend your neighbor some money, do you become responsible for what he does with it? Limited liability is not some novel, extraordinary idea. It's merely the recognition of the fact that "No, you don't". As a law, it has only one purpose: to assure that investors will not fall victims to injustice (and to reassure them of that fact).

Yes, the attributes God supposedly has contradict themselves and reality over and over again. And that in turn directly contradicts the Law of Identity. It's because of the Law of Identity that we know that there are no contradictions. For instance, like Epicuros pointed out around 300BC, an omnipotent and benevolent God wouldn't allow evil to exist. Then there is the question of whether an omnipotent being can create a rock he himself cannot lift. And so on and so forth. The deeper you go into any religion, the longer the list of contradictions grows. There's the Trinity of God, the "thou shalt not kill!" commandment coupled with the numerous instances of God ordering people to be killed, etc. I'm sure people are going to give you many more of these in the thread.

I don't think they ever existed. I challenge you to produce them. In regard to your claim that you don't have time: I can produce the text of any existing American law for you in under 5 minutes. They're not a secret. If you have time to read several books on a subject, you really should set five minutes aside to find out if they're telling the truth or not. It's not a law, it's a bill. And it doesn't look like it's gonna pass anytime soon. Reps Leahy and Price (Democrats) tried the same gag before the 2008 elections. It died because they were aiming to curb US intelligence efforts (the hot topic at the time, before Obama got into office and the need for reigning in the CIA magically disappeared). My guess is it will die again (even though they specifically made sure that this time it won't apply to intelligence workers), because there is no credible evidence that US justice lacks the authority to prosecute its civilian contractors. This is just another politically motivated effort that would create another cluster of federal agencies, to add to the inefficiency and waste of the hundreds that are already in place. I really doubt that's what's going to make federal law enforcement more competent in apprehending criminals. That lack of competence in the ranks of existing agencies is the only problem here, if there is a problem, btw. Although it's unclear that there even is a significant problem. I know of only one instance when a judge threw out a case over its handling by the investigators (a case against some Blackwater employees in Iraq).

No, I can't think of any patentable designs that would fit my criteria "forever" or for "hundreds (meaning over 200) years". You should name one that you think could last that long. Maybe I didn't think of it, or you misunderstood my criteria in some way. Either way, an example would clear it up. By noting that the invention is not being put to use by the buyer. I don't think that's vague at all. If Apple stopped selling iPhones for instance, that would be pretty obvious. I must be. I had no idea ideas exist outside someone's head. But then again, maybe I do have that idea, somewhere outside my head. Where should I look first?

Your property are those material values which you have a right to gain, keep and use. Not "whatever you can sell somebody for a price". Therefor stating that you can sell something immaterial to someone for a price doesn't prove that it's property. It just proves that you and that other person both considered it property. Besides, you didn't sell "goodwill". You sold your business. What you call "goodwill" is part of the reason why the other person bought your business. It's not the object the other person bought. I can sell a house for more money because it has a nice view, or because the President likes to have coffee there. Doesn't mean I just sold the view, or the President's coffee drinking habits. Your goodwill, the view, and the President's habits are all mostly outside your control, and the people who do have control over them (the people who's opinions you count as goodwill, the owners of the land around your house, the President) can change them whenever they feel like it, for any reason they feel like it. Just because you quantified the likelihood of these people not changing things around in a way that affects you, doesn't mean you own their minds or property. If you had advertised "I'm selling the goodwill of my business", for 40% of what my business is worth, you would've gotten exactly zero replies, because people would've recognized that you're not actually giving them anything in this transaction.

Where are you getting this second part, about irrational numbers not corresponding to anything that exists? Or about Lambert proving that π does not correspond to anything that exists?

Well yes, assuming someone could be more productive than they are at the drop of a hat, by not being more productive they are doing a disservice to themselves and others. This applies to everyone, not just volunteers. And it's a big assumption to make, for everyone, but especially in this case. If someone is being unproductive and not making any money, it's usually safe to assume this is not happening out of the goodness of their heart, but rather out of impotence. Most people, if they could just snap their fingers and be productive for heaps of cash, they would. It's very rare to see someone refusing to do something they are fully able to do. It's usually people who either have the potential for greatness, or think they have that potential, but are nowhere near achieving it and in fact well on their way to wasting it, who claim to be "choosing" a menial task instead.

Cool. Is this thing on at 8:30 in all timezones?

Yes, that would be an initiation of force on the part of the plaintiff and the government. All initiation of force is a violation of rights.

If civilian contractors can't be prosecuted, why are they being prosecuted (both by US civilian and military justice)? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3963828 http://www.usnews.com/news/iraq/articles/2008/04/05/first-contractor-charged-under-military-justice-system The supporters of that bill allege that those contractors aren't subject to American justice, but their evidence is weak, and often fabricated (like the case I cited two posts ago). In reality, those contractors are not immune. Again, what immunity was not waived? My position is that this alleged immunity doesn't exist. It wasn't waived, because you can't waive something that doesn't exist. What is your proof that these people are immune from prosecution by American justice? Is there a law? A Presidential order? Anything at all?

Why is that relevant? Does losing something automatically justify government action in your favor? The answer is no, it doesn't. Government action is only justified if the loss occurred due to the use of physical force. Any other loss, fair or unfair, moral or immoral, does not justify the use of force to repair. If someone harms you, without the use of force, you can retaliate, but only without the use of force. That means: without help from the government.

Yes. In a free society, a person has the right to take any action he pleases, except to violate another person's rights by initiating physical force against them.

This is by far the best thread on the subject. So I'm reviving it, hopefully it will bury the new ones.

Ideas and thoughts aren't property, but the obvious answer is that any thought or piece of knowledge belongs to the person who's mind it happens to reside in. So, instances of this general opinion you mention, belong to the individuals who hold said instances. For instance, my opinion of you belongs to me. It certainly isn't your property.

A patent (which refers to the right to use and sell physical instances of the design or invention) should be in effect until the owner had a chance to fully commercialize his invention. In other words, it should be in effect as long as there are people willing to buy it and use it for its intended purpose, and as long as he is willing to sell it to someone (not to everyone indiscriminately, but to at least someone - even if it is just one company, in an exclusive deal). It should expire once it is used for the opposite effect: to hamper development by denying it from everyone; or when it is no longer used at all as intended. Obviously, this clause shouldn't be abused (by picking someone to sell it to just to bury it - the courts can and should see through such a strategy). I am going to go ahead and preemptively answer the obvious question: Why can't someone deny his invention to everyone? Answer: they can, by never registering it with the patent office, or making it available. In other words, by keeping it a secret. They did. Most operating systems are copyrighted. Someone's ideas are not his property, once others find out about them through legitimate means (you can't torture someone for them, or break into their house to find them on his laptop, but if he tells them to you, they're "yours" -they're part of your consciousness- like I tried to explain in the libel thread, you don't have the right to control the contents of someone's mind). Property refers to material values, not ideas. In this case, the physical instances of a design or invention, or the physical copies of copyrighted material, are one's property. Ideas are a part of people's consciousness: they are communicated, not given or taken, and once they are communicated, they are no longer under your control. So you are more than welcome to figure out and memorize the design of the IPhone (without breaking the law of violating the TOS agreement of course), and Apple doesn't have the right to stop you. They can only stop you from implementing that design and using that implementation without their permission. Any such implementation is their physical property: they are the reason it exists, not you. You just built it off of their design. Similarly, I do not own the ideas contained in a book, once I fail to maintain their secrecy by relying on contracts (non disclosure agreements) and my property rights (keeping the book in my house, never publishing it). Once it's published, and you buy a copy, the ideas contained in it are just as much yours as they are mine. I can't get into your head and "own" them. What is still mine is the copyright, meaning that I'm the only one who is allowed to copy the book, and if you do so illegally, I own that copy and you're a thief by keeping it. Patents and copyright can be inherited. Ideas cannot, because ideas aren't property. This notion is also the basis of absolute and inalienable freedom of speech, btw.

You're alleging that the US government gives some individuals (you're not saying whom) immunity, and then asking whether we agree with this. My answer was "What immunity?". Post the law that supposedly grants this immunity, and I'll tell you if it's right or wrong. I'm 99.9% sure that this law doesn't exist, and these Americans are not immune from prosecution in the United States.

The problem is you refusing to define your term. A problem I'm willing to overlook, by forgetting you ever used a term you are unwilling to define, and just getting back to the original question, of "Do you consider your reputation your property?". No amount of research on the Internet is going to tell me what you mean by the word goodwill. Only you could. And you are refusing to. My original question, that you are refusing to answer was "Do you consider your reputation your property?". In trying to evade that question, you introduced a supposedly unknown to me concept called goodwill, to replace the word reputation with. I assumed I know what you mean by goodwill, so I asked you about that too. You refused to answer that question as well, and claimed that I must not know what goodwill is. I do, but you don't think I do, and you are refusing to define it. I said OK, fair enough, let's forget about that, get back to the original question then. Which is where we are now. Do you consider your reputation (other people's opinions of you) your property?

That doesn't really clarify much. Are you talking about people working for the US government, who are immune to prosecution from US agencies? Because, contrary to claims to that effect by some people, they are not. They are subject to both DOJ prosecution and US civil suits. In fact there is a famous case where Jamie Leigh Jones sued and lost a civil case over her alleged rape in Iraq, after her allegations were used by various interests to claim the US isn't investigating such crimes. I think the people in these stories are under a UN flag, not American or British. Of course American prosecutors can't investigate a crime that occurred in Bosnia, in the middle of a UN operation. Even if they tried (which they shouldn't, it's none of their business), the UN would refuse to cooperate with them. That doesn't mean these people have immunity from the US government. That's a preposterous thing to say.

It doesn't matter what good will is. I know what reputation is. It's other people's opinion of you or your business. I also know what yes and no mean. So, if you want to, you can at any time give me a straight answer to my original question to you: Do you consider your reputation (other people's opinions of you) your property? Yes or no?

Don't worry, you can still be hit crossing the street. And you probably won't be wearing pads at the time.

Just to clarify: Are you saying that American citizens are in possession of some kind of a permission slip to break the laws of the United States, that they received from the US government? That someone can go to Bosnia, violate an American law, and the American justice system can't prosecute him when he comes back?

I don't think anyone is forced to wear the hijab/burka in the government controlled areas of Afghanistan. That would be a bit much, even for Mr. Karzai and his newfound hatred of the West. Get paid by whom? And they got their immunity from whom? Blame those institutions, not Europe or the US. Europe and the US hold their own agents accountable for crimes committed everywhere.