Eiuol

I find it rather meaningless to talk about a case for anarchy then. Are you arguing that you should be allowed to go and start an institution? I mean, you could even go into the Amazon jungle, but no one has advocated hunting down people who don't want a government, so I don't know what you're getting at. All Rand really argued is that government is necessary - calling it a defense agency won't change that in fact all you're talking about are governments anyway. As I've read so far, you didn't mention any procedures governments wouldn't do. You have the right to form a code of laws of your own, but the only question for a government is if the supposed laws pose a threat to its citizen's existence. Multiple defense agencies? Basically NATO is that. A fundamentalist Muslim defense agency? That's Iran. Unless you want to say these hypotheticals share jurisdiction?

Not any more than two government's working together if that's the case. And if the other side objects, it may start a war. I don't see how this is any different than all human disagreements on a deep level, in particular about rights. As long as taxation isn't enacted by force, and as long as the monopoly on force is in a well-defined area, that would be a government. Since this is on a forum pertaining to Objectivism, that's all Rand said about a proper government. Aside from "proper government", all governments are a type of protection institution in a specific area. Except that happens to be what is probably the best kind. That's why it gets a special term. Anarchy is a bad term to use because in this case, there is a well-defined legal institution that does not overlap. If an institution said you could use force in addition to self-defense, I'd view that as horrible and get as far away from that as possible. Still, any rights violations ought to be pursued regardless of who violated the right. But if someone doesn't initiate force against me, and I'm a citizen of the government, I really have no reason to care about what you do.

Either way, assuming your premise is not even valid reasoning. That's what I had a problem with. It wasn't even the conclusion that mattered if the logical form is invalid. I can prove that IP is property. You weren't convinced by what I argued. Oh well. All I criticized now was the invalid reasoning - not even the content.

The context is about property. If I want to invalidate IP, first I must find arguments that cannot apply to property as a whole but apply to IP. Once you find this difference, you can then show how IP leads to consequences that don't apply to tangible property. If the arguments apply to IP and tangible property, then the consequences of IP are the same consequences of tangible property. Well yeah, I'm answering your question first. If you understand my position, I can then proceed to my argument. My explanation was a statement about my position since you told me that my position was vague. Right, it was the premise I was using. It's the premise Howard also used.

Right, as in "I can do what I want with my property as long as it doesn't violate yours". To answer that, you need to determine what is property. If you take as a premise that IP is not really property, well, then of course IP violates property rights. But that's the premise you set out to prove.

If I'm incoherent, I'm sorry, this is how I speak to everyone. I was hoping you'd reply to my clarifications - this is as concise as I know how to be in this discussion. I thought we were getting somewhere when you told me what didn't make sense. Did my clarifications not help? My answer to Howard was "yes" and "sometimes". I didn't use those words exactly. "But if" would usually mean a yes to a first question, and not a yes/no answer to a second question. That's why I said "loaded", I wasn't able to answer as requested. It feels like you're upset that I didn't say yes or no when my answer is yes and no. That's how I read this. I answered your recent questions, now you're attacking my intellectual integrity. Which counter-arguments did I ignore? If I missed one, please point it out. I didn't make assumptions about intent, I said I suspected something because of the hostility from Howard.

There you go, that's a government as far as I'm concerned. It has all the essentials of what a government is. Nothing about a government must imply seeking out and forcibly stopping you from making an institution that doesn't do that. I think it's irrational to have any other rights protector, but if you feel safer doing your own thing, go ahead. No where have I seen Rand say or imply the government will hunt down and imprison anarchists, only that an anarchist should not expect his or her rights to be protected. The monopoly on force is for its own jurisdiction, and if you are not part of the government (say if you seceded), then you are not at all in its jurisdiction. If you come into the jurisdiction, burglarize a house, then the government would seek you out to arrest you regardless of if you consented to its rules.

Right, that's why there's an "if". The argument, the implication of Howard's question, is to show me how IP violates property rights. It doesn't show that IP isn't property. It can't even show that land is property. The structure of my argument is valid, but the "if" points out where a proof of some sort is needed, namely, what really is property. I basically answered "it depends" with a hypothetical and example of why it's a loaded question. You cannot have IP as valid unless it is possible to implement in reality - I can't implement scientific theories in a tangible way, or even use it as a specific creative method. So what I mean by "about implementation" is that it applies to the ability to create. This is not a "mere idea" because it involves ideas AND your ability to make the idea real - both are required. In our context, "about" means what IP refers to - what the subject of IP properly involves. From this we can distinguish between the particular method (IP is this) and the particular product (tangible property is this). Tangible property is not our main concern here, but it is neither supercedes nor is superceded by IP. Literally speaking, IP isn't about ideas, it's about creating methods or particular expression as in the contents of a story. Your post is reasonable to me, at least when you are asking me questions regarding what I mean. I was doing the same, but sometimes being Socratic is not well received. Just ask questions and I'll answer - if I'm vague, ask more.

But if implementation involves the property of others, say, using my land so you can build an observatory, that wouldn't be okay. I'd be allowed to forcibly remove you or prevent you from using your property in this way. You have to prove first that IP is not property before using your argument, otherwise you are begging the question of what is not property. You can use your property so long as you don't violate the property of others.

Your post didn't specify at all the kind of property. The argument you provided aims to prove that IP is bad, but invoked an argument someone would use to show why all property is bad. A book is property and allows you to have all the same things you argue is bad about IP. If your argument is that ideas aren't material, well, for the 4th time, IP is properly about the implementation of ideas, not mere ideas. Unrequested benefit? The point is that property is about deserving, and you said it isn't. No one said that they own your improvements, at best the only claim is that you can't go using the property of others without permission... You are trying to prove that IP is not property by assuming IP is not property, i.e. treating implementation of ideas as property is bad for your life. At this point I'm only repeating myself, and I suspect malice or insincerity at this point, as a crusader against IP-supporters who must be stopped at all costs.

First point: A private institution can subvert the law too. They can pass it off as "updating" the law, as a government may do. Second point: What if a government isn't allowed to expropriate wealth? Suppose a private institution passes a law says "only we can wield force, save for self-defense". This institution does not permit you to hold protection plans from multiple agencies at once for reasons of efficiency (their very ability to protect you). If you don't like it, that's fine, you just won't receive protection anymore. You can stay right where you are. Is this improper or a subversion of your rights?

Yeah, which is Rand's premise for all property... At least on this forum, you have a lot to say before rejecting that hard work is sufficient for someone to deserve ownership. "Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort." “The Property Status of the Airwaves,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 122 "Ethically you can not decide what something is worth to me and then demand that I pay you according to YOUR evaluations." Well, it's more like demanding you pay the worth something is to me, and you pay according to my evaluation. That's all trade. This sounds like you are saying that: "Ethically, you cannot decide a book is worth $10 to me and then demand that I pay according to YOUR evaluation of $10" entailing that you, Howard, should be allowed to pay $5 if you only think it's worth $5. But pricing at $10 doesn't mean I'm deciding the value for you... IF it is worth $10 to you, THEN you should buy it; if not, then don't buy it. But I still won't sell for less than $10. "Marx's labor theory of value" LTV is about labor exclusively, where the mind is irrelevant. The problem isn't "deserving", it's mindlessness.

1: Banana peeling is too broad to patent, much like Diddy declaring he owns all of DK Island is too broad. 2: Even 1 is not true, Diddy might allow everyone to banana peel on very generous terms, perhaps with one limit of not training monkeys in banana peeling off of DK Island. If you're just asking why "first come, first serve" is proper, it's because it is a sensible way to validate who in fact came up with a method/idea. Even without an IP position, I'd say whoever peeled the first banana came up with banana-peeling. While Dixie and Diddy may have came up with the idea at the same time, you can't prove that. Most of the time, people don't come up with ideas at the same time or ever, unless the creator explains how. Simultaneous creation is not common.

??? Being convinced or not doesn't mean "there never was a logically sound argument". You didn't even follow through with my posts. Ideas are not "objects", it's about implementation of ideas. I've said this 3 times. Last time I talked about this, the person left in a huff and all angry. It is contentious as a topic. But there's no need to get upset at saying anti-IP belief is a sort of intellectual communism. That isn't ad-hominem about *you*, it's what anti-IP entails. If you want to argue with that, bear with what seems to be a mystic's argument. I feel that way too arguing against anti-IP. But I don't get anywhere if I don't try to ask more questions to reveal things, premises we both hold. It is not a death match here in the forum aiming at complete convincing right away.

So how does a state with third MOST number of hispanics for proportion of population, Texas, manage to let a Republican become governor if non-criminal (i.e. people who don't steal, trespass, kill, etc) immigrants are such a threat? There's a lot of implicit racism on your end - it would probably be better to do a survey that asks questions that it would imply supporting statism if answered a certain way. Until then, there is just rampant speculation, and if you insist on rampant speculation, your arguments are either meaningless, or racist. Neither is a good option.

You can't give back the period of time you took tangible property. Wanted to dig a hole yesterday with your shovel? That time of use has been wholly denied. Or... what if I took the shovel when you were asleep then returned it... wait, how can I be taking what you couldn't use or create value from? Augh capitalists, without my manual labor, they can't operate machinery, how is it theirs? Oh, I think I've become confused. I meant to say that without my manual labor, this 3D-printed machine wouldn't exist, how is it theirs? Sorry, the arguments are almost identical. (Lots of sarcasm, yes, it is not intended to be personal to you or insult you, I just like humor sometimes to make a point)

This what being Socratic entails: I know nothing. I may ask you to state the obvious frequently The purpose is to draw out what your argument is so the discussion provides us with more. If you're concerned about electrons, then this is getting weird fast. You are saying, I gather, that property in some sense must interface with reality. Okay. (So does IP, one reason scientific discoveries are not validly IP). But why should I care if the electrons respond to me and my actions (i.e. why is it bad)? If I called you on the phone without permission, that alters electrons. I am using the phone. This, too, is therefore bad. Spell it out for me - what is wrong about hacking in my example? Summation: The electrons moved!

You don't "have" total control - the relevant point. Sending data? Data isn't material. How can that cause a property violation, then? By the way, hacking does not necessarily change your computer's physical structure. Right, but you were arguing before on the premise that one reason you don't accept IP because IP never involves material loss...

Don't want your car taken? Just hide it. The pro-property position intentionally ignores this choice. Many businesses provide means to use their services but keep the materials in a location where no one can take them.

That doesn't say how, specifically, hacking is a violation of property rights. Earlier, you were saying some sort of loss of material value is how to violate property rights, so if IP does not suffer a material loss and actually can't, it is invalid. Now you seem to be agreeing that loss of total control is a violation of property, not material loss - IP can suffer that kind of loss, which means it might be valid. These ideas are contradictions. So in that case, be more specific about how a violation of property rights occurs by hacking. By hacking, I would be subverting control of intellectual property, in this case the document and use of my computer in purely intellectual terms (hacking doesn't do anyTHING to the computer). But I don't think you agree with that.

How so, specifically? How would I be violating your property rights? That's what I want to know! You've established that if hacking violates property rights, then the document copying is a consequence of a violation. You have not established that hacking is in fact a violation of property rights. My position is that hacking is wrong because it necessarily violates IP, and is only a form of property violation.

Howard probably means that you can't reach into someone's head and take the idea for yourself. I have an idea that IP is legitimate, and it's my idea, and you as well. In either case, our ideas are our own, but that isn't the same sense of "own" as in owning a story, land, a table, etc. In fact, I go further and say concepts and your body are not owned at all, you can only own things as a means to interact with reality. You may have a concept of table, but merely having the concept doesn't enable you to do anything until you devise a method of making or using tables. Howard's point is not too relevant - IP is about the real implementation of ideas, not ideas as such. It only makes sense to own implementations since ideas can't really do anything until implementation; implementation is needed to actually benefit your life. As far as I've seen, anti-IP arguments often are at least implicitly based on self-ownership, if not explicitly. I think self-ownership is a stolen concept fallacy.

I was unclear. I'm claiming the bike example is a rights violation. I wrote it to illustrate an example of theft that involves no loss as you defined. I think that hacking in my example is a rights violation too. I'm writing the hacking example as perhaps an exaggeration of your view that I think is logically entailed by what you've said so far. All I'm asking is what the loss (in your mind) is in hacking then copying.

Why must I ask for consent? What's the violation if there is no direct harm or damage?

Well actually it wouldn't involve doing anything other than communicating with your computer. You don't lose anything, at least not in terms of damage or loss of money. So I would "use" your computer, but it does not harm you or stop you from using your computer. Your argument involves saying IP involves no loss. So, I am providing a case where you'd probably say loss is not involved if I went by your previous statements regarding loss. My scenario is realistic - hacking only involves abusing what a computer explicitly allows, often with no side-effects on the computer if the hacker is good.