Mnrchst

What does "the product of your mind" mean in this context? This is something I've asked several times, and all anyone has done is just refer me to some page that doesn't explain it in moral terms. What counts as the product of your mind, in this context? What doesn't? Why? Why can't I copyright "Fo shizzle dizzle"? I pointed out that "The mother has to feed herself and drink water for 9 months for the fetus to survive. That takes effort. That's how she's there every step of the way." Please read over this thread.

That's fine. It's just that if people keep trying to poke holes in my case, all that convinces me of is that my case is false, but not that my position is false. If people want me to reverse my position on this issue, I need a counter-standard that is specific.

Already been answered on the first page, but thanks.

Okay, so "if you can conceive a kid, then..."

I agree with you and I've already covered this point. No one has the right to read your mind without your permission. What do you mean when you say copy? Someone else could come up with the same idea, so you won't be the only person who controls it any more. You have the right to not tell anyone your idea if you choose not to.

The mother has to feed herself and drink water for 9 months for the fetus to survive. That takes effort. That's how she's there every step of the way.

So what if I push a button that makes a car in a factory I own? I'm not making the car every step of the way, am I?

Excerpts from “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" by Leonard Peikoff: An analytic proposition is defined as one which can be validated merely by an analysis of the meaning of its constituent concepts. The critical question is: What is included in “the meaning of a concept”? Does a concept mean the existents which it subsumes, including all their characteristics? Or does it mean only certain aspects of these existents, designating some of their characteristics but excluding others? The latter viewpoint is fundamental to every version of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. The advocates of this dichotomy divide the characteristics of the existents subsumed under a concept into two groups: those which are included in the meaning of the concept, and those—the great majority—which, they claim, are excluded from its meaning. The dichotomy among propositions follows directly. If a proposition links the “included” characteristics with the concept, it can be validated merely by an “analysis” of the concept; if it links the “excluded” characteristics with the concept, it represents an act of “synthesis.” The Objectivist theory of concepts undercuts the theory of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy at its root. Since a concept is an integration of units, it has no content or meaning apart from its units. The meaning of a concept consists of the units—the existents—which it integrates, including all the characteristics of these units. Observe that concepts mean existents, not arbitrarily selected portions of existents. There is no basis whatever—neither metaphysical nor epistemological, neither in the nature of reality nor of a conceptual consciousness—for a division of the characteristics of a concept’s units into two groups, one of which is excluded from the concept’s meaning.

Yes, children don't present a "problem for IP". My entire point is just that the argument "You make it so you own it" is incomplete.

Post #150 was by Greebo. If you mean post #148, you say "people don't MAKE kids, they are only involved in one step of the whole automatic biological process. It's not like you grab parts and BUILD a kid." That's ridiculous. People choose to conceive a kid, which makes the formation of the kid possible. Furthermore, the mother is also choosing not to have abortion, as well.

Read post #98. Keep in mind that at a certain point I say "On the utilitarian end" and that at that point I'm refuting the utilitarian case for patents+copyrights.

You said "it would not exist without my effort". Kids don't exist without your effort. The argument is incomplete. That was to argue that patents+copyrights aren’t necessarily good in a utilitarian sense. It was not an argument applying to the moral debate on the question. Obviously, the "but, someone else could've made it too" argument could apply to physical property as well. I’m saying that if people don’t have the right to an idea in and of itself, then no one should be able to sign a contract that says “I won’t reproduce the idea” because they have the right to do so. A person who sells a car has given up their right to the car, but they haven’t given up their right to own cars. All adults of sound mind have the right to own cars, and they can’t give up that right. Again, the essential issue is what is worthy of property, what’s isn’t, and why. I have a standard and I would like to hear another.

http://www.peikoff.com/2008/10/27/should-parents-be-obligated-to-provide-an-education-for-their-children/

No, I'm suggesting that people don't own there kids. I said that in response to you saying "If I am the first person to bring this new entity into existence...it would not exist without my effort, as surely as if I make an axe like every other axe." Parents bring their kids into existence. You see my point? That's true. How is it relevant to this debate? Again, people don't have the right to give up their rights. You were like "Interesting - so you're saying a person isn't free to choose to stop being free... that'd be a good side thread." in post #133 So, again, the issue is what people have a right to and what they don't have a right to. In post #141 I said "I meant without their consent."

How so? You mean my saying that if all ideas were copyrightable, that would suck? Well, Rand never clearly explained (to my knowledge, and certainly not in her essay on the subject) where we draw the line between ideas worthy of property and ideas not worthy of property. Where do you draw the line? I didn't say "we all agree that property is limited to non-human non-oxygen physical stuff" That's true. I should've reiterated my standard for what property should be and to be. If you want to know my standard for what property can and can't be, read my post where I explain it and respond to it. That's true. Which is why the argument "You own what you produce" is incomplete. That's true. I haven't disputed that, but I guess you're just covering the various aspects of the topic to be comprehensive about the rights of parents/kids.

Greebo, I think I understand what you're saying: You're saying that we can't copyright all ideas because there are ideas so old that we don't know who to attribute them to. That's a great point. What I meant when I said "all ideas" was "all new ideas". In other words, yes, there's no way to figure out who invented the wheel, and, yes, holding patents/copyrights in perpetuity would be terrible, but, among new ideas, where do we draw the line between what's worthy of copyright and what isn't?

It can't matter if we have patents/copyrights, yes. My point is that his/her argument "But if all ideas were property, it'd be impossible to tell who came up with what idea." is itself a pragmatic argument. Also, we could totally copyright every idea--it would work on a first come first serve basis.

Isn't that a pragmatic argument? You could just as easily say "How can we know that the person who filed the patent first really came up with the invention first? If someone comes into the patent office the following day, how can we prove they didn't come up with the invention the day before the first patent filer did?"

I never said anyone was. I'm pointing out that y'all need to explain where we draw the line. In other words, if someone makes the argument "If I make an idea, then [argument], and that makes it my property" that the argument is incomplete.

Then why do you (I assume) oppose copyrighting all ideas? I oppose making any idea property. Therefore, my opposition to making every idea property is moral, not utilitarian. If you support some ideas being property and oppose others being property, then you need to explain (in moral terms) how we tell the difference.

Again, the argument "I made it, therefore it's mine" is incomplete. You're assuming that if someone invents something, no one else would've ever invented it if you hadn't told anyone about it. Which is when it really comes back to, "What counts as property? What doesn't? Why?"

I meant without their consent. No, as long as I agree that it's property. Again, the issue is what is and isn't property. You need to provide a counter-standard for what counts as property and what doesn't. And you didn't respond to my belief that people can't choose to be free (if slavery is illegal, how can it be legal to voluntarily become a slave?). My point was that you can't sign a contract that says "I declare I have property rights to something which the government says I have no right to declare my property" and expect the government to uphold it. What counts as property? What doesn't? Why?

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

My bad. I tried to correct it right after I wrote them, but they don't let me delete posts (as far as I can tell). You mean patents/copyrights? Yes, they're possessable--they're property according to the law. Are ideas possessable? Not by themselves. Therefore, you possess matter which contains an idea, you don't literally possess the idea. Again, are we talking about patents/copyrights? Because then you're controlling another person's property even though they aren't tangibly harming anyone or increasing a risk of harm to them. Someone can say "But songs = property," but they have to have an argument for that. I have an argument for why only physical property counts. If you disagree with it, you have to offer a counter-standard. My point is that a requisite of property is that it's only one person's, so they have to possess it. No, I said (in my long post) that we shouldn't control a person's property unless they're harming/increasing the risk of harm to another's person's physical property or their body. This doesn't happen when you download a song. Therefore, if we have patents/copyrights, we control another person's property when they don't harm anyone else. In other words, if we all agree that non-human non-oxygen physical stuff = property, then you have to have a counter-standard for what is and isn't property to justify controlling certain property in certain circumstances. Ah, gotcha. Although, this would mean people are "IP" as well, as they are created by a person's thoughts.

I already did in post #98. http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=21985&st=80&p=277151&#entry277151