Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mnrchst

  1. Why is a person using an idea I told them about voluntarily theft? Is it because my idea is my property? If so, why? If I put a song on a CD and leave it lying around unsupervised and someone takes it, that's stealing because the CD itself is my property. If I put a song online (which is what we're actually debating), I shouldn't be surprised if a musician plays it at a live concert (thereby making money off of it). And I can still play the song because my knowledge of it hasn't been taken from me. If I leave my wallet lying around and someone takes it, I no longer have my wallet.
  2. I agree. I've said that I believe an inventor has consented to people using their idea if they tell people about the idea because they do chose to do so voluntarily. You sure could. But you couldn't prevent them from using it without the barrel of a gun.
  3. A person who invents something and tells people about the idea is doing so voluntarily. I never said "I'm not sure if people are property or not." I said it makes no sense to say "A person's product = their property" because children are a product of their parents.
  4. How is the creator of an idea deprived of the value of the idea without patents and copyrights? Why do I not necessarily earn the use of an idea if the creator of the idea tells me about it?
  5. I agree. My point is they're the product of their parents, so it makes no sense to say "A person's product = their property."
  6. If the harm here is "benefiting financially", then every free business transaction where financial values are exchanged is bad because both sides benefit financially. I "violate the patent [i assume you mean copyright, since we're talking about a song] by using it without permission" eh? Um, duh. I'm arguing that copyrights are bad. Did I ever say that downloading a copyrighted song isn't a copyright violation? The question I have is does telling people about an idea you have constitute consent for them to use it? I think this is the case. If this isn't the case, why isn't it so? If
  7. "Grabbing" to me would mean reading someone's mind without their consent and then using their idea. If someone tells people about an idea and they use it, how are they "grabbing" it? I've already addressed this point. I didn't make that argument. So we're talking about a physical copy of a manuscript? Yes, obviously that's theft because the owner doesn't have the manuscript. If I use an idea you told me about, you haven't been deprived of your idea. I agree. If I read your mind without your consent and then use your idea, I've used your idea without your consent
  8. No, it means "use the idea." A copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to the creator of an original work or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for a public disclosure of the work. This includes the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. Copyright infringement is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works under copyright. A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to an inventor of an invention or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for a public disclosure of the invention. Patent infringement is the commission of
  9. That's true. Why does he deserve the guarantee? If it's because it's his property, why is it his property? If it's because it's a product of his mind, see my above comments. With respect to my statement "Why not say 'Just as we deserve to have a government, so too do we deserve to live in a society with taxes.' " here's what I mean: Some people say we need copyrights/patents to guarantee that someone who provides value (via screenplays and inventions) gets what they deserve. However, we also deserve a government. Government requires funding. Under Objectivism, there's no guarantee the go
  10. I agree, but the argument as stated is "songs and inventions are property because they are a direct product of the man who produced it." This needs to be refined into something like: "Property is [definition]. Songs and inventions are property because [argument] and children aren't because everyone is an end in themselves and deserve to live for their own happiness. Another issue I have with the argument as stated: Let's say there's a big asteroid coming towards Earth which will kill us all unless we stop it and we have no technological capability to do so. Then, some guy invents photon tor
  11. I agree that all property should be treated fundamentally the same. I'm just not convinced songs/books/inventions are property. I don't see how your argument (as stated) shouldn't apply to children. I've watched that lecture before, and all he did (as I recall) was explain that all property is fundamentally intellectual. He didn't provide an argument for why songs/books/inventions are property (that I can recall) which hasn't already been presented in this thread. Here's how I look at it for the time being: If someone takes my car, I no longer have the car. If someone uses my idea, I
  12. That argument is incomplete--children are direct products of their parents, yet they aren't the property of their parents.
  13. That makes sense. Thanks. You're assuming the inventor won't get donations of equal or greater value. Why not say "Just as we deserve to have a government, so too do we deserve to live in a society with taxes." ?
  14. What if this becomes possible? We're already getting close. I understand this. My question is why a book (itself), song (itself), or invention (itself) is property. If it is, then patents are moral, but if it isn't, then patents are an initiation of force. If no one forces you to tell people about your idea, how are you harmed if people use it?
  15. I didn't say that. I'm saying what if we could only predict murders, but not other things?
  16. Let's say we somehow have a method for predicting when murders will occur, who the victim(s) will be, who the perpetrator(s) will be, and there is every indication that this method is 100% accurate. Should we arrest the would-be murderers, even when there is no clear indication (other than the prediction) that they're going to do something illegal?
  17. I have a few problems with the idea of patents and copyrights. I'm hoping someone can explain a rationale for them that's a little clearer than Rand's in her essay on the subject. 1. Rand said that patents and copyrights are a recognition of the idea that people have the right to the product of their own mind. Ignoring exceptions Rand did or would've made to this (children, mathematical discoveries, or a laser which is our only hope of saving the Earth from a giant asteroid on a collision course with our planet) doesn't this just mean that it should be illegal for someone to read your mind
  18. Thank you. I'll post again when I've read all this.
  19. I'm an anti-taxation minarchist and a big fan of Ayn Rand. I convinced of Rand's metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical views, but I'm not sure of some of her political views. One of them is her belief that all property should be privately owned. I don't think the idea is outrageous, but I'm just not convinced of it. Why should all property be privately owned? I honestly haven't (to the best of my recollection) come across an argument by Rand for why this should be the case. I listened to a podcast http://www.peikoff.com/2008/08/04/in-ayn-rands-definition-of-capitalism-she-says-t
  • Create New...