Mnrchst

Fantastic review of the film: skip ahead to 2:20

Is it correlation or causation?

You're begging the question--damage is being done if property is being violated, so you need to come up with a theory of property. "Furthered"? I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if I understand you, I think your assertion is ridiculous. How is someone's life "furthered" if they burn their house down? Who cares? It's their house. If certain ideas are property, then you have the right to determine their use as long as they are. You need a theory of property.

How is my point not legitimate? If the answer is "You don't benefit from selling a person because it's anti-selfishness, but you do if you sell a song because it deserves to be property" then you're begging the question--we're trying to establish what is and isn't property.

In the "patents and copyrights" essay she doesn't talk about survival or her theory of art, so we're (I guess) supposed to piece it all together from her other stuff. From "Man's Rights" she said "Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life." If this is supposed to mean "Man must have the right to a monopoly on the values they produce (possibly for a limited time depending on the type) in order to sustain his life", I don't see how that's true, because no one could survive if everyone tried to make songs and no one tried to make food. I suppose you could say "The guy making the food likes the song, so the food guy and the artist exchange values", but the food guy could still have the music if there were no copyright (indeed, it would be easier to get). I suppose you could say "If there were no copyrights, then artists would shrug, and then you've got no new music, and life is no longer worth living for the food guy", but this would be a utilitarian argument. RationalBiker said: "Neither patents nor copyrights make "all values" property", in response to my saying "But why should all values be property?". If you agree that not all values should be property, where do we draw the line, and why? Do either/both you guys think all values (totally, as in where their thoughts constitute 100%) created by people should be property (and therefore the values not made 100% by them, such as people, don't count)? Then what about an asteroid that falls onto my land? It's not something I made from my thoughts. Is it still a product of my effort because I got the land itself from my effort and, therefore, I deserve it because it's my land? I don't see why--the land itself has nothing to do with the asteroid falling there. Oil under my land I think counts because it's a part of the property I bought--the asteroid wasn't. Also, if I create a totally new phrase, should that be copyrighted? What about fashion designs. I know I've mentioned these before, but I'm curious about your opinions on them--it would help me understand your case better. This is where it gets tricky. (1) what constitutes a flourishing life, and why should a government work to guarantee people have it as opposed to just protecting them from harm to their bodies/physical property? (2) Assuming we decide the government must work to have us have a "flourishing life", it seems that in order for copyrights to be legit, we must also explain why we need art to have a flourishing life (I suppose this is probably easier to explain than #1, but it would have to meet the "flourishing life" criteria, as opposed to "pretty good" life). Also, if we're supposed to have a "flourishing" life, and it were possible for the government to completely eliminate any heroin sales within the country, should it do it? Wouldn't people have "better" lives if they couldn't take heroin?

Would it help you to build a house, buy a car, etc. etc. if you were allowed to sell people with protections against theft? I'm using reductio ad absurdum in order to move the debate along quickly. My point is simply that just because you can benefit from owning something (in terms of buying stuff anyway) doesn't mean you should be able to own it.

Mustang, why does it matter what a dictionary defines as selfishness? "Selfish" is derived from "self". Therefore, the logical definition of selfish (the adjective form of "self") would be "an action that benefits one self." Of course it equates it with hedonism--most (or all) dictionaries define selfishness as "Benefiting oneself at the expense of others" (a parasite). So what about when you do something that benefits yourself that doesn't come at the expense of others? Is that supposed to be impossible? (there's no word in the dictionary that matches that definition). If I invent cold fusion, that'll be great for me; how have I screwed anyone over? What would YOU define "selfishness" as based off of the word "self" (with the definition everyone agrees on) and WHY would you define it as such?

I reckon most beliefs which start out at around 0% and got to 10% are generally (eventually) adopted by a majority of the population and stay above the 50% level indefinitely, but I can't see how it could be "always". What about the prohibition of alcohol?

No, because they didn't invent anything because the idea already existed in a physical form available to the public--they have created no value.

Need isn't the foundation, it's whether X can directly help you survive. I think this applies to anything physical, and any ideas which help us manipulate the physical in a manner that can improve economy of scale (patentable ideas), but not artistic ideas. What is your standard and why is it better? That is also true of being able to sell people. Then what is your standard for which values get to be property and which don't? I just mean in the sense of treating both as property. What I'm saying is that just because something is bad doesn't mean it should be illegal. Is it bad if someone (not a young child, able bodied, of sound mind, etc.) listens to music and doesn't pay the artist? Sure. But it's also bad if a lot of other things happen that Objectvists don't want to make illegal.

Yes, you did--it was their property. Look at it this way: if an inventor comes up with an idea independently and uses it (perhaps building something using the idea) without the permission of the inventor of the invention, then the "second inventor" shouldn't be punished even though they broke the law.

Again, the second inventor didn't invent anything--the idea already exists.

What if there's a tsunami and you need to use the car to survive? What if there's a flood and you need to be on top of your roof to survive? Can songs directly help you in these situations? My point is that these things can directly help you survive. I know that, but her reasoning for why any idea should be property is that we survive by the use of our minds (and coming up with ideas). It seems like you're saying art is a value necessary for people to live morally. I don't think that's the case. This brings us to my posts on page 13+14 critiquing the whole "you need art to get metaphysical value judgments". Yes, art has value. But why should all values be property? My point is that artists don't need copyrights to (indirectly) survive off of their art. You're arguing that artists need copyrights to live and I'm pointing out that that isn't true. I'm not saying people should have property so that they can control things in order to help them survive (because, obviously, this can include people), I'm saying people should have property rights to values they create which can (directly) help them survive, and I'm pointing out that survival is requisite if you want any art. I don't think it makes sense to value art and survival equally under the law. Yes, they should be compensated, but the state shouldn't necessarily be involved. Just because people shouldn't take heroin doesn't mean it should be illegal. Again, the value they're creating doesn't directly contribute to the foundation of the creation of that value, which is survival.

They created value and you didn't--the idea already exists. In other words, the scientist who "invents" it second basically deserves the same praise (aside from not knowing about the invention, but perhaps it only happened a few days ago), but s/he didn't really create the value of the invention.

I'm saying that a requisite for property is that it can be used as such to survive (not that if you can directly use X to survive, then it should be property, as, of course, we could chuck a person into an incinerator). In other words, if everyone made songs but no one grew food/hunted/foraged, we'd all die pretty quickly. If things which couldn't directly relate to survival were property, then it seems to me that you're basically saying survival and art are equally important--but you can't get art without survival. Patentable ideas and labor are the values which enable us to have other values (like art). The only remedy to this problem I can think of is to argue that art is necessary for a moral life (which I disagree with, so I'll refer you to my comments on pages 13+14.

You could make songs and get money (from donations) and survive off of that, but anyone could get donations from someone for any reason (for doing nothing). The song itself isn't addressing an existential threat. In other words, I can't put a song in my fuel tank.

I should've said "Yes, because they can address an existential threat by being incinerated"--using airwaves can address an existential threat.

I don't see either the materials used to make the plane or the flap positioning as important. What would be important would be if you came up with an idea which was fundamentally new--a new type of metal which could do things no other metal had been able to do before, a method for cold fusion, a faster computer processor, etc. In other words, I think what makes an invention an invention is that is does something which creates new values which were previously unavailable. Anyone could think "Gee, I'll move the flap position a little" with as much thinking as it takes to eat breakfast. My entire point is that there should be no copyrights. This is where it gets tricky. What do you mean by creation? Don't I create a statue by carving it with marble I don't own? You need to be more precise. Again, this is tricky. When is something "entirely original"? Every book/song/film has similarities to other works to varying degrees. Should a very simple but unique drawing or a 3 page story get copyright protection? Why? Rand said, in essence, we survive by the use of our mind, therefore, the products of our mind are our property. This suggests to me, however, that only ideas which can necessarily relate to our survival should be property. Either (1) this isn't true (for reasons I'd like to know) or (2) Rand is correct that there should be copyrights, but her reasoning is a little off (again, for reasons I'd like to know). I'm not (precisely) sure what you're saying here or where you're getting it from. I'd said (way) earlier something to the effect of "How is it theft if the musician doesn't have to make the song available?" and someone pointed out that I was begging the question because the critical issue is only whether or not it is property.

Yes, which is why I think they count as property. I never made that argument--all I said was that the argument "you own X because you made it" was incomplete. What if doing so produces electricity and you use the electricity to address an existential threat? Can you do that with a song? Can you burn those things? Would doing so produce electricity? Can electricity address an existential threat? Can you take the Lambourghini apart and use the materials to make something else which is more "practical"? Can you use the Lambourghini to travel somewhere much faster than you could get there using other methods of transportation? Can you get sustenance from cookies? Can you start a fire with movie tickets?

No, because in the "stripe" example, nothing has been invented. However, if I make a rendition of a song with different arrangements than the original, I've still created something. Does you follow my reasoning (whether you agree or not)? Anyway, my essential argument here has been that property should only apply to things which can relate to your survival, which you didn't comment on, but I'd still like to explore this other issue as well.

I see your point, but you said "All ideas are property." Isn't property a purely political concept? In other words, isn't it fair to say that you believe something is property if and only if you think it should be protected by the state? In other words, believing something deserves to be property is different from believing it should legally be property, and therefore that it actually be property. Does this make sense? I see this as sort-of analogous with Rand believing murderers deserve death, but still opposing the death penalty.

That's true. But it seems to me that that is the logical conclusion to make from her essay. It seems to me that she is saying "survival is good, and you need ideas to survive, therefore, ideas are property (because you need ideas to survive)." But what about the ideas that don't help you survive? Why not? It is a new product--it's different. You might say "Without the original, the other person (probably) wouldn't have come up with the other idea." But you could also say "Inventor A (probably) wouldn't have thought of invention X without the inspiration s/he drew from inventor B's recent invention Y." ?

That's a good post, especially about point 4. I've decided patents are good, but I'm not convinced about copyrights (please read page 12 onwards). In a nutshell, if Rand's argument is that all property is fundamentally intellectual because we survive by using our minds, then doesn't that imply property should be limited to things which can directly help us survive? In other words, just because some ideas should be property, that doesn't necessarily mean all (or X, Y, but not Z) ideas should be property. If I draw a simple drawing on a piece of paper, is the design my property? What about a 2 page story? A fashion design? Etc.

Have you been reading this thread? It'd probably help you to understand the Objectivist position if you read "The Objectivist ethics" and "Atlas Shrugged." (And considering how many posts you've made...). We've already given you the essential information, but you keep equating interest with pleasure.

Are you saying that they aren't open ended if they have a limited time span? I think they still would be, because the time span wouldn't be "open ended" but instead "X years".