Spiral Architect
-
Posts
909 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
30
Posts posted by Spiral Architect
-
-
Closer than we care to admit. We are running under Fascism Medicine right now. We have the government regulating who and how healthcare is used. It is only a simple switch from a government protected cartel of government regulated private companies to a bureaucracy that is the same thing. At this point your just changing who collects the money and pays kick backs for regulation privileges.
-
2 hours ago, New Buddha said:
SL,
You are just wrong. I'm really not sure how you can be so confident making such ridiculous statements about something that anyone can verify if they would bother to spend about 2 min. on the internet.
*Lots of charts. *
I could have saved you a lot of work if you just said "huh? Double check your math."
Because I did and realized I screwed up and reversed the numbers... Hey, I can admit an error.
Reality is:
21 years ago: 35 cents = 1 peso so a 70 cent candy bar costs 2 pesos.
Today: 5 cents equals = 1 peso so a 70 cent candy bar costs 14 pesos.
So you are right, the peso is devalued extremely. I should actually have known better than to assume the Mexican Government wasn't debasing their currency worse than us. I just ran with your numbers as part of a larger point. To help you, it is worse than seven fold when you consider inflation on the dollar.
But this still misses the point. OK, if we assume that large scale immigration is caused by a poor economy due to high inflation of the currency. Not sure that is really a thing here, we are not talking hyper-inflation, but for the sake of argument lets say that people are moving to America because the Mexican Government is debasing their currency.
This a problem to be fixed by a better monetary policy, not a trade issue. Better trade deals will not stop anyone from printing wealth they do not have.
Which is the point I failed to get across. Mass Migration is caused by the country people run from, not the country they run to.
-
That is truly amazing and rocks.
<-------- Adopted!
-
Hello,
What an interesting ethical question. Since it is an abstract statement and no emergencies are given to justify an extreme either-or situation, my response is why is this an either-or situation? Live life to the fullest, create many values as you can, then when your life is coming to an end do the act that perpetuates it into the future. Building win-win situations starts with the self.
But this an abstract answer. JASKN gave the better concrete answer. I'm just adding food for thought.
-
18 hours ago, New Buddha said:
SL,
At the start of NAFTA 1 peso could purchase about 35 cents of US manufactured goods and agriculture - and the US had a trade surplus with Mexico. Now, 24 years later, 1 peso can only purchase about 5 cents of US manufactured goods and agriculture and we have a trade deficit. To keep selling agriculture (mainly corn) in Mexico, US agribusiness lobbied the US Government for and has received hundreds of billions of dollars in tax-payer funded subsidies. This allowed the US to flood the market with cheap corn which resulted in putting millions of Mexican farmers out of work. These are primarily the people who headed north. And a high unemployment rate helped the drug cartels gain a strong foot-hold in the economy.
Both sides are to blame for this, but in no way is NAFTA a free-trade agreement. Just because there are low tariffs, it does not mean that free market principles are at work.
So why do you think Mexico pursued the monetary policy that it did? Who benefited? Certainly not the Mexican worker. Poverty is still at over 50%, even though the GDP has gone through the roof. And their wages and purchasing power continues to decline.
In a free market, when unemployment goes down, wages go up. This is simple supply and demand. When the labor market is tight, workers can negotiate better wages. I've done so several times myself throughout the course of my career. But when unemployment goes down AND wages go down, as it did in Mexico, this is NOT free market forces at work.
You can say that the government is "corrupt" (it is) but what is the true nature of the corruption? Who benefits from artificially low wages in Mexico? Who benefits from a corrupt Mexican government? For that matter, who benefits from corrupt US governmental, non-free market policies? And if ending this corruption on both sides of the border, through renegotiating NAFTA, can benefit both countries, shouldn't we do so? And who exactly do you think is resisting the renegotiation of NAFTA?
1. Pointing out that the Peso has improved 700% against the dollar does not support the idea that Mexico has devalued the Peso. If anything it is an argument for US devaluation of the dollar. Now if you want to argue that the US Fed is causing malinvestment and economic issues, that is a reasonable argument and in line with free economic policy. Stopping the Fed from dollar devaluation would fix a lot of issues beyond this discussion.
2. Corn is not an argument against trade, but subsidies. I agree that US subsidies policy causes malinvestment and the ripple effect is distorting our economy. But the issue is reducing Government intervention in the economy at home.
3. Mexico purses fiat money policy for the same reason all Governments, to avoid the integrity required by real reserves. All “workers” are poorer in every nation because printed money always benefits those who get it first (the banks) who have non-inflated purchasing power, and as it trickles down through the economy the last to get it suffer through the inflation and are poorer by the time any new printed money reaches them. This has nothing to do with trade and is an argument against fiat money.
4. I agree NAFTA should be renegotiated into a proper free-trade agreement, but that was neither stated nor is an issue with this discussion. In fact if we fixed everything you mention in your last post immigration would increase since we would have more wealth and jobs here and Mexico would still house the same criminal Government that makes the fundamentals of life, let alone thriving, untenable.
5. That is point: Corruption is that it is the real issue. It is a moral choice and a primary. Governments are not corrupt because of policy, but policies are corrupt because the thinking of statesmen is corrupt to criminal. People are not fleeing Mexico due to corn subsidies and trade agreements which pushed out a benign Government . They are fleeing to escape conditions that exist due to a criminal government that threatens their ability to live. Conditions created by the Mexican Government and perpetuated by that Government.
-
Thank you! I'll come up with an image to try and help that
-
I think the fundamental issue here as stated by another is equating sense perception with concept formation.
Senses are proved by simply looking. It is basic awareness. What you see is what you see. It simply is.
What you think can be right or wrong. Thinking requires work and choice. Civilization has spent 1000 of years overcoming errors of knowledge because we did not understand what we see. It doesn't make our senses invalid. It makes what we know invalid. We can fix the later and the purpose of science is to do just that.
To link sense perception to understanding is to either claim to be blind because you can see, or claim blindness because you are fallible and learning requires work.
I don't think you mean either so I hope this helps you think about it in a new way.
-
The reason Mexicans immigrates is:
1. The Mexican Government is corrupt to the point it makes Chicago Politics look like a Monte Python film, which is why their non-free economy is stagnate and quality of life in rural regions bad. If I lived in Mexico I would risk an American jail cell to get my family out, it is still an upgrade.
2. America has many generous public programs which is a problem with Welfare Policy and not immigration.
Finally, the reason Americans choose to trade in Mexico is not foreign trade policy.
When Communist China has lower Corporate Taxes (and Gains Tax) than us, and when Socialist Norway in more business friendly than us, the blame is not Free Trade across our borders.
It is the lack of Free Trade within our borders.
-
I do not get why people are linking free trade or currency manipulation to immigration. Free trade allows people to freely associate and deal with each other without paying a fee to do so. Malinvestment is caused by tax policy, not the lack thereof. At best, for immigration the trend would be inversed.
People in our country being allowed to freely associate with people in a poorer country incentivizes those people to stay there to continue to receive the benefits of future transactions. They would not move here to be ignored since businesses will be trading with those still in the cheaper homeland.
I also do not see why debasing currency is relevant nor do we need proof. Corrupt governments use fiat currency by definition to circumvent objective standards in revenue generation or funding projects. But again a debased currency incentivized people to stay put if they benefit from an incoming currency that is better.
So the only thing free trade and fiat currency schemes prove from an immigration standpoint is that it gives an incentive to Mexicans to stay put and receive the wealth the USA pours in. You would not move to America to be ignored by the same companies and have your purchasing power go down. Better to stay home and receive the better currency with better purchasing power.
-
Reboot version 2.0. Been, years... Wow. Real life been a thing with family and work. In a much better place today and back to discuss ideas in a venue that actually appreciates discussing ideas.
I like the changes. Nice clean look to things. Also good to see many familiar faces.
-
The example I would like to pursue, if it pleases you, is the one I brought up to Eiuol (though it does not appear that he plans on following up on it): the knork. Or fnife? No, I prefer knork.
Since I am not a patent expert this is merely an onion but I would say no one could patent an idea that is simply a riff on something already existing. That is why I said a spear is a bad example - By the time you get to an advanced society that has developed individual rights and has the need for species of property rights like IP simple designs are common (like forks). A fork was new in an age when the concept was not applicable. Today any interchange of parts is just playing with the same public domain material. You'd have to invent a sonic fork or an infrared knife for it to be considered.
OK, now I want the Stake Saber 2000 that looks like a Jedi light saber.
It would be like taking something that is public domain, like the Star Spangled Banner, adding a few blast beats, then claiming it new IP. It's just not going to happen.
Now if you want to talk implementation that is a separate thing and an interesting conversation into itself. Where do you draw the line on IP.
-
Empirical evidence does not support such a claim. I previously cited what happened with the steam engine. After the expiration of the Watt patent, innovation increased. Watt made more money. I also cited a research paper which found this:
But he did have the patent and was allowed to benefit first
I fully expect that at some point the intellectual patent will run out and the same thing would happen.
-
If by "taking a man's ideas" you mean seeing someone else use a spear, and thereby come to understand how to fashion a spear of your own, then you do not deprive the initial spear carrier of the time he has spent earning that spear, which is still his property.
If you spend your time creating a spear, I jolly well agree that you should have the full unbridled benefit of your time and sweat in doing what you've done (whether "only you" could have done it or not). That full unbridled benefit is the use and disposal of the property that you have created, which is the spear. Those are your rights in property, because that is what you have created.
Would you like the power to tell other people that they may not learn from your example and craft spears of their own, to benefit their own lives? I disagree that you have any right to such a power.
First - A spear is a poor example since no one would IP something so fundamentally simple and common place in an advanced society necessary for property rights in the first place. I know I started this example but that was to demonstrate why scarcity was not an issue - So I will apologize for setting up such a bad example.
What we are talking about is IP. This requires a proper context of an advance society that has the need to demarcate different types of property rights into subcategories to protect people. A savage is still trying to discover fire and principles, let alone political rights or something advanced like IP.
So here is a better example in context of mondern society: If I spend 10 years creating a new kind of medicine to cure a disease then I want a return on my 10 years. If someone takes my medicine then makes their own copies and sells it then yes, he has deprived of the ROI for my ten years. This doesn't even bring up the money I spent also to do this. I might as well just worked an easier job and saved my money. Just because I can still sell the medicine for lower amounts and quantities while others cash in on my 10 years of labor does not change the fact I'm being robbed of my effort. Worse, I have no incentive to do such an effort while I wait for someone else to do the intellectual lifting. Now the world is robbed of the knowledge in the long run.
I would not tell them that cannot learn from my example. But I would charge them for it and give Mrs. Architect the vacation she deserves since she had to put up with me for those ten years
Also, remember, statue of limitations will eventually run out and people will still get access to this via public domain. IP involves complicated approval like all patents and copyrights and has limited applicability. Unless you have access to a mixed economy where the mouse can get it pushed out but that is a different thread.
Does this help make things clear?
-
If this is the crux of the issue, then let us endeavor to get it right. Man needs to live and he uses his mind to do so. And also his body. Where property is concerned, man needs to perform both mental and physical labor, in order to create material wealth, which is the stuff he needs to live. This is why the quote from Rand I've offered says this:
The application of knowledge and effort.
And here's another quote which may serve this same point:
To think. To work. And to keep the results, which are material wealth, which are property.
If you invent a spear and no one takes it from you, then the property you have created--which is the spear--is not communal property. You do get a return for your time: you have a spear.
Exactly! Now to bring this home, the essential factor is that I created it for my use. What it is does not matter. Only the fact I created it. It has value because of me. How it works in reality is really irrelevant at this point. To put it negatively, what it is or what others may think of it are not important. There is another science that deals with that.
-
I don't know where I've been talking about "trade." It flummoxes me to see these replies to what I've said that... do not appear to speak to what I've written. Or maybe they do in some sidling fashion? But if so, then apparently I need it explained to me, step by step.
But just so as we're clear: I'm not talking about trade.
And on "value," what is it that I've said about value that you are taking issue with specifically (if you are taking any issue with what I've written at all; I honestly cannot tell)? If you mean value in trade, like this is worth X amount, or two pigs for a cow, or so forth, again, that's not what I'm talking about.
I know you're not talking about trade - I keep having to go back to it since you bring in an economic concept known as scarcity.
I take issue with the whole tribal concept of IP as communal property and specifically you are using an economic concept to justify making this particular species of property communal.
If it is that distracting however I'll delimit that point since I do not want to distract from the real point.
Property as a moral concept.
-
I am having copy/paste issue so I will just reiterate a comment from earlier that basically said you have taken nothing from a man if he invents a spear because the man can still use the spear.
If I spend years inventing something new then yes - You have deprived me on the ROI for my time and money I spent inventing it. I have no reason to spend my life inventing something if it becomes communal property and I do not get a return for my time.
This is the point. Just as taking someone's property is depriving them of the time they spent earning the object, so it taking a man's ideas depriving him of the time he spent earning them. Unless we are going to advocate the spiritual equivalent of to each his own ability to each his own need, if I am going to spend my time creating something I jolly well want to enjoy the full unbridled benefit of my time and sweat in doing what only I could have done.
-
Property is a response to the fact man needs to live and using his mind is his tool to do it.
This is the crux of the issue.
-
Property is a response to scarcity; scarcity forms part of the context in which we develop property rights. That doesn't mean that property rights (or more specifically the Objectivist theory of property rights) will necessarily develop in response to the fact of scarcity in some given society, in some given time frame. Indeed, while there were many different systems of property over the millennia, so far as I know, it took Ayn Rand to finally lay out a just theory of property rights. (Though I'm sure that there are at least echoes of similar thoughts throughout history.)
Well it's true in a sense that what the Incas did (though I'm taking your word on that; I haven't studied the Inca in... quite a while, and never deeply when I did) was not "property per se," but it was still an attempt to address the allocation of scarce material wealth... which I think you recognize when you say that they "understood scarcity." Which is my point.
Other systems of allocating such wealth may be better or worse, when judged by some standard whether ethical or economic or sociopolitical, moral or immoral according to a given ethics, but they're operating within the same general context. And if you substantially alter that context, you change the results (which is exactly what you should expect; this is why context is so important, and why we cannot remove conclusions from their context and act as though there is no connection). Here, the context for property is the nature of material wealth, and specifically that it is scarce. Were material wealth not scarce, we wouldn't need the Incan method of allocating material wealth... or the Objectivist one, or any other.
As to the bulk of the remainder of your post, I'm afraid don't understand the meaning. But I think/hope that this reply already addresses the central point, and trust you to clarify where necessary.
No, I'm not making anything so. I'm discussing what I find to be true in reality, and providing my reasoning and examples. I am attempting to point to reality just as much as you are.
Right. And what I'm saying is that the reason why it is "important" that you can call something yours and dispose of it for yourself is the fact that it is scarce. Were it not scarce, it would not be important that you could call it your own. You couldn't be deprived of something that was not scarce.
When you say "how scarce it is," it reflects the confusion that seems endemic to this conversation, but I will try again to clarify this point: scarcity (as I am using it, at least) is binary, it is an on/off switch, an either/or, and not a matter of degree. Material values are scarce (as in: all of them, down to every instance). Ideas are not. Material values are thus ownable whereas ideas are not.
You cannot take a man's thoughts. Or to the extent that you can in some metaphorical fashion, this is, again, "learning."
Actual commons are material wealth, which is why it results in tragedy when everyone is supposed to take ownership. Ideas and thoughts are not material wealth, they are not property, and when everyone shares in an increase in thought and idea it is a boon to the world, down to a man.
Toggle switch or no there is no physical aspect of an object that makes it of value as property unless you want to trade it, which comes much later in the process.
Something is important to me because it in MINE. I am the source of it's value. Only in trade is it's value to others become important. I can be on a deserted island and the value in something I create is because I did it. The word "I" is what creates value - the "it" is irrelevant. Value assumes a valuer and I am the source of it's value when I create it.
The tragedy of the commons is an event that demonstrates what happens when no one owns something - They rush in and take it until it's depleted.
Since value is created by the user and property a creation of the mind, IP is in the same boat as all property. The only difference is that with no reason for a ROI then invention will slow to a crawl since there is no incentive to spend a life's work creating something that will not pay your life work back. Thus the pool of goods people take will deplete.
-
I continue to believe that you do not yet understand what I've been trying to communicate, as most of this does not seem to relate to what I've written, and it does not respond to the portion of my post which you've quoted. It again appears to reflect a misconception of my terminology that I've been trying to clarify since your first response to me. For instance, scarcity (as I'm using it) is not "any random attribute," but an attribute that all material values have (one which forms context for the concept of property), and it has nothing to do with whether an item is judged "unique" or "like a billion others." It has nothing to do with economic value or trade.
Apart from your use of "scarcity," insofar as it is supposed to reflect upon my own, I agree with your first two paragraphs.
In the third paragraph, I don't know what it means exactly to "take a man's thoughts," and especially in light of what I've actually meant by "scarcity" (in that ideas are not scarce), though it seems like that might be one (negatively charged) way to describe "learning."
You're the one who made property dependent upon scarcity - I'm merely applying it to examples to demonstrate why it is irrelevant to property from an ethical standpoint. That is the point of objectivity - Pointing to reality. I keep trying to show that something being created by me and being mine has nothing to do with how scarce it is. What is important is that it is mine and I can dispose of it for me.
Any kind of attempts to make property public is to sever that relationship.
As for take a man's thoughts - That is what the attempt of making IP communal is - To take a man's thoughts you could not have created yourself. To be able to use another man's thoughts in the same way communal owned "property" is used as an excuse to use another man's property. Except the stagnation and depleted crash of the Tragedy of the Commons so elegantly pointed out by economic libertarians is a principle forgotten when it comes to the source of that property - The mind.
Then it is blank out time and open up commons!
-
When speaking of "scarcity," I am addressing the nature of man, and man's relationship to the world. I am describing the conditions that give rise to a concept of property in the first place. When you say that "ethics is based upon man's need to thrive," that's true... and then we need some understanding of what "man's need to thrive" means, and how ethics are specifically informed by that (e.g. how man requires material wealth, and how material wealth is created). Before we can have an ethical philosophy, we must have some understanding of how the world works.
Here it is the fact of scarcity which makes property a moral concept. Without scarcity, there is no need for a conception of property. Scarcity is a description of the context in which property makes sense, which is why it is not irrelevant in a discussion of property or the proper application of the same. In order to fully understand "property," a person must have an understanding of why we require property in the first place, which is what leads us to "scarcity."
Something is property because I created it and will dispose of it for my own personal reasons. I think - I work to bring that thought into reality. The product of that thought is an object I plan to use to advance my life. I have property in the object since my ability to thrive is dependent on acting on my thoughts by disposing of that object. It can be unique or common, it doesn't matter. It's availability is not an issue ethically, only economic. Something is property because it is mine. It can be the only one in the world or I can craft a pebble like a billion others. It is mine. Of value to me. Scarcity only becomes relevant if I choose to trade it. A unique item may be worth a lot. A pebble will likely only hold value to me.
I give the object value, not any random attribute it has in nature.
If anything the scarcity argument is only reinforcing the fact property is a moral concept devoid of any measurement, which demonstrates the full evil of the situation. Wealth has to be produced before it can be looted. Man's mind is the source of all values and the ultimate vale that creates other values. How despotic is it then to preempt the welfare state looting and go straight for the source and take a man's thoughts?
-
I think you are right in that today we discuss property in economic terms, which is what your argument is. The issue for me is that it is a moral issue. Thus the arithmetic comment. Even if binary, it is irrelevant as ethics is based upon man's need to thrive, not on whether something is plentiful or not. IP is like all property in that it is resolved as an ethical issue long before you advance to sciences like politics or economics. Property rights is a political right because it is a moral right not vice versa.
This is the equivalent of suggesting freedom of speech is determined by economics.
Thus the collapse of Western Civilization as we argue with collectivists over Utility and outcome instead of right and wrong.
Please remember the classical definition of property to understand the moral implications: Something you have disposal rights over for your own use. Thus, man was said to not have house as property but property in his house. Something isn't property if I can not dispose of it as I see fit.
Abundance of an object doesn't change the fact to own it is to have property in it. I don't care if it the only object in the world or something from a Star Trek Fantasy land where supposedly replicators can be anything at anytime (and even that is limited in many ways). If it is mine, then it is mine.
If not then I do not have property in it, which means I do not have property in my life. If someone can dispose of something of mine, then they choose my actions for me which is the real purpose - Someone using my life for their ends.
-
I think there's something key here with regard to "scarcity" that you are, perhaps, missing.
"We want property rights because it is a moral requirement to live and thrive as a human."
True -- but why is this so? Why are "property rights" a requirement to live and thrive as a human? What is the fact of reality that makes this so? I believe it is scarcity. If property were unlimited (which is to say non-scarce), and by this I mean the material wealth that human beings need to live and thrive, then we should hardly divide things into yours and mine, because we would have no need to.
Property is something you create, sure. But we need to have a concept of "property" in the first place because living requires material values, and material values are not unlimited; they are scarce. Thus I do not think "scarcity" is necessarily irrelevant to a further exploration of the concept property and its proper application.
I’m talking about the primal nature of man. There is no measurement since we are talking fundamental requirements. All animals have a method of survival. Man uses his mind and its capacity to reason to survive and it is this fact that allows him to thrive above the state of an animal. He thinks and then acts on that thinking. This ultimately ends in him bringing his thoughts into reality by creating objects that allow him to thrive according to his own individual ends. If he cannot have the product of his thinking, the property he has created, then you have nullified his mind and his ability to act on his own judgement to live.
His thoughts now serve the ends of others. Thus, the principle that force destroys value or force nullifies a mind.
Atlas Shrugged dramatizes this point.
Let’s turn to a simple example: A primitive hunter who invented the first spear to improve his life had a very scarce object he created for himself. Several generations later there would have been a lot of spears to hunt. Property serves man’s nature, not his surroundings. The scarcity level does not affect this primal need. What is important is that the individual created it for himself and it served his life in the fashion he determined. The fact it went from super scarce to common had no impact on its status as property that served the individual need of the owner. You take the spear from the first hunter or the third generation hunter you are still stealing something he earned and diminishing his ability to live by his choice. The fact it is easier to replace later on does not diminish the moral assault of the theft or the criminal defect of the individual too lazy to make his own spear.
Ethics is not an issue of arithmetic.
-
I’ve enjoyed reading Ayn Rand and listening to lectures by the Ayn Rand Institute. I do disagree, however, with the Objectivist position on intellectual property, based on my reading of the book Against Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella. The objection to intellectual property is as follows:
Individualists are strongly in favor of property rights, but we must ask why do we want property rights? We want them because property is scarce. If someone takes your land, your car, or your phone, you lose the use of it. But if something is superabundant, we do not talk about property rights to it. For example, no one talks about property rights to atmospheric air. It’s superabundant and free. No one says “you’re breathing my air”. That fact that I’m breathing does not impinge on your breathing. Property rights are meaningless in this case.
Suppose you had a bagel, and I have the ability to make a perfect copy of it simply by having knowledge of it. In doing so, I do not impinge on your use of your bagel. You can eat it, sell it, do whatever you want with it. This situation would involve no scarcity, no taking of property, similar to atmospheric air.
So it is with ideas. By gaining knowledge of your idea, I’m in essence making a copy of it. You still have full use of it. Therefore, nothing has been taken in a property rights sense. Ideas are not scarce. They are infinitely copyable with no loss of use by the person they are copied from.
Example: People are living in a forest. Someone comes up with the idea of building a log cabin. His neighbors observe him building it, and say “hey, that’s a great idea!” They all proceed to build one for themselves , using THEIR own land, THEIR own materials, THEIR own labor, etc. Some of them even improve on the design. The logic of intellectual property is that what the neighbors did would be wrong, because they “took his idea”. But what “property right” has been violated here? Has the originator’s physical property been taken? No. Has he lost any use of his physical property? No. Has the idea of a log cabin been removed from his mind? No. Is he still able to use that idea? Yes. Has he been coerced in any way? No. Is he not able to enjoy the fruits of his labor, ie the log cabin? No. He has FULL use of it. Indeed, the fact that some people took his idea and improved on it is to everyone’s benefit. None of the things that apply to the taking of property apply here.
It might be argued that the “taking” of “his” idea about a log cabin means a loss of value to him. Perhaps he planned to start a log cabin business, which will not be able to make as much money, because others can do the same. Perhaps he simply laments a potential loss of value in his log cabin.
This is not, however, a valid objection, because he has no property right to the value of his property. The value of his property is whatever potential buyers are willing to pay for it. He can no more object to the loss of value than someone who decides to sell his car, and laments the fact that another seller of the same make and model car undercuts his asking price. Tough luck.
Furthermore, the concept of the idea of a log cabin being intellectual property has terrible implications. Exercising his “intellectual property right” would mean that he has coercive power over how his neighbors (indeed, even the entire world based on contemporary court cases) use THEIR property and even their minds, even though doing so involves no force against him, no prevention of the use of his property or his mind, and no fraud against him. I don’t think this can be considered a good thing at all. The sharing of knowledge is a good thing. This very forum is evidence of that.
We want property rights because it is a moral requirement to live and thrive as a human. Scarcity is irrelevant outside of later arguments involving pricing and like evaluations in the field of economics. Property is a moral issue that pre-empts all fields in the realm of ethics. The degree of one’s ability to live and thrive is dependent on this ethical issue.
Air is a straw horse since it has nothing to do with property. Property is something you create (or in advance economics purchase by means of your work), which is what makes it a moral issue in the first place.
A bagel is property because you either made it or bought it – Once again scarcity is irrelevant. Just because bagels are cheap and easy to buy doesn’t mean you can to steal my bagel because I can go buy another. Someone takes by bagel or coffee in the morning we will be having words!
I’m pretty sure a log cabin, even if such a generic design is even eligible under patent law in the first place, would have exceeded the 50 year limit several thousand years ago. Now if I invented a special truss device that made connecting beams together cheaper/easier/better that would be a patent. If someone doesn’t want to buy my truss then they can use their own or do it the traditional way.
***
IP is a moral issue like all property rights. It means you have a right to your creations because they are yours and you created them to advance your life. This is resolved long before you get to politics or economics and try to shoehorn a supply and demand scenario into justifying the right to my creations. Every argument I have seen to date for why IP is a bad idea is based on examples like the above that attempt to shoehorn an economic argument into an ethical issue. It doesn’t work because ultimately you have to construct the argument instead of bring in actual issues as they exist. IP is like all ethical principles – They are a product of observation and integration.
-
I think Trump is explain in two parts. One is the media's continual trying to turn everything from politics to the weather into reality TV has led to a realty TV showman getting the attention (for now) and second, he refreshingly doesn't play the typical politician, play nice, and act politically correct. Many people are responding to that.
I don't think it will hold in the long run but it does at this early stage. People are decidedly over business as usual but when the campaign gets real and the party faithful really starts churning things will shake out.
Remember Romney was behind early on but political planning, entrenched operations nationally, and money made him weather the early days simply because he was prepared for the marathon that is the primaries.
How near are we to socialized medicine?
in Economic News
Posted
Fighting Government control is part of a sense of life eroding from portions of our culture, although stubbornly if you watch the news. People fight but it is obvious that not everyone understands when they claim patriotism or other slogans to fight things like Obamacare (to use an American in process example)
The basic problem is the same thing that makes people want security in other parts of their lives. Socialized Medicine is just part of a greater trend in what I would call "Living Insurance". It's the economic equivalent of Security Theater, brought to you by the same think space that makes fun of Security Theater at your local TSA but doesn't see the same level of unnecessary waste,bureaucracy, or invasion of rights if it is Medicare.