Devil's Advocate

In looking back on your quote I came across the following, which I believe clarifies her overall position on maintaining moral principles in the context of dictatorships: "... Nothing but a psycho-epistemological panic can blind such intellectuals to the fact that a dictator, like any thug, runs from the first sign of confident resistance; that he can rise only in a society of precisely such uncertain, compliant, shaking compromisers as they advocate, a society that invites a thug to take over; and that the task of resisting an Attila can be accomplished only by men of intransigent conviction and moral certainty." ~ ARL, Dictator This suggests to me that there is in fact, always a moral choice to be made when faced with adverse, abnormal conditions for survival. And that the choice to live requires an "intransigent conviction" to moral certainties about accepting or rejecting impediments to normal conditions; to "live" (uncertainly) on your knees, or to risk going down swinging.

There's no contradiction here in the context of choosing to live by principle. If you choose to live by principle and other persons or events beyond your control lead to your death, then someone/something else has the gun to your head, not you and certainly not by your choice. It is the life you choose to live that defines your moral option, not the outcomes that cause you to die against your will. Overcoming death is not an option for mortal beings. It is only how you choose to live the life available to you, in every situation presented to you, that is within your power to make moral choices about. Risking death is not the same as choosing it.

To own your own life is to accept responsibility. To spend it (your life) on growing is to pursue knowledge. -- The concept life presumes a finite existence, i.e. mortal life. So time (to live) as currency implies a fixed amount of capital with which every moment spent cannot be recovered... tick... tick... tick... death. A proper capitalist cannot extend life in a mortal context, but can exchange moments for efficiency such that whatever capital remains is more enjoyable (less wasteful). Knowledge is what makes living efficiently possible, therefore time spent pursuing knowledge is an investment of capital that returns happiness.

Speak for yourself, brother! Nicky is correct* America is founded on the premise that all individuals have an inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The moral limitation to such a right is non-aggression. Simply put, you are free to take actions that further your life so long as those actions don't impede another individual's equal right. A moral society (of individuals) doesn't create this right; it secures it. It certainly does not prohibit others from enjoying it based on nationality. It is both legally and morally proper for a land owner to prohibit unwelcome use of their property, but of course that doesn't entitle them to assert who is or isn't welcome on another individual's land. America as such, is "owned" by consensus, which is why issues like illegal immigration remain contentious. Farm owners, landlords and businesses tend to view non-citizens as potential workers, tenants and customers, whereas supporters of Darkwing Donald, et al, tend to view non-citizens as potential threats. The problem is the argument cannot be resolved in terms of potentials, because either you risk tossing the baby out with the bathwater, or allowing a fox into the hen house. The proper social context for using force is to respond to actual aggression against individual lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness, and not those conjured up by jingoists. -- * http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/14/ayn-rand-was-an-illegal-immigrant

I live in an agricultural area where private farmers employ undocumented workers. These workers are neither imported nor displace any other member of the community those farms operate within. The community supports the farmers' practice by purchasing their goods, which in turn provides revenue to the government, which in turn legitimizes the practice by allowing it to continue... Who is violated, and how?

The following disturbs me more than the leader. Darkwing Donald is channeling a political force that is only united by anger, and whose only agenda is payback. In most respects, I believe he is simply the patsy of the growing mob he represents; a form of puppet king. If elected, and I give them better than 50/50 odds of getting there, America will become a darker place.

The point is not to get your hopes up. Resistance is futile. Fatalism

A potential Objectivist society is essentially just another homogeneous society of which there are numerous examples to demonstrate the realization of that particular possibility. I suppose you might argue that they are becoming less likely given expanding, interactive populations and social communications, but to dismiss it as a future possibility in the face of historical and contemporary examples isn't a very persuasive point in your favor.

The most dangerous man is a man who reacts with violence to broken promises he never ought to have accepted. The DOI doesn't enshrine a Right to Happiness, or free land, or peace without bloodshed. Anyone who believes otherwise ought to check their premises, or at least review the source material that led them to accept such nonsense. W.C. Fields probably wasn't an Objectivist, but he was correct about never giving a sucker an even break. If I promise you a rose garden (or the Brooklyn Bridge) and don't deliver, no standard of justice allows you to break into Home Depot and steal gardening supplies, or makes it reasonable to expect you to do so because someone broke their promise. The only ones who are destined to degenerate into violent civil conflict are those who were leaning in that direction to begin with.

And this is true for a government properly limited to a retaliatory use of force to secure compliance with objectively defined law. It may or may not be in the self interest of a victim to reform their assailant, but it is very definitely in a victim's self interest to have that which was taken from them restored. Retribution is a means to that end, and the only means available as a proper action of government acting in the interest of a victim; not the assailant.

Retribution in justice is moral to the degree that moral remedies are applied to immoral crimes; two wrongs don't make it right. Criminals ought to be punished in order to provide a consequence to choosing to act criminally. And punishing criminals is in the self-interest of victims in order to prove they cannot act with impunity.

None taken. I agree with the Original DA that tone can have a negative effect on discourse, particularly in the absence of more persuasive (yet often heated) exchanges. For myself, a rise in temperature means we are getting somewhere near to the heart of a contentious issue, and I will often push ahead where a timeout may be more appropriate. I rely on admin/moderators to thump me when appropriate. That being said, I consider StrictlyLogical's contrast of creators and receivers to be a significant (and welcome) addition to this topic. My response to him was an eager attempt to follow this line of thought, which I suspect lies at the heart of the contention between advocates and opponents of IP. I look forward to pursuing this discussion when he is ready to continue.

In order to be consistent, your observation that there are only creators and receivers would be applicable to stuff as well as ideas. Dividing stuff from ideas has led us to conditionally allow the former and deny the latter. But supporting IP doesn't allow for the duplication of creator stuff without permission, so the former must be denied too. What to do? Look to the source of all rights for something that distinguishes and subjugates receivers to creators in the implementation of their right to property. Take your time, StrictlyLogical.

This fails by definition and practice, BUT it does give us something to work from. We won't agree in terms of steps to duplicate an original idea, however we should be able to make some assessment of whether a right to property allows for duplication* by others. What say you? -- * according to steps 1A, 1B & 1C agreed to earlier.

... or yours is inconsistent. Leonardo had an idea about making a huge bow with arrows the size of tree trunks. He left some fairly detailed sketches showing what it looked like, the kind used by historians and artisans to RE-CREATE other examples of his stuff and ideas. A team of very knowledgeable and resourceful people built the thing but couldn’t fire it because parts of the idea involving woodworking and assembly couldn’t be RE-CREATED by today’s master craftsman. Apparently Leonardo kept some pretty good trade secrets, huh? Having an idea about stuff, and understanding all steps in that idea to produce stuff, aren’t one and the same as you would prefer to believe. Were I to set off to a room with the original instructions (idea) for assembling a product, promising my loved ones to return with the same, and lost those instructions in transit, I'd have to re-create them in order to emerge from the room having done something. For me, that happens about every Christmas. You’re stuck in the same mental rut advocates of IP rely on to maintain an argument about promoting innovation by rewarding “the first” and dismissing the rest for decades, because it’s only the first effort that counts, right? Can't blame you because I was stuck there once too. After all, we can’t really expect laissez-faire to work without government sponsored monopolies, can we? And a right to property based on individual effort to produce stuff that looks like other peoples' stuff?! Only a thieving, moocher would consider such a thing. Phooey! I'll be around, copying stuff, if you want to get back to explaining how a creation and a re-creation are substantially different in the context of implementing a right to life as property.

It is sad that force is so often used to punctuate unpersuasive arguments about the blessings of IP... "Of course this is a free market society" "Great, I want to make one of those cool new things for myself" "I'm sorry, the product owner doesn't allow you to do that" "But I never agreed to his terms" "Somebody call Security!" "Forget it, I'll go somewhere else" "Not with that idea you won't. Shoot him!!" -- Interesting link BTW, thanks for sharing.

LOL, it's difficult to respond when you don't understand the question. I appreciate your effort to work this through, so please don't let me off the hook. The duplication of an idea results in an expansion of knowledge, i.e. two or more people having a similar understanding. There remains an original source with duplication in separate headspaces, each with an independent means of implementing a right to life. Independent implementations implies some differences in process, although those processes still involve analysis and assembling steps that work in order to achieve the same kind of property (duplicated). That's about as clear as I can present this to you, and I acknowledge that it may be insufficient to satisfy your request (or avoid your frustration). I maintain the implementation of a right to life doesn't prohibit duplication, in fact it relies on duplication to be of any value. Entitling one without the other creates a contradiction because the actions necessary to live require both creation and duplication; no one prohibits a creator from duplication of his property. Why prohibit anyone else? Think that through and much will follow. If you determine that property (as an implementation of the right to life) is violated in duplication by others, share your reasoning. That is what has been missing from 27 pages of discussion.

If you also have no problem with, "a right to make an original implies a right to duplicate* that original", then we can move on and welcome you to the opposition If not, let's take a break from this "stuff and ideas" exercise to give you an opportunity to explain how a right to property implies a right to prohibit duplication* by others. You may start with the right to life and proceed from there. -- * duplication is not supported by the opposition as an action of theft, forgery or fraud. edit: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duplication

1) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/re%20creatable Presuming you accept the definition, I’m uncertain why you’d allow that stuff can be formed anew, but ideas cannot. I have been using the terms re-create and duplicate interchangeably, so my premise that a right to create implies a right to re-create can also be stated as a right to make an original implies a right to duplicate that original. In both cases the original necessarily precedes the duplicate/re-creation such that without the original, duplication/re-creation wouldn’t occur. I will continue to use the term re-create in that context. Stuff as property is fairly well understood in terms of objects in possession. I think ideas as property is more contentious because of the difficulty of using those terms. I can possess an idea, but can I be dispossessed of it? Clearly I cannot violate your property so long as it remains in your possession as a pebble on your beach. Violations only occur by forcing a possession from a proper owner to an improper one. Having said that, 2A remains essentially the same as 1A, starting with original stuff/idea and analyzing that stuff/idea. 2A/B is the assembly phase and 3A/B is the realization of re-created stuff/idea by someone other than the originator. The alternative to re-creation would be that original ideas share headspace which would establish a very peculiar form of property indeed. I hope that we can proceed without becoming mired down in an argument over terminology.

Oh I'm in, I just need to work out the distinction you see between the creation of "stuff" and "ideas". Do you accept the term re-create as defined by Merriam-Webster: "to create again; especially : to form anew in the imagination" ?

Interesting... So we can agree on the steps to a physical product of duplication but not to an idea being duplicated because if you start with an idea you already have it (but no so with a physical object?). Why not revise your 1st context steps to be: 1A) Starting with: the original object itself. 1B) N/A 1C) N/A ?? The creation of a physical object requires materials and mater and effort. The recreation of that object by another person requires the same. The creation of a mental object requires something combined with effort too, as does the recreation by another person of that same mental object. If this weren't the case we could simply send one person to school and his education would cover the rest, somehow... Not sure where progress can be made at this point. I'll take some time to pause and reflect and get back to you...

OK, well my concern here is if you're simply attempting to define starting with an idea (or product) as equivalent to receiving a use without effort of someone's property. That would be consistent with a pro-IP argument, and you seem to be going to some length to make that point. Is that how you see it?? Edit: What I'm questioning is you're statement, "If you start with the original idea, presumably you 'have it' completely, not partially. There is no need to 'observe' an idea..." Having access to an idea and understanding it are separate levels of possession. To use your reference to parroting, the bird has an ability to repeat English (and in that sense possesses the sound), but does the bird have an understanding of English?

You are made aware that I have an idea and a prototype for stopping a car with a gadget called a "disc brake cylinder". Do you now have everything you need to duplicate my idea or the product that comes from it? 2A begins with analysis of the original idea as observed, e.g., what did I hear/see? who did I hear it from?? how much description did I obtain??? does this idea sound like anything I am familiar with in design or composition???? My point is the idea leads to the product and vice versa. You can start with either one to obtain the other, and the steps are essentially the same: analyze > assemble > product/knowledge I suppose another way of presenting it would be as: concept > proof of concept > fact, but again, the steps are essentially the same. Shall we move on to 2B, or are we done here?

What's the big idea? As mentioned, I think the initial steps are essentially the same with the difference in result being knowledge as opposed to product. More specifically, steps 1 lead to an expansion of products and steps 2 lead to an expansion of knowledge. In detailed form: 2A) Starting with: the original idea, or recorded observations (results of reverse engineering or memory) of the idea, or a design known to correspond to the original idea, and materials or matter similar to that of the original idea. 2B) Acts: Constructing, assembling, forming from the materials or matter similar to that of the idea, according to the observations or design. 2C) Result: A second idea which is a replication or duplicate idea which is substantially the same as the original idea.

I read this as an attempt to distinguish between physical property and an idea as property, but StrictlyLogical may need to clarify this.