tadmjones

By violently prevent, I assume you mean to call in the govt gunslingers when some one claims a violation of IP. Do you also oppose violently preventing bicycle theft? Because it seems your anti IP stance is grounded in the protection of the imitators from the govtmuse of force per se regardless the validity of the offense.

How does the consumption of the good affect the assignment of the rightful owner? You could take my lunch by force and eat it, but that doesn't mean you owned it in a legal or moral sense. So I don't follow your use of the economic term in this instance. How does the scarcity principle apply to rights in land property?

muhuk said in #118 "Also you haven't addressed any of my questions in #108. Was I wrong to think that you knew what you were talking about?" By discrete idea, I meant an idea that can be viewed as separate from other ideas. By unique idea , I meant an idea that is unlike any other. I was being facetious when I used identifiable, based on the fact that we keep using the word idea and I assumed we were refering to a referent in reality, so identifiable would be redundant. And then I just listed them, so perhaps just embellishment. But look around, you must see that I am one of, if not the least articulate posters on this forum.

Yes, that is exactly what I am doing. Principles divorced from their practical applications and consequences are useless. I never said principles change, the idea I was trying to convey is that IP or the trade thereof can only arise in a civilized, division of labor society based on the principles of capitalism. And I am not sure what you mean by part of O'ism , does this mean a citation by Rand herself(or her intellectual heir(?)?). As for compatible , I think, it certainly is. I do not see why a widget design can not in principle be property. Obviously if it can, I assume you would agree that the principle of property rights in the O'ist sense would be satisfied. So it seems the argument is whether or not the principle of ownership is only applicable to physicality.

Yes and no, the principle of property rights is based or founded on the immutable nature of man qua being. Societies that recognize and implement laws to protect ownership are or can be established. Principles are man made , epistemologic, but based on objective reality. Ownership , the right to disposal of a thing , is protected in society by principled actions of those individuals that make up society. Society is the abstraction whose referent is the aggregate actions of the individuals subsumed under that particular group , this or that society. I contend in LFC society, it is reasonable to develope principles that would protect ownership rights in things like widget designs.

DonAthos My comments were an answer to your scenario, but directed to muhuk in that post to flesh out or start to set a context in which I see how the property of property (in conjunction with the concept ownership)is assigned , or manifests, to things. The context of a civilized division of labor society is the only context that the validity of IP can be discussed, yes?

an example of a discrete unique idea would be the design of a widget that does 'x', or a novel whichever and as an aside, my answer to Franz's piano woud be that if Franz lived in isolation from society there would be no need for the abstraction ownership, if Wolfgang alone showed up, they may use ownership to politely denote specific items among themselves but still very lttle context in which to use the concept.

My statement about wet was admittedly snarky, but my moronic attempt was to present the question in pass/agg, socratic, rhetoric, kinda way. Why is it that the concept of ownership can only apply to physical objects? Why can't an identifiable , discrete, and unique idea, eg a widget design be recognized as an existent or entity ?

Is the phrase suppose to mean, "the abstraction 'ownership' can only apply to physical objects"? I do not thik that you meant" 'wet' is a physical object".

Assuming rational standard/practice of recognizing an innovator's creation or idea and registration thereof ie patents, copyrights and such, why would violations be criminal and not civil? It seems must opponents of IP argue based on the idea that such violations are not actual violations of NAP. Why would the onus of prosecution necessarily be on the government , doesn't making it a civil matter (meaning the injured party has to prove ownership rights and show that the guilty party knowingly abused their rights) reduce the opponent position?

pardon?

My point is that I think the entrenched two party system serves career politicians well. Libertarian candidates as a whole may be more ideologically motivated, but I do not share their 'ideology'. I agree with certain ideas that 'they ' seem to hold, but I do not think there is an integrated philosophy behind the various ideas touted as 'libertarian'.

Repairman Cynical,or not I think the major parties and their politicians have figured out the best way to succeed at being in office is to ensure one or the other party is the problem and they are the solution and that works because the majority of the voting public decide on that premise. They are not my Republicans or Democrats, the are our statists ,if only of varying degrees. I doubt political change will drive philosophic or cultural change. The culture will have to rediscover the ideas of individual rights and what recognition and protection of those rights entails.

Repairman Would you call yourself a Libertarian or libertarian ? Do you recognize an integrated libertarian school of thought (philosophy)? Or do you agree with certain planks in their political platform, and therefore see their candidates as worthy of support?

I was surprised at the author's view of the 'genesis' of property rights , along with rights in general. In another blog post he discusses various contexts in which rights should be viewed the most fundamental being 'inborn rights'. The comment section of that blog post is worth the read. I am somewhat confused as there seems to be no difference between the Libertarian Party and the libertarian school of thought or movement at least in the article. Do people who identify as libertarian mean both always?

I read Myth of the Robber Barons a few years ago, I may revisit it. What does one expect when investing? At the least, partial ownership.

In some respects it's funny that seemingly educated people can question what infants and turtles take for granted.

Unlawful assembly is unlawful, that I agree. Though everything else is intent, and the participants' moral choices (even taken collectively) can not be judged separate from or in conjunction with assembly lawful or not. A law that forbids trade with x, y, or z group is an inappropriate use of force . Organizing a demonstration that unreasonably impedes the free movement of nonparticipants(physically blocking a store front) is a use of force against private property and free association and legal action should be taken against the organizers and participants. Simply disseminating the idea that one should not purchse the products of x,y, or z should not be considered a restraint of trade punishable by law. It is a restraint or an effort to bring restraint, targeted even, i fail to see it as an immoral(action) use of force.

There is no 'goal' of a free market, other than that individual traders receive what they consider value in an exchange, voluntarily. The promotion of a free market is the realm of politics, the principles by which a societyshould be organized to facilitate free trade ie recognition of individual rights and the removal of force from personal interactions. Is the coercive aspect to be found in the action of acquiescing and participating in a boycott, or in the organization and suggestion of participation in a boycott? If it is in the former, how is participation in a boycott a use of force, the literal not taking action (not trading)? Or if it is the latter, how is suggestion to others that they refrain from taking action a use of force? It seems they could only be force if the withholding of trade violated someone's property rights, which I assume you would agree can only be violated by an act of force. Is withholding of action, an action ?

How does individuals' or even groups of individuals' right to free association amount to coercion , do they owe their current or future economic trade to anyone , other than those they have agreed to trade with?

While the discussion is an interesting topic, why questions imply intent, yes? "Why did evolution.." And similar phrases muddy the waters , at least for me it becomes like an ear worm that must be silenced or forgotten before I can even get to the rest of an idea.

I totally get the faded, slightly ripped or at least threadbare in areas look. I were jeans all the time and have my favorites that get to that condition, I actually don't like brand new really dark denim. The thing I totally don't get is the coloring of the new 'faded' denims , what is with that yellowish cast?! If my favorite pair of 'honestly' worn jeans looked like they were at some point stained with urine or vomit , they are done, gone, no question. Why the hell do people purchase new items that look like that, I'd rather wear purple , its a color for godsake, not a hue of a undesirable bodily function.

In some ways it seems similar to voting for political candidates. In casting a ballot for a presidential candidate you influencing the outcome as an individual in a very small way, but the reasons for your vote should reflect your own moral choices as best they can in the given context. Boycotting a local restaurant for advertising that they will not serve non whites , would mostly likely have a bigger impact especially if you share your views with others in the community. Joining or starting an organized boycott that is targeting a corporation based on actions of one of its employees is a different context. And the degree the individual is responsible for the success of the enterprise should be weighed against your own value of the product or service. In the OP , my first reaction was negative against the company for bending to public pressure. Not knowing the motivations of the principal actors makes it hard to judge.

Yeah , but I bet the Index was compiled by whites(can't trust them, they let the other races walk all over them).

oh wait I said property there, but I wsn't refering to a material object, so it can't, shouldn't (?) exist?