tadmjones

I seriously doubt the phrase 'initiation of force' carries the same weight in the umma as it does in the West, nor do I think the umma gives a rat's ass about any Western opinions of civility.

Harrison said #23 I would feel SAFE in such a community. I would not feel comfortable; frankly, I would probably spend most of my time trying to show them the irrationality of their religion Heh, a dhimmi publicly committing blasphemy, may as well convert and then try becoming a public apostate you chances would be about the same And did Mo ever say that the umma should not cover the globe? that is was Allah's will that Islam need not encompass the whole world? What Islamic scholars have said that a worldwide caliphate is not the goal for life on Earth?

You do not make the idea public and then forbid its use, as much as you register your unique creation(your property) with an objective agency , or third party so to speak. The example of trademarks and such(Coca Cola) is not about the patentability of the secret formula as much as selling products of similar characteristics as one and the same product. If I were to figure out their recipe and manufacture my product for distribution, as long as I did not try and sell it as "Coke" by this I mean using their logo and bottle design to intentionally make it appear to be their product , I would see this as kosher. It would violate their rights to their property if I were to sell my manufactered goods as theirs in order to take advantage of their product's prestige. The protection of their rights would have to come from the government( in the form of a recognised right to be compensated for theft) because otherwise what would stop a storeowner from selling my bogus Coke in place of the Real Thing, if I offered him a higher margin? Which I could do (most likely) given I would spend zero dollars on marketing because I am ripping off Coke by piggybaking on their established and hard won market share.

What about 'artwork' would make it a special category? Is 'artwork' not produced a human mind? If an idea or a design is created by a human mind and can be objectively recognised as that particular individual's achievement, how or why would there be different principles concerning that individual's ownership?

Dude you are a poser and creepy, how the hell is a forum supposedly dedicated to discussing the philosophy of Objectivism even tangentially associated with your post? Bugger off.

Harrison in #56 said Money is nothing but a symbol Believe me , I am not trying to nitpick here, but given what you may have gleaned from ITOE (and perhaps any other of Rand's nonfiction as it concerns politics/economics), re-evaluate this particullar statement word for word to see if it actually articulates an o'ist position.

My question on this thread , is, this is a moderated forum, yes? Hello Moderators!!

Are honor killings acts of non-political but extremist muslims, or the average joe kind?

Exactly when does one become an extremist? Is it when guiding the aircraft into the building or before? Is it after detonating explosives strapped to your body or before? Aside from watching someone 'become' an extremist in the act as it were, how could you tell if they were prone to extremism? Wouldn't you look at the things they say they think, those principles and ideals that guide their actions, of course assuming the were being truthful of their motivation. In what way do the teachings or tenets of 'moderate' muslims differ from those of the 'extremist' kind? Acts of terror are one way to try and bring about the downfall of the West, infiltration by 'moderate' groups such as CAIR are another.

See, hers's my querky take on all things IP in an idealistic form. Using the example of a Mercedes from another thread, I think if I were to build an exact copy of a Mercedes product it should be considered my property just like the rake in my garage, in that I can do with it whatever I choose. In my admittedly ideal version of LFC, I do not believe Mercedes Benz Corp should have legal recourse as it concerns the existence of my property. But if I were to trade the copy, they would then have the right to stop the sale or be able to gain restitution from me equal to the profit they would have made, had their product been sold (but not the costs involved in production). They own the specific design of the car, they should enjoy all the rights enjoyable from the disposal of that property(the design). If I made a hundred copies of their design and sold them they would be entitled to compensation equal to the profit they would have realized had they sold their products. If the design can be objectively recognized as their creation, what in this admittedly thin example is wrong as far as a principled recognition of property rights is concerned?

See I don't think you understand the difference between a car , lightening, a camera, fire, gravity and a(the) wheel.

Harrison in one post you equated patenting fire and a (the) wheel, do you see a difference between what these concepts refer to? One is a natural phenomenon the other a design. And futher , IP can only be applicable to a division of labor society.(as so most considerations of rights protection) moral justifications of rights is not the same nor should be equated with the metaphysical nature of beings in possession of said rights.

I have no idea of the medical science involved in calculating the rates of survival concerning age, but are you suggesting that anyone other than those qualified to determine those factors should be invovled with the allocation of organs to those most likely to take full advantage? Shouldn't the sole determing factor be the best judgement of the medical profressionals? Aside from the aspect of compensation , as a baseline isn't this particular science best left to the scientists, assuming their judgements are based on the chances of the particular patient's survivablity in determining allocation of a very limited resource?

Most Muslims are perfectly harmless So just watch out for the 'bad' ones, the harmless ones are actually fighting against the bad ones too? Sure you see it everyday,99% of of the population of Pakistan,Suadi Arabia,Turkey ect are in the streets daily decrying the actions of the 'bad' ones. No" for evil to flourish good men..."kinda thingy, complacent muslims are blameless, really?

harrison: Original- by what standards? huh? the concept of 'original' is filled with such ambiguity that you do not understand my use of the term? Is the car a new invention To what do you refer to as 'the car' is it a specific design of an object? Or a specific object, because it kinda seems like you mean "you know, a car,man" in the sense that everyone knows what a car is, independent of the fact that a 'car' is a manmade object , to recognize the fact that 'a car' is a manmade object should kinda make one reflect on the idea that if not for one specific man that object may not be.

Do you view Islam as a religion? If so, do you not think it has a more 'severe' form of politics, that for Islam to 'succede' would mean the total destruction of the West?

integrate all of that, lets see what we come up with

Original.Creative,Recognized,In the context of LFC

There may be a distinction we are failing to appropriate, all social conventions are artificial, the adjunct of society brings with it certain considerations or connotations , I guess my question is... should those auxillaries be recognised or considered? I believe some thought should be given to the existence of these auxillaries and any corrollaries they may imply.

that's cause yer cute

DonAthos in #163 Thus we are wrong to discount such physical labor as "copying," or to divorce the property that results from such physical labor from the man who has performed it. We are also wrong to suppose that Garfield's labor is solely "physical" as opposed to "mental," for such strictly "physical labor" is impossible. In both cases, Heathcliff and Garfield have each performed mental and physical labor, together. In both cases, their labors have resulted in some material value, which is property. And in both cases, it is right that each instance of property belongs to the man who has performed the labor required to bring that property into existence, that man "being the man who has applied the knowledge and effort to create this property." Thoughts? Absent a context that includes trade and a division of labor society, I would stipulate that H&G rightfully own their sharpeners and each is free to do whatever they please with those specific physical objects, however they came to be. My question is , should the principles of IP be developed or judged, in a context that fails to recognise what a civilised society is ?

DonAthos in #150 Is it the case that coming to have this nut, stick, or diamond, was wholly a matter of "mind, will, or spirit," and that alone? A man may spy something and desire it -- he may will it all he wants -- but his ownership of the same utterly depends on his ability and labor in taking possession of it, physically. Man's mind and body (insofar as it is sensible to speak of them separately) must conspire to produce material values, and our understanding of resultant property must not pretend as though reality works otherwise, when it does not. It is the man who picks up the stick, notwithstanding all those who might will it without making the successful effort to pick it up in fact, who owns it in fact. I have yet to read the entire essay, but the 'physicality' argument here used ,I think, does not take into account the fact that seeing the nut is also an instance of physicality. While I agree the pickerupper is the owner, the picking up of is not the sole physical act invovled. In my imagined LFC, IP protection is only applicable in a 'commercial' sense and then only to specific ideas, not ideas as such. An inventor conceives an idea for a widget or a process, which can be objectively recognised as other than a restatement of the 'natural' physical 'laws'( not a discovery), he is then said to own that idea as it has been proven he is the originator of it. In the Spooner sense of wealth the creation and description of it may satisfify his wants as owner. In the context of a division of labor society, he may also want to trade his property for value, and any trade of his property should be protected as well as all of his 'other' rights, that enjoy protection(and for the same fundamental reasons) eg his right to speech, association , life ect. If the only way to violate individual rights is the initiation of force, how can his ownership or free trade of it be violated? I would suggest two ways, first that any material values he receives from trade of his idea be stolen, or second that others could appropriate his ideas without his prior permission and trade in the marketplace without benefit to him, the results to the originator are the same both monetarily and morally.

oh boy I just read Spooner for the first time , chapter I section II seems to say When I sell the garage built Mercedes, the object I own ,am I not also selling the design that is 'embodied' in the object? I guess to be taken seriously , by some, I should have read Spooner first, so I could quote him. Although perhaps further in the essay he says in some fashion, that wealth can some how not be 'owned', but first glance seems to side with the garage built Merc, I guess I will need to finish the essay.

DonAthos siad in # 143 If IP were valid (which in this context means: were a right), then I would like to understand why it isn't treated like other property is -- free to pass down through the generations. Property isn't passed 'down through the generations'. Land or physical objects can and do exist beyond the lifetimes of the original owner and then also subsequent owners, but the owner at any one time is ..well the owner. If IP were understood as the ownership of an idea for commercial use and that that ownership only applies to the originator , would you be cool with that?

tadmjones, on 01 Jun 2013 - 22:44, said: DA said #127 "And I know that you make this distinction, but I don't know your principled argument for it. So please explain -- why do you think someone should not be allowed to profit on the property they build in the marketplace in this manner? Doesn't this seem exactly to you like any other sort of coercive monopoly we might imagine (like on pizza sales in Portland)? And if you agree that the Mercedes you build is fully your property -- being yours in the same way, and for the same reasons, that the cars owned by the Mercedes people are theirs -- then shouldn't you also have your full spectrum of property rights over that object (for what is "property" without "property rights," but meaningless)? And isn't the right to sell (given a willing buyer) among these property rights?" I am going to assume the context of an imagined LFC society, irrespective of Rand's( and others') stated arguments concerning IP . When I sell the garage built Mercedes, the object I own ,am I not also selling the design that is 'embodied' in the object? I did not create the design, I appropriated it. The rights of the duly recognized owner of the design can only be violated if I try and profit from his property and then his only due compensation to the extent that I 'stole' a sale form him(or the coporation), he would not be entitled to be compensated for the costs of the physical components of the object(the circitury, steel, rubber ect) because he never owned those objects, my object does not have any of his physical (material)property incorporated in it. But the fact of the design does exist, it is a 'thing'(albeit nonmaterial), why would the creator of a 'thing' not have owernship of it? In an earlier example I suggested that a novel would be a good way to look at the issues invovled precisely because of the view I am trying express concerning ownership(copyright-ability) of certain things(ideas). I said that I consider the specific sequence of words to be the novel, the manner in which that novel is conveyed is secondary. When a book is printed and a copy is sold that is nothing more than the conveyance of the novel whether that be by printing ink on paper or a computer file would change nothing concerning the 'thing' that is the novel. If one owned a copy of a novel they own the particular copy, they do not own the 'novel'.