Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

howardofski

Regulars
  • Content Count

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by howardofski

  1. In one of his lectures, Nathaniel Brandon imagined a robot so perfectly made that it physically mimicked the characteristics of a beautiful lover - but you knew it was just a robot, and he asked, would you want it?
  2. "Rights" has become, in modern English, a noun and grammatically an attribute. But all it means is a value judgment: it is right. Expressing value judgments may be a waste of time if you are alone, since there is no one to listen to them, but making value judgments is never a waste of time. Saying "I have a right to..." just means "It is right that I ...." There are those who will claim that "rights" are only a sensible idea in a social context. But that confuses judging what is right with saying what is right.
  3. Diddy lost no value. Ideas cannot be stolen. He could not lose what he did not own, as I've said many times in my empty vague posts. I still don't know what Donkey Kong refers to, but I bet it doesn't matter. Bye now.
  4. I don't know what that means and will wait for you to point to some quote of mine before responding further.
  5. It is bizarre to claim that thinkers need or deserve protection from people who might learn by observation.
  6. 2046, The linguistic erosion I refer to is the word Libertarianism itself, though I see that Sheldon also wants to rename NAP to NAO. I believe this is the essence of Sheldon Richman's position: "...the most robust case for the libertarian philosophy entails commitments not only to the Nonaggression Principle—or what I now call the Nonaggression Obligation—but also to other values that don't directly relate to aggression (for example, opposition to even non-rights-violating forms of racism)." Neither of these linguistic shifts is justified, in my opinion. 1) He seems to be saying that the
  7. Coincidently, Lew Rockwell has just (Monday, 5 May) published an article on these "new" libertarians. In my own opinion they are just collectivists stealing a popular term and pasting it on their collectivism the way they did with the term "liberal". People who find endless excuses to violate the NAP need to steadily erode the language. I have read a quote attributed to Lenin, "First, destroy the vocabulary". I keep Orwell high on my list of great thinkers. Lew's article: http://mises.org/daily/6740/The-Future-of-Libertarianism
  8. Your first paragraph above is correct, so long as it is understood that design may very well be why an object is valued - no one is saying that design is irrelevant or without value, merely that it cannot be owned in the abstract. Only the physical objects that incorporate the design are ownable. Your third paragraph seems to take my point too literally. I did not mean that some specific coins or bills were Roofer's property. I merely meant Roofer, by doing the work, became the rightful owner of some amount of money (which he is being deprived of by Homeowner), but money is fungible, an
  9. The cost of the frame, canvas and paint might be millions of dollars if it was a Vermeer. If you are suggesting that the anti-IP position is that the value of the art is irrelevant, then you are failing to understand the position.
  10. New Buddha, Value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. You can value an idea as you choose. Others will value it as they choose. Passing value judgments is the responsibility of every mind.
  11. This is false and another misinterpretation. I believe exactly the opposite.
  12. Let's see. My little story is basically what the OP is about, so I should try to stick to what the OP is about? Got it. I'll continue to do my best. P.S. The quote of my post included no hyperbole or psychologizing about motives that I can see, but then I'm not an Objective moderator, am I?
  13. I could sign on to the above if it did not include a subtle shift away from my position. If you originate an idea, you most certainly do deserve to decide how it is introduced to others. But this entire thread has to do with what you deserve AFTER you have introduced your idea to others. The anti-IP position is that no one owes you anything unless they contracted for it in advance. So If you want to rewrite that statement, I'll be happy to sign it.
  14. Fraud is generally thought of, by both Objectivists and Libertarians, as an initiation of the use of force. The reason is clear: Examples of fraud will always reduce to a case of someone being forcefully deprived of their rightful property (usually their money). 1) An example would be: homeowner contracts with roofer. Roofer does the work. Homeowner doesn't pay. Where is the force? The amount of force is small, but it is enough to keep roofer's money in homeowner's pocket so retaliatory force is justified to remove roofer's money from homeowner's pocket. It is Roofer's money because Roofer
  15. Exactly right. We can not make it our purpose here to change minds. Our purpose can only be to present our case in the best philosophical form that we can. Being persistently challenged forces us to keep modifying the position or our rhetoric until it is the best we can do. My formula for good philosophy is to compose sentences which are: 1 true 2 important 3 universal 4 clear 5 brief I have learned a great deal in this forum about how better to state the anti_IP position. I have not learned of any new or better pro-IP arguments. I never expect to "win" debates - that would require an impart
  16. Well, as I have made clear in several posts, IP law and NAP are in direct contradiction. You refuse to answer questions that would lead to that contradiction becoming explicit. Instead you cook up examples which describe me as breaking and entering to steal manuscripts and you now deploy the term "parasitic" while announcing that you will not debate further. Good. You claim that copyright enFORCEment is not an initiation of force. It follows that copyright infringement IS an initiation of force, which is obvious nonsense.
  17. My original question (205 & 213) asked if you agreed that force was only justified for self defense. That's a yes or no question. 261 says you do not concede that enforcement of IP law is an initiation of force. I interpret this to mean that IP infringement must therefore be an initiation of force. But I dislike having to interpret indirect answers in a debate. So, to clarify your position, I ask: Do you believe that: IP infringement is an initiation of force?
  18. Ayn, in the quotes I have offered, does take the same position as I do (and John Lock does). In supporting IP, she contradicts these quotes. I agree with what I have quoted and disagree with her support for IP. Your claim that without IP, Ayn's entire ethics becomes invalid, is itself invalid. Without IP, humans would still have their minds, their liberty, their property (acquired by the first-use principal) and the NAP. And you ask another question that has been repeatedly answered: who deserves? This whole question of "just deserts" has been covered and re-covered. The answer is to be foun
  19. You have now shifted from refusing to answer questions about your own position to telling me what my position is. Amazing.
  20. DonAthos, in Post #191 leads me to these schematic questions, offered here to the Pro-IP debaters as thought experiments: Able thought of it and built the first one, but Baker imitated and built the second one. Who owns the second one? Able thought of it, revealed the plans to all and Baker then built the first one. Who owns it? Able and Baker both thought of it and built it, but Able thought of it sooner while Baker built it faster. Who owns what? Answer: IP law is nonsense. Property is physical objects and materials that have been put into use and whoever was first to use them was the or
  21. I agree. I believe the premise of the example is that the Franz Brand Piano is a new and 'patentable' invention (given IP law).
  22. No you did not. You said, "You're convinced that..." and I labeled that as 'psychobabble'. It was an irrelevant aside. Let us continue. I still would like a reply to my question about copyrights. Then I will respond to your other items.
×
×
  • Create New...