howardofski

No, my reasons have to do with first use - not first thought - and that is exactly what Ayn says. OBVIOUSLY, for a human to make use of an object requires knowledge, and it is the application of knowledge to material objects that creates the right of property, not necessarily original knowledge. Read what Ayn says and note that nowhere does she insist on ORIGINAL knowledge (thanks to muhuk Post #91 & 93): Ayn: It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values. [This says I have the right to own material objects, not thoughts] Ayn: Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort. [so, if I apply an idea originated by you which is now my knowledge and I apply my effort, the material becomes my property - because I applied the knowledge and effort.] Ayn: A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort . . . . [so, if I implement an idea originated by you using my materials, that is not included in your right - you have to expend your own effort on your own material in order to own it.] Ayn: Man has to work and produce in order to support his life. He has to support his life by his own effort and by the guidance of his own mind. If he cannot dispose of the product of his effort, he cannot dispose of his effort; if he cannot dispose of his effort, he cannot dispose of his life. [so, if I use an idea originated by you because my own mind has guided me to see it as a good idea, I should not be interfered with by you, since that deprives me of the right to dispose of my own life.] Ayn: It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind. [so, you limiting what I can create with my own private property and using my own mind, because you don't want to be imitated is a violation of private property] Wrong. The source of private property is ingenuity applied, not originated. If I apply your ingenious idea to my materials, the result is mine because....see above. Ayn and I agree perfectly on the source of private property. It must be material and it must come into use to become property, which OF COURSE will require knowledge and effort, but that does not need to be specified since it is true of all human action. What is NOT true of all human action is first use - which is the source of property rights.

You didn't answer my question. You tell me what I am convinced of (psychobabble). You ask more questions. How about we take turns answering questions and skip the psychobabble. It's more fun that way.

That you interpret my meaning one way, and I then correct your interpretation, is not a case of me "changing the meaning after the fact". It is a case of me correcting your misinterpretation. Exactly, so why do you waste so much time trying? Why not just address the posts, stay on topic, and leave it at that. We are discussing the morality of IP law.

No it wasn't. It was a warning not to do that.

Jaskn, We don't share consciousness - we each have our own and it is private and not knowable to others. What we share is physical reality - it's the same reality for us all. We can debate by sending one another messages. The messages have meaning independent of the minds that composed them. So you can respond to the meaning of my messages even though you do not know what my motives or thoughts are, nor do you need to. That physical reality we share is such that if I eat your lunch, you cannot also eat it. That's why we need property rights. That's the subject of this thread and it relates to when it is justified to use force against one another, so it is very important to establish a correct rule. It is not necessary to read each other's minds, just carefully reading the posts will do.

It means that, does it? And here I thought writing back and forth to one another was communication. Who'd have guessed?

Pardon the wise crack, but "IP or Real..." kind of gives away the point doesn't it? :-)

I did not say "knowing", did I? "Misinterpretation" means you missed on your interpretation. The term does not address motives. Sorry if you took it otherwise. For the record, I do not claim to know anything about your motives. I simply see that you repeatedly summarize my view inaccurately. If it's an innocent mistake, so be it. As a tactic, it is silly, as I said.

Exactly right.

Thanks for your reply, both clear and brief. Theft means that something which is your property has been taken from you. "From you" means you no longer have it. In the case of copyright, what is that something which you no longer have?

I explain all those items as judgments about behavior, not mind-reading. I have never discounted mental effort - I have claimed that you cannot measure it. You are circling back to the same point that you have made before - my saying that you can't read minds = my saying that minds don't exist or don't count. Misrepresentation is a silly debate tactic.

Muhuk, in Posts #91 and #93, offers many quotes from Ayn that clearly present the physical basis of property rights. The anti-IP position is that she then contradicted herself by supporting IP. Debates about what Ayn did or did not say are therefore moot. She can be quoted to support either side of the debate. But it is very invalid for the pro-IP debaters to claim or imply that the anti-IP debaters lack any reasonable basis for property rights (hinting that if you don't believe in IP, you don't have a basis for property rights). The anti-IP basis has now been spelled out in detail in two separate threads; it is the basis commonly accepted for hundreds of years, and it is the basis clearly stated by Ayn herself. The basis is not mental, it is physical - non-property becomes property when it is put to use. That using anything requires intelligence is true but irrelevant to the question of property. It is the physical act of using an un owned object that makes that object the property of the user. The pro-IP debaters want to make the claim that since to use something requires thinking, it is the thinking, not the using, that causes an object to become property, so that they can then claim ownership of ideas and therefore claim that ideas can be stolen and therefore declare their right to initiate the use of force to interfere with the property uses of others. In substance, this thread is merely a continuation of a previous thread but started with a repeat of the pro-IP argument based on a new example. That previous thread is: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27229&hl=printing&page=10 In that thread, SpiralArchitect, in Post 246, point 1, opens by speaking of stolen ideas as if he has not read any of the previous posts. For something to be stolen, the owner must be deprived of it. Imitating does not = stealing. I refer you to the dictionary and to Ayn's definition of logic: "The art of non-contradictory identification". To "identify" is a linguistic act. Non-contradictory identification means, for instance, to stop calling imitation "stealing", so that you can thus continue advocating the initiation of violence. 　 In point 2, he writes: "You're the only one discussing force, which I guess is natural since you are the one that thinks you have a right to act on someone else's mind." Yes I do have a right to imitate you. Re-naming imitation as "acting on another's mind" is fascinating rhetoric, which sort of hints at trespassing, but obviously imitation has no direct effect on the imitated, is not trespassing, and obviously is not an instance of force. There's more to that post, but I'm not confident I understand it. In Post #249 of that same thread, StrictlyLogical offers excellent general advice on how to think, but 249 being such a large number, I fear he has failed to read all the previous posts, where he would have seen that his advice is not needed. At any rate, his concern with "somethings that are physical and somethings that are not" is addressed in this present post (see above), as well as numerous other posts in both threads. In Post #245 of that previous thread, Jaskn suggests that I have "sidestepped" because I define property rights as physical (as outlined above in this present post) and don't include the mental justification for IP. Yes, I did that. It isn't sidestepping his question, it's disagreeing with him. Characterizing disagreement as sidestepping suggests that I secretly agree with him, but don't want to admit it. I don't secretly agree with him.

Your question has been answered numerous times by numerous writers in this thread, and you neglect to answer questions put to you.

No, all businesses do not measure mental effort on a daily basis, since that is not possible. Yes, this is consistent with my previous posts.

DonAthos, in Post #217, offers a highly detailed explanation of why it makes no sense for the Pro-IP debaters to continually present inventors as great thinkers and imitators as mindless parasites, so as to "morally" justify a coercive market monopoly. I wish everyone following this debate would take some time to study what he has written there. In another IP thread I made a related point: the pro-IP argument is based entirely on psychobabble - on the implied assumption that the pro-IP debaters have the magical ability to look inside the minds of all the players in their little just-so stories and see who "really" thought hard and who didn't and then divvy up the rewards accordingly. Since mind-reading is a fraudulent game to begin with, assigning rewards with reference to mental exertion is a fraud as well. Psychobabble works fine in a work of fiction where we can look into the innocent, inventive and long-suffering mind of Hank Readen (who has a neat name) and into the shameful and parasitic mind of Wesley Mouch (whose name reminds us of 'mooch'), but out here in the real world, measuring mental effort remains a fiction.

Thank you very much. But you did not answer my question: Do you agree that force is only justified for self-defense (in which I include defense of property)? If not, might you outline any additional justification?

You are interpreting my terms in the narrowest sense. By self defense, I include the defense of property, property rights being essential to self sustenance.

Correct. To prevent me would be a violation of NAP. Force is only justified in self defense, yes?

Well obviously, secrecy does have something to do with the argument since they would have no way to copy drawings which you have kept secret. The issue is indeed ownership of drawings, but I reject ownership of designs and I don't care how big a dollar figure you place on your drawings, nor how many years you spent drawing them, nor how difficult it was to think them up. If, by observing the building, someone can learn how to build such a building, or if you make the drawings public, and they learn that way, I reject any violence on your part to prevent them from building their building with their materials as they see fit. I do not understand why you (and other debaters) behave as if you believe that if you cook up yet another example you will somehow change the principles of the two sides of the debate. It does not matter how ingenious and original your invention, design, juggling act, hairdo, or mousetrap, you do not have a right to violently suppress imitation. To do so violates the NAP. You speak of being protected. You are not being attacked. You are advocating attacking. What you want "protection" from is competition. And you are applying to the right party. Government is a protection racket. Do not argue that you deserve to be free of competition. What you deserve is your property and your liberty to use it as you choose, so long as you do no harm. You do not deserve to prevent others from using their property as you have used yours, simply because you claim to own ideas, patterns, styles, or any other abstractions. Being the first to do something does not give you the right to attack whoever is second. Being first to take an action does not make you the owner of an action. Your plan to make money by means of a coercive monopoly is a philosophical error. Ayn Rand made it. You make it. Statists love it.

You raise a question of current law and the failure of the client to understand a contract. My anti-IP position is that a design may not be owned. You and the client might have a contract with a non-disclosure clause preventing them from revealing the design. I might pay you to come up with a new design (kept secret between us), but after I have created the building, I do not believe I should have the legal power to prevent someone from copying that design in their own building.

Seeing how your invention works is a mental state which is not applicable to property because it is wholly internal.

Ayn is not my pal and I don't realize that.

You asked a question. I answered it. I asked a question. You ignore it and ask another question, an irrelevant one.

Of course. Ideas are created by one or more individuals. The problem is that "deserving" and having a right to something are not the same. That I deserve to be thanked by my neighbor for improving his view with my beautiful garden does not give me the right to point a gun at him and charge him for the pleasure of viewing it. You do agree with that, yes?

DonAthos, The thread is Anarchy / Minarchy / Competing Governments I entered the discussion with Post #127 http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=228&page=6