howardofski

I don't think amorality is really possible except in distinct, isolated subjects where we can say, "He does not care about what is right and wrong in this situation and he has no opinion on it".  Amorality means (to me) not having an opinion on the morality of the situation.  But I suspect everyone has lots of moral opinions about most situations, so I generally see amorality as a possible, but not likely state, in most cases.
 
Pure altruism is also nearly impossible to find.  However altruism within self-interest is common.  One can (and many do) say, "In order for my life to be good, I should care about other's lives".  True altruism is (I would guess) almost never practiced, but it is often preached - by parasites trying to convince their intended victims to be willing victims.  

equine juxtaposition = cart before horse?? Scarcity and NAP ARE the horse. Without them, there is no cart, unless it's a stolen concept cart, which is almost as bad as a stolen bicycle.

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.

Perhaps everyone is ignoring this because it is so patently (sic) untrue. Property rights certainly do include the right to act, but it is a right to unspecific acts with regard to a very specific object. The word "property" refers to the object, not the acting, and the phrase "property rights" obviously refers to both actions and the specific objects which are acted upon. Property rights are very much a right to materials and objects.

Divorcing the term 'property' from its traditional, objective definition is necessary to the upkeep of the IP argument.

One of the premises behind Rand's criticism of psychologism is that one cannot access the intentional state of others. I'm referring here to the intentions or motivations behind why someone does or says something.

I haven't read much of this thread but what I did read made me think of this.