gio

And to answer you on this specific topic, I don't know, what are you referring to exactly when you talk about Hollande style here ? (Anyway Macron seems very "open to the world". Very much.)

As I told you, Emmanuel Macron was widely elected. I regret not to have given you my prognosis before because I had bet on 65% Macron 35% and this is pretty much the result. Now to answer Nicky, what do I think of Macron as a person? Well ... it's hard to answer, because we don't know him well, and his personality is hard to identify. My first impression about him (but I have to be careful and be aware that this can change) is pretty positive. He gives the image of someone more rational and honest (or sincere) than practically all the French politicians I've known so far. He really has a very different style from the usual politicians. (Perhaps some points in common with Nicolas Sarkozy in the personality ...) But the systematic problem that there is is that he is sometimes very vague. In general, what I noticed is the following (it is systematic): When he speaks all alone and makes speeches, it is always great general ideas, but concretely we don't know what that means. It's blurry. On the other hand, when he's in a debate with an opponent, or is questioned by an activist on the street, he is incredibly good and accurate. He doesn't make demagogy. He seems not afraid to say something that will no please everyone, but which is true. Here are some examples of small sentences for which he made himself famous (because they were shocking in France) during his last two years, if that can give you an idea: He was part of a socialist government. In reply to a journalist: « Honesty obliges me to tell you that I'm not a socialist. » (However, I don't know if he was referring to the party or the ideology ...) Still in reply to journalists: « I recognize my liberalism. Liberalism is a value of the left. » (ATTENTION, here the word "liberalism" must be taken in the European and non-American sense, which refers to classical liberalism.) On the radio: « We need young French people who want to become billionaires. » About the law of 35h in France (it is the maximum legal working time): « It was believed that France could get better by working less. It was false ideas. » « The state has its place, but it has taken too much. » To a young activist against him in the street: « The best way to pay a suit is to work. » (The phrase is famous but is never presented in its context, so I do not know exactly why he was saying this to the guy.) During the interval between two rounds, he went to see workers from a factory threatened to relocate to Poland. He was in the middle of the melee with the angry workers, with only a few bodyguards to protect him. And for more than an hour he responded to all interpellations (even the most aggressive), trying to make the pedagogy on globalization, explaining that the state shouldn't nationalize, that private property exists, and so on. (Unlike Marine Le Pen, very popular with the workers who spent a few minutes making selfies with the workers and promising them to nationalize their factory to save them.) During the debate between two rounds with Marine Le Pen (who was incredibly ridiculous in this debate), she mades lot of promises as usual, and he asked her several times: « How do you finance all this? With whose money? » Besides that, which gives him a very "pro-capitalism" image in France, he defends certain forms of protection and interventionism. There are a lot of interventionist measures in its program, and we also don't know who is going to pay. Some examples (non-exhaustive list): 12 pupils per primary class in sensitive areas. Auxiliary school life for each child who needs it. Increase in number of policemen and gendarmes, military budget. Increase in old-age minimum. Increase in the disabled adult allowance. Increase in activity premium. Increase in unemployment benefits. Increase in refunds for glasses and dentures. Unemployment benefit for employees who have resigned. 50 billion euro stimulus investment plan. € 5 billion for the modernization of farms. 50% organic in collective catering (school canteens for example) Maintaining the budget of culture already very heavy. Creation of assisted jobs in sensitive areas. Prime of 1000 € to buy a vehicle less polluting. Renovation of 1 million poorly insulated homes. Construction of 80,000 housing units for young people. Training for youth and the unemployed. Creation of a fund for industry and innovation of 10 billion euros. 5000 European Border Guards. 15,000 new prison places. (On the other hand, there are also tax cuts, and other measures that go in the direction of less state.) I find it very difficult to make a real opinion about him today. His career is brilliant, he has always succeeded in studies and in what he has undertaken (he was called the "Mozart of finance") and never a French president has been so young in the whole history . (He is 39 years old. And he was never elected before.) He often looks very comfortable on very technical subjects, especially in economics or business, where most politicians are incompetent. (And in the debates, the contrast is blatant.) He seems much weaker on topic like security or terrorism. As I said before, he seems to tell the truth, or at least his understanding of it. Yes he seems particulary honest, but it is very embarrassing that it sometimes keeps a blur. Well, I don't know if it helps you a lot, but that's what I know. (And that's what the French generally know. I don't think anyone else can be more specific.)

Actually this is a very good question and nobody can answer this right now. Just after the presidential election, in June, you have the legislative election, which will determinate the political majority of the country and thus, the government's color. Everytime, in the legislative election next to the presidential, it was always the same party which won. But today that's different, because we don't know if the very young party of Macron has a sufficient structure to win this election. Maybe he will, since a lot of leaders from the mainstream party (from the right and the left) joined the young party of Macron. But Macron said they have to leave the party they come from. So...yes maybe, he will have to govern with a majority from mainstream party... but that's not sure actually. And in fact this is a big problem and a critic that came regulary against Macron. If he doesn't have a parliamentary majority, he can't do anything, he will have very few power. It already happened several times in France, it is called cohabitation. (Check out the Wikipedia article that develop a lot about this kind of situation in France.)

Nope. Totally impossible. (And I knew what happened in U.S. last election.) Today at least.

Since I'm French, let me keep you informed of what's happening in my country. Next Saturday, France will have the final result of the presidential election. Since the end of the first round (April 23rd) this result is already known: the next president of France will be Emmanuel Macron. Of course, when I write these lines, he's still competing against Marine Le Pen, but she has absolutely no chance of being elected. Although she's popular in a part of the French, she (and her party) is still extremely unpopular for the vast majority of French. She will not be elected because of what is called in France the "glass ceiling", which means that she can never exceed a certain level in public opinion. What happened in the first round? The current president, Francois Hollande, is extremely unpopular and didn't have the capacity to present himself again. So, in the first round, there were 5 important candidates (the other 6 are insignificant): François Fillon (The party "The Républicains", the main party of the right in France, the party of Nicolas Sarkozy, who was president between 2007 and 2012. Fillon was prime minister throughout this period. Emmanuel Macron (who was Minister of Economy under President François Hollande, but who launched his political movement since one year only.) Marine Le Pen (The party "National Front", the party considered as extreme right, nationalist.) Jean-Luc Mélenchon (His movement is called "Unsubmitted France", radical left, ideas close to Communism and Marxism.) Benoît Hamon (Socialist party, party of President François Hollande, main party left in France for 40 years.) The result of the first round was as follows: Emmanuel Macron 24% Marine Le Pen 21.3% François Fillon 20% Jean-Luc Mélenchon 19.6% Benoît Hamon 6.4% This is the first time in a French presidential election that none of the main left-wing (Socialist Party) and right-wing (The Republicans) parties are absent from the second round. A brief comment on what happened: Benoît Hamon represented the Socialist Party, the party of the current president, François Hollande. Even if he was part of a faction of this party that was critical of the President, he could not change the fact that he represented a party that had become extremely unpopular, since Francois Hollande was extremely unpopular. More than its predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy (who was also very unpopular). So the score of the Socialist Party is historically low. It was never so low since the 60's. Jean-Luc Mélenchon has almost doubled his score since the last election (2012). He withdrew the red flags and flags of the Soviet Union in his meetings to replace them with French flags, and he sings "La marseillaise" instead of "L'internationale". He was the most popular candidate for young people (18-24), because formally, he made a very modern campaign (despite his archaic ideas): he made a Youtube channel, he used the Social networks, meetings in holograms, his militants even made a videogame on him ("Fiscal Kombat"). Between Macron and Le Pen, he did not give his opinion for the second round, because for him Macron represents capitalism, and Le Pen represents fascism ... (In my personnal view, he is the archetypal dictator. He is an admirer of Chavez & Castro...) François Fillon was destined to win this election. But during the campaign, he was accused of fictitious employment (i.e. misappropriation of public money) for a situation dating back several years ago. This accusation has never been proved, but the presumption of innocence was not sufficient for public opinion to not considered him as guilty and corrupted. Especially since before that, Fillon said that if he was suspected of something, he would not be candidate. Some believe that these accusations have been secretly modeled by the current power in order to make the rival party losing (There are disturbing indications.). Anyway, these accusations made him considerably lower in public opinion, and prevented him from entering the second round. Politically, this was the first time that a major French presidential candidate said he wanted to significantly reduce the size of the state, reduce taxes, reduce regulations and take care of the public debt. It was also the first time I heard a french politician defending liberty (by using this word) in this kind of election. His speech with regard to Islamist terrorism (which he calls "Islamist totalitarianism") was without concession. Who are Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen? Politically Emmanuel Macron is center-left. He is supported by people from right, left and center. He governed as minister under the presidency of François Hollande (Socialist Party) but he was always perceived as different, iconoclastic. He is young (39 years old), doesn't have a political background, he had never be elected, he worked as a business banker at Rotschild. He studied philosophy (his thesis was about Hegel). He is in favor of globalization. His popularity in France comes from the fact that it embodies the image of a change, a renewal because: - He has a different style from most policies and he's young, he has an image of modernity. - He doesn't have a political career (except as minister during 2 years), he does not come from the traditional parties, he comes from the private sector. - He was still unknown 2 or 3 years ago. - He has the image of someone very smart, who knows his files, especially in economy. For the extreme left and far right, he represents capitalism, i.e. the evil. Actually it's true that when he was minister, his speech and his actions seemed "pro-capitalist" especially for a left-wing man. He's in favor of free trade, globalization, private sector... But since the campaign began, he wanted to show that he wasn't so capitalist, by multiplying social measures, protections, etc ... which makes him a centrist. Or a "pragmatist". Or a "moderate". Someone who want to "reconciliate", mix the hot and the cold, who is agree with everyone. He wants to be pro-capitalist and pro-protection in the same time. Marine Le Pen (who was the most popular candidate among the workers) is far-right and her economic program is clearly socialist and protectionist. The two main ideas of his party (the National Front) have always been the same since his father created the party in the 70s: "Fight against immigration and insecurity". Its aim is to "re-establish borders", to regain the sovereignty of the country, to fight against "globalized finance", "ultra-capitalism" and, of course, her speech against Islamism is radical. Never has his party and its ideology been so popular in France. But despite this, for many people, Marine Le Pen (and her party) is considered racist and xenophobic. Many also consider it fascist. She will lose the election, there is no suspense about it. If you have questions, it will be a pleasure for me to answer to you about this elections.

No, I mean that I look for best video quality. I found some pieces of TV show in the documentary Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life, but it's only a substitute. (And her accent is more understandable for me than native english.)

There is no best quality than the Youtube versions anywhere ?

Hello, Do you know where I can download the various TV show where Ayn Rand was interviewed (like Donahue for example) in the best quality possible ? Thank you !

So, read my posts again. The position pro-IP end up logically in death and end of civilization. Are you the author of the image that is on your avatar? If not, did you asked permission from the author before using it? Are you under contract with the author?

This is precisely one of the reasons why the notion of intellectual property is inconsistent and arbitrary. It applies to certain inventions, and not others. ("Because we say so." !) In France, the IP legislation is officially more restrictive than in the US and is often applied to different objects. (See for example the french Wikipedia, you'll never see movie or videogame displays. Good example of victimless crime, isn't it?) The only reason for these differences is the arbitrariness of governments . 1. May I violate your rights because I say so ? 2. When society "say" to violate individual rights, it is right, just because society say so ? 3. Society can't "say" anything, especially not to violate the individual rights. Only individual can say, act, make decisions. What is the purpose of property right ? The fact that you don't understand the difference is symptomatic. You don't want to see the difference between what's arbitrary (from the social constructivism, to use the concept of Hayek) and what's the natural right of individuals existing in the natural relationships between people, regardless of political decisions. The law is there to enforce right, not to invent it. Can we violate property right on the grounds that laws change over time? If not, why? Nothing in the law. But there are multiple ways to prevent this from happening, or stop if it happens, without intellectual property. Since ever, there are companies or association that protect effectively their secrets without ever using intellectual property and without infringing the rights of others. Depending on the context, copy can be inelegant or even dishonorable. It's embarrassing that one take advantage of us and it makes sense to try to avoid that. But there are many legal ways to take advantage of people, from adultery to the false promise through emotional blackmail or despotism towards a subordinate. Laws are there to punish crimes, not to impose good manners and protect us from our innocent naivety. Yes, only if the three architects are stupid and there isn't any contract or any agreement. Laws are there to punish crimes, not to impose good manners and protect us from our innocent naivety. Otherwise, you open the door to arbitrariness, and thus, to totalitarianism. Now consider this: Does an architect request payment of new fees each time you resell the house he has plans? Does an engineer receive royalties from the people passing on his bridge? And so on. These people have provide work, they were paid. End of story. If there is a contract between the publisher and the author, of course it's a violation of right. Like when you buy a good or service and that you refuse to pay it. A trade agreement between an artist and an editor isn't intellectual property. If there was no contract or any agreement and that the author has foolishly give his full manuscript without precautions, there are still ways to prove fraud and throw dishonor to the publisher. There have been several cases in history. For example, the first edition of The Lord of the Rings published in the US was a "pirate" version of Ace Books published without the agreement of Tolkien, who however, has not begun legal action against this company. Subsequently, Ballantine released an official version approved by the author. This version included a note on the back cover stating that it was the only version authorized and asking readers not to buy the other version of Ace Books. Sales of the version of Ace Books fell until the publication stop. With actual technology, information would spread even more easily. In addition, if the publisher sells the book by putting his name or someone else name, it's buyers of the book property that he violate using a misrepresentation. He sold them a product X whose label states that it is a product Y. The publisher may have a moral debt (not legal) to the author, but the only violation punishable by law is misrepresentation to consumers, not the violation of intellectual property rights. You think intellectual property protect against counterfeit, while it's just the opposite. Intellectual property is an incentive for counterfeiting: By allowing its holder to receive artificially a higher price as a monopoly, patents and copyrights make counterfeiting very profitable. It's no accident that it's only since intellectual property that counterfeiting has become a large-scale business. As any government intervention, it reached the opposite result than that for which it is done. Whenever you wonder if such or such a problem occur without intellectual property, always wonder how it worked for centuries where intellectual property didn't exist, and where we had Shakespeare, Lope de Vega, Cervantes, Molière, Vivaldi, Bach, Mozart, Handel, Beethoven, Velázquez, Rubens, Michelangelo, and all philosophers, technicians, inventors, craftsmen, painters, musicians, architects, etc. anonymous or not, famous and modest that populate the history of the West, but also around the world who were completely creative and prolific. Dutch printers reprint all scores of Vivaldi and never pay a cent. And he was prolific. Cervantes had his Don Quixote plagiarized. That didn't stop writing, and even writing a second part to Don Quixote. Now I can give you a multitude of current absurd situations, directly caused by intellectual property. I don't understand your question, sorry. Thank you. Are you the author of the image that is on your avatar? If not, did you asked permission from the author before using it? Are you under contract with the author?

This is part of a commercial contract or license (involving only the buyer and seller ...). Not intellectual property. As a physical object, the blue print and specifications are subject to conventional property. Nothing more, nothing less. Are you the author of the image that is on your avatar? If not, did you asked permission from the author before using it? Are you under contract with the author? I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore. If you learn something that you didn't create and you use again without permission, you copy, right? As the words you use. You're right to say that creation is a necessity. So I guess you're against intellectual property, since it's currently the biggest obstacle to creation. Are you the author of the image that is on your avatar? If not, did you asked permission from the author before using it? Are you under contract with the author?

No. It's the logical implication of the purpose of property right. Remove this, and the property right is meaningless. What is the purpose of property right? There is no problem recognizing that all human production, material or not, has an intellectual basis, because all human action has an intellectual basis. But see where you "mix the brushes", as we say in french: From this point, you jump to the idea that there is a relationship between the intellectual nature of something and property. But then, you should go further and be consistent: As every human action has an intellectual nature, why not submit any human action under intellectual property? Why not? Yes : Any. Human. Action. No? This is absurd, for a very simple reason: because it's not intellectual nature that makes property, but the fact that it's material goods of exclusive use. Otherwise, any intellectual production (how to make fire or heating, to clothe, languages, words, alphabet, writing, letters, signs, wheel, customs, hairstyles, makeup , dances, magic tricks, jokes, recipes, grimaces, distillation, the simple fact to draw, paint, sculpt, play music, or any human activity as an activity which is not completely new ...), and all humain action anyway, would be subject to property (that would be the logical consequence of the intellectual property)... it's fortunately far from being the case, because the defense of intellectual property is not consistent, and because this concept can be applied only through arbitrary. Applied consistently, it makes life impossible. If you want an example of purely arbitrary nature of intellectual property, which shows that this concept is fundamentally contrary to the conventional property, just consider this: There is no "public domain" for conventional property. What a rare and strange property that intellectual property, extinguished after a certain period of time. A bit like saying that your house after X years no longer belongs to you but would be accessible and available for everyone. X is arbitrarily determined by government: Throughout the past two centuries, in US, the trend has been to extend the time limits of copyright: starting from 14 years, we went to author's life plus 70 years... The only connection between intellectual property and conventionnal property is the name, that has been copied. Because I deprive you of your car and I don't deprive you of your architectural ideas. No, because even in the lack of State code, theft is unanimously convicted. It sanctions something that already exists in nature. Take any primitive (or other) community living independently from State, they condemn theft. In contrast, they copy all the time each other. Unlike natural rights, intellectual property is only respected by State force. No individual can survive by respecting fully and consistently intellectual property. You didn't get my point, or you build a strawman. Again, producers and consumers are the same people. I'm not talking about group of people against others. Read Bastiat. Iniquitous laws are not what has been missing throughout history. You wish to persuade people to scrap centuries of law, their natural behavior and humanity for millenia. A human being can't live without copying, and he copy every minute of his life since early childhood. Copying is part of life. Since you got up this morning, you already routinely copied hundreds of inventions, without asking permission to anyone. Through my position, I'm trying to save your life, your property and your liberty, and you don't even thank me!

You don't see how it's different to quote an author to say, «He said this, and since we like this author, he's right.» and mention an author to say: «Take knowledge of its arguments, they will convince you.» ? In the first case it's an argument from authority, not in the second. Because in the first, unlike the second, you take a sentence without seeking to verify the validity of the idea. You attribute value to the statement only through the author's reputation, not by logic or validity of his arguments. Unfortunately, as long as you don't know Bastiat's thought, you can't understand what means "agree with Bastiat". On what point? From what arguments? How is this connected to the discussion? Apparently you don't know. And unfortunately it seems to me that you don't want to know. And the point that you missed is that you didn't understand that work has always a purpose, which is to obtain satisfaction (even the pleasure of work itself). And that work has value only insofar as it achieves its purpose. To say this doesn't contradict the fact that you can enjoy work, on the contrary. This precisely explains why. We like to work because we draw satisfaction from it, because the work makes us happy. So it doesn't makes any sense to place work as a higher value than... the sole reason that it can have a value. You haven't properly integrate values. Therefore, I don't know if you understand that economy, like values (both are interconnected as you should have noticed) have both a purpose that is the same, namely satisfaction, to take a general word. This is the reason why life is the mother of all values and the reason why the end of production is consumption. I give value to this / I produced this because it makes my life better, it gives me pleasure, it gives me satisfaction. It's even the goal of all human action. You confuse different things. Composer was paid in exchange for his partition, writer in exchange for his manuscript, painter in exchange for his painting, sculptor in exchange for his statue, etc. As you pay the hammer manufacturer once in exchange for the delivery of the hammer, without the manufacturer has the preposterous claim to require an additional payment if your neighbor is using your hammer. Lex Mercatoria has nothing to do with intellectual property jurisdiction, it was contractual rules. Intellectual property regulations claims to apply to non-contractual situations, regardless of consent. This is logical, because if it's a property, then copying without permission is theft, and should be punished as such. The conventional notions of property and theft would have no connection with what they actually are if they applied only within the jurisdiction of the contract. If the intellectual property needed the prior approval of all parties involved (the person who creates, the recipient, all people benefit from a copy), then, it wouldn't need to appeal to the concept of property. We will then talk about jurisdiction of the contract, applying only those who signed. A contract that would apply by force to people who haven't been involved in this contract, on things they own, is a violation of property right. Recall that the purpose of property right is to avoid conflicts that may arise from the use of goods or resource of exclusive use. According to the classical liberal principle of appropriation, the right to decide the use of the property rests solely with whoever has the more just claim on it, that is to say the one that gave it the usefulness first, or, who has legitimately received it from a third. In this context, intellectual property has no consistency. Let's go back further in time and observe the man from Antiquity occupy a piece of land and start cultivating painfully depending on local rainfall regime, becoming, de facto, owner of the land. Let's observe now across the country, where our peasant has never set foot, someone developing an irrigation system. The implicit logic of intellectual property would entitle the latter to forbid our farmers to use irrigation technique developed or so to claim royalties for each use. But we immediately understand that by doing so, the developer of the irrigation system violates the peasant's property right by prohibiting him to do what he wants on the plot of land he occupied first. This is my absolute right to do what I want with my property. I bought legitimately artistic production in exchange to a freely agreed payment, I do what I want: I enjoy it, I destroy it or I make a copy if I can, that I give to whom I want. Intellectual property is a violation of genuine property right, claiming that I buy a product that I can't enjoy as I please. In addition to representing the insured end of all human progress which is based essentially on copy, from the wheel, fire, or writing.

What I wanted to show you is that intellectual property did not exist for centuries, and yet artists were paid for their work. According to your reasoning, it is impossible. Because you missed something. The application has varied, the principle has never changed fundamentally. Intellectual property fundamentally corrupts the principle of property by changing its purpose and context. We can even show that intellectual property is a violation of property right. That's not why I invite you to read Bastiat. Bastiat doesn't talk about intellectual property. But he will help some people understand why the reasoning they do just here to defend intellectual property is a logical mistake. I try also to explain it, but Devil's Advocate did not get my point. I guess Bastiat is clearer. I was tempted to reply only: "Read Bastiat". Lol. This is not an argument from authority. Devil's Adovate used a quotation from Bastiat as an argument from authority. I hope it's not because Bastiat says that you believe, but because his arguments are logical, clear, rational and irrefutable. He will help you as he helped me (and probably helped Rand). It's a real advice. I think that anyone who will read Bastiat will not regret. You'll thank me later! Secondly, I have nothing against developing my explanations as long as a book, but I don't think anyone will read on a forum. Anyone would prefer... read Bastiat. In addition, he's a much better stylist than me.

You don't understand what is the purpose of property right or the purpose of a right. Go back to the classics, such Aristotle. A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a human beings freedom of action in a social context. It is the identification of a truth about how human beings can live optimally in a social context. The source of right is not individuals. It's meaningless to talk about Robinson Crusoe's "rights". The source of right is in the relationship between individuals. The purpose of right is to prevent and resolve conflicts between individuals. The purpose of property right is not to protect the producer or the consumer as such. Basically, the purpose of the property right is to avoid conflicts that may arise from the use of goods or resource. The context of property right is that it apply to tangible goods. This is involved by the property right. As you don't take this into account, you make the mistake of identifying copying and stealing. Even as you copy something every minute of your life. And no human being can live without copying his peers. There is no contradictions : You can't protect a person as a producer and as a consumer at the same time. You either facilitate — through freedom — access to resources and you serve the consumer (needs and desires are satisfied, life grows) or places obstacles and barriers to protect the producer. You can't defend both positions simultaneously. If you want to protect the producer, you have to be consistent and prohibit competition or free trade, because they protect the producers. Against consumers, of course. Anything you can do to protect someone as a producer harms everyone (including himself) as a consumer. For instance, if you want to protect the doctor as a producer of a care service, you need to ensure foster disease, and thus, put more obstacles to anything that allows access to care easier. More people will need doctors, who will get more work. Of course, you forget that the finality of care service is to heal, but who cares, since you protect production of care ... which become meaningless (without goal) since you corrupt the very reason for its existence. You favoures the means at the expense of the goal, without understanding that the mean exists only for the goal. Read full book you quote (Or Economic Sophisms, it's shorter). Bastiat talks here about conventional property, which implies a context of tangible goods. He explained that what can be obtained (not produced, obtained) without effort is not subject to property. This is the case of an idea that can be multiplied to infinity without pain. But that's not what I want to show you in the writings of Bastiat. Read him. Seriously. You completely missed my point, or you intentionally build a strawman.

No. Life is the mother of all conceivable values. Whatever value you attribute to your work, you give it value because it brings you happiness in your life. It's always a mean to an end, which is to get a happy life. It is yet consumption. Or, to use a more general word, satisfaction. It's the same. When talking about consumption, we speak of an individual whose desire or need is sated. In short, an individual who obtains satisfaction. If he likes to work, he works in order to obtain pleasure, he draws satisfaction, it's the same. We always do an effort in order to get result. Your idea implies that the effort may be more important than the result. Therefore, it could be good to work for work, but bad to get pleasure or satisfaction from it in one form or another (even the pleasure to work). It's exactly what self-sacrifice is. The direction towards death. Someone who draws his happiness directly from work is always free to work more if desired. But a regulation, which forces people to work more, by artificially lowering the ratio between effort and result, so between work and satisfaction drawn from it (regardless of the form taken by this result or satisfaction) is utter nonsense. Read Bastiat. Moreover, Intellectual property has never been thought in order to give more work and less satisfaction to people, even if it actually achieves that. It was thought in the (false) idea to give more satisfaction to creators. Therefore, I don't think that self-sacrifice is a good way to defend it.

The principle of savings and investment is to refrain from consuming today in order to consume more tomorrow. What did you think was the finality?

Yes. Consuming is the purpose of production, and by the way, of all economy. Read Bastiat. (Economic Sophisms. And Economic Harmonies if you have time.) Man products in order to consume and consume in order to enjoy life, which is the ultimate end. You have to product in order to consume. But thanks to the division of labor, one consume always much more that he can produce. Human progress is precisely that: the ratio between what you consume and what you can produce grows exponentially. According to your reasoning, since this is the production which allows the consumption, there should be more obstacles, more barriers and more difficulties in the enjoyment of goods. That way we will work more and therefore we will earn more. This is a Keynesian fallacy. Read Bastiat. You can read him freely, his ideas are not under someone's property. What is the direct purpose of property right? It doesn't make any sense. Man works to live. He doesn't live for work. Life is the ultimate end. Consumers and producers are the same people. Division of labor mislead you.

I'm not sure to understand the question. As I said to New Buddha, think of everyone interest as a consumer (that each of us is above all) not as a producer. Read Bastiat. The purpose of production is consumption (in the large meaning of this term). That's the finality. Forget keynesians reflexes.

Read the economic writings of Bastiat (Economic Sophisms for instance). The purpose of economy is the satisfaction of the consumer, not the producer protection. Because consumer is the finality of economy and because each producer is also consumer and consumes much more than he produces. In his life, any creator copy much more things than he can create (he copies something every minute of his life). Therefore, intellectual property isn't in anybody interest. You seem to think the only way for a creator to get compensation for his work by fair trade is only by intellectual property. Before the invention of intellectual property by the governments, musicians didn't receive any compensation for their work? (Mozart worked for free?)

Do you know Hudson River School ? This is an artistic movement from the nineteenth century influenced by romantism, one of the first American artistic movements. It provided great paintings of american landscapes. You can check some examples (from Bierstadt and Moran, my favorites) in the attachments. You have other examples in the following link.

You've got my point. Human progress is based on copy, on emulation from ideas materialized by others in the past, on competitive improvement of other's creations, on the combination of various ideas with minimal own original contribution. Human being spends his time copying, every second of his life, starting from his early childhood. Prevent him to copy freely is to kill him. It means preventing him to realize his nature of human being.

I can not say logically how words, language, etc. differ essentially from other creations that are usually under "intellectual property" regulations. However, I can easyly say how including the concept of "intellectual property" in the general concept of property is a logical fallacy of "package deal" mixing two things which essentially differ in nature.

I am art teacher. You are good. A bit academic and static for my personal taste, but still good. I see you are from Israel. I studied one year in Bezalel, as exchange student. Do you know the school ?

Arguments, words, language, structure of the sentence, etc. All those things are human creations, aren't they? As such, and according to the logic of intellectual property, they are necessarely the intellectual property of someone. You have to get the permission of the owner to use it.