FeatherFall

Waxliberty, thanks for correcting me. There is definitely a lack of clarity here that creates the illusion of disagreement where there is none. Earlier in the thread you used the phrase, "mainstream anthropogenic global warming." To me that means there is a "greenhouse effect" and that humans contribute. This particular fact is recognized by virtually every climate skeptic. This fact is precisely where the the scientific consensus is. Claims to a consensus about anything more, for instance that climate sensitivity is high, result from a misunderstanding of the current state of the science. Even the IPCC says climate sensitivity is "likely" to be 1.5-4.5 degrees Celsius. This 1.5 bottom is the result of adjusting sensitivity down (from 2) to correct over predictions made 5-10 years ago with AR3 or AR4. The current doomsday scenarios from working groups 2 and 3 invariably assume high levels of equilibrium climate sensitivity. Let's take a quick trip into the world of ideological climate science. This is a post from a skeptic blog (Wattsupwiththat) that heavily quotes from the Cato institute. It shows that the CMIP5 climate models are at risk of being statistically falsified by observations. The globe must warm faster than any observed rate since the industrial revolution began or the models are exposed as false in about 20 years. If the current pause continues the models all fail in 9 years. EDIT: This doesn't mean that there is no global warming, only that if models fail then the warming is much slower than predicted... Which means humans have time to adjust as long as we still have access to cheap energy.

Waxliberty, I could be wrong, but It is my understanding is that, in so far as Stein has claimed Mann is a fraud, it was with respect to how Mann characterized the results of the investigations into his behavior - not Mann's scientific work. In other words, Stein asserts that the investigations failed to find evidence of unethical behavior, but Mann said that they "completely vindicated" him (or something like that). Those are different things, and if Mann makes deceptive statements about that he can be considered, in some sense, a fraud. From what I understand, the problem with Mann's tree-ring hockey stick is that he cherry-picked the tree species. But this data can't possibly be used conclusively indict or vindicate Mann, because he won't release the complete set of data he gathered.

Muhuk, your post #91 quoted three parts of the lexicon. They don't really support what you're trying to say - that Rand thought property was only material. To be fair to you I'll address each passage individually, starting with the following two: Your use of bold text emphasizes material over "to use and to dispose." Use and disposal include setting conditions by which others may interact with your property - including whether they may use it as a template for reproduction. If I want to stipulate that those who interact with my property refrain from reproducing it, my desire is protected by my right to use and disposal. That you would quote from the lexicon to support your assertion without at least acknowledging the entire entry on patents and copyrights strikes me as dishonest. The relevant section of that entry is: You also quoted this passage: Quoting this passage in the way you did is a particularly egregious context-drop. That passage is meant to be an argument against any alleged right to have another person produce a value for you... Which is exactly what you advocate when you attempt to deny the right to restrict imitation! If you want to be taken seriously from here on out, I suggest you acknowledge that your position against IP is directly opposed to Rand's. Then, maybe you could quote the lexicon's patents and copyrights section and explain why you disagree.

Howardofski, how do you square "no-rulers" with majority rule?

Speaking of evasion and a refusal to answer questions, I am still interested to know what you think about contract law. Do you think disregarding the terms of use is a violation of rights? You've spent a lot of energy decrying all pro-IP arguments and leveling some harsh accusations at their proponents. Care to behave with a little honesty and respect by actually addressing some of the people you've generalized?

I'm disappointed to hear that you've decided to leave before weighing in on my hypothetical: "You want a great writer's new novel. He tells you he'll give you access to a digital copy if you promise not to copy or distribute it. You tell him you agree, but later you copy and/or distribute it anyway. Have you initiated force? For the record, IP is part and parcel of Objectivism. If you want to talk to Objectivists, you want to talk to people who believe in IP. If you don't think IP is a real thing, then you can't be an Objectivist. Which isn't to say you're wrong. If you don't believe in the pervasiveness of weird child/parent sexual urges, you can't be a Freudian, but that doesn't mean Freud was right and you are wrong either.

Good. You've established a clear position. Understood. Now, can you give some concrete examples about how these two things differ to illustrate your point? I'll start. I said they were similar, so I have to give two concrete examples with matching traits. First, contract law: To establish consent, you must first inform the other party of the terms. For the contract to be binding on point of resale, there must be a clause mandating that future resales first involve informing each new buyer of the terms. Second, IP law: For a copyright to completely hold up in court, you must adhere to what are called "copyright notices." They can come in the form of a c or p with a circle around it, or the phrase, "all rights reserved." This is to ensure that others are aware of the copyright, including those who might wish to "purchase" (license) your product. Now it's your turn. Bear in mind I am by no means making the argument that there are NO differences. I am genuinely interested to see what kind of concrete examples you can think of.

How is IP law different? I'll entertain an answer to this from both sides of this debate.

We don't have to gamble. I'm waiting for his answer. Edit: Ok, then. There's your case for IP.

Howardofski, I'm also interested to hear what you think about my question. Here's the hypothetical: You want a great writer's new novel. He tells you he'll give you access to a digital copy if you promise not to copy or distribute it. You tell him you agree, but later you copy and/or distribute it anyway. Have you initiated force?

The practice of peeling bananas had clearly entered the public domain prior to cranky's arrival;two thirds of islanders already knew the method.

I'd ask that you please take this discussion seriously. What are your thoughts on my question? If you copy and distribute something after buying it under the condition that you refrain from copying it and distributing it, have you initiated force against the seller?

Muhuk, I'm not sure what you mean by is-ought fallacy. I'm not saying, "because the US implements a form of IP laws, that's the way it ought to." I'm drawing attention to the part of IP law that is relevant to my argument; that before you buy something, you know how the author and his publishers want you to use the product because you see a copyright symbol somewhere on the product. You're right about my example being not so different than we have today. But you didn't tell me how you feel about it. Let's say you copied and distributed something after purchasing a product that said "don't copy and distribute" in the terms of use. Have you initiated force?

I'd like an example. I suspect if we examine any given example we can tease out a violation of the contract. For the record, I like the Objectivist argument for IP (that it's about recognizing the creation of a value) but I am unconvinced that the conclusion follows properly. Not that I think it's the wrong conclusion, but I think a more solid argument runs through contract. Perhaps you can convince me otherwise by giving me an example of what you mean. I only assume IP because IP laws actually exist. It's an example of the state implementing something imperfectly. Think of IP law as a standardized process of recognizing a type of contract. Or, forget IP laws. Imagine a society where books and songs were sold with the verbiage, "by purchasing this item you agree to our terms of use."

I don't see that as trouble. It's evidence that Peikoff remains willing to correct his conclusions in light of better evidence. Good for him. This whole issue boils down to you accepting the premise that you can protect rights by violating rights. You've been defeated by the oldest method of the statist: create a problem --> convince people to fear the problem more than they should ---> convince people to sanction more self-victimization.

And yet there is no law protecting all of these defenseless straw men. Whether or not someone stays in one place is neither my argument, nor does it pertain to this discussion. Enough with this obfuscatory folderol. It doesn't matter where the immigrant stays or goes, as long as he stays a good distance away from the signs posted on your lawn. How best to wean ourselves away from public property is worthy of investigation, but again I don't really see how it is relevant to the topic at hand. The overly broad scope of the civil rights act has not hocus-pocused into existence a right for you to deny me what freedom of association I still enjoy. Neither is the welfare system such a sorcery. The proper approach to all of these violations is across the board amnesty; amnesty for the immigrant and amnesty for the tax slave.

Muhuk, I think this is what you claim addresses the problem of lost revenue: By violating the contract you are conceding that there is value in what you stole. You've affirmed that I've provided you a value, and that you've refused the terms by which I was willing to provide that value. You've committed a blatant fraud, depriving me of revenue. Financial rape.

Does an inheritance tax effect the life of the deceased? Lost revenue. Do you think you have a right to sleep in my bed, so long as you wash the sheets?

Not all forms of imitation are violations of boilerplate IP contracts. For instance, imitation for the purpose of satire is widely recognized by advocates of IP as destroying none of the original work's value. But imitating me to the point of impersonation - and then selling a work or service based on my reputation (personal capital) - is most definitely a violation of the rights of your buyer. It's usually a violation of my rights as well. But that's branding, and what I was talking about is copyright. Copyright is a pretty direct portmanteau of "the right to copy" or something similar. Through contract, you're giving a publisher access to your manuscript under the condition that he only prints so many copies, gives you a percentage of sales, doesn't sell your manuscript to another publisher, etc. The contract obligates the him to, prior to purchase, inform a buyer of the author's conditions of use. That's what a copyright is. Don't think you have to sign something to enter into a contract. Consider Muhuk's example: The force is in ignoring the copyright, which is a clear statement of the author's and publisher's conditions of sale. If you copy a copyrighted book, you are in violation of an implicit contract. If your friend allows you to copy his copyrighted book, you are abetting his violation of the contract into which he entered when he bought the book.

The IP owner has lost whatever value he gave when he licensed the use of his idea, for starters. By breaching the contract you have effectively made him work for you without his consent. You've either destroyed his capital or made him your slave. He also loses some margin of value in proportion to what you eventually do with his product; if you put it on bit torrent and thousands of people decide to abet you in your act of fraud, then the IP owner loses potentially great value. Just how much is up for debate. The courts will hash that out.

@Aleph_1, the paragraph you quoted is not false. If I had easement rights prior to purchase of the surrounding areas, a just system would allow me to retain those limited rights of travel. While you're right in the sense that not every case of surrounded property deserves such easement, that's not really material to the discussion. HandyHandle maintains that no such easements should exist, especially with regard to immigrants. @HandyHandle, I'm right about public property. To paraphrase Rand, "It's a collectivist fiction."

Says you. I'm arguing differently. When you "buy" a video game you might read the fine print and find out that you're not actually making a purchase, but rather licensing the rights to use the software in a limited capacity. If you later copy that software and distribute it, you are likely in violation of the terms of the contract you agreed to upon "purchase." You've initiated force against the licensor. That's the proper way to treat IP, in my opinion.

And breaking contracts, which is where IP law belongs.

Dude, you're being obtuse. Nobody needs to stay on private property - so repeatedly knocking down that strawman will get you nowhere. In fact, doing so demeans every other argument you might try to make; it triggers our pattern-recognizing brains to look for more evidence of dishonesty rather than to shed the best light on your argument.

IP violations are not the same as other thefts. I can't speak to how our current system treats IP, but in an LFC society IP law more closely resembles contract law.