Craig24

Here is an example of denying that A is A (force is force). Harry Reid, in this interview, flat out says that Federal income taxes are voluntary. Implied in this and other claims made by statists, is that the law of identity is invalid. Needless to say, we suffer the consequences of such thinking while he collects a nice paycheck and benefits for the privilege of telling us what we know is false.

Lawmakers, Unions Reach Deal To Raise California's Minimum Wage To $15 No surprise really. This is the left coast after all.

Dustin, those who affirm the existence of things not sensible are doing precisely what Buddha said they are doing. They are denying that you can gain knowledge of reality SOLELY from the evidence of the senses. And NO ONE here claims that anyone denies the material world. That's your horrible misrepresentation of what anyone here has said.

Repairman: Perhaps I should have specified "absolute worst candidate" of the Republican camp. Fair enough. As for your defense of Trump's economic philosophy, how can you tell what that might be? He's never held public office, and therefore has never legislated or vetoed any matter of public policy. He will say anything necessary, provided it plays on the emotions of his followers. On a site devoted to promoting capitalism, calling him a middle of the road, mixed economy advocate is criticism, not praise. Without a political record, I will speculate based on what I do know. He proposes a simple low rate income tax, lower business tax rates, a repeal of death taxes, a 7 point Health Care plan that repeals Obamacare, including the insurance mandate, and lowers many govt barriers to private health insurance and his trade policy with China, based on what I'm reading, is focused on lowering corporate tax rates (a positive), ending Chinese violations of IP laws (a positive), reducing waste, fraud and abuse in US govt spending (a positive) and ending Chinese subsidies that give Chinese businesses an unfair advantage in international trade (a positive). None of this is perfect but most of this is preferable to any normal Democrat alternatives. As far as his charismatic and dynamic personality, these are the same character traits that advanced the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. Personally, I would prefer a less passionate but more cerebral candidate, provided he/she supports free-market solutions. I prefer intelligent pro capitalists too, but it takes passion and charisma to win elections. And, NO, he's NOT the next Hitler because he has passion. Trump has no voting record to scrutinize, (however he does have suspicious tax records); his positions oscillate with whatever inflames his angry mob, and the only thing known about his agenda is "winning", gloating, and rest is the unknown. Eight years of Obama have been tragic, but we knew what to expect. We know what to expect with Rodham-Clinton, and if the Clinton Restoration begins, it begins without my approval. And the American people get the government they deserve. Trump is a rich businessman running for President as a Republican. His opponents want to be suspicious of his tax records (among other things) and want everyone else to be too. That's to be expected. Name a Relatively wealthy, well known Republican that isn't attacked for his wealth and his ideas, especially by liberals. It's probably a very short list.

I don't think Trump is the absolute worst candidate and he's clearly not the best. He strikes me as a more charismatic and dynamic personality than anyone who has run for President since maybe Reagan but he also strikes me as a relatively middle of the road mixed economy advocate like McCain and Romney. I think he's better (by how much I really couldn't say) than the Democrat alternative regardless of which one wins that nomination but I could be wrong and persuaded otherwise before November. If it comes down to a choice between Clinton and Trump (that seems likely at this point) I will either vote Trump, vote Gary Johnson or not vote but I will not vote for the Democrat. I've had enough of Obama for 8 years and I don't want more of the same for even an additional hour.

That may be but the post I replied to is arguing that the following is wrong: That the expenditure of time and effort to create a new product imposes a right against having it copied. He's admitting that the original work is in fact a creation of something new and NOT a copy.

Just to be clear: You do acknowledge that an original work of art or an original invention is the creator's property and you think that others have the right to copy that creation without the creator's permission and without compensating the creator no matter what?

This is a fair description of what IP actually is so what are you arguing against?

Interesting choice of words. It reminds me of the State Science Institute's report on Rearden Metal in AS. "It may be possible that after a period of heavy usage, a sudden fissure may appear, though the length of this period cannot be predicted..." The author wants to imply that Hollywood is a white racist industry without saying for sure.

Ok that does it. This forum is violating my rights, copying my posts automatically like this! I'm suing!

Now that the issue has been raised, this article might be of interest: Can copyright protect a language?

My question STILL stands and few more come to mind: Are the words and language I use copyrighted? Can they even BE copyrighted? On behalf of who? The creator? Who is that? Is he still alive? How long ago did he pass away? These are the questions that float to the top of my idle brain.

There once was a man from Nantucket. Duplicate.

I don't understand your question. Did I copy an argument that was protected by IP law and simply wasn't aware of it?

Did you apply for copyright protection for what you wrote? Furthermore, are you not aware that when you write posts on this forum, it's owner is providing the space on the internet you are using and the rules that permit the copying? Go ahead and write an original work, present it to the proper authorities and obtain your copyright and then you will have all the authority in the world to charge me for copying your work.

IP is entirely creator dependent which is to say that a song, for example, only exists because the musician created it. You cannot copy what an artist doesn't create. Starting with that reality, explain to me why the musician has no right to copyright the song? Put it another way. Why doesn't the musician have the right to make the song public only under the condition that people must buy the copy or get the musician's permission to have it for free?

The first step in creating a man made object is to acquire the metaphysically given materials that make up the man made object. So how do you make your man made object without owning the metaphysically given materials in the first place?

Then he shouldn't.

He doesn't need to reverse engineer and build a duplicate cash register. Someone has already invented the thing and so you can BUY the ones already being manufactured. It's much cheaper that way.

Why does it follow that a rights violator must be destroyed with fire? What does that even mean? I'm picturing you literally burning someone to death for trespassing on your land.

You are talking about using the state to make everyone virtuous but an explanation of what the state will require of it's citizens and how they will be penalized for non compliance is necessary. For example, will the state compel the major virtues of Objectivism such as honesty and productivity and how will it do this?

The link provided in that thread to Spooner's essay is broken. This one works. The Law of Intellectual Property

Let's do something here: Bob records a song he originates. Does he own it? If no, why not? If yes, does he own copies of it until they are given away or sold by him? If no, why not?

What do you mean by exposed? The thoughts in your head are NOT the subject of ID. We are talking about possession of a recording you can play on a CD player or whatever device you listen to. That's NOT about exposure to and having a memory of an idea.