Craig24

IP does not refer to what's in your head. It refers to what is recorded or performed that came from what is in your head. You are asking the wrong question where IP is concerned.

Are you paying to listen to the artist's head space or an actual record of the song? I can't play what's in my head on a CD player.

I've decided to respond to the most relevant paragraph in the OP. I think we need to address the root problem and try to resolve it. Individualists are strongly in favor of property rights, but we must ask why do we want property rights? We want them because property is scarce. Not true. We want property because it is valuable (fulfills a need) not because it is scarce. If someone takes your land, your car, or your phone, you lose the use of it. Thieves lose the use of items they steal when those items are recovered by the owners. This can't be a basis for property rights. But if something is superabundant, we do not talk about property rights to it. For example, no one talks about property rights to atmospheric air. It’s superabundant and free. No one says “you’re breathing my air”. That fact that I’m breathing does not impinge on your breathing. Property rights are meaningless in this case. Air exists naturally regardless of our actions. It makes no sense to compare air to intellectual property (IP) because IP is created by humans and ONLY humans. If no humans ever made music, books, movies or machines, those things don't exist. The genesis of property is creation. If you make it, you own it. If you sell it, the buyer owns it. If you give it away, the taker owns it. If the maker didn't make it, there's NOTHING to sell, give away or copy (or steal as the case may be). The question I have for you is: Why do you deny that the artist or inventor owns copies of his original work of art or novel designs until he sells them or gives them away? The answer you will give (again) is that the artist or inventor doesn't lose use of his idea. That does't matter. Commercializing the idea matters. He WILL lose the ability to sell any copies that are pirated. The thing that makes my head scratch is that you appear to think the pirate DOES own the copy he takes even though the artist/inventor made the original that makes the copy possible (why do you think it's CALLED a copy?). I can boil this all down to one big question: Who the hell does own the copy and why??

I don't think people are better off without IP. I don't think the example you provide proves this. All that is is a specific application of the law at particular point in time with respect to a particular group of individuals. I could argue that socialism makes everyone better off by reference to examples of a more socialist country having a better economy than a more capitalist country. It does not follow from a single example that a particular principle is wrong. You still haven't addressed the major issue. Why does an artist have the right to commercialize copies of his original work if he doesn't own the copies?

You are only half right. It makes no sense to have laws that are not enforced but no one is better off without IP. You still haven't addressed my points above (unless you are in the middle of replying to my recent replies to you.)

Why does an artist have a right to commercialize a copy of an original work if he doesn't own the copy? This is still an unresolved issue.

A good find. Thank you.

Yes you do. You lose the opportunity to sell the pirated copies of your song. As far as I can tell, you think an artist has a right to commercialize a song. You also think that copies are not really his property. That seems like some kind of paradox (possibly a contradiction). How can an artist be within his rights to charge for copies he doesn't actually own?

You don't lose the idea. You lose the potential it has in trade if it is copied and used free of compensation to the artist or inventor. Without copyrights, for example, every potential buyer of your song could simply obtain it free of charge and you will not be able to make a living as an artist.

A PBS show that's free market friendly? Or is it merely a neutral presentation in which the viewer can draw his own conclusion that free markets are better? Either way, this surprises me.

According to this NY Times article, Greenland is melting away at an accelerated rate due to global warming. I guess we better stop all human activity before we drown ourselves.

There are no out of context shoulds in Objectivism. You decide what you value as it relates to your life. If you think electricians add as much (or more) value to your actual life than the businessman, then you will value the electrician as much or more than the businessman and none of us will criticize that or try to stop you.

Honestly, I don't know. That will not satisfy anyone but since I honestly don't know then nothing else needs to be said. What's your point?

You think it's wonky to identify life as the proper standard of value? Wow.

I tried it on another's profile and it gave me an error message saying I could not edit the profile so that's at least a good thing. I was able to edit my own.

Greetings, I was trying to view content on a profile but the "See My Activity" button is redirecting me to edit the profile instead. Hope you can fix the bug.

Instinctive knowledge remains a contradiction in terms that requires providing separate definitions for the same word. If true that means Rand used the wrong term in this case so what's the term we should prefer for what amounts to automatically knowing/doing what is necessary?

Having no automatic course of behavior doesn't preclude having a default (instinctive) course of behavior. Man qua animal retains a natural desire or tendency that makes him want to act in a particular way. Rand refers to instinct as an automatic form of knowledge of what to do, NOT as a desire. (link) The way I would formulate this is that non human animals desire a result and automatically know how to implement the cause (that's instinct). Humans desire a result and DO NOT automatically know how to implement the cause so they need to learn how to implement the cause.

As long as there are folks using welfare to survive so that they can get an education and do productive work in the future, it cannot be morally opposed. That's the sense I get from certain welfare supporters. One particular individual tells the story of how his mother worked 3 jobs and STILL needed welfare to feed her kids. The very mention of opposition to welfare disgusts him. He claims he never could have gone to school if it wasn't for welfare. To him it's personal and he will not take any s*** from anyone that criticizes the welfare system in any way. He despises poor shaming (likely a fair point) and he raises the "fact" that the US govt spends 6 times as much money on the military as it does on welfare. Put simply, people need help and he thinks it is downright cruel and inhuman to deny people their needs. Is it worth my time to address him on the issue? Is he too irrational?

Ok, I want to smoke crack. Is crack in my interest or not?

Free will is the ability to effect what happens. Selfishness is concern with your own interests. You can want to be concerned with the interests of others and not your own.

I take his question to mean "Is man selfish by nature?", to which I would reply "no, because man can choose not to be selfish."

Reading to Children at Bedtime: ABC questions value of time-honoured practice This is the kind of story I'd expect from the Onion. Sadly, this is real. More from the ABC site: Anyone with an advantage of any kind, by all means give it up. Give it up for the sake of those who don't possess it. If you are 6' 5" then chop off your legs until you are the same height as the shortest person. Any questions?

After 5 decades of welfare state solutions to the problems of the black underclass, 2046 thinks that Objectivist denial of 'white privilege' is the problem. Trust me, that is not the problem. I doubt that the life of a single black person is going to get better if we say that white privilege is the cause of the black underclass. That is not going to work. First, it isn't true. Second, most blacks wouldn't believe us if we said it. Third, the minute you oppose any and all statist measures, you will be right back where you started. You will be called a 'racist', more liberals will be elected and the welfare state will continue and expand as usual. Anyone have any more bright ideas?

Google search for NASA ice shelf yields a lot of hits. The news is circulating. Look for the commentators and politicians to address it in the upcoming weeks.