Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Remaining Principled with 3D Printing

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

 

By hacking into my computer you have violated my property rights already..

How so, specifically? How would I be violating your property rights? That's what I want to know!

 

You've established that if hacking violates property rights, then the document copying is a consequence of a violation.

 

You have not established that hacking is in fact a violation of property rights. My position is that hacking is wrong because it necessarily violates IP, and is only a form of property violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How so, specifically? How would I be violating your property rights? That's what I want to know!

 

I'll answer your question with your own words:

 

 

..property is complete control by your own choice, and if you don't have total control by right, your property doesn't serve its function as a requirement for life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything is an "object," in that it exists in reality. What is your body, your car, your farmland? An enormous collection of tiny objects. 

 

Yes.

 

 

Actually, an idea is an object. It is a collection of firings contained in your brain. ... An idea "rests" on tiny objects in the universe, contained in your brain.

 
No. Objects have identity and therefore continuity. Ideas are conceptual, they don't rest on anything, they are not made out of tiny things.
 
 

There's no point in drawing inessential distinctions between brain firings and physical land, on the topic of property.

 

On the contrary this distinction is the whole point of the argument. In case you missed it; what anti-IP people are saying is that 1) ideas are not objects 2) there is not such thing as an intellectual property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not your idea.

 

Your desire for the unearned is alarming.  

Your desire to own customers, their wealth, other people's materials is alarming.  To earn is to receive the voluntarily given.  You are not talking about earning.  You are claiming the right to force the market on your behalf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideas are conceptual, they don't rest on anything, they are not made out of tiny things.

They literally rest on tiny things, which make up your brain, which is housed in your body, which lives on the earth... until we arrive at the universe. Where *do* ideas exist, if they aren't part of the universe? Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not talking about earning. You are claiming the right to force the market on your behalf.

A market that wouldn't have otherwise existed if not for those ideas, which you say belong to no one. What exactly is earning? What causes one to earn something? Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They literally rest on tiny things, which make up your brain, which is housed in your body, which lives on the earth... until we arrive at the universe. Where *do* ideas exist, if they aren't part of the universe?

 

You have just ignored the rest of my comment and responding this bit. Is it because it's the most important bit?

 

Or is it because you can't provide arguments for ideas having identity and continuity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A market that wouldn't have otherwise existed if not for those ideas, which you say belong to no one.

 

A market doesn't exist solely because of ideas. It would exist because they are acted upon. Ownership of ideas is not necessarily relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, an idea is an object.

Actually, no it isn't.  Firings of your brain are actions of an object.  Actions and objects are not the same thing. 

 

If I imitate you, I have in no way taken anything from you which is yours by right.  You retain your ideas, your materials, your freedom to act.

 

You write:  "Using an idea formed by another man that was intended to be sold to support him... is the same thing [as] stealing his car."

 

No it isn't.  His intentions are not moral laws governing others.  That he thought of an idea does not give him the right to take control of other people and their property.  He has the right to apply his idea to his property and offer the result on the market.  He does not have the right to restrict others in their use of their own property. 

Edited by howardofski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has the right to apply his idea to his property and offer the result on the market.  He does not have the right to restrict others in their use of their own property. 

 

He'd also have the right to keep it a secret. It seems pro-IP position intentionally ignores this choice. For example most online businesses provide means to use their services but they keep their implementation secret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll answer your question with your own words:

That doesn't say how, specifically, hacking is a violation of property rights.

 

Earlier, you were saying some sort of loss of material value is how to violate property rights, so if IP does not suffer a material loss and actually can't, it is invalid. Now you seem to be agreeing that loss of total control is a violation of property, not material loss - IP can suffer that kind of loss, which means it might be valid. These ideas are contradictions. So in that case, be more specific about how a violation of property rights occurs by hacking. By hacking, I would be subverting control of intellectual property, in this case the document and use of my computer in purely intellectual terms (hacking doesn't do anyTHING to the computer). But I don't think you agree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A market that wouldn't have otherwise existed if not for those ideas, which you say belong to no one. What exactly is earning? What causes one to earn something?

No one is questioning the value of good ideas.  What's being questioned is your right to prevent people from acting on good ideas using their own property because you want to corner a market by force. 

 

To earn is to receive a voluntarily given reward from someone else.  It doesn't mean to decide for yourself how valuable you are to others and then force them to pay you accordingly or force everyone to deal only with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He'd also have the right to keep it a secret. It seems pro-IP position intentionally ignores this choice. For example most online businesses provide means to use their services but they keep their implementation secret.

Don't want your car taken? Just hide it. The pro-property position intentionally ignores this choice. Many businesses provide means to use their services but keep the materials in a location where no one can take them.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He'd also have the right to keep it a secret. It seems pro-IP position intentionally ignores this choice. For example most online businesses provide means to use their services but they keep their implementation secret.

Exactly right.  The most difficult debate position, though, is where a great idea must be made public in order to be put into use.   The pro-IP position is that violence may then be used to stop other people from implementing the great idea so the originator of the idea can win the human race, not by going fast, but by slowing everyone else down. 

 

The pro-IP argument paints imitators as 'thieves', but it is the pro-IP position which is that of a thief who believes that he, not you, should be in control of yourself and your property.  He wishes to steal your liberty to use your property in what you think is the best way, so that you remain dependent on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't want your car taken? Just hide it. The pro-property position intentionally ignores this choice. Many businesses provide means to use their services but keep the materials in a location where no one can take them.

If I take your car, you no longer have it.  If I imitate your idea, you still have it.  How long will you continue to write as if this is not a glaring and important moral difference? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly right.  The most difficult debate position, though, is where a great idea must be made public in order to be put into use.   The pro-IP position is that violence may then be used to stop other people from implementing the great idea so the originator of the idea can win the human race, not by going fast, but by slowing everyone else down. 

 

The pro-IP argument paints imitators as 'thieves', but it is the pro-IP position which is that of a thief who believes that he, not you, should be in control of yourself and your property.  He wishes to steal your liberty to use your property in what you think is the best way, so that you remain dependent on him.

How are not dependent on him if you are using his idea ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly right.  The most difficult debate position, though, is where a great idea must be made public in order to be put into use.   The pro-IP position is that violence may then be used to stop other people from implementing the great idea so the originator of the idea can win the human race, not by going fast, but by slowing everyone else down. 

 

The pro-IP argument paints imitators as 'thieves', but it is the pro-IP position which is that of a thief who believes that he, not you, should be in control of yourself and your property.  He wishes to steal your liberty to use your property in what you think is the best way, so that you remain dependent on him.

How are you not dependent on him if you are using his idea ?

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hacking doesn't do anyTHING to the computer

 

First of all this is not true. At the very least you are sending data to my computer. By doing that you are changing my computer.

 

 

Now you seem to be agreeing that loss of total control is a violation of property

 
I never disagreed with this. I just don't accept the concept of non-physical property. Please don't use this kind of straw men.
 
 

By hacking, I would be subverting control of intellectual property, in this case the document and use of my computer in purely intellectual terms

 
Since there is no such thing as intellectual property... You're just accessing my private information.
 
Edited to add blue sentence.
Edited by muhuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are you not dependent on him if you are using his idea ?

 

Why should we be dependent on him?

 

It's one thing to say "I discovered fire" and quite a different thing to say "I've seen you do it and I am now capable of building a fire".

 

Let's say you discovered fire. I've seen you building a fire and later figured it out myself. Of course my learning depends on the fact that you have discovered the fire and the fact that I was able to observe you. But it would be ridiculous if you came over my fireplace and ask for a payment for using your discovery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I take your car, you no longer have it.  If I imitate your idea, you still have it.  How long will you continue to write as if this is not a glaring and important moral difference? 

 

If I take your car, you can (theoretically) take it back.

 

If I take your idea, can you possibly take it back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I take your car, you no longer have it.  If I imitate your idea, you still have it.  How long will you continue to write as if this is not a glaring and important moral difference? 

 

You don't "have" total control - the relevant point.

 

 

First of all this is not true. At the very least you are sending data to my computer.

 

I never disagreed with this. I just don't accept the concept of non-physical property. Please don't use this kind of straw men.

Sending data? Data isn't material. How can that cause a property violation, then? By the way, hacking does not necessarily change your computer's physical structure.

 

Right, but you were arguing before on the premise that one reason you don't accept IP because IP never involves material loss...

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sending data? Data isn't material. How can that cause a property violation, then?

 

Data isn't material but sending data changes the state of my computer. Before you raise this important issue; the state of my computer isn't material either. But it is created by the material state, ie. electrons, of my computer. Sorry, I thought this was easy to deduce. I hope it's clear to you now.

 

 

Right, but you were arguing before on the premise that one reason you don't accept IP because IP never involves material loss...

 

Yes. And I have yet to see a convincing argument that it does. Not understanding the nature of computers and hacking isn't a valid argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I take your car, you no longer have it. If I imitate your idea, you still have it. How long will you continue to write as if this is not a glaring and important moral difference?

It's ironic you would speak of the moral difference.

This dilemma of humanity is that it is far easier to have an idea explained or demonstrated to you than it was for the demonstrator to think it up to begin with. Real life is lost to the man who did the original thinking, when the two are compared, in favor of the man doing the thinking after getting a demonstration.

You, however, argue that it is more fair to let the man who had the idea demonstrated to him have the entitlement to this new knowledge, knowledge gleaned thanks only to the effort of someone else. Or put another way, "To each according to his need, From each according to his ability."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should we be dependent on him?

 

 

Let's say you discovered fire. I've seen you building a fire and later figured it out myself. Of course my learning depends on the fact that you have discovered the fire and the fact that I was able to observe you. But it would be ridiculous if you came over my fireplace and ask for a payment for using your discovery.

I can not integrate the concept of 'dependent' with your entire base of knowledge.

 

When did I argue that scientific discoveries are the same things as creative ideas?

 

Oh and as an aside, i'd probably build the fire for you for a share of the forthcoming meal :)

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...