Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Remaining Principled with 3D Printing

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

 

So basically, inventors should not spend years of their life inventing something because they will never regain the value they lost in time since it belongs to the village.  Good to know.  My life just got easier. 

Your premise - that people will not be productive or inventive unless they see a coercive monopoly in their future - is absurd.  Perhaps it is true of you, but history hardly supports the view that it is true for most people.  Most creators create because they love what they are creating.  Not you, apparently. 

 

You misrepresent the anti-IP view.  Ideas do not "belong" to anyone, villagers or Objectivists - ideas are not property.  Everyone has the right to act in accordance with what he knows.  If you, the big thinker, lets everyone know of a better way, they have the right to act on what they now know.  You do not own them or their property and cannot claim a right to interfere with their freedom to act in their best interest using their own property. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howard said:

Most creators create because they love what they are creating. Not you, apparently.

Context dropping. My love of my invention does not have anything to do with sharing my invention with others for free. This whole mess turns intellectual achievement into a form of quasi-Marxism. Man ought to think for his own benefit/profit.

Edit: how many rationally self interested persons would continue to share their creations with those who acted as though the fact that they created them was irrelevant?

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howard said:

Context dropping. My love of my invention does not have anything to do with sharing my invention with others for free. This whole mess turns intellectual achievement into a form of quasi-Marxism. Man ought to think for his own benefit/profit.

Edit: how many rationally self interested persons would continue to share their creations with those who acted as though the fact that they created them was irrelevant?

Now one is suggesting that you share anything you don't want to share.  But if you reveal an idea to me for free, I will treat it for what it is worth.  If it is a good idea, I will act on it.  Why does that bother you?

 

Marxism dispenses with property rights.  You want to dispense with my property right to do as I choose with my own property, right?  Because you claim it reminds you of what you are doing with your property, right? You want to claim to own the idea that you revealed to me for free, right?  And so you claim the right to restrict me in my use of my own property, right?  So you are a quasi-Marxist, right?  Or just a plain real Marxist collectivist who doesn't seem to know where he leaves off and others begin?  What I do with my property is none of your business, Karl.

Edited by howardofski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howard said:

Now one is suggesting that you share anything you don't want to share. But if you reveal an idea to me for free, I will treat it for what it is worth. If it is a good idea, I will act on it. Why does that bother you?

The question I asked no way supposes what you claim it suggested. I asked you a question. This question is intended to point out the principle you are forgetting-missing. Why would a moral valuer want to give you something for free?

Marxism dispenses with property rights. You want to dispense with my property right to do as I choose with my own property, right? Because you claim it reminds you of what you are doing with your property, right? You want to claim to own the idea that you revealed to me for free, right? And so you claim the right to restrict me in my use of my own property, right? So you are a quasi-Marxist, right? Or just a plain real Marxist collectivist who doesn't seem to know where he leaves off and others begin? What I do with my property is none of your business, Karl.

This kind of rhetoric is useless for persuading a rational person. You cannot justify any of this garbage from what I have said. The whole issue your comment presupposes concerning property is what is in contention. Debate much?

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was refering to a discrete, unique idea ,  like the specific design of a particular widget and how or why, in principle , given a division of labor society, that idea can be treated as property just like a bike.

As to equivocation , in the second edition of ITOE in the question and answer section , Rand speaks to 'mental entities'.

 

Just remember, she went on to say:

 

Prof. E: Would it be fair to say that a concept qua concept is not a concrete but an integration of concretes, but qua existent it is a concrete integration, a specific mental entity in a particular mind?

AR: That's right. But I kept saying, incidentally, that we can call them "mental entities" only metaphorically or for convenience. It is a "something." For instance, before you have a certain concept, that particular something doesn't exist in your mind. When you have formed the concept of "concept," that is a mental something; it isn't a nothing. But anything pertaining to the content of a mind always has to be treated metaphysically not as a separate existent, but only with this precondition, in effect: that it is a mental state, a mental concrete, a mental something. Actually, "mental something" is the nearest to an exact identification. Because "entity" does imply a physical thing. Nevertheless, since "something" is too vague a term, one can use the word "entity," but only to say that it is a mental something as distinguished from other mental somethings (or from nothing). But it isn't an entity in the primary, Aristotelian sense in which a primary substance exists.

We have to agree here on the terminology, because we <ioe2_158> are dealing with a very difficult subject for which no clear definitions have been established. I personally would like to have a new word for it, but I am against neologisms. Therefore I think the term "mental unit" or "mental entity" can be used, provided we understand by that: "a mental something."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would a moral valuer want to give you something for free?

 

Because we're talking about an idea, not an object, giving it to me (by making it public) would do him no harm and making it public might be a necessary aspect of implementing the idea.  This has all been said.  Read much?

 

You were the one who raised the issue of Marxism, which you don't seem to understand the significance of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reardon developed his product in a context of IP law, and this context was suddenly changed - the rules of the game were changed.  This was obviously wrong - unfair to him.  Had there been no IP law, Reardon would have operated differently to pursue his happiness - how, we do not know, in his particular case. 

 

The real question should be:  is IP law necessary for justice?  Setting up the issue as you have done - an example of political thugs changing the rules in the middle of the game - is useless as an exercise in political philosophy. 

 

Also, you misstate the anti-IP position.  No one is claiming the right to an idea.  They are claiming the right to act on what they know.  If you reveal a valuable idea to me, I have the right to act on that truth.  I am not claiming a right to know what you know.  I am claiming the right to act on what I now know.

 

*******************************

I may be wrong, but didn't the political thugs force Reardon to reveal some of his secrets?  Ayn discussed that happening in the case of Alcoa, I recall, in one of her articles ("Notes on the history of Big Business"?)

 

Political thugs forced him but the premise was that he did not have the right to his ideas.  They knew they couldn't get away with it so they used blackmail to force him to give it up.

 

Rearden made it clear that Rearden Metal was his and he planned to make as much money as he could from it.  The entire book is the mind on strike and why it belongs to the owner for the owners own happiness.

 

I'm not stating the "Anti-IP" position.  I'm stating the "I have a right to my life" position.  If you want to live as a man, you have to think.  To live using my mind I have to have the right to my thoughts and act on them. Telling me my mind is public domain is just a spiritual version of the material counterpart in action today.  It's the mind-body dichotomy that claims a right to the spirit of people, there mind. 

 

It's more than just IP.  It's "I have a right to your life".  That is where I draw the line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Political thugs forced him but the premise was that he did not have the right to his ideas.  They knew they couldn't get away with it so they used blackmail to force him to give it up.

 

Rearden made it clear that Rearden Metal was his and he planned to make as much money as he could from it.  The entire book is the mind on strike and why it belongs to the owner for the owners own happiness.

 

I'm not stating the "Anti-IP" position.  I'm stating the "I have a right to my life" position.  If you want to live as a man, you have to think.  To live using my mind I have to have the right to my thoughts and act on them. Telling me my mind is public domain is just a spiritual version of the material counterpart in action today.  It's the mind-body dichotomy that claims a right to the spirit of people, there mind. 

 

It's more than just IP.  It's "I have a right to your life".  That is where I draw the line. 

The anti-IP position in no way denies you the right to your mind, or your right to think, or to your ownership of your mind, or to your ownership of other property, or to your right to your life, or to your right to your thoughts.   It merely says you do not have a right to interfere with other people using their mind and their property and their thoughts.  It appears to me that IP can only be defended by these absurd and melodramatic misrepresentations of the anti-IP position; that it is anti-mind and anti-life, etc., etc.  It obviously is none of those things.  It says that your rights end where my mind and property begin.

 

You are begging the question that an idea which you originated and then revealed to me remains exclusively yours, even when it is my head.  It does not.  So the anti-IP position is not a denial of property rights or your right to life, bla, bla, bla, - it is a disagreement about whether an idea can be the exclusive property of you when it is in someone else's head, because you revealed it to them. 

 

It would be neat if you would debate the issue instead of repeatedly re-presenting your straw man argument.  What you are defending is your right to a coercive monopoly.  Why not start there, instead of falsely claiming that you are being denied your right to life?  

 

Why not say:  "I believe I have a right to customers and their money, so I have a right to force you to stop using your property to compete with me in the market.  I believe this because I own the idea in your mind.  And I believe that because........" 

 

Why do you believe that you own what is in other people's minds?      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your entire post here is about material elements, such as books, and thus is irrelevant to this thread. You have dropped the context of my post, which was about unrequested intellectual benefits.

Your post didn't specify at all the kind of property. The argument you provided aims to prove that IP is bad, but invoked an argument someone would use to show why all property is bad. A book is property and allows you to have all the same things you argue is bad about IP. If your argument is that ideas aren't material, well, for the 4th time, IP is properly about the implementation of ideas, not mere ideas.

 

Unrequested benefit? The point is that property is about deserving, and you said it isn't. No one said that they own your improvements, at best the only claim is that you can't go using the property of others without permission... You are trying to prove that IP is not property by assuming IP is not property, i.e. treating implementation of ideas as property is bad for your life.

 

At this point I'm only repeating myself, and I suspect malice or insincerity at this point, as a crusader against IP-supporters who must be stopped at all costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are begging the question that an idea which you originated and then revealed to me remains exclusively yours, even when it is my head.  It does not.  So the anti-IP position is not a denial of property rights or your right to life, bla, bla, bla, - it is a disagreement about whether an idea can be the exclusive property of you when it is in someone else's head, because you revealed it to them. 

 

 

 

.......

 

Why do you believe that you own what is in other people's minds?      

 

Who is misrepresenting who here?  You say that what's in your mind is yours, correct?   Ok, but that is NOT what IP seeks to regulate.  IP doesn't deal in ideas as such.  It deals in tangible expressions of what is original (in works of art) or novel (in inventions).  I can have any song in my head at any time.  I can even sing it for my own pleasure without violating the copyright.  If I copy the actual recording of the song without the artist's permission, then I'm violating the copyright.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plasmatic

I'm not sure I understand your point. Perhaps I engaged in the fallacy of equivocation in a statement, being totally unschooled in logical argument .

Are ideas, especially ideas like specific designs, not to be considered things? I do not think this is what you mean to point out. My point is that the anti IP position has in this discussion been defended on the ,and I hate to use this term here but.., the idea that since it is obvious that ideas are immaterial the principle of IP is inappropriate. While I do think that IP deals with implementation of ideas, establishing the existence and proper identification of ideas is the base of the argument. If they do not exist they would of course have no identity, and if they do they must( have identity).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is misrepresenting who here?  You say that what's in your mind is yours, correct?   Ok, but that is NOT what IP seeks to regulate.  IP doesn't deal in ideas as such.  It deals in tangible expressions of what is original (in works of art) or novel (in inventions).  I can have any song in my head at any time.  I can even sing it for my own pleasure without violating the copyright.  If I copy the actual recording of the song without the artist's permission, then I'm violating the copyright.

A tangible expression means the use of material property, yes? If it is my material property, then it's OK for me to tangibly express that idea which is in my head, yes?

I'm not sure why you are explaining how copyright works. I am familiar with the law. I don't think there should be such a law.

Edited by howardofski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Implementation of an idea requires the use of property, yes? So if I implement an idea with my own property, that is OK, yes?

But if implementation involves the property of others, say, using my land so you can build an observatory, that wouldn't be okay. I'd be allowed to forcibly remove you or prevent you from using your property in this way. You have to prove first that IP is not property before using your argument, otherwise you are begging the question of what is not property. You can use your property so long as you don't violate the property of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if implementation involves the property of others, say, using my land so you can build an observatory, that wouldn't be okay. I'd be allowed to forcibly remove you or prevent you from using your property in this way. You have to prove first that IP is not property before using your argument, otherwise you are begging the question of what is not property. You can use your property so long as you don't violate the property of others.

To repeat: an idea in my head cannot be your property. If it is in your head, it can not be stolen. Edited by howardofski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to prove first that IP is not property before using your argument, otherwise you are begging the question of what is not property.

Actually, since you are arguing that you get to engage in force to secure your "property right" to an idea, the burden of proof is on you to prove that an idea can be property. It is you that is begging the question.

Edited by howardofski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's funny. I was thinking that those who do not use logic correctly cannot be defeated by it.

 

Anti-IP arguments are logicaly sound. That's why IP supporters keep going off on tangents or committing logical fallacies. What's funny is they are using the simplest forms of straw man and follow a hit-and-run strategy. But I agree with you, those who don't use logic correctly, cannot be defeated by it.

 

Maybe howardowski will accuse me of psychobabbling now I do think there's either insincerity or stupidity in the pro-IP arguments. Just look at this question and its answer:

 

 

Implementation of an idea requires the use of property, yes? So if I implement an idea with my own property, that is OK, yes?

 

 

But if implementation involves the property of others, say, using my land so you can build an observatory, that wouldn't be okay. I'd be allowed to forcibly remove you or prevent you from using your property in this way. You have to prove first that IP is not property before using your argument, otherwise you are begging the question of what is not property. You can use your property so long as you don't violate the property of others.

 

The question is clear, it doesn't mention other people's properties and since the whole anti-IP argument is that IP is not property it's absurd to assume it can be considered as such by the person who's asking. Yet, the response doesn't contain an answer to the question. Since a real, sincere answer would invalidate pro-IP arguments, so a straw man is built and apparence of answering is achieved.

 

Before I am accused with context dropping, the question is asked because of this statement:

 

 

... for the 4th time, IP is properly about the implementation of ideas, not mere ideas.

 

This is a vague statement of course. What exactly is meant by implementation? Implementation as the produced object or implementation as action? What does it mean IP is about something? Is it it's description? Is it it's most important utilitarian function? Is it the feelings IP evoke in author? Also, why not mere ideas? Isn't IP all about ideas? Is it about ideas and a combination of other things? Is IP about ideas at all?

 

Of course I don't expect answers to any of my questions above. I'm just trying to demonstrate the logic of pro-IP is bankrupt. And it's based on evasion. The argument will end quickly if howardowski's question is answered directly and honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To repeat: an idea in my head cannot be your property. If it is in your head, it can not be stolen.

This drops completely the context of property and of rights: a society; the source of property: human thinking; and the need for property: human living. It's like saying, "Once I have this hammer, it is mine. You cannot have this hammer. I may do as I wish with this hammer because I have this hammer." What does that mean? What is it applicable to? Where is the context?

 

Maybe it's time to bring in some Rand. From the Lexicon, on Property Rights: (bold added)

 

Galt's speech:

Man has to work and produce in order to support his life. He has to support his life by his own effort and by the guidance of his own mind. If he cannot dispose of the product of his effort, he cannot dispose of his effort; if he cannot dispose of his effort, he cannot dispose of his life.

 

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal:

It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind.

 

The Virtue of Selfishness:

...the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
 
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

 

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal:

Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.

 

Rand rejects the mind-body split, reiterating again and again that property and the source of property -- human minds -- are inseparable. Property only needs to be distinctly defined in the context of a society of men. Property is not the same as "this particular physical piece of the universe." A "property" is the logical physical implementation of the mental effort of one single man for the purpose of sustaining his own life. In our complex, integrated society of men, exchange of individual property has progressed to the point where laboring over rocks that you can hold in your hand can be separated from the method of that laboring, into different groups of men. One man can do the digging, or machine operating, and another man can do the digging-machine designing. Both, though, are versions of "property," that is, the implementation of a single man's ideas toward the sustenance of his life.

 

Basically, you're dropping all context except a narrow metaphysical view of physical elements. "Your brain is not my brain." Well, no kidding. So what? Of what significance is that, in what context?

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a vague statement of course. What exactly is meant by implementation? Implementation as the produced object or implementation as action? What does it mean IP is about something? Is it it's description? Is it it's most important utilitarian function? Is it the feelings IP evoke in author? Also, why not mere ideas? Isn't IP all about ideas? Is it about ideas and a combination of other things? Is IP about ideas at all?

 

Of course I don't expect answers to any of my questions above. I'm just trying to demonstrate the logic of pro-IP is bankrupt. And it's based on evasion. The argument will end quickly if howardowski's question is answered directly and honestly.

Right, that's why there's an "if". The argument, the implication of Howard's question, is to show me how IP violates property rights. It doesn't show that IP isn't property. It can't even show that land is property. The structure of my argument is valid, but the "if" points out where a proof of some sort is needed, namely, what really is property. I basically answered "it depends" with a hypothetical and example of why it's a loaded question.

 

You cannot have IP as valid unless it is possible to implement in reality - I can't implement scientific theories in a tangible way, or even use it as a specific creative method. So what I mean by "about implementation" is that it applies to the ability to create. This is not a "mere idea" because it involves ideas AND your ability to make the idea real - both are required. In our context, "about" means what IP refers to - what the subject of IP properly involves. From this we can distinguish between the particular method (IP is this) and the particular product (tangible property is this). Tangible property is not our main concern here, but it is neither supercedes nor is superceded by IP. Literally speaking, IP isn't about ideas, it's about creating methods or particular expression as in the contents of a story.

 

Your post is reasonable to me, at least when you are asking me questions regarding what I mean. I was doing the same, but sometimes being Socratic is not well received. Just ask questions and I'll answer - if I'm vague, ask more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a loaded question. It's a simple and straightforward question. You didn't answer it, made assumptions about OPs intent and went off on a tangent.

 

... if I'm vague, ask more.

 

No. If you are vague occasionally, here and there, I'll ask. If you hide behind vague statements, if you bring in context later as you please and then ignore my counter-arguments when they invalidate your position, I will simply stop engaging you directly. Because your style lacks intellectual integrity.

 

Instead of making me do the work of clarifying your incoherent ramblings, why don't you make concise statements?

 

Saying that I won't engage directly doesn't mean I won't point out the logical fallacies in your argumentation though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No. If you are vague occasionally, here and there, I'll ask. If you hide behind vague statements, if you bring in context later as you please and then ignore my counter-arguments when they invalidate your position, I will simply stop engaging you directly. Because your style lacks intellectual integrity.

If I'm incoherent, I'm sorry, this is how I speak to everyone. I was hoping you'd reply to my clarifications - this is as concise as I know how to be in this discussion. I thought we were getting somewhere when you told me what didn't make sense. Did my clarifications not help?

 

My answer to Howard was "yes" and "sometimes". I didn't use those words exactly. "But if" would usually mean a yes to a first question, and not a yes/no answer to a second question. That's why I said "loaded", I wasn't able to answer as requested. It feels like you're upset that I didn't say yes or no when my answer is yes and no. That's how I read this. I answered your recent questions, now you're attacking my intellectual integrity. Which counter-arguments did I ignore? If I missed one, please point it out. I didn't make assumptions about intent, I said I suspected something because of the hostility from Howard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer to Howard was "yes" and "sometimes". 

 

No, it wasn't. Here is your answer:

 

 

But if implementation involves the property of others, say, using my land so you can build an observatory, that wouldn't be okay. I'd be allowed to forcibly remove you or prevent you from using your property in this way. You have to prove first that IP is not property before using your argument, otherwise you are begging the question of what is not property. You can use your property so long as you don't violate the property of others.

 

The first two sentences is about a condition that is outside of the question's context. In other words it's irrelevant. In other words it's going off on a tangent.

 

The third sentence is very interesting, it states that you must prove something before you present your arguments to prove it. Very interesting.

 

The fourth sentence is again a completely irrelevant truism.

 

There is no answer in the direction of yes, or no, or yes+but. For an example to a real answer, see below:

 

 

Did my clarifications not help?

 
No, not really. It was just a reiteration of what has been said. And has been refuted. But I wasn't expecting you to answer, I appreciate you taking the time. 
 
 

It feels like you're upset that I didn't say yes or no when my answer is yes and no.

 
I'm not upset. I have just realized trying to argue with (plural) you is futile. I have listed my reasons in my previous posts, so there's no need to repeat them. My best course of action is to stop trying to reason with (plural) you. But it would feel like I'm sanctioning the dogma if I didn't point out the problems with the method of argumentation.
 
 

I didn't make assumptions about intent, I said I suspected something because of the hostility from Howard.

 

Hostility is an undeserved diagnosis. He's still trying to reason with you, he's been responding the same arguments again and again and again, with patience and logic. That's what I see, I don't see no hostility.

 

What I meant was that your guess about where he's going with that question is wrong. But I'll say no more about it, he can explain himself.

 

 

If I missed one, please point it out.

 

Why don't you answer howardowski's question first? Without the tangents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaskin, in post 220,

You begin by telling me that I drop context, but you fail to reply to either of the two points I made.

Instead you treat us to an example about a hammer and then several quotes by Rand which clearly are about the use and ownership of material objects, such as a hammer, which is irrelevant to this discussion of the ownership of ideas, since no one here is challenging your right to own material or employ it using whatever ideas you wish (assuming no harm to others).

Can you own an idea in my mind? Yes or no?

Do I have a right to act on an idea using my own effort and materials (assuming no harm to others)? Yes or no?

Edited by howardofski
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...