That’s the question this becomes: why is or is not IP an initiation of force?
I think the question is; is an idea a property?
In the example above, the replication of car part. You have the original part, you have the raw materials and you have a machine that can build another copy. So far, you have the capability to do something and everything is according to the book. But once you act on it, you break the law and the government can now hurt you.
You can gather the materials to make a bomb legally, and then I would understand if it was a crime to actually go ahead and build one. But manufacturing the car part is legal for some people and (apparently) illegal for everyone else. Why?
The implementation of an idea, not of an idea. Your example of capability would also apply to all property or any action that would be a rights violation. So of course the government can “hurt you” if you act on your capability. That’s not unique to IP. That’s how law works.
Property is anything that you produce with your mind, into a realizable form - i.e. story into a book, an invention that can be reasonably built, land you use, televisions you bought with earned money, etc. If you don’t think of property in that way, then I fail to see how you can defend property at all, as I alluded to in my first post.
And refusing to track back on your false assumptions (and instead going around calling people who try to help you do it rude or argumentative) is just brain dead.
Help me? Sorry, but calling a post of mine “brain dead” and obtusely saying you don’t know what NAP is, then posting as though you knew what NAP meant, is at best rude, and at worst dishonest. No one said or implied that NAP ought to be the sole moral principle. Say what you mean, don’t post a snarky “mind explicitly stating this “non-aggression principle” you’re referring to?” when you already have a fully developed thought about it - and I doubt you were being Socratic.
Your example of capability would also apply to all property or any action that would be a rights violation. So of course the government can “hurt you” if you act on your capability.
I don’t understand what you mean here.
Let me give a more concrete example: I remove an o-ring from my car and place into a Replicator9000™ I own. I also re-fill the liquid plastic container (whatever it’s called), using the materials I own. I push the Replicate button and out comes another o-ring just like the one I removed from my car. Assuming the design of the o-ring is under protection (patented maybe), could you please explain to me where I made a moral error here?
What you appear to be claiming is that one needs to understand individual rights in order to derive the NAP. OK, no argument. The NAP recognizes individual rights and forbids their violation.
Yes. And stealing someone’s intellectual property is a violation of individual rights.
/thread
P.S. This is for Oism, though. I would be curious how you decided the NAP does that as per Libertarianism. Where, in Libertarian literature, does anyone say that the NAP forbids the violation of individual rights? And where, in Libertarian literature, does anyone define individual rights objectively?
Help me? Sorry, but calling a post of mine “brain dead” and obtusely saying you don’t know what NAP is, then posting as though you knew what NAP meant, is at best rude, and at worst dishonest.
I know calling someone brain dead is rude, thanks. I’m fine with being rude to people who make conversations personal every chance they get. I’d be more curious where I was rude back when you first decided to, once again, make this thread a debate about my person instead of my point. Back before I called you brain dead.
As for the other thing, it’s not obtuse to ask for clarification instead of guessing what someone’s referring to. If I had gone ahead and just assumed to know for a fact what he’s talking about based on incomplete information (the way you and most on this forum operate), that would’ve been a strawman argument. Asking someone to explicitly state their position isn’t obtuse, it’s the basic requirement of a rational conversation.
Frankly, I still have no idea what Robert means by NAP. The only one who actually stated a version of it, thus moving the conversation forward, is howardofski.
Objectivism defines property in terms of right to actions. So, your question in fact should be “can thinking an idea one came up with be an exclusive right?”. The answer is no.
A different, more relevant question is “can creating a material object that is based on one’s idea be an exclusive right?”. The answer to that one is yes.
Yes. And stealing someone’s intellectual property is a violation of individual rights.
The debate about IP is whether ideas can be property. Only after you’ve accepted that premise can you claim that ideas can be stolen. However, if I have stolen your idea, you must have lost something that was your property. What was it that you lost, which you were the owner of?
And where, in Libertarian literature, does anyone define individual rights objectively?
In The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray Rothbard, one of the most widely read and influential libertarian writers, and a one-time friend of Rand. Rothbard derives rights as Rand does, from man’s nature. And many Libertarian writers agree with Rothbard’s and Rand’s derivation. The concept of ‘natural’ law is also built on the nature of man and his circumstances.
The term ‘rights’, though a noun in form, is an adjective in meaning. It merely refers to what is right for an individual, given his nature.
Libertarianism gets this question right when it adopts NAP as it’s basic principle, just as Rand did.
A different, more relevant question is “can creating a material object that is based on one’s idea be an exclusive right?”. The answer to that one is yes.
Why? If I imitate you, how does that harm you? Why is an idea in my mind that I employ using my materials somehow a violation of your property rights?
The debate about IP is whether ideas can be property.
A debate, any debate, is between two positions: one stated by one side, the other stated by the other side.
When a person sees fit to define both positions in a the debate, that person is committing the straw man fallacy.
In this particular debate, one side must define what intellectual property is, and the other side must argue against the morality of that proposition. You are on the side which argues against the morality of the proposition.
If you wish me to state the proposition again, just ask. I’ll be happy to. But DO NOT state it for me. It’s not your place to do so. Not unless you wish to debate yourself.
Why? If I imitate you, how does that harm you? Why is an idea in my mind that I employ using my materials somehow a violation of your property rights?
Because property means control of the fruits of my labor. And creating intellectual property is what I do. If it wasn’t for intellectual property, I’d be broke.
Are you claiming that I’m not being productive, because I only do intellectual work, not manual labor?
I don’t have the book. Mind quoting the passage where Murray Rothbard formulates the non-aggression principle to forbid the violation of individual rights, and defines individual rights objectively?
And everyone - Libertarians as well as Ayn Rand - understands that physical force refers to stealing and threatening, not just striking another’s body.
And breaking contracts, which is where IP law belongs.
Your response here is appropriate. That is much more effective than calling me “brain dead”. Non-aggression principle in this context is just that no one should initiate force. That no one should initiate force is a principle, and is basically non-aggression. The wiki you linked said ‘or’ in the definition, not ‘and’, so is not necessarily all those bad characterizations. If you sincerely want a person to answer what they mean, be aware of how you ask the question, like “I’m not sure what you mean” is better than “mind explicitly what <scarequote>X</scarequote> means?” You said there is “no non-aggression principle common to…” and say you don’t know what Robert means - that doesn’t make sense, you can’t say what something isn’t then say you don’t know what something means. It’s a contradiction, an indication of an insincere question, or not realizing it is very snarky to put it that way. If I was rude first, that only means you didn’t realize your first posts were in fact a terrible way to start a conversation.
That’s not a debate about your person, it’s just saying that you’ve done contradictory things such that I don’t know what point at all you’re making about NAP. Plus asking you to proceed more consciously about whether anyone would want to respond to you.
Assuming the design of the o-ring is under protection (patented maybe), could you please explain to me where I made a moral error here?
Aside from infinite replication leading to bigger questions than IP violations, it would be denying someone control of a very particular item they created and made possible. Maybe you used some of your labor, but I doubt you can say you used anywhere near as much thinking to replicate a person’s mental labor to develop that o-ring.
A debate, any debate, is between two positions: one stated by one side, the other stated by the other side.
There is a debate wherein one side says that ideas can be property. The other side says they cannot. I can state both sides of that debate. I just did.
I don’t have the book. Mind quoting the passage where Murray Rothbard formulates the non-aggression principle to forbid the violation of individual rights, and defines individual rights objectively?
Sorry, I am currently traveling and don’t have the book with me.
Aside from infinite replication leading to bigger questions than IP violations, it would be denying someone control of a very particular item they created and made possible. Maybe you used some of your labor, but I doubt you can say you used anywhere near as much thinking to replicate a person’s mental labor to develop that o-ring.
If I imitate your idea, how is it that you lose control of anything? What was it that you controlled, which you now do not control? What did you own that you now have lost?
If I imitate your idea, how is it that you lose control of anything? What was it that you controlled, which you now do not control? What did you own that you now have lost?
If there is nothing to lose, what does imitation gain?