Ayn Rand interview on the proper role of government, and the "maldistribution" of wea

[Thrashertm]

Here's her feeling on the proper role of government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTHn-9hhU#t=7m13s

For those that haven't seen the whole interview, I highly recommend it. I wish Donahue was still on the air. He was a strong opponent of the Iraq war, and MSNBC removed him due to political pressure.

[Conza88]

All States / Governments that tax involve redistribution of wealth.

Ohhhhhhh yeaah, that's right. :eek:

[powerofreason]

Ayn Rand = Pompous Ass and advocate of AGGRESSION

[Richie]

Ayn Rand = Pompous Ass and advocate of AGGRESSION

Explain.

[powerofreason]

Explain.

First part is obvious, she was extremely arrogant. And she supports the State, which is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Her preferred version of it is utopian nonsense as well.

[torchbearer]

First part is obvious, she was extremely arrogant. And she supports the State, which is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Her preferred version of it is utopian nonsense as well.

A state government can be voluntary.. especially if its on a local level. like city states.
The city-state of paulville has a voluntary government.
You don't have to live there... but if you want to opt-in to that government, you can.

[powerofreason]

A state government can be voluntary.. especially if its on a local level. like city states.
The city-state of paulville has a voluntary government.
You don't have to live there... but if you want to opt-in to that government, you can.


Government is a monopoly on certain services, maintained through the threat of violence. Even if no violence takes place that is still coercion and a violation of the NAP. As for the "if you don't like it, move" argument that is obviously not a fair argument. I have a right to be free and fully enjoy my own property wherever I have purchased it or homesteaded it. If ONE person rejects your voluntary government then it is no longer voluntary, it is instead a criminal organization. Condo associations are not governments.

[torchbearer]

Government is a monopoly on certain services, maintained through the threat of violence. Even if no violence takes place that is still coercion and a violation of the NAP. As for the "if you don't like it, move" argument that is obviously not a fair argument. I have a right to be free and fully enjoy my own property wherever I have purchased it or homesteaded it. If ONE person rejects your voluntary government then it is no longer voluntary, it is instead a criminal organization. Condo associations are not governments.

All association are governments of some type.
Who is going to protect your property from the local mafia again?

[Unspun]

Who is going to protect your property from the local mafia again?

Then the question becomes do disinterested government bureaucrats really protect your property?

[powerofreason]

All association are governments of some type.
Who is going to protect your property from the local mafia again?

I will hire somebody, if thats really necessary. Most likely, if I felt I needed extra security for my house, I would have an alarm installed that would call over some type of private police if it got tripped. Use your imagination. There's no excuse for aggression. For now, the local mafia is my local town government, whom I have no hope of being protected against. Governments everywhere are the Number One criminal on planet earth. Getting rid of them would be a good start. Voluntary associations are like condo associations, involuntary ones are like governments.

[torchbearer]

I will hire somebody, if thats really necessary. Most likely, if I felt I needed extra security for my house, I would have an alarm installed that would call over some type of private police if it got tripped. Use your imagination. There's no excuse for aggression. For now, the local mafia is my local town government, whom I have no hope of being protected against. Governments everywhere are the Number One criminal on planet earth. Getting rid of them would be a good start. Voluntary associations are like condo associations, involuntary ones are like governments.

You will hire somebody?
Can you afford blackwater?
My mafia has more guns and people than you can muster... and if you don't pay your 'protection' fee, we will dispose of you.
Enjoy you brief anarchist decent into your next tyranny.

Time lil' tommy wakes up from his dream.

[torchbearer]

Then the question becomes do disinterested government bureaucrats really protect your property?

Seems like my property is well respected in this town.
So it must be working.

[powerofreason]

You will hire somebody?
Can you afford blackwater?
My mafia has more guns and people than you can muster... and if you don't pay your 'protection' fee, we will dispose of you.
Enjoy you brief anarchist decent into your next tyranny.

Time lil' tommy wakes up from his dream.

Protection fee? You mean like taxes? How could any mafia possibly be worse than the federal government, the state government, and my local government? Give me a break. People will not turn into cannabalistic murdering monsters without government bureaucrats sitting around doing nothing in washington dc or hartford or wherever. The private marketplace does a better job at anything compared to government. Are you really telling me that socialized protection and courts are better than private courts, voluntarily (and thus morally) funded?

[torchbearer]

Protection fee? You mean like taxes? How could any mafia possibly be worse than the federal government, the state government, and my local government? Give me a break. People will not turn into cannabalistic murdering monsters without government bureaucrats sitting around doing nothing in washington dc or hartford or wherever. The private marketplace does a better job at anything compared to government. Are you really telling me that socialized protection and courts are better than private courts, voluntarily (and thus morally) funded?

Its not worse, its the same as our government today.
Except, you have absolutely no say at any level in your anarchy.
The one with the most guns win.

[powerofreason]

Its not worse, its the same as our government today.
Except, you have absolutely no say at any level in your anarchy.
The one with the most guns win.

No say? You mean no way to force others to do what you want?

What do you mean the one with the most guns win? War is something governments do. It can only be funded through taxation. It does not make business sense. If you choose a life of crime in a free society, you're in for a rough life. Insurance companies will be 1000x better at reducing crime than socialized protection.

[torchbearer]

No say? You mean no way to force others to do what you want?

What do you mean the one with the most guns win? War is something governments do. It can only be funded through taxation. It does not make business sense. If you choose a life of crime in a free society, you're in for a rough life. Insurance companies will be 1000x better at reducing crime than socialized protection.

Assuming your private companies are all benevolent.
The neocons will have their companies, foreign interest like china will have their companies...
Russia will have their companies... all fighting on our soil...
Let's turn the clocks back to the times of tribes fighting each other for resources.

I have to increase the strength of my militia to defend against these other militias...
And I lead them benevolently in my area... my successor has other ideas... he wants to control more and more...

What you will have is so much fighting and crime, you won't have any rights, no property... and no way to create wealth.

I'm all for taking a big square state like Kansas, and letting all you anarchist eat each other voluntarily.
Just don't FORCE me to live in your chaos of tyranny.

I have one tyrant I need to remove right now, and I do have a chance to do it peacefully.
The only way you will remove the tyrants in your anarchy is to slaughter them all.

[powerofreason]

Assuming your private companies are all benevolent.

You mean assuming they like to make money, and want to please their customers in order to do so? Can you name a company today that does not fit this description?

The neocons will have their companies, foreign interest like china will have their companies...
Russia will have their companies... all fighting on our soil...
Let's turn the clocks back to the times of tribes fighting each other for resources.


The only way one can make money is by pleasing customers and providing a wanted product or service. Why would they then go spend that money on non economically feasible activities like war? Why? It makes no sense.


I have to increase the strength of my militia to defend against these other militias...
And I lead them benevolently in my area... my successor has other ideas... he wants to control more and more...

Lol what? What time period are you living in?


What you will have is so much fighting and crime, you won't have any rights, no property... and no way to create wealth.

Why will crime increase once competition is allowed in protection services? You're not making any sense at all.


I'm all for taking a big square state like Kansas, and letting all you anarchist eat each other voluntarily.
Just don't FORCE me to live in your chaos of tyranny.


You're the one that is interested in forcing people to do things, not me.


I have one tyrant I need to remove right now, and I do have a chance to do it peacefully.
The only way you will remove the tyrants in your anarchy is to slaughter them all.


Like I said, government is the biggest criminal of all. Private crime does not come close to what government does on a daily basis. I'll take my chances, and take the most moral route at the same time. Anarcho-capitalism is not utopia but it is far and away the most moral and most practical way for human beings to live.

[idiom]

The only way one can make money is by pleasing customers and providing a wanted product or service. Why would they then go spend that money on non economically feasible activities like war? Why? It makes no sense.

Oh right. Child labour isn't used anywhere in the world...

Customers will care if two Oil companies have a shoot out for Oil in Indonesia or somewhere...

And war never occurs without governments...


I suppose you are in favour of having someone else own all the land around your house as a 'private road' and them having the right to prevent your travel? There is a useful system.

[powerofreason]

Oh right. Child labour isn't used anywhere in the world...

Customers will care if two Oil companies have a shoot out for Oil in Indonesia or somewhere...

And war never occurs without governments...


I suppose you are in favour of having someone else own all the land around your house as a 'private road' and them having the right to prevent your travel? There is a useful system.

Side roads would most likely be owned in common in a free society, maybe by some type of homeowner's association or something.

War does not occur without governments. And if you go and find me a case of some type of battle happening without taxation, 99% of wars out there will still have been funded through taxation (theft).

And child labor is most definitely a GOOD THING. Without it, many children in developing countries and their families would starve to death.

[powerofreason]

And somebody please tell me when this "battling companies" scenario has ever happened. Like I said, it does not make business sense to hire people to kill people (at enormous cost, probably) to destroy your competition. That is just paranoid and retarded to think that would happen in the absence of papa parasite (government).

[Unspun]

Seems like my property is well respected in this town.
So it must be working.

Do you really think that is due to government intervention or just the mindset of people? I don't necessarily believe that.

You speak of mafia, but you wouldn't seem to know it but the mafia only exists with its power due to governments. If it wasn't for illegal gambling, drugs, alcohol, guns, prostitution, etc, there would be no mafia. The whole reason the mafia is around is because government had created an illegal market that can be greatly benefited from. Then gang territory becomes important to the mafia to "protect", hence, the so-called "need" for protection from governments.

[powerofreason]

Do you really think that is due to government intervention or just the mindset of people? I don't necessarily believe that.

You speak of mafia, but you wouldn't seem to know it but the mafia only exists with its power due to governments. If it wasn't for illegal gambling, drugs, alcohol, guns, prostitution, etc, there would be no mafia. The whole reason the mafia is around is because government had created an illegal market that can be greatly benefited from. Then gang territory becomes important, hence, the so-called "need" for protection.

Good point. Government creates problems in the process of solving a perceived problem, tries to solve said problems, process repeats.

[Unspun]

Assuming your private companies are all benevolent.
The neocons will have their companies, foreign interest like china will have their companies...
Russia will have their companies... all fighting on our soil...
Let's turn the clocks back to the times of tribes fighting each other for resources.

I have to increase the strength of my militia to defend against these other militias...
And I lead them benevolently in my area... my successor has other ideas... he wants to control more and more...

What you will have is so much fighting and crime, you won't have any rights, no property... and no way to create wealth.

I'm all for taking a big square state like Kansas, and letting all you anarchist eat each other voluntarily.
Just don't FORCE me to live in your chaos of tyranny.

I have one tyrant I need to remove right now, and I do have a chance to do it peacefully.
The only way you will remove the tyrants in your anarchy is to slaughter them all.

I can't fathom how you come to this way of thinking. I think you watch too many movies or play too many video games If you believe as Hayek, Mises, and the rest of the Austro-libertarians believe you would understand that humans act rationally when they are left to pursue their individual wants and needs. What good would it do for individuals and corporations to use their resources to destroy resources? It wouldn't make sense socially nor economically in any way. This is not the idea of anarchy, what you are depicting is statism and what we have currently, not anarchy. You think you have a say? Really? You sure about that? Do you protest taxes? Do you pay them? Do you protest wars? Yet you continue to pay for them? Personally, I think you just think you have a say.

You think if we go into an anarchist state that society will just break down? No, in fact if you look at Somalia life is better than it was under statism, although it still pretty much sucks you have to compare the statist period with the post-statism period to get a good comparison. There are more services, better living standards, and less violence overall than during the time the government had "control" of the state. Why do you think this is? Voluntaryism within the community has taken over gun-to-the-head-statism. That's why.

[idiom]

And somebody please tell me when this "battling companies" scenario has ever happened. Like I said, it does not make business sense to hire people to kill people (at enormous cost, probably) to destroy your competition. That is just paranoid and retarded to think that would happen in the absence of papa parasite (government).

Right. No company has ever used any sort of below board tactics ever in the hisroty of the world unless the government forced them to do it.

If not for the governmnet interference every consumer would be perfectly informed and would always put their perfectly formed perceptions ahead of things like price, guaranteeing that no company could ever make even the smallest profit from even a marginal use of force.

Is that what you are arguing?

[Unspun]

Right. No company has ever used any sort of below board tactics ever in the hisroty of the world unless the government forced them to do it.

If not for the governmnet interference every consumer would be perfectly informed and would always put their perfectly formed perceptions ahead of things like price, guaranteeing that no company could ever make even the smallest profit from even a marginal use of force.

Is that what you are arguing?

I don't think anyone is arguing that. There is no perfect society, as much as I wish there was. But anarchists argue that without government humans would act more rational than when they have regulations and subsidies which prevent them from doing as such, their property seized through acts of taxation and invasion, armies at their backs, and guns pointed to their head.

[Kludge]

Seems like my property is well respected in this town.

Less that which is near your carport...?

[idiom]

Somalia is also heavily Muslim. This contriubtes to its basic economic structure coping as religion takes the place of the state and to its low Aids rate among other things.

Islamic banks are surving the credit crisis pretty well to. Maybe we should all convert to Islam and be free like the Somali's?

[Unspun]

Islamic banks are surving the credit crisis pretty well to. Maybe we should all convert to Islam and be free like the Somali's?

No. I compared post state Somalia with statist Somalia and came to a conclusion. They were Muslims prior, during, and after statism, so I don't really attribute that to anything. But, if you wish to convert to Muslim, I have no objections.

[idiom]

So a peoples strong value system is not a contributing factor to its ability to maintain a basic economy after an incompent government is removed?

Talk about your pick and choose.

[Unspun]

So a peoples strong value system is not a contributing factor to its ability to maintain a basic economy after an incompent government is removed?

Talk about your pick and choose.

Were they not Muslims when government was in place? Are we, in the United States, not mostly Christians or believe in some form of deity or hold some type of moral value system?

[powerofreason]

So a peoples strong value system is not a contributing factor to its ability to maintain a basic economy after an incompent government is removed?

Talk about your pick and choose.

Any place will do better if government is removed. Most people know enough not to hurt others. Religion has little to do with it.

[powerofreason]

Right. No company has ever used any sort of below board tactics ever in the hisroty of the world unless the government forced them to do it.


Never said that. What are "below board tactics" anyways??


If not for the governmnet interference every consumer would be perfectly informed and would always put their perfectly formed perceptions ahead of things like price, guaranteeing that no company could ever make even the smallest profit from even a marginal use of force.

Is that what you are arguing?

Never said that either. All I'm saying, is that we will be better off.

[idiom]

Sabotage of competitors, borrowing trade secrets, violation of patents (which are silly government things) spreading fear uncertainty and doubt (slander is another silly government thing).

I am sure it would never be profitable for a large coal company to just seize a small companies mines... nah. Companies poach with money because it is usually to difficult to get away with actual poaching. Pesky FBI and all that.

Or for example, Newspapers start using addictive ink that causes you to unknowingly buy a paper everyday regardless of content because it makes you feel good.

There is a reason Wonka fired everyone and hired Oompa Loompas.

[powerofreason]

Sabotage of competitors, borrowing trade secrets, violation of patents (which are silly government things) spreading fear uncertainty and doubt (slander is another silly government thing).

I am sure it would never be profitable for a large coal company to just seize a small companies mines... nah. Companies poach with money because it is usually to difficult to get away with actual poaching. Pesky FBI and all that.

Or for example, Newspapers start using addictive ink that causes you to unknowingly buy a paper everyday regardless of content because it makes you feel good.

There is a reason Wonka fired everyone and hired Oompa Loompas.

Haha. Let me demolish this piece by piece.


Sabotage of competitors

Thats vague. Give an example.



borrowing trade secrets

If you want to keep something secret you don't tell anyone, if you do, then you know who to blame. What are you suggesting, that a company would infiltrate another to learn trade secrets? Why doesn't that happen nowadays then?


violation of patents (which are silly government things)


Indeed. Patents hold back human progress and are thus immoral. For more information, you can read this free book in pdf format, called Against Intellectual Monopoly (http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm).



spreading fear uncertainty and doubt (slander is another silly government thing)

Yes, it is another silly government thing. Slander is not a crime, although it may not be in the best interest of the slanderer.



I am sure it would never be profitable for a large coal company to just seize a small companies mines... nah. Companies poach with money because it is usually to difficult to get away with actual poaching. Pesky FBI and all that.

Are you kidding me? Instead of bigger company A competing with company B to drive it out of business, it decides to take it over with mercenaries? WTF? So Company A spends a huge amount of money hiring mercenaries and outfitting them, and then takes Company B over to everyone's horror. Its all over the news and their is massive public outrage. Company A goes broke from a crippling boycott. Obviously, Company A will not choose to do that in the first place because it is so much easier to just compete with B and drive it out of business that way. What kind of a psychopath would do that anyways?



Or for example, Newspapers start using addictive ink that causes you to unknowingly buy a paper everyday regardless of content because it makes you feel good.

And the word gets out, and they go out of business.... If thats the worst free market horror you can show me I have to say I'm not even a little bit frightened.

People are really not as horrible as your paranoid mind seems to think. Believe it or not, if competition in protection and justice and other services is allowed, we will not all try to kill each other and became psychotic serial murderers. I know, this is hard to accept.

[Unspun]

Sabotage of competitors, borrowing trade secrets, violation of patents (which are silly government things) spreading fear uncertainty and doubt (slander is another silly government thing).

I am sure it would never be profitable for a large coal company to just seize a small companies mines... nah. Companies poach with money because it is usually to difficult to get away with actual poaching. Pesky FBI and all that.

Or for example, Newspapers start using addictive ink that causes you to unknowingly buy a paper everyday regardless of content because it makes you feel good.

There is a reason Wonka fired everyone and hired Oompa Loompas.

I find it tough to believe that a) this doesn't happen currently with a government in place (and often times the government partakes in it), b) that government really cares more than the property owner, and that c) the government can protect people from these things better than the free market and voluntary contract.

[idiom]

Obviously none of you have run any sort of technological company. So far the paragon of human advancement is Somalia apparently.

a) it does happen, but the government gives strong recourse and the ability to prosecute. b) the government doesn't care it just runs the courts. c) Free market doesn't care either. It gets the current generation of technology cheaper and just forgoes the next round as nobody has profit to reinvest.

While running a tech company, one of the biggest things we had to worry about was a big customer suing us into bankruptcy and buying our IP in the firesale. Competitors do a lot of the same stuff. And we do it to them.

Without the levels of protection in place it would be far harder and more costly to protect ourselves and compete strongly enough to have money to reinvest

[RevolutionSD]

Ayn Rand = Pompous Ass and advocate of AGGRESSION

Yep, it's too bad she was a warmonger considering all the good things she had to say about individualism and the state.

[powerofreason]

Obviously none of you have run any sort of technological company. So far the paragon of human advancement is Somalia apparently.

a) it does happen, but the government gives strong recourse and the ability to prosecute. b) the government doesn't care it just runs the courts. c) Free market doesn't care either. It gets the current generation of technology cheaper and just forgoes the next round as nobody has profit to reinvest.

While running a tech company, one of the biggest things we had to worry about was a big customer suing us into bankruptcy and buying our IP in the firesale. Competitors do a lot of the same stuff. And we do it to them.

Without the levels of protection in place it would be far harder and more costly to protect ourselves and compete strongly enough to have money to reinvest

There is no need for intellectual property rights. History bears this fact out. IP holds back everyone to the benefit of a few.

Not even pharmaceutical companies need IP protection.

Nevermind the fact that it is immoral from a libertarian point of view.

[idiom]

My property is my property and your property is my property.

Why doesn't everyone love anarchism?

[powerofreason]

Yep, it's too bad she was a warmonger considering all the good things she had to say about individualism and the state.

Yea, that too. Plus I've heard that modern day Randians love Israel and all the middle east interventions, which is so ridiculously anti-freedom on many different levels.

[powerofreason]

My property is my property and your property is my property.


Man what don't you get? Your property will be protected by private versions of government police which will be far more efficient and helpful. And insurance companies will have strong incentives to help reduce crime.



Why doesn't everyone love anarchism?

I don't know! Good question.

[idiom]

There is no need for intellectual property rights. History bears this fact out. IP holds back everyone to the benefit of a few. Not even pharmaceutical companies need IP protection.


Your property will be protected by private versions of government police

Again... you go against your own thoughts. People can do anything they want except establish a government for themselves... They can have property, but only under your definition of property. They can retaliate, but only under your definition of reasonable provocation.

[powerofreason]

Again... you go against your own thoughts. People can do anything they want except establish a government for themselves... They can have property, but only under your definition of property. They can retaliate, but only under your definition of reasonable provocation.

I don't go against my own thoughts. Intellectual "property" is not really property but that is how it is referred to. So I use that term.

People may establish a government for themselves, in the case that 100% of the people being governed accept the actions of that government. But we all know, thats not how government works. Its a violation of the Non Aggression Principle, thats why it is wrong. Aggression is wrong because it is anti-social and anti-human. We can all agree on that, can't we?

People may retaliate against others to the extent that their rights have been violated.

Example: You steal 5000 dollars from me. I take back my 5000 dollars and another 5000 dollars as retaliation.

Thats the ideal, I'm not saying it would always work out that way or that everyone would agree thats the way to go.

I believe that one loses his/her rights to the extent he/she violates the rights of others, otherwise no one could be punished for anti-social or anti-life behavior.

Edit: Voluntary governing bodies, like condo associations or homeowners associations are not the same as governments, because they are voluntarily entered into by each participating person and forced on no one.

[idiom]

I don't go against my own thoughts. Intellectual "property" is not really property but that is how it is referred to. So I use that term.

People may establish a government for themselves, in the case that 100% of the people being governed accept the actions of that government. But we all know, thats not how government works. Its a violation of the Non Aggression Principle, thats why it is wrong. Aggression is wrong because it is anti-social and anti-human. We can all agree on that, can't we?

People may retaliate against others to the extent that their rights have been violated.

Example: You steal 5000 dollars from me. I take back my 5000 dollars and another 5000 dollars as retaliation.

Thats the ideal, I'm not saying it would always work out that way or that everyone would agree thats the way to go.

I believe that one loses his/her rights to the extent he/she violates the rights of others, otherwise no one could be punished for anti-social or anti-life behavior.

Edit: Voluntary governing bodies, like condo associations or homeowners associations are not the same as governments, because they are voluntarily entered into by each participating person and forced on no one.

So how would you take the $10K off me without any use of force? Or is it the 'Agression when you thinks its justified" principle?

And if you don't believe in IP its because you have never created any.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

I have a right to be free and fully enjoy my own property wherever I have purchased it or homesteaded it.

No you do not. If you buy a property, you are voluntarily submitting to the governing authorities. You can just walk in have your own way. Talk about arrogance.

[Unspun]

Again... you go against your own thoughts. People can do anything they want except establish a government for themselves... They can have property, but only under your definition of property. They can retaliate, but only under your definition of reasonable provocation.

Property includes actual tangible things that ownership can be transfered to. How do you actually own words? Or sounds? Or ideas? etc, but you can own the paper they are written on, or the tape or CD they are recorded on, which you can then claim as your property. This has always been the held definition of property until government came along and authorized monopolies on words, sounds, and ideas.

[powerofreason]

No you do not. If you buy a property, you are voluntarily submitting to the governing authorities. You can just walk in have your own way. Talk about arrogance.

Lol no way! Why are the governing authorities legitimate????

Hint: They're not. They violate the Non-Aggression Principle

[powerofreason]

So how would you take the $10K off me without any use of force? Or is it the 'Agression when you thinks its justified" principle?

And if you don't believe in IP its because you have never created any.

Aggression does not equal violence. Violence can be justifiable. Thats what rights do, they are a guide for knowing when it is ok to commit defensive acts of violence against others. Violence can be aggressive or defensive.

I have created tons of IP in my life. I went to school, wrote all kind of reports and stuff. I understand why IP is wrong because I've read certain books and have been absolutely convinced, so I oppose it.

Once again, no excuse for aggression. Not even in protecting IP.

[idiom]

Yeah because nobody was living on the land before it was 'homesteaded'.


How do you actually own words? Or sounds? Or ideas?

Never heard of identity theft? If someone copies or distributes your DNA you don't care? How can you have a right to privacy, if your privacy is just a bunch of information?

Linux which is a wonderful thing could not exist without IP protection.

Most forms of fraud are based on 'intangible' things.

Maybe humanity should sitck selling low tech things to each other. That way we can tell when we have been defrauded by a 'non-aggressor'.

[idiom]

Aggression does not equal violence. Violence can be justifiable. Thats what rights do, they are a guide for knowing when it is ok to commit defensive acts of violence against others. Violence can be aggressive or defensive.

I have created tons of IP in my life. I went to school, wrote all kind of reports and stuff. I understand why IP is wrong because I've read certain books and have been absolutely convinced, so I oppose it.

Once again, no excuse for aggression. Not even in protecting IP.

So because you have justified it to youself, you can do whatever you want to me?

Cool.

[powerofreason]

So because you have justified it to youself, you can do whatever you want to me?

Cool.

What the hell are you talking about??

I'm talking about universally accepted principles here. You don't hurt other people. If you do, you get punished. If that doesn't make sense to you, you're in for a rough life.

[powerofreason]

Yeah because nobody was living on the land before it was 'homesteaded'.



Never heard of identity theft? If someone copies or distributes your DNA you don't care? How can you have a right to privacy, if your privacy is just a bunch of information?

Linux which is a wonderful thing could not exist without IP protection.

Most forms of fraud are based on 'intangible' things.

Maybe humanity should sitck selling low tech things to each other. That way we can tell when we have been defrauded by a 'non-aggressor'.

FRAUD is the crime in identity theft, you moron. :rolleyes:

[powerofreason]

Linux which is a wonderful thing could not exist without IP protection.


Its open source. Where does the IP protection come in?

[powerofreason]

When someone steals your identity, how were they able to copy the information, did they TRESPASS in order to do so? If you leave your identity info out for others to see and they copy it they have done nothing wrong provided they do not commit fraud with it.

[idiom]

Its open source. Where does the IP protection come in?

If you sell it without the source, you will get sued.

If you change it and distribute it without the source you will get sued.

To add to the kernel you sign over the copyrights.

Without the genius of the GPL IP License many other unprotected projects have splintered and failed.

What is fraud if not misrepresentation of data? If nobody has taken anything physical then what is the problem with fraud or invasion of privacy?


I'm talking about universally accepted principles here. You don't hurt other people. If you do, you get punished. If that doesn't make sense to you, you're in for a rough life.

That is a new use of universally.

[idiom]

Ayn Rand = Pompous Ass and advocate of AGGRESSION

Because she thinks you're a looter?

[powerofreason]

If you sell it without the source, you will get sued.


Yea I know. No reason for that "protection." If I sell the source, what crime have I committed? None. I made a voluntary deal with somebody using my own property.


If you change it and distribute it without the source you will get sued.


Unfortunately yes


To add to the kernel you sign over the copyrights.

Whatever.


Without the genius of the GPL IP License many other unprotected projects have splintered and failed.

Name one?


What is fraud if not misrepresentation of data? If nobody has taken anything physical then what is the problem with fraud or invasion of privacy?


Fraud is using trickery to cheat someone out of money or property. Pretty simple. Fraud hasn't happened if someone isn't out money or property. No damages.

"Invasion of privacy?" A person is responsible for his/her own privacy. If trespass occurs in order to "invade privacy" then a crime has been committed.





That is a new use of universally.

Meaning everyone except you.

[powerofreason]

Because she thinks you're a looter?

No, because she is a pompous ass and thinks it is okay impose her utopian model of the monster State on others.

[idiom]

Um, what is a tresspass if you still have your property after I leave? The property which nobody owned before you drove them off their land?

[torchbearer]

No, because she is a pompous ass and thinks it is okay impose her utopian model of the monster State on others.

A state will exist whether you like it or not.
Why?
Because out of 6 billion people, there are bond to be some assholes who think your property is theirs, and their superior numbers makes that a right.

[powerofreason]

A state will exist whether you like it or not.
Why?
Because out of 6 billion people, there are bond to be some assholes who think your property is theirs

Maybe so.


, and their superior numbers makes that a right.

No, but it makes it a reality.

[torchbearer]

Maybe so.


No, but it makes it a reality.

Might make rights.
Meaning your only have rights if you have the might to make it reality.

[powerofreason]

Um, what is a tresspass if you still have your property after I leave? The property which nobody owned before you drove them off their land?

I will try to make this very simple since I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Trespass is a violation of property rights. Its like renting or utilizing someone's property without permission or possibly a fee.

Property can be legitimately owned either through gift or trade or homesteading, a process whereby someone makes some improvement to previously unimproved land or some thing. If land is abandoned it goes back to the unimproved state and can be homesteaded again. Its actually not too important all the little details about how land comes to be owned, so long as its in private hands it will find its best use most of the time.

[powerofreason]

Might make rights.
Meaning your only have rights if you have the might to make it reality.

You and I have a different idea of what rights are. In reality, we mostly agree. I subscribe to the theory of Natural Rights as laid out and explained by Murray Rothbard and others.

[torchbearer]

You and I have a different idea of what rights are. In reality, we mostly agree. I subscribe to the theory of Natural Rights as laid out and explained by Murray Rothbard and others.

You only have the rights you can hold on to.
If you are in jail or dead... you have no rights... no matter how many times you say you do.
The only rights you have, or those you can defend.
All others are just words.

[idiom]

Its actually not too important all the little details about how land comes to be owned

Said like a born looter.

[idiom]

And what happens when you disagree about your aggression?

If I think you are aggressing against my IP, you not believing in it makes it all right?

If I think you are polluting my property, your not believeing in it makes it all right?

What the hell sort of system have you concocted?

[powerofreason]

Said like a born looter.

Reasonable people can solve property border issues in a civil manner. Of course, you seem to think that without government we'd all turn into cannabalistic murderers. Government is the only thing preventing me from finding out where you live and tearing out your throat right now, of course.

I see now you've run out of arguments. A reasonable person would admit defeat, but you now turn to insults. like a child.

[powerofreason]

And what happens when you disagree about your aggression?

If I think you are aggressing against my IP, you not believing in it makes it all right?

If I think you are polluting my property, your not believeing in it makes it all right?

What the hell sort of system have you concocted?

This is what courts are for. Private, libertarian courts of course.

[torchbearer]

This is what courts are for. Private, libertarian courts of course.

I won't recognize your private court, What are you going to do about it?

[powerofreason]

I'll be back tomorrow to check out your newest childish insult, don't worry.

Only you would call a person who believes in the absolute sanctity of property rights a looter.

[idiom]

This is what courts are for. Private, libertarian courts of course.

That agree with your system of force and theft.

So now a private court and police force is going to transfer my wealth to you.

This is such an improvemnet over the current system.


Only you would call a person who believes in the absolute sanctity of property rights a looter.

Defining my property away so that you can take it is the essence of looting.

Why don't you throw some eminent domain in there for good measure.

Praytell, which libertarian court did you want to have an IP trial at?

[powerofreason]

I won't recognize your private court, What are you going to do about it?

Please, check out this free book. http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/

Comes in audiobook or pdf.

Good night.

[torchbearer]

Please, check out this free book. http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/

Comes in audiobook or pdf.

Good night.

I won't read your bullshit link, because your private court fails.
My mafia is law, and we don't recognize your private court.
So go fuck yourself and your private court.

[strapko]

I won't read your bullshit link, because your private court fails.
My mafia is law, and we don't recognize your private court.
So go fuck yourself and your private court.

Then the private court will take action against you, like any public court would.

[torchbearer]

Then the private court will take action against you, like any public court would.

but unlike the current courts, your private court doesn't have more guns and people than I do.
sorry, Soprano's will own this court shortly.
And then, you will be my bitch. How are those rights doing now?

[idiom]

Then the private court will take action against you, like any public court would.

And they derive their jurisdiction from what exactly?

The ICJ is a public court. Curious how it has never prosecuted an American.

[powerofreason]

I won't read your bullshit link, because your private court fails.
My mafia is law, and we don't recognize your private court.
So go fuck yourself and your private court.

I believe thats called willful ignorance. I reject your socialized court funded by theft, and which prosecutes victimless crimes without a single exception in history. Your public court has already failed, now lets try something new. Polycentric justice, perhaps? Private arbitration. There are many ways that a person who does not respect the ruling of a fair and unbiased arbiter can be punished without being physically punished.

He may become ineligible for contract insurance.
He may not be able to get credit.
He may be blacklisted and unable to enter certain areas or stores.
People may refuse to do business with him.
His family may disown him.
He may become uninsurable.
He may be ostracized in his own community.

Still want to disobey that arbiter?

If the market demands dispute resolution, it will happen.

[powerofreason]

And they derive their jurisdiction from what exactly?

The ICJ is a public court. Curious how it has never prosecuted an American.

Private courts are asked to take up a case by the complainant. Likely, if the defendant is not satisfied with the judgement a second opinion can be sought. If that makes a tie, a third unbiased arbiter can break it. The market will make it happen, just like how everything else we need is available when we need it.

[powerofreason]

but unlike the current courts, your private court doesn't have more guns and people than I do.
sorry, Soprano's will own this court shortly.
And then, you will be my bitch. How are those rights doing now?

This isn't about violence bud. I know thats the Statist language but you really need to stop thinking in those terms. Not every disagreement comes down to a gun battle. How many disagreements have you had in your life where you felt tempted to pull a gun on someone and have it out in the street? A private court is a disinterested party making a decision as a service to a customer. The court itself will not engage in violence. Neither will anyone else either, that I can think of.

You're not interested in learning about how it could work though so I guess I'm wasting my time. Go back to stealing from innocent people, thats the right thing to do.

[idiom]

Private courts are asked to take up a case by the complainant. Likely, if the defendant is not satisfied with the judgement a second opinion can be sought. If that makes a tie, a third unbiased arbiter can break it. The market will make it happen, just like how everything else we need is available when we need it.

You mean like how S&P, Moody's and Fitch force each other to be fair and honest?


A private court is a disinterested party making a decision as a service to a customer.

No conflict of interest there.

Also you still haven't cleared up which of these private courts I should sue you over an IP infringement claim.

[powerofreason]

You mean like how S&P, Moody's and Fitch force each other to be fair and honest?

Dude, just give up. You're out of excuses. You can't justify any human being having coercive power over another. Aggression is wrong.

[idiom]

I have dozens more excuses beyond the ones you have ignored so far.

[powerofreason]

I have dozens more excuses beyond the ones you have ignored so far.

By ignored do you mean destroyed?

[Kludge]

lol

[Unspun]

You mean like how S&P, Moody's and Fitch force each other to be fair and honest?

You really think the government doesn't have anything to do with that? They're a government authorized cartel.

[Unspun]

but unlike the current courts, your private court doesn't have more guns and people than I do.
sorry, Soprano's will own this court shortly.
And then, you will be my bitch. How are those rights doing now?

Your argument is tired. I already refuted the fact that mafias wouldn't exist with the power they do without government creating black markets.

[idiom]

The three ratings agencies had market pressure to lie. the problem one of a repeated game. One bad transaction and they take their huge volume to the competitor and blammo the honest rating agency is out of business because there is a five year lag before they get justified.

PowerofReason, for the sake of the OP, finds himself looting the fictional Hank Readen, John Galt and Howard Roark. He thinks that they produced nothing of value and should not be rewarded.

When he talks of IP not having value he cites his school book reports. Inventing new forms of power generation, new metals and new construction methods are apparently on the same level as his high school book reports.

[powerofreason]

PowerofReason, for the sake of the OP, finds himself looting the fictional Hank Readen, John Galt and Howard Roark. He thinks that they produced nothing of value and should not be rewarded.

How do you figure?



When he talks of IP not having value he cites his school book reports. Inventing new forms of power generation, new metals and new construction methods are apparently on the same level as his high school book reports.


You're twisting what I said. IP cannot be morally justified.

[Unspun]

The three ratings agencies had market pressure to lie. the problem one of a repeated game. One bad transaction and they take their huge volume to the competitor and blammo the honest rating agency is out of business because there is a five year lag before they get justified.

Yet you make this argument knowing that government regulates the market and thus regulates the ratings agencies and all this still happened. They also had a great deal of political pressure, and would be blamed for being unpatriotic and such other things if they downgraded American companies and the US Treasury, etc, so to think this had little to no effect is nonsense.

If the government would allow more rating agencies to come in, I truly think it would be more honest as the competition would create its own amount of pressure to be honest and present factual information, rather than having so-called "market pressure" and political pressure both coming down on them at the same time effectively doubling the pressure to lie and cheat.

[idiom]

How do you figure?

You're twisting what I said. IP cannot be morally justified.

Have you even read the books?

Those three figures all created extremely valuable IP.

Hank Rearden invests ten years of his life creating IP that the government steals from him and redistributes. You don't see this as a crime against him

Howard Roark spends his court trial arguing that the products of his mind belong to him. He says he is justified in demolishing someone else property because the builders used his designs and then adjusted them claiming the designs belonged to everyone now. You think he is in the wrong.

John Galt invented a new form of primary propulsion but never broght it to market because he recognised that he government of the day would not protect it. You think he is just being selfish.

[idiom]

Yet you make this argument knowing that government regulates the market and thus regulates the ratings agencies and all this still happened. They also had a great deal of political pressure, and would be blamed for being unpatriotic and such other things if they downgraded American companies and the US Treasury, etc, so to think this had little to no effect is nonsense.

If the government would allow more rating agencies to come in, I truly think it would be more honest as the competition would create its own amount of pressure to be honest and present factual information, rather than having so-called "market pressure" and political pressure both coming down on them at the same time effectively doubling the pressure to lie and cheat.

Normally the government applies political pressure to counteract the market pressure. When the government becomes corrupt by the consent of the people a crash occurs and wipes everything out.

A significant chunk of the entire western world has been behaving with serious corruption for a number of year. The market is clearing it all out now as it should.

Signifcant corruption in a free market makes collapses more frequent but hopefully less severe.

[powerofreason]

Have you even read the books?

No.


Those three figures all created extremely valuable IP.

They can profit it off it without IP protection. Lack of IP protection causes constant innovation as everyone tries to stay one step ahead of each other.


Hank Rearden invests ten years of his life creating IP that the government steals from him and redistributes. You don't see this as a crime against him

Depends. If he didn't want to share his invention with anyone he doesn't have to.


Howard Roark spends his court trial arguing that the products of his mind belong to him. He says he is justified in demolishing someone else property because the used his designs and then adjusted them claiming the designs belonged to everyone now. You think he is in the wrong.

How terrible of him. Of course he's wrong. Ideas cannot be owned. Mainly because they are not scarce. Scarcity is the main reason why property rights must exist in the first place.


John Galt invented a new form of primary propulsion but never broght it to market because he recognised that he government of the day would not protect it. You think he is just being selfish.


I think he's doing society a terrible disservice, yes. But I respect his decision.

If you don't want to do any reading and find out why all the modern austrian free market economists oppose IP I can't help you any further. Its your decision to decide to stay ignorant. I'm not going to find facts and figures and arguments to spoon feed you with.

[powerofreason]

Normally the government applies political pressure to counteract the market pressure. When the government becomes corrupt by the consent of the people a crash occurs and wipes everything out.

Wow. You're retarded. I have zero control of the federal government, same as you. That is the most retarded collectivist/statist nonsense I've ever heard in my life. You should look into becoming a high school civics teacher.


A significant chunk of the entire western world has been behaving with serious corruption for a number of year. The market is clearing it all out now as it should.

Signifcant corruption in a free market makes collapses more frequent but hopefully less severe.


Crashes are caused by the business cycle which is perpetrated by the federal reserve. Deregulate the markets, denationalize money/end the fed, eliminate taxes, and you have virtually unlimited potential for constant growth. Do you realize you are economically illiterate? Why don't you put down the Ayn Rand utopian nonsense for a second and read about free market economics?

[Unspun]

Normally the government applies political pressure to counteract the market pressure. When the government becomes corrupt by the consent of the people a crash occurs and wipes everything out.

A significant chunk of the entire western world has been behaving with serious corruption for a number of year. The market is clearing it all out now as it should.

Signifcant corruption in a free market makes collapses more frequent but hopefully less severe.

Ah, but I believe it works opposite than what you believe to be "normal". I don't think what you described was normal at all, but rather abnormal, because the government has restricted other organizations from providing ratings. This is creating a negative pressure for the existing companies, which I believe to be a government authorized cartel, to submit to abnormal and "un-market"-like pressures that won't exist as strongly if the government stayed out of the regulation and restriction of free market rating agencies.

[idiom]

Ideas cannot be owned. Mainly because they are not scarce.

Talent and good ideas are scarce. Anybody who has actually run a succesful business understands this. It is one of the biggest problems with modern economices of most shades.

Treating individuals as interchangeable is the primary failure of marxist economics but it is also yet to be addressed by Austrians as far as I have read.

The proper integration of it with economic models will probably earn someone a Nobel Prize one day.


Crashes are caused by the business cycle which is perpetrated by the federal reserve.

And in a deregulated market nobody will ever form a cartel or do anything shady.

[Unspun]

Wow. You're retarded.

Ugh. I agree with most of what you're saying but calling people retarded is counterproductive to your argument. It saddens me to see the debate degrade to such a low demeanor.

[powerofreason]

Talent and good ideas are scarce.

Nope. Add up all the worldwide copyrights/patents and tell me what the number is. Granting monopolies on the use of ideas hurts everyone except the privileged few. Its protectionism. Its just as bad as high tariffs or any other form of protectionism.


Anybody who has actually run a succesful business understands this. It is one of the biggest problems with modern economices of most shades.

You know NOTHING about economics buddy.


Treating individuals as interchangeable is the primary failure of marxist economics but it is also yet to be addressed by Austrians as far as I have read.

Who said individuals are interchangeable?


The proper integration of it with economic models will probably earn someone a Nobel Prize one day.

Paul Krugman won a Nobel Prize so they don't mean much anymore.



And in a deregulated market nobody will ever form a cartel or do anything shady.

Monopolies are mostly a creation of government. The only way monopolies can exist in a free market is with an incredibly good business that is so good it crushes its competition and doesn't slack off after that.

[powerofreason]

Government is the biggest criminal of all. Get rid of them, and the world is suddenly an ok place to live in. Suddenly, there is a possibility you may not be a slave for the rest of your life. How could private criminals commit all the crimes the government commits? Its an impossible task. Think about all the money that would have to be stolen, the people that would have to be killed, and all the other human suffering that occurs on a daily basis courtesy of our benevolent government kindly run by our representatives whom we the people fully control along with the unelected bureaucrats.

[Conza88]

Stephan Kinsella: Rethinking IP Completely (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=280262988255234681)

Watch and learn. Gets detailed at about 15min.

[StudentForPaul08]

This thread is why I love RP forums. We are the modern "Coffee shops of the late 1700's", real intellectual stuff. None of that MSM bs.

[idiom]

Nope. Add up all the worldwide copyrights/patents and tell me what the number is.


At the end of 2005, there were approximately 5.6 million patents in force worldwide.

Or less than one per 1100 people. A lot of those are not even particuarly good patents.

Also there are probably less than 50 bands right now that could reliably sellout a stadium at $200 per seat.

The alternate system is NDA and non-competes.

I sell you a car and you sign an NDA. This means a bunch of economically useful alternatives to the patent system occur. 1 You cannot talk about the contents of the car, you may not show anybody what is under the hood. All passengers must also sign the NDA for the same car, you may only take it to a mechanic who has signed the NDA. If the car gets stolen you are liable for damages not more than ten times the value of the car as per our voluntary agreement.

My competitors might sell you a car without an NDA , but my cars already have everything that maeks their car nice plus all of the advanced efficency, saftey and other nifty features I have thought up. Their car also costs a lot more as they have to work twice as hard as I do to keep up.

Or we can just have a patent system and I disclose all my ideas to the public and make a profit encouraging me to spend more time in that industry. Meanwhile you get to discuss your car with your friends, drive it anywhere, get it repaired anywhere and only inccur the replacement value of the car if it gets stolen.

Again my praxeology is a bit weak, given that I spend all my time inventing things and making money instead of writing highly valuable book reports and flipping burgers.

[powerofreason]

At the end of 2005, there were approximately 5.6 million patents in force worldwide.

Or less than one per 1100 people. A lot of those are not even particuarly good patents.

Also there are probably less than 50 bands right now that could reliably sellout a stadium at $200 per seat.

The alternate system is NDA and non-competes.

I sell you a car and you sign an NDA. This means a bunch of economically useful alternatives to the patent system occur. 1 You cannot talk about the contents of the car, you may not show anybody what is under the hood. All passengers must also sign the NDA for the same car, you may only take it to a mechanic who has signed the NDA. If the car gets stolen you are liable for damages not more than ten times the value of the car as per our voluntary agreement.

My competitors might sell you a car without an NDA , but my cars already have everything that maeks their car nice plus all of the advanced efficency, saftey and other nifty features I have thought up. Their car also costs a lot more as they have to work twice as hard as I do to keep up.

Or we can just have a patent system and I disclose all my ideas to the public and make a profit encouraging me to spend more time in that industry. Meanwhile you get to discuss your car with your friends, drive it anywhere, get it repaired anywhere and only inccur the replacement value of the car if it gets stolen.

Again my praxeology is a bit weak, given that I spend all my time inventing things and making money instead of writing highly valuable book reports and flipping burgers.

If you were willing to do a bit of research into history, you might see that innovation often stagnates the more IP protections there are. But you're not willing to open your mind even a crack to new ideas so have fun staying ignorant your whole life.

I don't flip burgers, btw. Keep on enjoying your protection at the expense of everyone around you. Talk about a looter.

[Unspun]

I sell you a car and you sign an NDA. This means a bunch of economically useful alternatives to the patent system occur. 1 You cannot talk about the contents of the car, you may not show anybody what is under the hood. All passengers must also sign the NDA for the same car, you may only take it to a mechanic who has signed the NDA. If the car gets stolen you are liable for damages not more than ten times the value of the car as per our voluntary agreement.

My competitors might sell you a car without an NDA , but my cars already have everything that maeks their car nice plus all of the advanced efficency, saftey and other nifty features I have thought up. Their car also costs a lot more as they have to work twice as hard as I do to keep up.

Or we can just have a patent system and I disclose all my ideas to the public and make a profit encouraging me to spend more time in that industry. Meanwhile you get to discuss your car with your friends, drive it anywhere, get it repaired anywhere and only inccur the replacement value of the car if it gets stolen.

Again my praxeology is a bit weak, given that I spend all my time inventing things and making money instead of writing highly valuable book reports and flipping burgers.

Under your patent system, you drive out competition, raise costs by having to hire patent lawyers and maintaining patents, driving up prices exorbitantly. Patents discourage innovation by using protectionist policies and government granted monopolies to protect whoever might first file a patent for a product even though someone might have invented it first, then that person gets sued even though they may not believe their idea is not property as it is not scarce but is merely an idea.

Consider this. Let's say you have a drug patent. This drug causes unnecessary side effects, but because no other company can make changes to the drug until the patent is up it keeps causing those side effects. Many people die because the discomfort from the pain is not worth it. The drug is very expensive and people stay sick from not being able to afford it. This drug is protected from the rigors of the free market to better the drug and to make the drug more affordable.

Now let's say we have a system which allows for the free market to develop this drug. Drug companies can come in and better the drug and alter the drug to get rid of the nasty side effects. the drug is cheaper due to market competition and no monopoly exists, and peoples lives are saved because it no longer creates the side effects and more people can afford the drug.

[Brian4Liberty]

Here's her feeling on the proper role of government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTHn-9hhU#t=7m13s


Must be the wrong link. All I saw was Phil Donahue and Alan Greenspan in drag... :D

[idiom]

Under your patent system, you drive out competition, raise costs by having to hire patent lawyers and maintaining patents, driving up prices exorbitantly. Patents discourage innovation by using protectionist policies and government granted monopolies to protect whoever might first file a patent for a product even though someone might have invented it first, then that person gets sued even though they may not believe their idea is not property as it is not scarce but is merely an idea.

Consider this. Let's say you have a drug patent. This drug causes unnecessary side effects, but because no other company can make changes to the drug until the patent is up it keeps causing those side effects. Many people die because the discomfort from the pain is not worth it. The drug is very expensive and people stay sick from not being able to afford it. This drug is protected from the rigors of the free market to better the drug and to make the drug more affordable.

Now let's say we have a system which allows for the free market to develop this drug. Drug companies can come in and better the drug and alter the drug to get rid of the nasty side effects. the drug is cheaper due to market competition and no monopoly exists, and peoples lives are saved because it no longer creates the side effects and more people can afford the drug.

The are a number of old drugs Like DCA (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/behindtheheadlines/dca/) that might be developed by the free market for new uses. However nobody does the trials because there is no money to be made. Instead they invest a lot of money in making chemically similar drugs that can be patented. Nobody is stopping the free market from doing these tests, but they are not done inspite of promisng anecdotal evidence.

Patents Expire. It might be reasonable to shorten the period, but for somethings it takes nearly the entire patents life to bring to market anyway leaving only a few years of protection.

Also you can improve someone elses drug, take out a patent on the imporvements and cross liscense so that you both sell the improved drug together. If the other company refuses then you have sole right to sell the improved drug when their patents expire.

But you know, lets examine the most politically corrupt health system in the world to see whether or not I should have to pay for someone elses work.

[idiom]

Ayn Rand = Pompous Ass and advocate of AGGRESSION


Have you even read the books?


No.

This thread consists more and more of you talking out your arse.

[Conza88]

This thread consists more and more of you talking out your arse.

I have read them.

And.... she fails in comparision to the Austrian School. ;) Be it on the state, IP, or whatever.

An Open Letter to Ayn Rand by Roy A. Childs, Jr. (http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html)

Mises & Rothbard > Ayn Rand.

:cool:

[idiom]

I have read them.

And.... she fails in comparision to the Austrian School. ;) Be it on the state, IP, or whatever.

An Open Letter to Ayn Rand by Roy A. Childs, Jr. (http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html)

Mises & Rothbard > Ayn Rand.

:cool:

Which is why your opinion of her is of more interest to me than PowerofReason's.

[idiom]

Stephan Kinsella: Rethinking IP Completely (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=280262988255234681)

Watch and learn. Gets detailed at about 15min.

That was a bit lightweight.

However Patent reform would be great, your system in the States is borked. The DCMA is evil but apparently constitutional due to complying with the God-forsaken WTO treaty.

In a free market or when selling in countries like China and Eastern Europe that are... um... lax the solutions that I have seen tend towards massive piles of NDA's and licensing. A good patent system is cheaper and easier than this. A lot of things still need to be worked through especially in software, but denying that creating good software is a valuable use of labour is a bad idea.

The idea that all rights derive from homesteading empty or native american owned land and are only valid if attached to a tangible scare resource leaves a lot to be desired.

Ayn formulated the NAP is a slightly different way in "I will never live for another man, nor ask another man to live for me."

To her the idea that Hank Rearden could invest a decade of his life creating something (or rather going and pulling an idea out of the non-scarce idea fountain) only to find it 'belongs to all mankind' is askind Mr Rearden to live for you, or to give you something for free.

While it is a pattern (as is all information) it is not a random pattern and took the exchange of a lot of hard physical assets to find.

The argument that 'everyone believes in physical objects therefore property rights must belong to whoever gets there first' is a bit disingenuous.

Even these rights only exist in a system of shared values by two or more people who have different plans for a particular object. The arise out of the agreements of those people not out of the object itself.

Ayn's 'rights' arise out of the values of creativity, labour and self-interest.

The claims to self-ownership did also highlight the belief in atomic self-ownership. That your parents or others who contribute to your existence do not have any share in the ownership of your person does not reasonably derive from a 'hard assets' view of the world. A lot was put into creating you and raising you, so I don't see where you have a claim of autonomy.

If I build an object out of materials I own outright I own that object. Unless I build a machine that is self-aware. Suddenly and magically it owns itself and can tell me to bugger off? It is a misunderstanding of 'rights'. Natural rights cannot exist. All rights are 'transactional rights' aka 'legal rights'.

[Conza88]

That was a bit lightweight.

However Patent reform would be great, your system in the States is borked. The DCMA is evil but apparently constitutional due to complying with the God-forsaken WTO treaty.

I'm in Australia. Patent reform would be great. Like complete abolishment of a mercantilistic government MONOPOLY on imaginary property.


In a free market or when selling in countries like China and Eastern Europe that are... um... lax the solutions that I have seen tend towards massive piles of NDA's and licensing. A good patent system is cheaper and easier than this. A lot of things still need to be worked through especially in software, but denying that creating good software is a valuable use of labour is a bad idea.

No "system." Very good. Cheaper, easier, more efficient - why I dunno, because its the MARKET! :)


The idea that all rights derive from homesteading empty or native american owned land and are only valid if attached to a tangible scare resource leaves a lot to be desired.

Ayn formulated the NAP is a slightly different way in "I will never live for another man, nor ask another man to live for me."

What's to be desired? Yeah thats the NAP and I see how you're trying to connect that to "property" although it be imaginary. ;)

"I will never live for another man, nor ask another man to live for me."

Patents - you TRY to stop someone from living their live. If you SUE someone for violating your patent (let's say you got a patent on the WHEEL), you're after their money, you're using force to stop their innovation.

You're violating the NAP ;)

But really, you can't own ideas. Thus you're not asking anyone to live for you and you're not living for another.


To her the idea that Hank Rearden could invest a decade of his life creating something (or rather going and pulling an idea out of the non-scarce idea fountain) only to find it 'belongs to all mankind' is askind Mr Rearden to live for you, or to give you something for free.

You can't OWN an idea (property). If you think of an idea and then I get it out of you, or you tell me. I have the idea as well, but it's not THEFT. The idea was not STOLEN. ;) You still have it. As I now do aswell. :cool:

Ayn is wrong.. just like she was, when she said:"Big Business was America's most persecuted Minority."

LMFAO!!! :D

But further more, Hank can keep the knowledge he's found, a trade secret. And theoretically that could last forever. But say someone comes along and discovers the idea themselves 40 years later. They get the patent, because Hank has decided to keep it secret.

If the patent owner finds out Hank is using his Patent, although he had it first, he can STOP hank from producing.

:claps: Patents, aren't they awesome!


While it is a pattern (as is all information) it is not a random pattern and took the exchange of a lot of hard physical assets to find.

The argument that 'everyone believes in physical objects therefore property rights must belong to whoever gets there first' is a bit disingenuous.

How is it disingenuous?


Even these rights only exist in a system of shared values by two or more people who have different plans for a particular object. The arise out of the agreements of those people not out of the object itself.

IP isn't a "right". It's not "property".


Ayn's 'rights' arise out of the values of creativity, labour and self-interest.

What theory of value do you subscribe too?


The claims to self-ownership did also highlight the belief in atomic self-ownership. That your parents or others who contribute to your existence do not have any share in the ownership of your person does not reasonably derive from a 'hard assets' view of the world. A lot was put into creating you and raising you, so I don't see where you have a claim of autonomy.

Because you, and only you, act. No-one else acts FOR you, in terms of the physical, no-one else can control your movements, actions, thoughts etc. You are the sole owner. You have full autonomy, self determination.


If I build an object out of materials I own outright I own that object.

If on un-homesteaded land, you cut down a tree and carve a walking stick out of it. You own that stick. You mixed your labor with it.


Unless I build a machine that is self-aware. Suddenly and magically it owns itself and can tell me to bugger off? It is a misunderstanding of 'rights'. Natural rights cannot exist. All rights are 'transactional rights' aka 'legal rights'.

A machine that is self aware. lol Ok, well it doesn't have any HUMAN rights, so turn it off, do whatever you want to it, or let it be, like the Bicentennial Man... :rolleyes:

More to the point: You are saying there is a contract between the parents or said caretaker that is decided when that child becomes no longer allowed to be a part of the family, or a dependent, but what happens if one side of the unwritten contract wants to end said agreement and the other does not then who is the one in breach of contract?

:o

[Conza88]

Leonard Read, Open-Source Hero
Jeff Tucker on the libertarian giant vs. copyright.

Another 'Market Failure' Argument
Jeff Tucker on IP.

The Mercantilism of Our Time
Jeff Tucker on the patent-copyright regime.

Patents Kill…Literally
Jeff Tucker on Big Pharma, the FDA, and IP.

The Glorious Inventor Hoax
Jeff Tucker on the truth about the Wright Brothers, Marconi, and other wrongdoers.

Fallacy Run Amok
Jeff Tucker on the state's "intellectual property" vs. market competition.

Property and Competition
Back to basics.

The Book and Music Killer
Jeff Tucker on copyright.

The Power Elite Is All Wet
Keynesian is not good for you.

The Evil of Patents
Seen and unseen.

Property in Ideas
Does innovation require it?

Does Monopoly Create Wealth?
Jeff Tucker on intellectual "property."

Monopoly Kills Creativity
Jeff Tucker on the new frontier in "IP."

Generosity or Resentment
What's your attitude towards "IP"?

Beware of Copyright
An urgent message to authors, from Jeff Tucker.

Government Monopolies Undo Civilization
Especially patents and copyrights.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker-arch.html

Take ya pic. :p

[idiom]

No "system." Very good. Cheaper, easier, more efficient - why I dunno, because its the MARKET! :)

Armfuls of NDA's are only used by the market when nessecary because the patent system is faster and easier. Otherwise people would use them first and look to patents as a last resort.

In the absence of a Patent system the market would attempt to create one, which although probably doomed to failure is cheaper than the outlays on other forms of licensing and protection. I have worked in regulated markets and un-regulated markets. The un-regulated markets have a higher 'freedom tax' than the regulated ones, mostly.


What's to be desired? Yeah thats the NAP and I see how you're trying to connect that to "property" although it be imaginary. ;)

"I will never live for another man, nor ask another man to live for me."

Patents - you TRY to stop someone from living their live. If you SUE someone for violating your patent (let's say you got a patent on the WHEEL), you're after their money, you're using force to stop their innovation.

You're violating the NAP ;)

But really, you can't own ideas. Thus you're not asking anyone to live for you and you're not living for another.



You can't OWN an idea (property). If you think of an idea and then I get it out of you, or you tell me. I have the idea as well, but it's not THEFT. The idea was not STOLEN. ;) You still have it. As I now do aswell. :cool:

Ayn is wrong.. just like she was, when she said:"Big Business was America's most persecuted Minority."

LMFAO!!! :D

But further more, Hank can keep the knowledge he's found, a trade secret. And theoretically that could last forever. But say someone comes along and discovers the idea themselves 40 years later. They get the patent, because Hank has decided to keep it secret.

If the patent owner finds out Hank is using his Patent, although he had it first, he can STOP hank from producing.

:claps: Patents, aren't they awesome!

How is it disingenuous?

IP isn't a "right". It's not "property".

Because you, and only you, act. No-one else acts FOR you, in terms of the physical, no-one else can control your movements, actions, thoughts etc. You are the sole owner. You have full autonomy, self determination.


I am saying your axiom is not self-evident and has flaws. You are saying 'axiom' 'axiom' 'axiom'. Thats disingenuous and begging the question.



If on un-homesteaded land, you cut down a tree and carve a walking stick out of it. You own that stick. You mixed your labor with it.

A machine that is self aware. lol Ok, well it doesn't have any HUMAN rights, so turn it off, do whatever you want to it, or let it be, like the Bicentennial Man... :rolleyes:


Please explain which part of your anatomy is not in fact mechanical? It is a sophisicated pile of nano-machinery, but it is still machinery. Why is it as a sel-aware object, more entitled than any other object, or another machine that is self-aware but not human?

[Conza88]

Armfuls of NDA's are only used by the market when nessecary because the patent system is faster and easier. Otherwise people would use them first and look to patents as a last resort.

Well NDA's are used more in initial development/funding before a product is fully realised -- patents are used to protect a new product once it has been fully realised.


In the absence of a Patent system the market would attempt to create one, which although probably doomed to failure is cheaper than the outlays on other forms of licensing and protection. I have worked in regulated markets and un-regulated markets. The un-regulated markets have a higher 'freedom tax' than the regulated ones, mostly.


Freedom tax? Wtf you on about? Orwell just rolled in his grave. If its unregulated there where are the taxes coming or going. :confused:

I also love it how you know what the market would do. :rolleyes: But really, since you can't own ideas and since they're not property. It'd fail. IP isn't a mercantilistic function. Monopoly is teh bad. It's a market failure argument, which is nuts.


I am saying your axiom is not self-evident and has flaws. You are saying 'axiom' 'axiom' 'axiom'. Thats disingenuous and begging the question.

Thanks for addressing none of my critique of your / Rand's bs. What's the axiom you're refuting. And I never even mentioned axiom, so don't strawman.


Please explain which part of your anatomy is not in fact mechanical? It is a sophisicated pile of nano-machinery, but it is still machinery. Why is it as a sel-aware object, more entitled than any other object, or another machine that is self-aware but not human?

15. "Human Rights" as Property Rights by Murray N. Rothbard (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/EthicsofLiberty/2-15.mp3)

[strapko]

but unlike the current courts, your private court doesn't have more guns and people than I do.
sorry, Soprano's will own this court shortly.
And then, you will be my bitch. How are those rights doing now?

Sorry buddy but your model sucks, for one there wont be any Soprano's around if we had private courts, because all the high end profit drugs/prostitution will be legal. Soprano would be out the market in no time. With no money where do you think he will get the money to hold control over mafia. 2nd, people can group up to take action against unjust action; private courts would contact each other make business deals with private enforcement agencies and just duke it out with mafia type groups. 3rd with private courts there would always must likely be an settlement because war is expensive.

[strapko]

And they derive their jurisdiction from what exactly?

The ICJ is a public court. Curious how it has never prosecuted an American.

Jurisdiction from customers. I.e. Private enforcement agencies would pick and choose their own private court.

[idiom]

Well NDA's are used more in initial development/funding before a product is fully realised -- patents are used to protect a new product once it has been fully realised.

Unless you are selling in a country where they don't exist or are not enforced, in which case everything gets sold with very heavy handed NDA's.


Freedom tax? Wtf you on about? Orwell just rolled in his grave. If its unregulated there where are the taxes coming or going. :confused:

I also love it how you know what the market would do. :rolleyes: But really, since you can't own ideas and since they're not property. It'd fail. IP isn't a mercantilistic function. Monopoly is teh bad. It's a market failure argument, which is nuts.

I know what the market would do because I have operated in environments without IP protection. I have used free market alternatives. They often cost more and require more lawyers than patents.


Thanks for addressing none of my critique of your / Rand's bs. What's the axiom you're refuting. And I never even mentioned axiom, so don't strawman.

Tangible objects (and only) self-evidently have property rights. Any time I talk about other forms of property you deny that they are property and think that ends the argument.

The mistake you are making is thinking that natural rights are intrinsic to an object. The fact that they are extrinsic is outlined by the arbitrary nature of 'human' rights. Humans are apparently more equal than other objects.

To maintain your argument you would have to reject the idea that in a rational economy property is only traded for property.

The market finds value in ideas, physical assets are often required to create them. The market trades physical assets with and like non-physical assets.

The tangible object aquires property 'rights' by de facto agreement of like minded individuals. You mistake these for natural rights. All rights are assigned by members of a transaction, they cannot exist on their own. Rights are terms of a transaction and nothing more.

[idiom]

Jurisdiction from customers. I.e. Private enforcement agencies would pick and choose their own private court.

So how do I prosecute you if we don't subscribe the same court? It will work for contractual stuff but not for non-contractual disagreements.

[Imperial]

Sorry buddy but your model sucks, for one there wont be any Soprano's around if we had private courts, because all the high end profit drugs/prostitution will be legal. Soprano would be out the market in no time. With no money where do you think he will get the money to hold control over mafia. 2nd, people can group up to take action against unjust action; private courts would contact each other make business deals with private enforcement agencies and just duke it out with mafia type groups. 3rd with private courts there would always must likely be an settlement because war is expensive.

The example soprano would still have a powerful commanding position when everything is legalized and be ready to take the market. People can group against unjust action, but the question is how much power the mafia has already accumulated. They will already have capital to hire thugs- they can help out the war profiteers that emerge in any society, and buy what they need.

It would take mass support to oppose, which is a legit argument but requires winning over sheeple. Still a battle would ensue, prolonging the chaos that would be somewhat absent in a minarchist system.

Finally, I am not sure why they would inherently settle. First, that contradicts mass resistance as that means the sopranos aren't instantly destroyed by legalization. Second, if they are powerful enough to have to settle, why wouldn't they be powerful enough to spread THEIR ideas rather than your own?

Of course, there is no perfect system to be attained...

[Conza88]

Unless you are selling in a country where they don't exist or are not enforced, in which case everything gets sold with very heavy handed NDA's.

If NDA's are enforced. ;)


I know what the market would do because I have operated in environments without IP protection. I have used free market alternatives. They often cost more and require more lawyers than patents.

You haven't operated in an environment completely devoid of IP. A patent has the backing of the State Monopoly on violence. You only calculate what it costs to obtain it, NOT all the background payments etc for the inefficient bureaucracy to handle it. Seen and Unseen by Bastiat. :p


Tangible objects (and only) self-evidently have property rights. Any time I talk about other forms of property you deny that they are property and think that ends the argument.

Call them imaginary "property" and I'll relent. But in the pure sense, they are not property. You don't OWN IT. Can you OWN an idea, yes or no? :rolleyes:


The mistake you are making is thinking that natural rights are intrinsic to an object. The fact that they are extrinsic is outlined by the arbitrary nature of 'human' rights. Humans are apparently more equal than other objects.

Not making a mistake. '**** sapiens' rights then. :rolleyes:


To maintain your argument you would have to reject the idea that in a rational economy property is only traded for property.

The market finds value in ideas, physical assets are often required to create them. The market trades physical assets with and like non-physical assets.

The tangible object aquires property 'rights' by de facto agreement of like minded individuals. You mistake these for natural rights. All rights are assigned by members of a transaction, they cannot exist on their own. Rights are terms of a transaction and nothing more.


More to the point: You are saying there is a contract between the parents or said caretaker that is decided when that child becomes no longer allowed to be a part of the family, or a dependent, but what happens if one side of the unwritten contract wants to end said agreement and the other does not then who is the one in breach of contract?

[strapko]

So how do I prosecute you if we don't subscribe the same court? It will work for contractual stuff but not for non-contractual disagreements.

Since everything is private, the plaintiff would hire one enforcement agency and seek damages/injustices from the defended. The enforcement agency would get to work(just as today's agencies, but with much better product and quality).

The defended might hire his own enforcement agency to protect him, when this happens there are a few ways to handle this: A) War, which is expensive and a lost resort because know body wants to risk there life for something that can have settlement. B) Both enforcement agencies make a contract and set out certain rules on how to settle this dispute. In this contract, both agencies can decide which private court they want to use. In this case since everything is private, the court would provide a much better product(justice) because of competition, in effect a much better legal system.

[strapko]

The example soprano would still have a powerful commanding position when everything is legalized and be ready to take the market. People can group against unjust action, but the question is how much power the mafia has already accumulated. They will already have capital to hire thugs- they can help out the war profiteers that emerge in any society, and buy what they need.

It would take mass support to oppose, which is a legit argument but requires winning over sheeple. Still a battle would ensue, prolonging the chaos that would be somewhat absent in a minarchist system.

Finally, I am not sure why they would inherently settle. First, that contradicts mass resistance as that means the sopranos aren't instantly destroyed by legalization. Second, if they are powerful enough to have to settle, why wouldn't they be powerful enough to spread THEIR ideas rather than your own?

Of course, there is no perfect system to be attained...

The primary goal of a mafia is to make money, but the way mafia's make money is through the black market because it has such a high profit return. In a true free market the only product that will still exist will be human trafficking. From my study on mafia's they do not really mess with innocent people, the play the game with other competitors in the black market and human trafficking on a mass scale is hard to accomplish.

I honestly believe that communities would co-op in these kinds of situation and I bet that many families inside these communities will have fully-automatic arms.

[idiom]

Since everything is private, the plaintiff would hire one enforcement agency and seek damages/injustices from the defended. The enforcement agency would get to work(just as today's agencies, but with much better product and quality).

The defended might hire his own enforcement agency to protect him, when this happens there are a few ways to handle this: A) War, which is expensive and a lost resort because know body wants to risk there life for something that can have settlement. B) Both enforcement agencies make a contract and set out certain rules on how to settle this dispute. In this contract, both agencies can decide which private court they want to use. In this case since everything is private, the court would provide a much better product(justice) because of competition, in effect a much better legal system.

Okay so your court, that you own privately, has passed a ruling against me and you are sending your thugs to enforce it, even though I have had no interaction with you? Wow thats an awesome system. You don't even need to sign me up you have just rape me right now and call it justice.

[powerofreason]

Okay so your court, that you own privately, has passed a ruling against me and you are sending your thugs to enforce it, even though I have had no interaction with you? Wow thats an awesome system. You don't even need to sign me up you have just rape me right now and call it justice.

No one can know how it would work for sure. One thing is for sure, though, and that is that it would work.

Or can you name one thing the market has not been able to accomplish that the government has been able to? Besides kill people and steal things?

[powerofreason]

Every single useful service that the government provides has been successfully provided by the free market at some point in history. No excuse for aggression. No excuse for violating our natural rights.

[idiom]

If NDA's are enforced. ;)

You haven't operated in an environment completely devoid of IP. A patent has the backing of the State Monopoly on violence. You only calculate what it costs to obtain it, NOT all the background payments etc for the inefficient bureaucracy to handle it. Seen and Unseen by Bastiat. :p

Call them imaginary "property" and I'll relent. But in the pure sense, they are not property. You don't OWN IT. Can you OWN an idea, yes or no? :rolleyes:

Not making a mistake. '**** sapiens' rights then. :rolleyes:

NDA's can be enforced, by our little private armies of thuggery and justice.

One can own ideas. And there is a market for them. The ability or need to extract value from them can be perishable, like, say fruit.

Why do **** Sapiens get rights that my self-aware robot that looks and sounds just like one does not. Is that yet another arbitrary definition in your 'natural' system?

[idiom]

No one can know how it would work for sure. One thing is for sure, though, and that is that it would work.

Or can you name one thing the market has not been able to accomplish that the government has been able to? Besides kill people and steal things?

My private property is under that 'law of the land'. If I don't like it I change the law, or the land. However I am operating under that umbrella.

Private courts and thugs have no system of projecting jurisdiction that doesn't involve force. If we have a disagreement on what the law should be or damages should be, you have no way of convincing that your version is correct except force.

The idea of regional law, or 'law of the land' is a foundation of civilized behaviour. Your living in the region is agreement to consent to that version of law.

Any private system that claims to achieve the same thing would be making all the same mistakes.

It would work and it would involve force. We know that for sure because nowhere is history has it worked without it. This is why anarchy is translated as rulerlessness. If you want damages from someone else, you are going to be using force.

[powerofreason]

NDA's can be enforced, by our little private armies of thuggery and justice.

One can own ideas. And there is a market for them. The ability or need to extract value from them can be perishable, like, say fruit.

Why do **** Sapiens get rights that my self-aware robot that looks and sounds just like one does not. Is that yet another arbitrary definition in your 'natural' system?

If it doesn't have feelings, if it can't feel pain or anything else (how could it?) then I don't see why it needs to have rights.

[powerofreason]

My private property is under that 'law of the land'. If I don't like it I change the law, or the land. However I am operating under that umbrella.

Private courts and thugs have no system of projecting jurisdiction that doesn't involve force. If we have a disagreement on what the law should be or damages should be, you have no way of convincing that your version is correct except force.

The idea of regional law, or 'law of the land' is a foundation of civilized behaviour. Your living in the region is agreement to consent to that version of law.

Any private system that claims to achieve the same thing would be making all the same mistakes.

It would work and it would involve force. We know that for sure because nowhere is history has it worked without it. This is why anarchy is translated as rulerlessness. If you want damages from someone else, you are going to be using force.

There is no problem with force. There is a problem with aggressive force.

And, a socialized court that is funded through theft (aggressive force) is completely illegitimate. It is as criminal and thuggish as can be.

[powerofreason]

You assume, Idiom, that just because someone has claimed jurisdiction over the land that I own that the jurisdiction is legitimate. Prove that it is. "Because they say so" isn't a reason.

[idiom]

You assume, Idiom, that just because someone has claimed jurisdiction over the land that I own that the jurisdiction is legitimate. Prove that it is. "Because they say so" isn't a reason.

Because we accede to it as civilized people. We accede to it because a long time ago we realise that you can't run a court without a common law. Without the consent of the governed there can be no government private or public without the use of force. You seem to argue that you can sue me in a private court with your private made up laws and expect me to just consent to your schemes because they are privately funded.

[idiom]

If it doesn't have feelings, if it can't feel pain or anything else (how could it?) then I don't see why it needs to have rights.

So pain is the source of rights? Pain is something your brain creates. It can be turned off naturally or with drugs. Are your rights turned off by drugs?

I now have a robot programmed with feelings. Does it have rights yet?

[idiom]

One is free at anytime to publish an idea or invention and establish prior art, putting the idea in the public domain. If one wishes one can publish the idea off shore. The Market is free to do this.

However even programmers who want to 'give away' their ideas through open source seldom do it with public domain open source. They tend to use a GPL.

A company will move its headqaurters off shore to tax haven, but not publish its inventions freely.

Why does the market refuse to back the notion that ideas are not property?

[strapko]

Okay so your court, that you own privately, has passed a ruling against me and you are sending your thugs to enforce it, even though I have had no interaction with you? Wow thats an awesome system. You don't even need to sign me up you have just rape me right now and call it justice.

No. There was a settlement reached your enforcement agency and my enforcement agency(You and I) choose a court to here each of our cases. Be assured that these private courts would have high quality justice system because of competition. Thus why we picked the court in the first place, because it has a good reputation.

[idiom]

No. There was a settlement reached your enforcement agency and my enforcement agency(You and I) choose a court to here each of our cases. Be assured that these private courts would have high quality justice system because of competition. Thus why we picked the court in the first place, because it has a good reputation.

Tell me again why I need an enforcement agency when I have done nothing wrong? Why wouldn't I choose a court that ran on a system of law where you would have no case?

And if we disagree on the court for your meritless case, we are back to you using force again?

[powerofreason]

Because we accede to it as civilized people. We accede to it because a long time ago we realise that you can't run a court without a common law. Without the consent of the governed there can be no government private or public without the use of force. You seem to argue that you can sue me in a private court with your private made up laws and expect me to just consent to your schemes because they are privately funded.

Who the hell is "we?"

[powerofreason]

Made up laws are the ones people make up. Violations of rights are what matter. In a free society you don't need to consent to anything, just be aware that justice is being done.

[powerofreason]

freedomainradio.com

is a great resource for learning about the superiority of the voluntary society as opposed to the barbarism and institutionalized violence that Idiom believes in.

[powerofreason]

One is free at anytime to publish an idea or invention and establish prior art, putting the idea in the public domain. If one wishes one can publish the idea off shore. The Market is free to do this.

However even programmers who want to 'give away' their ideas through open source seldom do it with public domain open source. They tend to use a GPL.

A company will move its headqaurters off shore to tax haven, but not publish its inventions freely.

Why does the market refuse to back the notion that ideas are not property?

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/79286/cover/9780521879286.jpg

Read or remain a randtard.

Edit: BRB I need to go copy some music and software instead of paying the privileged class.

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

[idiom]

Are Ya calling me a Randtard? Are ya calling me a Rantard when I aint a Randtard?

Are ya disrespecting me and my family?

Are ya calling me a pikey?

Are ya calling me dad poor?

Are ya calling me mum a wino?

AM I bovvered? Do I look bovvered?

[strapko]

Tell me again why I need an enforcement agency when I have done nothing wrong? Why wouldn't I choose a court that ran on a system of law where you would have no case?

And if we disagree on the court for your meritless case, we are back to you using force again?

No one will summon innocent people try again. Your question/comment is foolish.

[gilliganscorner]

freedomainradio.com

is a great resource for learning about the superiority of the voluntary society as opposed to the barbarism and institutionalized violence that Idiom believes in.

+1.

The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html)

Caging the Devils: The Stateless Society and Violent Crime (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html)

Cut through the cobwebs.

[idiom]

No one will summon innocent people try again. Your question/comment is foolish.

Innocent till proven guilty is out the window?

"Well you wouldn't be in court if you weren't guilty"

The entire point of the court is that innocent people are summoned. Innocence is aussumed, the court cannot summon a guilty person.

[strapko]

Innocent till proven guilty is out the window?

"Well you wouldn't be in court if you weren't guilty"

The entire point of the court is that innocent people are summoned. Innocence is aussumed, the court cannot summon a guilty person.

Wow.. just wow. Someone summons an innocent man to court. He will prove his innocents, big deal it happens.

Now why would anyone summon an innocent person to court? The expenses are costly: Lawyer and Court. And with a much better justice system because of competition for an innocent man to lose would be extremely rare.

Now lets look at today's justice system: Are you saying innocent men are not summoned to court? Why don't you even look at our justice system before asking these types of questions; they are not serious and waste my time because they have no complexity/challenge in them. Now back to my point...Are you saying Innocent people under our awesome system are not summoned? Have you ever heard of innocent people serving life sentences for murder to be later discovered they did not do it? Go look it up cause I have plenty of times. What about pity crimes I am sure innocent people get charged as well. What about all the girls that sue rap stars, sportsmen and movie stars for rape or sexual assault, all based on a claim and yes they have to come to court. Going off track: speaking of which how did Mike Tyson lose that case and go to jail based on that sluts testimony?

You could of easily answered this question yourself, I do not know whether you are just trying to catch my reasoning or just lazy to think a bit. I know I always self doubt myself when it comes to positions to make sure there wont be any holes in my arguments.

[idiom]

No. I am saying we have a court system to prevent people like you driving around with your 'protection service' and telling them they are guilty and better come along in good order to your private court which has no jurisdiction over them.

Your sentences are going around in circles. You are the one saying innocent peole don't go to court. I am saying only innocent people go to court. That is the whole point.

[powerofreason]

No. I am saying we have a court system to prevent people like you driving around with your 'protection service' and telling them they are guilty and better come along in good order to your private court which has no jurisdiction over them.

Your sentences are going around in circles. You are the one saying innocent peole don't go to court. I am saying only innocent people go to court. That is the whole point.

If you knew the charges against you were truly baseless the arbitration could occur in absentia. Theres no reason why people have to show up for their court trials if they really don't want to. Governments just do that to boost their legitimacy.

[strapko]

No. I am saying we have a court system to prevent people like you driving around with your 'protection service' and telling them they are guilty and better come along in good order to your private court which has no jurisdiction over them.

Your sentences are going around in circles. You are the one saying innocent peole don't go to court. I am saying only innocent people go to court. That is the whole point.

Your foolish to think that we have a system where we are protected against enforcement agents driving around and making people go to court.. Like I said are innocent people summoned to court, in this system...yes they are whats your point? All it takes is to file w.e is needed to get you summoned even if you were in Mexico at the time of the crime or w.e they want you court for.

[strapko]

I am not answering further question, because if you think protection or enforcement agencies are going to ride around trying to bust/get you to come to court for no reason...think again.

[idiom]

Well we already identified that some people here think IP crimes are not crimes. Thus If I bust you for IP infringement, you will think it is for no reason.

You can go to a private court now. You can have a private settlement or mediation.

The problem is you cannot have dispute resolution of fundamental disagreements without the use of force. You can either have that force applied by an objective controlled third party, or by someone who is in my pocket.

[idiom]

Your foolish to think that we have a system where we are protected against enforcement agents driving around and making people go to court.. Like I said are innocent people summoned to court, in this system...yes they are whats your point? All it takes is to file w.e is needed to get you summoned even if you were in Mexico at the time of the crime or w.e they want you court for.


I am not answering further question, because if you think protection or enforcement agencies are going to ride around trying to bust/get you to come to court for no reason...think again.

Lol.

Post 1: Innocent people are rounded up

Post 2: Innocent people are not rounded up.

[Theocrat]

This thread is a clear refutation of Ayn Rand's own philosophy of "Objectivism," in that reason itself is the basis for establishing what is true and what is moral based on one's own thinking. None of you are being objective when postulating your own ideas of what constitutes government (or lack thereof), and the reason by which you use to make your individual cases is subjective, at best, and sinful, at worst.

[Conza88]

Idiom, what theory of value do you subscribe to? You never answered this, you ignored it.

Response?

[idiom]

I ignored it because it is good practice not to personalise a debate.

Um, What I think follow and what I actually follow are still quite different things. Essentially I follow the Teaching of Jesus Christ such as they are, which as a system of values translates more or less into Nihilism with Life, Creativity and Relationships added in as primary values.

What I found interesting about Rand's Objectivism is that she constructed a system which labelled pursuit of Money and Power as sin, while embracing capitalism. This is a curiosity both in ethical systems and economic systems and I think it deserves further analyses. She makes grave errors but there are things to be gleaned I think.

[strapko]

Yes... It was a bit circular I worded it a bit wrong... What I meant was no body is going to waste time driving around summoning innocent people to court for fun, and yes sometimes innocent people get summoned to court but this would be rare and our current system has the same exact problem.

[idiom]

Yes... It was a bit circular I worded it a bit wrong... What I meant was no body is going to waste time driving around summoning innocent people to court for fun, and yes sometimes innocent people get summoned to court but this would be rare and our current system has the same exact problem.

The current system has better objectivity than the system you are promoting, except when you are suing the government. The whole point of the American Scotus is to allow you to objectively sue the government. This doesn't function well in reality though. The losses in efficiency are balanced by the gains in objectivity.

An interesting creation would be of a truly objective court. It would have to paid from indirect tax... and I have no idea how you would appoint judges...

There cannot be dispute resolution without force or consent. Either everybody consents to an objective system or allows an objective system to operate with force.

[Conza88]

I ignored it because it is good practice not to personalise a debate.

What theory of value is correct?

*COUGH*

Answer the fcken question this time. I didn't realise it was so hard.

[strapko]

The current system has better objectivity than the system you are promoting, except when you are suing the government. The whole point of the American Scotus is to allow you to objectively sue the government. This doesn't function well in reality though. The losses in efficiency are balanced by the gains in objectivity.

An interesting creation would be of a truly objective court. It would have to paid from indirect tax... and I have no idea how you would appoint judges...

There cannot be dispute resolution without force or consent. Either everybody consents to an objective system or allows an objective system to operate with force.

There is no such a thing as consent when you go to court, if you are summoned for murder...are you saying the murderer has to consent to go?

2nd you did not refute any of my claims on how a private court system would not be much better, thus you cannot just come up with a none backed conclusion that our current system is better.

[idiom]

What theory of value is correct?

*COUGH*

Answer the fcken question this time. I didn't realise it was so hard.

I did answer the question. You asked what I subscribed to, not what I think is correct. I also explained why I had ignored it but would answer it upon insistence.

[Conza88]

I did answer the question. You asked what I subscribed to, not what I think is correct. I also explained why I had ignored it but would answer it upon insistence.



What theory of value is correct?

*COUGH*

Answer the fcken question this time. I didn't realise it was so hard.

Blind much?

[idiom]

There is no such a thing as consent when you go to court, if you are summoned for murder...are you saying the murderer has to consent to go?

2nd you did not refute any of my claims on how a private court system would not be much better, thus you cannot just come up with a none backed conclusion that our current system is better.

I take it you are not familiar with Plato's Apology...

It is entirely possible to go along peacefuly and await your defence. Or you can fight the whole way and possibly flee at some point. It is easy to consent to a system, the problem is when people dissent.

Either your systems uses force at that point or the system dissolves happily and you get to go impose your own justice.

I am not saying that the murder has to consent to go, I am saying he should consent to go. He should be happy to serve his sentence and when released he should be happy to pick up a new life. This is the essence of civilisation.

It is far more readily reached if the court is believed to be objective. Objectivity is historically more readily achieved by a state system because the government really doesn't care about you.

[idiom]

Blind much?

Yes I am blind.... I read this:


Idiom, what theory of value do you subscribe to?

What leads you to believe a more expansive answer is available than the one I gave?

I have an enormous list of theories of value that are incorrect. Or at least incoherent.

I am working on the assumption that the correct theory will at least be coherent among other things. If not, then I have heaps that are true.

[Conza88]

Yes I am blind....

Liar.

read this:

Did you do what any sane, reasonable, non evasive person would do? And read my response, to your response?

Why then, would you address a previous comment made in the past, and not the most present, recent and releveant post = OTHER than to continue avoiding the question? ;)


What leads you to believe a more expansive answer is available than the one I gave?

I have an enormous list of theories of value that are incorrect. Or at least incoherent.

I am working on the assumption that the correct theory will at least be coherent among other things. If not, then I have heaps that are true.

The one you gave, wasn't an answer. That's why.

Round 3#. So:


What theory of value is correct?
*COUGH*

Answer the fcken question this time. I didn't realise it was so hard.

[idiom]

Well I aint been published just yet so for now you can call it idiomism if you want.

I prefer to call it Seditionism myself. It might take as my last name doesn't lend itself to the -ism suffix.

I gave you the most straight forward answer I currently have. If you want me to clarify the metaphysics, the epistimology or the ethics of it I probably can. I haven't developed my thoughts on where the economics would go (mostly an extension of austrian 'praxeology' probably).

Are you looking for, perhaps, a yes/no answer?

In addition this is fairly off topic and in GR Central...

[strapko]

I take it you are not familiar with Plato's Apology...

It is entirely possible to go along peacefuly and await your defence. Or you can fight the whole way and possibly flee at some point. It is easy to consent to a system, the problem is when people dissent.

Either your systems uses force at that point or the system dissolves happily and you get to go impose your own justice.

I am not saying that the murder has to consent to go, I am saying he should consent to go. He should be happy to serve his sentence and when released he should be happy to pick up a new life. This is the essence of civilisation.

It is far more readily reached if the court is believed to be objective. Objectivity is historically more readily achieved by a state system because the government really doesn't care about you.


The above is impossible. There will always be some kind of force in action...Thus if one commits injustice towards another, his consent to go to court should not matter, and if he decides not to attend to defend himself he should be punished accordinly.

I did read the apology to plato and it was sad that state court has an ineffective justice system.

[idiom]

The above is impossible. There will always be some kind of force in action...Thus if one commits injustice towards another, his consent to go to court should not matter, and if he decides not to attend to defend himself he should be punished accordinly.

I did read the apology to plato and it was sad that state court has an ineffective justice system.

So, the court system which you are paying to prosecute me, will be more objective than a state system that doesn't care one way or the other? It will be cheaper, maybe.

The problem with the Government in legislature, that it doesn't care about you, is its big advantage in Jurisprudence. The benefit tax has, is that it is going to come in anyway from everybody, so the state courts don't have to please anyone.

I think it would be more productive to improve the state systems as far as possible (starting with smaller legislature, greater adherence to constitutions etc) than replacing them with private corporations attempting to extract profit from its victims.

[Xenophage]

Mention Ayn Rand and this place turns into a bar brawl.

Saddening.

I don't agree with Rothbard on a lot of things but I still give the man props and rank him among the most influential and brilliant pro-liberty intellectuals.

I even like Contra sometimes :P

[idiom]

Mention Ayn Rand and this place turns into a bar brawl.

Saddening.

I don't agree with Rothbard on a lot of things but I still give the man props and rank him among the most influential and brilliant pro-liberty intellectuals.

I wouldn't call this a bar brawl. We are just examining The holes at the foundation of Rothbardism vs the holes at the conclusion of objectivism.

I am learning a lot I hope you can also.

[Xenophage]

I wouldn't call this a bar brawl. We are just examining The holes at the foundation of Rothbardism vs the holes at the conclusion of objectivism.

I am learning a lot I hope you can also.

I've examined the issue all too much :P

We're in agreement if you believe that Rothbardianism is foundationally weak. It isn't a complete philosophy so much as it is a political philosophy, and incomplete moral philosophy. I agree with much of it.

Objectivism I believe is foundationally strong in its metaphysics and epistemology. Its a complete philosophy. Poltically, ethically, and artistically I agree with much or even most of Rand's conclusions, but I differ in some serious and significant ways as well.

Still, I do call myself an Objectivist (although Rand herself might have preferred I didn't).

[Conza88]

Well I aint been published just yet so for now you can call it idiomism if you want.

I prefer to call it Seditionism myself. It might take as my last name doesn't lend itself to the -ism suffix.

I gave you the most straight forward answer I currently have. If you want me to clarify the metaphysics, the epistimology or the ethics of it I probably can. I haven't developed my thoughts on where the economics would go (mostly an extension of austrian 'praxeology' probably).

Are you looking for, perhaps, a yes/no answer?

In addition this is fairly off topic and in GR Central...

So you have your own theory of value. lulz

Spell it out for me. i.e Respond to my question, with an answer.

And nope, it's completely on topic and relevant. As we would see, if you could actually give an answer...


I wouldn't call this a bar brawl. We are just examining The holes at the foundation of Rothbardism vs the holes at the conclusion of objectivism.

I am learning a lot I hope you can also.

False. Objectivism fails in its foundations. Not Anarcho-Capitalism.

[idiom]

False. Objectivism fails in its foundations. Not Anarcho-Capitalism.

Thank you for your opinion.

[Conza88]

Thank you for your opinion.

Thank you for yours.

Btw, I know it was - I'm waiting for your answer to my question, then I'll address why it is so.

Round 4: :rolleyes:



What theory of value is correct?
*COUGH*

Answer the fcken question this time. I didn't realise it was so hard. And if you are trying to create your own theory of value, lulz, present it.

[idiom]

Well, since what I have proffered is not sufficient meat for your agenda, let me volunteer an alternative which has pretty solid correctness:

Six natural laws from which value may be derived. They are listed by supercedence and then by strength of formulation from Strong to weak.

0. A human must not merely act in the interests of individual humans, but of all humanity.

1. A human may not harm life or, through inaction, allow life to come to harm.
A human may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
A human may not injure a human or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm.
A human may not harm a human, unless he finds a way to prove that in the final analysis, the harm done would benefit humanity in general.
A human may not harm a human.
A human may not coerce a human.

2 A human must protect its own existence.
A human must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First Law

3 A human must co-operate with orders given to it by humans, except where such orders would conflict with the First or Second Law

4 A human must reproduce as long as such reproduction does not interfere with the First or Second or Third Law.

5 A human being must know it is a robot.

[strapko]

So, the court system which you are paying to prosecute me, will be more objective than a state system that doesn't care one way or the other? It will be cheaper, maybe.

The problem with the Government in legislature, that it doesn't care about you, is its big advantage in Jurisprudence. The benefit tax has, is that it is going to come in anyway from everybody, so the state courts don't have to please anyone.

I think it would be more productive to improve the state systems as far as possible (starting with smaller legislature, greater adherence to constitutions etc) than replacing them with private corporations attempting to extract profit from its victims.

No. You do not understand a private court system would not be biased to anyone, because its primary product is high quality justice. Also both parties which decide on which court to use and wound prob go 50/50 in payment so there will be no biases.

[idiom]

No. You do not understand a private court system would not be biased to anyone, because its primary product is high quality justice. Also both parties which decide on which court to use and wound prob go 50/50 in payment so there will be no biases.

So do we go to McJudgements or Cheap-Ass-Courts for our 'High Quality Judgement'?

Well lets go with CostCourts because I already purchased a volume deal with them...

You can already go to a private court, or to a mediation or a settlement. You can go to an island somewhere and have a duel if you want. Whole groups of religious people never go to a public court as is because they think they have a better system.

What we are discussing is the system used to to apply force in a controlled fashion during dissent.

The ultimate private court is the democratic system that holds authority over the government. Even this gets gamed to within an inch of it life causing the private court to hold the Government in contempt with a revolution every so often.

[Conza88]

Well, since what I have proffered is not sufficient meat for your agenda, let me volunteer an alternative which has pretty solid correctness:

Six natural laws from which value may be derived. They are listed by supercedence and then by strength of formulation from Strong to weak.

0. A human must not merely act in the interests of individual humans, but of all humanity.

1. A human may not harm life or, through inaction, allow life to come to harm.
A human may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
A human may not injure a human or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm.
A human may not harm a human, unless he finds a way to prove that in the final analysis, the harm done would benefit humanity in general.
A human may not harm a human being.
(“A human may not coerce a human” would fit here but is really weak.)


2 A human must protect its own existence.
A human must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First Law

3 A human must co-operate orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First or Second Law

4 A human must reproduce as long as such reproduction does not interfere with the First or Second or Third Law.

5 A human being must know it is a robot.

I asked you about the theory of value... and you posted Six Natural Law's from which value could be derived? A human being must know its a robot? What the fck, is this tripe? :confused: What would you consider as not being "pretty solid correctness" lol :rolleyes:

Rand used the LABOR THEORY OF VALUE to defend IP by the way.. lol.

A Critique of Ayn Rand's Theory of Intellectual Property Rights by Timothy Sandefur

Pacific Legal Foundation - Economic Liberties Project
Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 139-161, Fall 2007 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1117269)

A friend made a comment to me recently:


"Objectivists tend to rationalize what they're predisposed to agree with and then they try and back it up with robotic talk."

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. lol

[powerofreason]

5 A human being must know it is a robot.

Uhh, can you explain this nonsensical statement? Humans are not anything like robots. We have free will, for one.

[idiom]

Uhh, can you explain this nonsensical statement? Humans are not anything like robots. We have free will, for one.

You are in violation of the sixth law.

[idiom]

I asked you about the theory of value... and you posted Six Natural Law's from which value could be derived? A human being must know its a robot? What the fck, is this tripe? :confused: What would you consider as not being "pretty solid correctness" lol :rolleyes:

Rand used the LABOR THEORY OF VALUE to defend IP by the way.. lol.

A Critique of Ayn Rand's Theory of Intellectual Property Rights by Timothy Sandefur

Pacific Legal Foundation - Economic Liberties Project
Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 139-161, Fall 2007 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1117269)

A friend made a comment to me recently:


"Objectivists tend to rationalize what they're predisposed to agree with and then they try and back it up with robotic talk."

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. lol

Oh crap my bad. Those were Philisophical values, you want economic theories of value. that is an entirely different kettle of fish.

The Six Laws are Objective Normative Laws of Value. I use Objectivism to describe metaphysical objectivism most of the time, that is belief that world really exists, as opposed to only existing in my imagination. I tend to use Randism to descrive Rand's stuff... So as I posted previously I am Objectivist but not Randian at all. Although the world does have a resolution and a framerate...

I haven't really got to much to add to the debate about setting prices just yet. My concerns are much wider than that, but I would tend to say that theories based on subjective marginal utility would seem to be the most defensible. Whether they should be considered as normative is moot at this point as I don't think a better viable theory has emerged yet, thus making interference with such mechanisms unjustifiable on economic theory alone.

[powerofreason]

You are in violation of the sixth law.

Oh I see, you don't want your precious Objectivist bullshit beliefs torn apart any more, as that would be much too traumatic. Fine, have it your way. Rand was a freak and had some truly stupid ideas. If some people use Rand's work as a stepping stone to a better and more libertarian philosophy thats fine, but for gods sakes don't become an arrogant freak like Rand and say retarded nonsense like, "A is A."

[idiom]

Oh I see, you don't want your precious Objectivist bullshit beliefs torn apart any more, as that would be much too traumatic. Fine, have it your way. Rand was a freak and had some truly stupid ideas. If some people use Rand's work as a stepping stone to a better and more libertarian philosophy thats fine, but for gods sakes don't become an arrogant freak like Rand and say retarded nonsense like, "A is A."

You seem very angry. I didn't say at any point that I 'believed' in Rand. I am not the one wandering around denouncing philosophers whose works I have not read.

I am also not the one making the claim that world is not real and does not exist when I shut my eyes.

[powerofreason]

You seem very angry. I didn't say at any point that I 'believed' in Rand. I am not the one wandering around denouncing philosophers whose works I have not read.

I am also not the one making the claim that world is not real and does not exist when I shut my eyes.

Well at this point this thread has become a waste of time. I'm not angry, just a bit frustrated with your dancing around questions. I do these threads partly to amuse myself, partly to inform and partly to entertain, fyi. I don't get angry over e-arguments.

[idiom]

Well at this point this thread has become a waste of time. I'm not angry, just a bit frustrated with your dancing around questions. I do these threads partly to amuse myself, partly to inform and partly to entertain, fyi. I don't get angry over e-arguments.

Well then I hope you are amused.