That would be a viable solution. However, you can’t compel specific performance in these situations; you can only reclaim any money that was exchanged.
This is the standard approach for this forum. When we reach the point where the members are no longer capable of defending their arguements then the personal attacks begin. Cheered on by the moderator of course.
Yet another sign that the power of my arguements is clearing the battlefield of the weak willed and weak minded.
False. So now we don’t even understand contracts. Wow…
Again, a straw man.
What is the point of a contract that can not be enforced? You assert that I can not compel specific performance. Why? The contract can have specific clauses that describe the penalties for breech.
If I can’t compel specific performance how can I compel the person to repay the money? Or to pay any fines or other penalties?
Please provide an example of a contract that does not limit activity. By definition a contract is an agreement where people agree to certain actions so they by definition are restricted to perform those actions in lieu of performing some other action.
Again, you can not address the issues.
You cannot compel someone to not say something. Freedom of speech is an inalienable right; as I said earlier, you cannot transfer it even if you wanted to. What you can do is make a contact saying that you will transfer $X to person A, on the condition that they don’t share Y. If A does share Y, then they have breached the contract and you have the legal right to $X plus damages. You can compel someone to give you money (or any other external good, for that matter), because your right to your money is alienable.
Trade by definition, increases activity. It also leaves both parties better off, as long as it is done consensually.
All prices are reached by contract, verbal, written or by the act of exchange.
Check your premises.
What issues? You haven’t provided a source for any of your assertions regarding what people on this board believe. After ranting about contracts for a dozen posts (?) now, we find out, you don’t really have a working definition of contracts.
You can go back, and start providing sources, or you can stop attributing false positions to people. Because no one can address a false claim in the manner you make them except to challenge it’s source.
You wanna debate, then let’s debate like big kids. Honestly.
Restriction is really a subjective term. If someone were to get married, which by many accounts is a contract, then he/she isn’t necessarily restricting themselves to one person. They are infact declaring that they wish to be with only one person and that person they made the contract with. If they so choose they can stop making such a declaration suggesting that they are no restricted to their current situation at all.
Freedom of Speech? There is no such thing in the private realm.
What I mean is that no one can force you to stop speaking. What they can do is force you to leave their property.
Ah ok. A true statement.
“Freedom of speech” is an odd way to put it, from a libertarian standpoint, as it is more of a metaphysical freedom than a political one. It works, though.
Your arguement is that no contract can compel any person to take any physical action with their body. For instance, I can’t compel the doctor to maintain the equipment that is providing oxygen for me during surgery because that would make him my slave. So by definition the contract is invalid, so there is no breech because the contract is a physical action on the part of the doctor. So the only recourse is the doctor reimburses the family for the cost of the surgery. Is that what you are saying?
You specifically said “all the wants and needs of the market”.
Nothing solves “all” the wants and needs of any market. I’m not going to jump up and say “straw man”, but the fact is that your premise is false. It is irrelevant whether the OpenSource community is fulfilling “all” of anything. If they did not fill some want or need, they would not exist.
They exist, so they fulfill some need.
This is a very frustrating point. You keep insisting on “all” or nothing.
I’m getting the distinct impression you’re having an argument with someone else.
I used OpenSource as an example of software production without coercive monopoly. That’s all. Can you please tell me how you can agree with me, and still be arguing about it?
So now you’re giving commercial examples which do not rely upon government granted monopoly. Since the example of OpenSource was given to demonstrate that software development could exist without monopoly grants, I am again left to think you’re having an argument with someone else.
Then who wrote this:
But to get back to your latest:
Again, you’re having an argument with someone else. I used OpenSource software to demonstrate that software is being produced without monopoly grants by government. I never implied, much less said, that it was “optimal”.
No. I cannot even tell you why someone would buy a new car rather than used, since I would not.
Other than copyright and patent? No. But then, I have never suggested that one was better than the other. You seem to be having an argument with someone else.
What facts? Again, you seem to be having an argument with someone else. Copyright and patent are coercion, pure and simple. If you were arguing about something else, then maybe you are taking the wrong person to task for “still haven’t shown anything to the contrary.”
Neither is constantly accusing me of making assertions that I haven’t made.
CurtHowland,
You said this directly to me earlier in the thread: “I don’t see any reason to support coercion just because someone made a big profit from it.” I understood this (and understand this) as suggesting that I support coercion, unless you tell me you meant otherwise. If this is what you meant, then please show me anywhere on this thread where I’ve said I supported IP or patent laws backed by government force. If that wasn’t your intention, then I hope you can understand how I interpreted it that way. I’m willing to squash whatever petty squable we have if you are, I just don’t like having words put in my mouth and I’m sure you don’t either. If you feel as though I’ve misrepresented you in this thread then I sincerely apologize.
There’s been so much back and forth I honestly don’t know where to start so I’ll restate my position, hopefully in a clearer way. If I leave any questions unanswered that you want me to address, please let me know.
I strongly believe in the non-aggression principle. I believe that the violation of that principle should be the basis of the justified use of force. I do not believe copying someone’s intellectual work is an initiation of force, so it should not be prohibited by force. I do, however, believe that voluntary contracts should be enforceable. I believe that voluntary contracts would be one of the methods companies would use to help protect their investment in intellectual works. I also believe protection schemes, innovation, and other value-added services would be used to compete in the market.
If you agree with the above paragraph, then I don’t think we disagree in a meaningful way. We’d both let the market decide. The only disagreement we might have then relates to how we think the software world would look under a free market.
Regarding open source specifically…again, I think it’s great, but I don’t think it’s sufficient. I think we’re really misunderstanding each other on this point so I’ll try my best to explain it here. What I mean by “not sufficient” is the same as what I’d mean if I said walking isn’t a sufficient form of transportation. It’s great, but you’ll have a hard time getting around if you don’t use other modes of transport. In that same sense, the open source and free model works well in certain cases, but others not so much. We’ll continue to see commercial products the free market (protected in various non-violent ways) because there’s generally greater profits to be made.
Sure, but just because the demand is there doesn’t mean the supply will be. I mean, most people would love to have a powerful, safe, reliable car that costs $100 and runs on water but the market just can’t provide it right now. Similarly, most people would love to have easy-to-use, cutting-edge software and not have to pay for it, but I don’t think the market can provide that to the point where it becomes the predominant business model. Maybe somewhere way down the line, who knows, I just don’t see it happening anytime soon. I can agree to disagree on that, I think we’re on the same page with the bigger issues.
You just rephrased exactly what he said.
Yes, you cannot compel specific performance. In your example, however, the doctor is acting negligently, and would be liable for his actions. Up to the moment before the surgery, the doctor may abstain from performing, and he would have to pay back anything that he got beforehand. Once he starts, though, it may be said that he has a duty of care towards the patient until the operation is over.
When your arguments are reasonable I assent to them. When, like most of the time, you start declaring imaginary victories and deriding other members of the forum, I will indeed cheer on your being exposed.
Au revoir, then.
Indeed. I’m glad to be able to stand behind a clear and unambiguous statement on my part.
Please, show me where I said anything about you at all. I said, and you quoted above, “I don’t see any reason”.
I am reminded of a phrase from a song, “You probably think this song is about you…”
The fact that some people have made fortunes because of coercive government monopoly grants in no way will influence me to support such monopoly grants.
My reason for bringing up OpenSource software was to present an example of software being produced without coercive government monopoly grants. If that has somehow offended you to the point where you over, and over, and over, choose to bicker with me about it, then maybe you need to examine your own motivations more.
If you haven’t said you support them, then great. Bully for you. But to accuse me of accusing you is irrational, and has led me to again wonder with whom it is you’re having an argument.