I already understood your viewpoint…but if you are giving the opportunity to the masses to rely upon a whatever government, be it an ineffective one, then they will expect it to do more, in a, more or less short, amount of time.
By extension you did, someone gave away the Roman Alphabet, for the use of language generation and written communication…
“A” is a common use item of language, this means that it does not only appear in one language, it is not owned as every individual has access to this, if I were to fit it into your cookie cutter example below, the letter “A” is owned by all sentient creatures as it was gifted by its originator(s) to all sentient creatures that wanted access to it.
At this point, you could ask, maybe the UN for the price to purchace the rights to “A”, but ultimately the descision has to come from all owners in order for it to be concented exchange, But do not bother asking, I will say no anyway, which should effectively stop the sale… [;)]
The problem with using utilities is that these businesses cause much undo stress to have competition on the community, with that said, the government does not stop the individual from competing by providing his own power…
-
Illegal copying differs from stealing how?
-
US Constitution : To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
IP does not include power companies, let us work within the example, Scientific Discovery and Art…
Everyone, I am going to move my individual discussion to other forums to abide by the Moderator “Charles Anthony”
What?
So?
The one has a victim (stealing), the other does not (copying).
Your point? I think this should be stricken from the Constitution.
I know IP does not include power companies. But IP is a monopoly, just like power companies that are given monopolies are monopolies. The monopoly issues are the same.
Would you not agree that if someone copies a painting of someone else, that the original person still has the painting? Would you also not agree that what is really “lost” is potential revenue? Just like the only thing lost by someone being allowed to build a competing power plant would be potential revenue? I mean, the original power plant still exists. It still has the same operating ability. Would you not agree that copying and stealing are not synonyms?
There is none. It’s a ridiculous statement.
You were fine. Your thread was hijacked for side discussions. You should carry on here, it is the appropriate spot.
No worries.
Sure. You still have your manuscript. If you didn’t want it released, you would have never allowed anyone near it. Presumably, anyone who got at something you had tried to keep secret would have violated your property rights, which is a crime.
I thought about this patience thing…and you are right, patience is not my first virtue…
I would, however, be more than willing to spend 50 yrs working on this idea without seeing it in my lifetime, which also means without any guarantee that it would one day take real shape, IF I would have any trust in human intelligence and nature.
This is the reason why I am saying that it is utopian.
What’s utopian? I’ve been reading through the thread and I don’t know if you clearly mentioned what you are pointing to as being utopian.
It is on page 6.
liberty student:
Education, decentralization, independent non-political action. Working towards the day where we can begin withdrawing our consent without the need for violence.
I wish it could not be utopian, LS…
Maybe I’m being too hard headed about this, so, this is really a serious question: You wish what “could not be utopian”… What LS said or what the State is or… [:)]
Well how do you differenciate between an ‘ideology’ and a ‘social/political system’?
LOL!
LS was talking about a society without government. So when I asked him how such a society would take shape he answered the quote above.
A society without any form of government, based on liberty and free will would be perfect. I just think it is utopian because of the human nature.
I am sorry if I am sometimes unclear or too short with my answers. Just remember that english is not my birth language and ask questions [;)]
This is how I differentiate them:
an ideology stays at the idea level, while the system applies it.
Whoa! Coercive government. Voluntary government is what I prescribe. Obviously social order and cooperation will arise. But it must be peaceful.
But then you’re saying that humans deserve coercive government because they are inherently bad.
It seems hopeless to me from this perspective.
I am optimistic. I may never see liberty in my lifetime. But I will work to advance the idea because I think it is moral, and noble, and honest and grand. Much better (to me) than following a sports team or pursuing the domination of my fellow men.
Nothing enduring is built without patience and care.
Sorry. I think that I put my own vision in your words.
Can you explain the difference between a voluntary government and any other one? Not the difference when it is created, but after a while.
Why is it obvious?
I can agree with that.
I am not saying that they deserve it, but that it is a logical reaction to their actions.
Absolutely.
I cannot predict the future.
Because the survival of the human race has always depended on interaction and cooperation. It is highly unlikely the species could survive and thrive without the division of labour.
“… My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as is noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. …”
Ayn Rand, 1957
No, but you can study the logical course. When you have all the elements in hand you can draw one or several results. You can not just stay at the creation level.
Yes, but not always voluntarily.
Ok…you have a point…
It’s my opinion that it is impossible to predict the outcomes of a free market. If we could, then that would be an argument in favour of planning the market.
No, not always voluntary interaction and cooperation. But those who participate coercively have always achieved less aggregate prosperity. Freedom is the best system from a utilitarian point of view. It creates the most trading, which creates the most prosperity. So yes, in history, force has been used, but it is a second best system both morally and pragmatically. The task is to communicate and prove this to people, so that more people see the merit in choosing a system based on freedom rather than one based on collectivism.
Most people have never heard or considered anything but collectivism. Very few reject ideas of liberty when they are presented in a digestable manner.
You may see us in the “creation” phase, but this is a necessary step. It’s not enough to make the case for liberty, but to start thinking about opportunities and consequences, about the first structures to test in the free market, so that there is something to move to, when people choose to withdraw their consent.