R&D will continue to become cheaper and easier, and much more so in a freed market.
“As many times on this forum before, I will proclaim myself the victor, and people will think I am a fool.” - Max Liberty
“I don’t think he is taking me seriously anymore. Which strawman broke the camel’s back?” - Max Liberty
Max is foolish. I was his biggest supporter on this forum, when he was saying all sorts of stupid things. I’m not his supporter anymore. He’s not a contrarian, he’s someone who makes a lot of bogus assertions, posts strawman after strawman, and then in the end, calls himself the victor in the argument. I believe you should look up his “God exists and all atheists are wrong”, or something to that effect, thread.
I wasn’t aware you were a libertarian. You propose coercion and forced adherence to contracts as IP.
Liberals and conservatives are too busy trying to decide who to murder and who to keep alive to make slaves to the US dollar hegemony. Don’t kid yourself. I’m not here to fondle and caress people with idiotic points of view. If they don’t come around, then they don’t come around. There is no obligation for me to baby people (like Max) who refuse to stay factual and honest in a discussion.
- Could you explain to me the difference to you between “information” and “knowledge”?
Do you think one is always true and the other may or may not be? Or is it something else?
- I’m not aware of anything that could “stop” you. Does takes work and effort, doesn’t it?
When you’re done, couldn’t you sell a generic substitute as long as you don’t market it under the Coke name?
Or maybe you could call it a Moke. Or a Joke. Coke might sue for infringement there though. Or maybe product defamation?
And it might taste the same to you, but you’d never KNOW if you had “The Real Thang, Baby!”
LS, a libertarianism is not anarchy. You are an anarchist. I have yet to see how the sheep of the world could live in anarchy. Could you and I? Absolutely. The uneducated masses who vote for fools like Obama could not, they would tear it and us apart. I dont try and pretend that the NAP is the law of the world. It is, in fact, contrary to natural law. We are naturally aggressive, we steal, we dominate others. You are blending the lines between anarchists, libertarians, austrians, etc. I know what I am, and im not a libertarian. I’m a randian, through and through. To you that may make me a fool, but we do agree on almost every subject, so what use is us fighting each other? We disagree on IP, though as I said, if the time comes that we get to try out a truely free market, i’m more than willing to see what it would be like without IP. I think it will fail, but I can be proven wrong.
You were uneducated once. What would you have said if these words were your interduction to liberty? Irrationality is the foundation of these people, they are indoctrinated in their ways. Was it not hard for you to change your views? Didnt the appeal of canada’s free healthcare at one time make you think it was the right way? You are certainly (and rightfully) sick of explaining the same thing over and over, and maybe you’ve had this argument with max a thousand times. But it should be easier to ignore him than ridicule him. But as proponents of logic, shouldnt we all realize that working together we can do more good than fighting each other? We are allies in a struggle right now. When all the world is free, let us bicker over these minor points.
/step down from high horse
Your argument is that the presence of IP results in a better result then the absence of IP. That is the opposite of a value free approach.
You have said that; trouble is it doesn’t mean anything.
It implies neither a problem nor a solution.
Didn’t take you long to drop your talk about value free economics and avoiding morality!
Obama is what the “uneducated masses” use to “tear us apart.” The more sinister the individual the more dire the need for anarchy. A state might be tolerable with a noble population, but the more numerous the Hitlers and Stalins of the world are, the greater the peril in letting it exist.
If you read more and bicker less you will learn very quickly that Libertarianism (and Anarchism) is incompatible with elitism.
A simple but crucial realization is that order, voluntary association, and the market are synonymous, and so are chaos, violence, and the state.
I really don’t think this would cause such a calamity. It sounds like it depends if you think that the legality of the matter is stopping people from downloading games for free off of bitorrent right now. Artists haven’t stopped selling music just because their music is easily stolen and pirated by everyone. People do it all the time with PC games, and all other consoles besides the PS3 at the moment. The creators can still try to put as much protection as they want so that pirated versions of games don’t work on their console- but its always broken anyway.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Especially on the first portion. You should direct quote the sections your are referring to, it would help the respondent.
Never said it was. Although I think one would be hard pressed to explain how libertarianism (which is based on non-aggression) is compatible with minarchism (just some aggression).
Are you using that as an epithet? Yes, I am an anarchist. I am a sovereign individual, who must be allowed to make free choices about my life.
Don’t confuse nature and natural law. Also, I would argue that humans are not naturally thieves or trying to kill and dominate one another. We have the capacity for this, but the species would have burnt out long ago if not for higher morals and the capacity to reason.
You see, I was a minarchist. Then I was a libertarian. Then I was an anarchist. As my knowledge changes, I change. I don’t really like Randians, Rand had some good ideas and some crazy ones. Like most philosophers, she could only see some truths relative to her own time and experience, and thus there is a lot about Rand that is an anachronism. I do like that her class theory is fairly close to Hoppe’s.
I don’t believe you can be proven wrong. But maybe you can prove me wrong on that. I’m all for disagreement, but I really want to be right, as in “have the right facts”. You see, we can have any opinions we want, but the material facts do not change. There is only one reality, or rather A = A. One of us (or both) are wrong. I want to be right, even if it means changing my position. I can do it. I have done it before.
I’ve got an underdog complex. If someone told me I am a stupid idiot and beyond help, it would pique my curiousity. Some people need to be fondled. Some people need to be (intellectually) kidnapped. Some people need to be slapped in the face. I know for a fact, the slap in the face method is the most efficient one for the convertor.
I didn’t know any better. I was ignorant. But even then, I knew something was wrong as soon as I made use of the system and could observe it’s operation. I haven’t been to a Doctor since 2002 iirc. I didn’t consider libertarianism until 2007.
I tried fondling Max. Dozens of people have tried to appeal to his sense of reason. He’s not stupid, he’s stubborn, which is a great way to fake stupidity. The slap method is all I will invest in him. When I stop answering him, then I’ve given up completely.
No, it is not. My argument is one of an economic standpoint, I am saying this happens because of this (causality). If you like my conclusion on what happens in non-IP (assuming it becomes an infinite good, and there is not private restriction of access), then you can say you do. This is like the Austrian business cycle theory, its still value free but it takes given assumptions and a framework and makes logical predictions from it. So, in order to auctualy refute my predictions you have to address my argument.
my live blog continues on the Mises blog, chap on copyright
well jack, what did you decide about wheeliness?
Given these assumptions, the monopoly price of wheel2 may derive greater consumer satisfaction than wheel1.
I am now going to bring into the discussion values, and disclose my views on IP:
My support is for contract bound in the sale of the product, such as a copyright printed on the cover of a book. I would see this as an agreement to disseminate the knowledge/information on the condition that the buyers not reproduce it for sale. In other words, the owner does not sell his property outright. This is similar to a reserved rights land agreement, where you sell certain use of the land but maintain the right to use the land in other ways (such as selling mineral rights). From this, I would argue that infringement of the contract by the purchaser or a subsequent buyer is understood theft and should be, for that reason, treated accordingly on the free market. But I then follow Richard Wincor’s legal argument that the person accusing someone of copyright infringement must “prove that the defendant had ‘access’ to the work allegedly infringed. If the defendant produces something identical to the plaintiff’s work by mere chance, then there is no infringement” I would then go on to advocate a similar proposition in the form of patents. All of this is very specific, and only covers contract and implicit theft.
Thus,
-
Patents, as they are today, would not exist in a free society.
-
There would, however, be copyright for the inventor, and this copyright would be perpetual (otherwise the man’s property is in the hands of the state)
-
Capital funds are limited and they must be allocated to various uses, one of which is research expenditure. This brings in my concept of the IP based goods “disconnect” - which has been explained more in other posts
-
Since copyright protects from implicit theft it is non coercive.
-
Coercively to encourage research expenditures would distort and hamper the satisfaction of consumers.
-
anyone can refuse to have their work “copyrighted”
but you rejected levying a monopoly price on wheel1, why take a different stance with wheel2, havent you considered wheel3?
whre is the dividing line between what can and cant be patented. invention wise.
how about the ‘rachel green’ haircut?
Given our scenario, the question seems to be: "maximize consumer satisfaction in the stone age – or have a competitive monopoly price (remember we still have older versions of Wheel in the market, as well as newer versions of the Wheel still competing with say Wheel7) and move to the industrial age and beyond? So, using Mises argument, consumers do not benefit from the absence of the monopoly price for Wheel(x), instead they miss out on the satisfaction they could have recieved from the use of Automobile3.
Good, you have finally admitted we are enemies by your choosing. Your tone and attitude only indicate that what you are actually interested in is not a free society, because in a free society there will be disagreement, but rather you want to be the dictator. So you are right, we are enemies.
Your opposition to voluntary contracts as it relates to IP is just one example of your desire to use force despite all your protestations to the contrary.
My argument is not for patent (as such), but for copyright which I have explained up above. Becasue of this we would have a competitive market in development that would not be coercive, since it is contract based. Also, a competitive market in production, since Wheel2 will compete with Wheel2.5.
I don’t know what the ‘rachel green’ haircut is. sorry…