Is there a reason you deleted your post, Malachi? I found it amusing
if you analyze the etymology of the word “amuse” you might imagine that its contrary to my intent and so I do apologize from stopping you from thinking for a moment. perhaps thats why I deleted my post, or maybe I wasnt thinking either.
I might also add that I find your childish acts to be pedantic and that jfk was murdered.
that should be “juvenile” and not “pedantic”. also strike “murdered” insert “assassinated”.
…
Are you feeling alright there, Malachi?
I should ask you the same thing. I notice there is a conspiracy theory on your profile. I thought you were smarter than that.
Go home Malachi, you’re drunk
i think the toughest ancap problem is the rapid technological advancement that would be made if IP laws were done away with.
The exponential laws of all of the kinds of technology says that “things speed up” (they become more efficient with less power and the price goes down). Think of all of the advanced engine research that has been done in secret for governments. Look at the US. The private firms that would be developing new aircraft, kinds of engines, kinds of propulsion, etc. in the private sector do all of their research and development in government labs. If that tech was made available for everyone in the world to use, modify, and produce what would the world look like?
My guess is that the world would be out of control. The speed at which society will be moving when the internet has made more significant advancements is going to make politics and lawmaking so hard to just do, so hard to keep up with innovation etc. that it will be wholly ineffective. The likelyhood of james bond villians springing up outside of states goes way up.
Think of how private industry could use advanced propulsion to go to the moon or weaponize space and hold the whole world hostage.
Now, as i wrote that i did have in mind the fact that the only use of nuclear weapons was by a state that had a monopoly on the tech at the time. After the monopoly was dissipated the threat of use stayed high, but has never happened.
^
You being serious or is everyone just going in for a bit of trolling tonight?
It’s not even thirsty thursday.
^^
why do you think i am trolling? just cause of JJ?
I’m serious. What “guarantee” can the market provide that innovation doesn’t get out of control? keep in mind I realize that we cannot know let alone dampen the effect of future innovations. That is not what i mean to imply.
Consider this point, which is what led me to that train of thought: If IP is done away with the security dilemma is done away with. Security dilemmas are caused when a state increases military research spending (or something) and other states get worried about a possible attack. So the other countries then undergo their own increased military research increasing the overall possibility of war and sucking up more and more economic resources into the M-I complex.
What doing away with IP will do in this situation is provide every state with every other states military tech and capabilities. Then they will all know and will at any point have the equivalent. This also ends the “crime” of cyberwarfare because the pilfering of formerly-secret information will be normal and everyone will do it.
From a realist perspective nuclear weapons should be proliferated because they are 100% effective deference tools for other nuclear weapons (so far). So, from here the ‘extreme’ Austrian IP position looks like a damn good step toward world peace, no? Every country will be deterred in terms of technology. Capability still exists, but another thing that would accompany and IP-less world, is the decentralization of capital in virtually every sector of the economy so capability decreases as the centralization of capital decreases.
Tell me I’m crazy.
As I am typing this Colbert is talking about bitcoin and comparing bitcoin to the CENTrAl bAnK! but, he is making fun of it for dropping in price just after it shot up. oooh and his guest said “fanatic libertarian” in relation to staying anonymous on the net.
Aristophanes,
What I was really questioning you on was why you thought innovation would occur so rapidly once IP was done away with. I’m open to the idea that technological development would be either somewhat hampered, to slightly improved, but I’ve never heard the opinion that there would be a boom in innovation (in the long run once the “gains from IP” had been exhausted). Therefore I thought you might be joking that without IP technological development might be stagnant. Are you solely talking about other state governments and the military technologies resulting from that? Because from the “James Bond villain” talk earlier it sure didn’t seem that way
I find the rest of your post interesting but I’d like to make sure I understand this point first.
Edit
Also, your interaction with JJ on that thread was fucking hilarious. Keep up the good work.
Epic quote wall is epic.
my first post here was me thinking critically about my second post. The ideas in the second post I’ve had for a few weeks and thought that it might backfire and cause an increase in terrorism or something like james bond villians, rich bastards that want to take the world hostage and think that they can do it.
notice this:
JJ left out “you’re,” but only in that particular one. The one where I told him he was at the bottom of the barrel. haha case and point.
@JJ
So your point has nothing to do with the exponential increase in technological output from the point that the state is dissolved, rather making existing technologies of a militaristic nature open to the public?
“JJ left out “you’re,” but only in that particular one. The one where I told him he was at the bottom of the barrel. haha case and point.”
… Do you think there’s a reason for this?
Yeah, it is the one where I told him he was taking issue with non-controversial things to avoid the things that mattered and I told him “you’re at the bottom of the barrel.” That is when he collected my ad hominems so as to further distract the other observers from the relevant things I was saying. He wasn’t responding to them and very obviously purposely avoiding them so I kept heckling him.
He used a form of ad misericordiam against me. When you say “oh, he called me stupid” you are appealing to people’s emotions, no? And to divert people from the very accusation of avoidance I was making! And, in general, the people here aren’t as smart as I thought they were. JJ included as per my riddle that went right over his head. So, fuck 'em.
Well, both. I’m not saying here that the state will dissolve in tota, but all potential uses of now classified research programs could be used for good and bad purposes. The worry is that military stuff will end up proliferated to non state actors. But, again, the nuclear analogy does well; even terrorists have not yet used a nuclear device of any kind.
the exponential growth in a non IP world would simply increase the pace of human interaction which will be dangerous. The pace of innovation is hampered not only by IP but by the state and defense monopolizing the advanced tech research and effectively suppressing, or, rather, monopolizing the innovations in those sectors of non-defense tech research. States won’t be able to keep up with the magnitude that tech will have (at some unknowable point in the future, presumably). it is random considerations.