I wrote:
"if you disagree with my definition of "action", all you need to do is supply one example of an action that does not fit my defintion and you have proven me wrong."

You can't think of a single example, can you Gregster?

Gregster wrote:
""action" is that which an entity does"

If you "do" something, you change your physical state in some way.
Clearly "action" is a change a the spacial configuration of tangible entities.
All it takes is one example to prove me wrong.

Gregster, if you are unable to produce a single example, then maybe you should retract calling it "Garbage".
Also a retraction of calling me a "louse" and "lazy" would probably also be appropriate.

I posted this on mises.org after a long time and thought this would be a better place to see your response. I am corssposting 2 posts of mine, one to you and one to Kerem Tibuk (who commented on the first post). I am posting this only because you claimed that "chornology" debunked my entire argument. This one is (from my side) just for the record.

********************
Mark Hubbard,

" The scarcity argument is pure bullshit, it comes after the IP has been created. "

Chronology is utter nonsense as a BASIS for property rights.

For the record, you are yet to refute this basic argument of mine....

Rand said

"Rights are moral concepts defining and sanctioning man's freedom of action in a social context. Rights are a recognition of a condition of existence essential for the survival of man qua man."

To this, I added the following. For man to live qua man, he needs to free to act as per the judgement of his rational mind and face the consequences thereof. Action implies the acquisition of material and non-material objects for application in the service of his own life.

The metaphysical nature of material objects requires exclusivity because it in the absence of exclusivity, freedom of action is metaphysically impossible. In the case of non-material objects like ideas and patterns, simultaneous instantiation of an idea by any number of people does not affect the freedom of action of any of them including the originator of the idea/pattern. Since freedom of action is metaphysically possible even with simultaneous instantiation of ideas and patterns by many people, exclusivity is not an essential condition for the freedom to act to apply such non-material values in the service of one's own life, i.e., for man to live qua man.

Thus, it is absurd for an Objectivist to claim that ideas and patterns deserve property status.

Unless you show me where this is wrong (and for the record, you haven't yet grappled with this argument; not here; not on solopassion), you are just sounding like a scratched gramophone record or a poorly trained android..

I could descend to the level of your language too, but since that would be a DESCENT, I am choosing not to.
*******************
Kerem Tibuk,

" This one is a gem.

Can an effect precede the cause? "

Chronology is indeed a basis for figuring out WHOSE property something is, but then that means that treating the object in question as "property" is already legitimate because of OTHER considerations. It is these OTHER considerations that form the legitimate BASIS of the concept "property" and of assigning that exalted status to specific objects.

So, it has nothing to do with "cause and effect" as you portray it.
********************

Firstly, I do not have infinite patience. I didn't think I'd have to explain the English language as well.
In case you think I'm trying to be a smart arse, let's actually look at the statement.

"Action" is that which an entity "does".

"is that which" pertains to identity, which is Rand's second axiom. ie their definitions can not be broken down further.
The English language is irritating in that you need three words to decribe one thing.
an: singular, one. Rand could have included counting sets as an axiom, however most people would consider it self evident from the identity axiom.
does: not defined in terms of Rand's axioms.

Hence, to define "action" in terms of "does" does not help us ascertain what "action" means in terms of Rand's axioms.

I hope that clears it up a bit more.

On a side note, if you disagree with my definition of "action", all you need to do is supply one example of an action that does not fit my defintion and you have proven me wrong.

Gregster,

Are you pretending not to understand my point so you don't have to deal with it?
Or do you actually not understand what I'm saying?

Before I take it I'll further need to define "is" "that" "which" and "an"?

Gregster,

I understand where you're coming from, but I feel your line of reasoning breaks down when you try to define "does".
If you are going to define "action" in terms of "does", you need to further describe what "does" means.
The task of defining "action" in terms of objective reality is not solved by introducing the term "does".

As I tried to explain earlier, I consider it circular logic to definine "action" as that which an entity "does".
The reason for this is because I define "does" to mean performing an action.
To "do" something is to change your state with respect to time.

An action requires more than one entity because all action is a comparison between entities. A lone electron, in the absence of everything else, "does" nothing. It does not move because there is nothing for it to move relative to. Maybe it has some inner workings, but that simply means that an electron is not a lone entity and instead is composed of smaller entities moving relative to each other. No matter how you look at it, an entity that "does" something is necessarily changing it's spacial relationship to another entity with respect to time.

But still, I'm open to the possibility of a different interpretation.
Can you please explain your position to me, with an example?

“Action is the transformation of a tangible entity from one arrangement to another.”

No it isn’t, that posits a causeless effect.

I’ve already stated "action" is that which an entity does, nothing more.

“An action means the entity goes from old state to new state.” Garbage, the entity remains the entity, and necessarily acts according to its nature.

“[Rand] would undoubtedly have discovered that applying exclusivity to patterns and ideas is a direct contradiction to premise upon which rights is based.”

Consider not stealing this article. Refute that.

“I am trying to build on her work, the same way Einstein built on Newton's work.” More accurately, you’re the louse gnawing at the woodwork.

“It is up to us to iron out and perfect her philosophy, not just blindly follow it.”

Find something worth ironing before issuing such platitudes.

"If I see a few things in Objectivist reasoning that do not add up, whom should I turn to for clarification?"

Read a few books. Don't be so lazy.

JD - "You're attempted sequence is off the rails (it is not Objectivism), you claim to be "correcting" Ayn Rand,"

If there are logical inconsistencies in my arguments, please point them out.
I like it when someone demonstrates logical flaws in my arguments. It means I have to rethink things and I will learn from it.

JD - "you have declared Ayn Rand illogical and wrong many times and believe you have refuted her,"

I have never once said that Ayn Rand is illogical. I have simply said that her reasoning contains a few logical errors.
I have attempted to point out those errors in the hope that others can either confirm my reasoning or refute it.
Please understand, I am trying to build on her work, the same way Einstein built on Newton's work.
Do I consider Newton to be illogical? No. But a few of his arguments were illogical.
Finding flaws in Newton's reasoning is not an attack on Newton. Similarly, finding flaws in Rand's reasoning is not an attack on Rand.
I think Ayn Rand was brilliant. She has shown all of us the way forward.
It is up to us to iron out and perfect her philosophy, not just blindly follow it.

JD - "you won't state your own premises and vision, you are are hostile to Objectivism"

Is it hostile for me to say I don't know what the correct philosophy is?
Is it hostile of me to like the starting premises of Objectivisim?
Is it hostile of me to admire Ayn Rand for the work she has done?
I am a logical thinker in search of the truth, nothing more.

JD - "and the goal you are shooting for is a non-starter because it is hateful to man on its very face."

Is the goal of discovering truth hateful to man?

JD - "Why would anyone pick up your challenge?"

If I see a few things in Objectivist reasoning that do not add up, whom should I turn to for clarification?

Mr. Lakner on Ayn Rand:
"This, of course, is illogical..."
"Rand came to some false conclusions,,,"
"The concept of "intellectual property" is a direct contradiction to the right to life."

You're attempted sequence is off the rails (it is not Objectivism), you claim to be "correcting" Ayn Rand,
you have declared Ayn Rand illogical and wrong many times and believe you have refuted her,
you won't state your own premises and vision, you are are hostile to Objectivism
and the goal you are shooting for is a non-starter because it is hateful to man on its very face.

Why would anyone pick up your challenge?

John Donohue,

Please explain why my argument is irrelevant.
It is Ayn Rand's argument! I have simply corrected a few errors in her reasoning.
Does this mean Ayn Rand's justification for her position is irrelevant?

I have just the opposite: your attempted justifications for your position are irrelevant and I just want to know why you are obsessed with forging a political position that is only appropriate for subsistence (at best) and anarchy. What is your motive? That's all I care about. I refuse to speculate, so I am asking you to reveal it.

What is your vision for man?

John Donohue,

A logical line of reasoning should be judged on its own merits. The person presenting the reasoning is an irrelevent.
Keeping that in mind, I'll address your questions...

JD - "Why do you care about this?"

Irrelevent.

JD - "You've proved nothing, only backed into a flat ad hoc political principle applicable only to subsistence (at best) under anarchy?"

a) I have used Ayn Rand's very own premises to logically demonstrate that IP must necessarily be a violation of man's right to life.
b) Anarchy has nothing to do with this.

JD - "What is your vested interest in that form of insanity?"

Irrelevent.

JD - "What is your vision for man?"

Irrelevent.

Why do you care about this? You've proved nothing, only backed into a flat ad hoc political principle applicable only to subsistence (at best) under anarchy? What is your vested interest in that form of insanity? What is your vision for man?

I'll assume that you agree with me so far.

Existence consists of tangible entities in different arrangements.
Action is the transformation of a tangible entity from one arrangement to another.

Now we must look at the implications for man.

In order to survive, man must act.
More specifically, in order to survive, man must alter the arrangement of tangible goods.

Rights sanction man's freedom of action in a social context.
More specifically, rights sanction man's freedom to alter the arrangement of tangible goods in a social context.

But there is a problem here. Two different individuals cannot both have the same right to alter the arrangement of the same tangible good. Once one individual alters the arrangement of a tangible good, that automatically violates the right of another individual altering the arrangement of that tangible good. For example, two individuals cannot both simultaneously have the right to eat the same apple. This is a contradiction. Either one man eats it, or the other does. Once one man eats the apple, that immediately violates the right of the other to eat it.
In order to fix this problem of conflicting rights, the concept of ownership (ie property) must be formed. By saying that man A owns the apple, we are saying that he, and he alone, has the right to alter the arrangement of that apple. Man A can therefore rightfully eat it, destroy it, give it away, throw it away, etc. This automatically implies that man B has no rights to alter the arrangement of that apple. Therefore it is property rights that enable society to function peacefully without contradiction or conflict.

What about intangible entities? More specifically, do we need to exclude individuals from forming tangible goods into specific arrangements in order to enable freedom of action?
Remember, action is the alteration of a tangible good from one state to another. With tangible materials, exclusivity is required to prevent contradiction. With intangible entities, is exclusivity also required to prevent contradiction?
Does one man arranging tangible materials into arrangement X prevent another man arranging different tangible materials in arrangement X?
The answer is no. If I draw a circle on a piece of paper, that does not prevent you from drawing a circle on a different piece of paper. There is no contradiction of rights. There is no infringement on the freedom of action of others. Exclusivity is not required to enable freedom of action. You have the right to draw a circle and I have the right to draw a circle, and these rights do not contradict. Hence the concept of "ownership" does not emerge. A circle cannot be "property".

Rights sanction man's freedom of action in a social context.
Property emerges as the solution to conflicting rights, therefore allowing freedom of action to occur.
Rights to alter tangible goods conflict. Therefore tangible goods are a form of property.
Rights to employ an "arrangement" do not conflict. Therefore "arrangements" are not a form of property.

In fact, since rights to employ an arrangement do not conflict, it is clear that excluding others from employing that arrangement does nothing more than prevent freedom of action. Therefore, applying exclusivity to ideas and patterns is a direct contradiction of the right to life. This is an important point. The concept of "intellectual property" is a direct contradiction to the right to life.

Rand said:
"The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave."

This quote is actually in total in agreement with what I have explained. Of course you have the right to the product of your effort, but the implications are different depending on whether the product of your effort is tangible or intangible. If the product of your effort is tangible, like a hand-crafted chair, then in order to have the right to that chair you must necessarily exclude others from the right to that chair. If the product of your effort is intangible, like a story, then your right to that story does not interfere with other individuals' right to that story and clearly exclusivity is not required. It is clear that you can own the chair, but you cannot own the story. If someone takes your chair, you are a slave. If someone infuses their tangible goods in the arrangement of the story you produced, you are not a slave.

Unfortunately Rand came to some false conclusions because she did not realise that the exclusivity of intangible entities is not necessary for freedom of action. In fact, had she explored this line of reasoning she would undoubtedly have discovered that applying exclusivity to patterns and ideas is a direct contradiction to premise upon which rights is based. It seems that nobody is infallible, not even Ayn Rand.

Absent anyone postulating an alternative to time, or postulting time as existing without existence, there is not much to discuss.

And file sharing is theft, no matter how far you try and intellectually remove yourself from it.

"as you can imagine, this subject doesn't get discussed much"

Absent anyone postulating an alternative to time, or postulting time as existing without existence, there is not much to discuss.

Gregster wrote:
""Action" is that which an entity does. A series of actions thus would encompass the concept time. Not so much "change.""

But how can an entity "do" anything unless there is time?
Once an entity's state changes, doesn't that automatically implies time?

I define "do" in terms of "action", and I define "action" in terms of change, and I define "change" in terms of time.

An action means the entity goes from old state to new state. This is a sequence of events in a specific order, ie "time".
Therefore, time must exist before an action can exist.

Unless, of course, you have an alternate definition of "action".
I would love to hear another logically valid way of looking at this.
(as you can imagine, this subject doesn't get discussed much)

I have notes for a reply at some stage. "Action" is that which an entity does. A series of actions thus would encompass the concept time. Not so much "change."

Mark,
Since you have not responded I will simply assume that you concede the correctness of the last point I made.

To recap:
Existence consists tangible entities in specific arrangements.
These arrangements are often given names. The simple arrangements are often called patterns while the relatively more complex ones are called ideas.
An idea in a human mind is simply a specific arrangement of the tangible materials in the human mind.
An idea written down on paper is simply a specific pattern of ink symbols.
And so forth.

One thing to notice here is that the concept of time has not been introduced yet.
Rand's identity axiom refers to the spacial arrangement of tangible materials.
But what of time?
Time is a continuum in which events occur in irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
The concept of "action" must be introduced. But what is action?

I would define action as: the change in the specific arrangement of an entity.

Notice that the word "change" implies time. "Change" implies that the different arrangements occurred in a specific order.
When an entity acts, its old arrangement is transformed into a new arrangement.

If we go back and look at points 7 through 9 we can see that this definition is fundamental and consistent:
7. Causation is the law of identity applied to action.
This simply means that Causation is the concept of entities of a specific nature in a specific spacial arrangement changing their spacial arrangement.
Basically Ayn Rand decided to avoid the word "time" altogether and work in terms of "action" and "causation".
This, of course, is illogical because the word "action" makes no sense unless defined in terms of "time".
Ayn Rand's mistake was that she did not make time an axiom. (She just assumes it throughout her inductive process)

8. It is entities that act, and every action is the action of an entity.
9. The way entities act is caused by the specific nature (or "identity") of those entities; if they were different they would act differently.

It's important to note here that the word "entities" in the above points once again can only possibly be refering to tangible entities.
Intangible entities cannot act. You cannot possibly change the arrangement of an arrangement.
You can only change the arrangement of tangible materials.
You cannot change a circle. You can only change the arrangement of the tangible materials that are formed into a circle.
Similarly, you cannot "change" a story. You can only discover a new story which you consider similar. The old story is left intact. All that get's changed is the ink symbols in the paper. Remember that a story is nothing more than a specific arrangement that tangible materials can manifest in. If I take Atlas Shrugged and change John Galt's name to "John Halt", I have not "changed" Atlas Shrugged. I have created a new novel which we would consider extremely similar to Atlas Shrugged. But it is not Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged, the story, the specific arrangement of tangible materials, was left unchanged.

Note that "created" does not mean that something is made out of nothing. That is impossible. The correct word is "identified". Ayn Rand herself recognised this fact:
"The power to rearrange the combinations of natural elements is the only creative power man possesses. It is an enormous and glorious power—and it is the only meaning of the concept “creative.” “Creation” does not (and metaphysically cannot) mean the power to bring something into existence out of nothing. “Creation” means the power to bring into existence an arrangement (or combination or integration) of natural elements that had not existed before. (This is true of any human product, scientific or esthetic: man’s imagination is nothing more than the ability to rearrange the things he has observed in reality.)"

Now, keeping in mind that I have not even attempted to discuss the concept of "ownership" or "property" yet, do you:
1. agree that all intangible entities are nothing more than possible arrangements that tangible entities can form into?
2. agree with my interpretation of Ayn Rand's axioms?
3. agree with my definition of "action"?
4. agree that intangible entities cannot be changed?
5. agree that intangible entities cannot act?

Mark,

I have no intention of going into a "She says, if we define it as thus. He says, if we define it as thus" type of argument.
In fact, that is exactly what I am trying to avoid.
To define "action" in terms of "effort" will result in circular logic because one cannot define "effort" without resorting to the concept of "action".
That is why I am trying to arrive at an objective definition of "action" that we both agree on.

Unfortunately we have to put this definition on hold for a moment because you seem to disagree on my description of objective reality.

You tell me I'm wrong and then you quote Rand, but your quote has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
I am not denying the role of the individual. I have simply not reached that point in the inductive chain of reasoning I am trying to run past you.
We haven't even agreed on a definition of "action" yet, so we clearly don't have a logical link to "individual creation" at this point.

So you deny that objective reality is composed of tangible materials in different arrangements?
So does this mean that you deny Ayn Rand's Identity axiom?

Earlier I wrote:
"To be is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes."
Unfortunately this is not as specific as it should be.
The word "entity" here should be "tangible entity". Unfortunately Rand was a little too vague in her formulation of the identity axiom.
If we assume the law of identity applies to intangible entities we encounter problems. We cannot describe the attributes of an intangible entity without resorting to intangible entities. It's like saying a circle is a circle because it's circular. This is circular reasoning. (lol?)
Therefore, it is clear that the "entities" Rand refers to are all tangible, and the "specific nature" and "specific attributes" refers to the type of objects and their spacial relationship. For example, the entity could be a hydrogen atom. The specific nature and specific attributes are: a proton and an electron in a spacial relationship. Hence, a hydrogen atom is simply composed of tangible materials (electron and proton) in a specific arrangement.

You should be able to see that I am taking Rand's premise and showing that there is only one logical interpretation.
ie "Existence consists of tangible entities in different arrangements" is equivalent to the identity axiom.
You can either:
a) Agree with me on this point, or,
b) Demonstrate inconsistencies in my interpretation, or,
c) Reject Objectivism.

I really am hoping we can actually get to the subject of "individual creation". But we can not possibly have a sensible and intelligent exchange unless we have some sort of agreement on fundamental definitions and the nature of the Universe.

Do you agree with me so far?

You didn't read my post, did you Jay.

You reply with:

Unfortunately Mark, that definition creates more problems than it solves.
You see, "effort" is not precisely defined and "products" is not precisely defined.

Right after I had clearly said:

I'm not going to no enter into:

She says, if we define it as thus.
He says, if we define it as thus.
He says, if we define it as thus.

When all the time, as we know, Rand says:

Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “Patents and Copyrights,”.

That one hundred percent agrees with my view of IP as I reason it. I have demonstrated how Rand's writings have no inconsistency on this topic.

You are trying to make a logical case for theft and enslavement of the individual. The only basis on which you will be able to make that is if you are an amoral monster. You will not be able to make a case for that in reality, and most certainly not for objectivism - I mean, really, Rand's categorical support of IP should have given a pretty good hint.

So again:

I'm not interested after that, especially with someone who has expressly said thay are not an objectivist. Bala said he was, and Mises.org were in a most deceitful way using this 'recanting' as an authority upon their enslaving, thieving, anarchist view of the issue, hence my own need to put him right, while demonstrating he was most certainly not an objectivist.

You're not an objectivist, you promote an evil no-IP line, so you are a slaver bereft for all I know of any philosophical base. Why would I want to bother entering a pointless argument with you, there is nothing in that for me. In my mind I am now completely satisfied on the issue of IP.

But I will reiterate one more point. You say:

We know that there must exist an objective reality, but what is this composed of? There are tangible materials in different arrangements. That is all.
But what of these "intangible entities" that we often refer to in our daily lives? Every single one of them is simply a possible arrangement of tangible materials.

Like Bala, like Kinsella, to twist objectivism to the end of your argument you are going to have to obliterate the central figure of objectivism: the individual, and after that the possibility of unique creation by the individual mind. Your:

Let me reiterate, existence consists of tangible materials in different arrangements. Nothing more.

Wrong. You do not understand objectivism on this most crucial point. To quote Rand again:

We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think. Yet that capacity is our only means of survival.

For the New Intellectual “The Soul of an Individualist".

Mark wrote:
"'action' = 'effort' necessary to produce the products of one's mind."

Unfortunately Mark, that definition creates more problems than it solves.
You see, "effort" is not precisely defined and "products" is not precisely defined.

You're not thinking about the fundamentals. Both Bala and myself are working only in the fundamental realm - where things can be logically proven and disproven.
I am trying to uncover the "truth". In order to do that we must use inductive reasoning. I stated before that my starting point is Ayn Rand's fundamental premises.
I'll repeat what I said earlier:

1. Existence exists.
2. To be is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. That which has no attributes does not and cannot exist.
3. Therefore, existence is identity.
4. Consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists.
5. To be conscious is to be conscious of something. Therefore an objective reality independent of consciousness must exist for consciousness to be possible.
6. The mind cannot create reality, it is a means of discovering reality.
7. Causation is the law of identity applied to action.
8. It is entities that act, and every action is the action of an entity.
9. The way entities act is caused by the specific nature (or "identity") of those entities; if they were different they would act differently.

You must agree 100% so far. This is the fundamental starting point of Objectivism.
Points 1 through 6 are simply a recap of Ayn Rand's axioms: Existence, identity and consciousness.
Points 7 through 9 are the next step in Ayn Rand's reasoning. Ayn Rand defined "Causation" in terms of action. But she did not define "action".
Introducing "effort" and "products" at this point to define "action" only leads us to ponder what the definition of "effort" and "products" are. ie it doesn't help.

I see you are really struggling to think along the same lines I am. If you want to refute somebody's arguments, you need to first get inside their mind and try to understand things the way they see them. Only then can you spot the inconsistencies. You assume I am trying to trick or confuse you. It's true that some people try to confuse matters while they are arguing. I am not one of them. In fact I'm trying to make things more clear. Anyway, I'll continue:

We know that there must exist an objective reality, but what is this composed of? There are tangible materials in different arrangements. That is all.
But what of these "intangible entities" that we often refer to in our daily lives? Every single one of them is simply a possible arrangement of tangible materials.
When you have an idea, that idea is simply an arrangement of tangible materials in your brain. It is simply a "pattern" of neurons firing.
What about a story? If written on paper, the story is an arrangement of ink symbols. If spoken, a pattern of air disturbances. If displayed by a TV, a sequence of photons of light with different frequencies. If thought, a pattern of firing neurons in your brain. etc.
Concepts, music, movies, computer programs, games, etc, etc, are also simply arrangements that tangible materials can take. They are all patterns.
Let me reiterate, existence consists of tangible materials in different arrangements. Nothing more.

Do you agree with me so far?

Assuming I have your agreement, I want to try and move to the next logical step. What should be our fundamental definition of "action"?

No Jay, you see, you're going to be another computerhead like Bala, going out of your way, for some insane agenda I cannot imagine, to prove your right to enslave me, and thieve my effort.

All you're going to do is get all wanky over tiny little definitional nuances.

But okay, 'action' = 'effort' necessary to produce the products of one's mind. I've no problem with that, we've dealt with your issues.

I'm not going to no enter into:

She says, if we define it as thus.
He says, if we define it as thus.
He says, if we define it as thus.

When all the time, as we know, Rand says:

Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “Patents and Copyrights,”.

That one hundred percent agrees with my view of IP as I reason it. I have demonstrated how Rand's writings have no inconsistency on this topic.

I'm not interested after that, especially with someone who has expressly said thay are not an objectivist. Bala said he was, and Mises.org were in a most deceitful way using this 'recanting' as an authority upon their enslaving, thieving, anarchist view of the issue, hence my own need to put him right, while demonstrating he was most certainly not an objectivist.

You're not an objectivist, you promote an evil no-IP line, so you are a slaver bereft for all I know of any philosophical base. Why would I want to bother entering a pointless argument with you, there is nothing in that for me. In my mind I am now completely satisfied on the issue of IP.

But Aaron may wish to waste his time on you, or John. I'd rather spend my time dreaming about this yacht:

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Mark,

This is not a striptease. This is not a game. This is not a trick.

When an "action" occurs, what is actually happening?
When a human performs an "action", what are they really doing?

Once this definition is established, I believe the following questions really demonstrate the chinks in the entire concept of "intellectual property".
1. What is human learning? What is actually "learnt"?
2. When Rand says: "Rights sanction man's freedom of action in a social context", what is a more specific way of saying it? (using the more specific definition of "action")
3. "Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life" is something I agree with. But what is "effort"? Can we define "effort" in terms of "action"? Furthermore, can we specifically define "effort" in similar terms to our new definition of "action"?
4. In light of everything discussed and defined so far, what must be the logical role of "property"?
5. Lastly, how can we more specifically define "property" and determine what can and cannot be considered "property"?

I want to deal with specifics. You must agree that repeatedly saying "copying is theft" does not prove anything. It needs to be inductively proven from Rand's starting premises.
Surely, as an Objectivist, you must agree with this approach. If Rand was right, then this exercise will merely prove me wrong.

Can someone please precisely define "action" in terms of Objective reality?

Anyone who actually bothers to make a serious attempt at this task will undoubtedly discover its relevence to the question of whether ideas and patterns may, or may not, be considered a form of property.

Just state your entire position/hypothesis in a single post Jay, including whether it is a sanction for IP or not.

And yes, I can see the significance of 'action' when I have said IP is the 'process', but, again, I'm not interested nor do I have time for playing intellectual striptease.

Aaron wrote:
"I figured I might even feed the 'action' troll and then bow out of the thread"

I am not a "troll". I am simply pointing out an undefined term in your entire philosophy.
It is my belief that Ayn Rand's (erroneous) pro-IP conclusion was a consequence of not paying special attention to this term.

Have I not demonstrated an understanding of the fundamental premises of Objectivism?
Have I not demonstrated that the term in question has not actually been properly defined?
Is my question not justified?
I pose the question to everyone again.

Can someone please precisely define "action" in terms of Objective reality?

Anyone who actually bothers to make a serious attempt at this task will undoubtedly discover its relevence to the question of whether ideas and patterns may, or may not, be considered a form of property.

Mark,

Reading through the exchange I got excited because it seemed like you were almost there.

Unfortunately, Bala wasn't quite able to explain his position because you were both arguing with different definitions of the word "action".

Funny that...

No more technicalities? I guess that is your thesis broken.

The remaining inane generalities simply show the indefensible immorality of your position Bala. Just a couple of points:

... do you take the permission of and pay her estate? Assuming you do not, how do you live down all the copyright violations you are engaging in day in and day out?

Now who doesn't know what they're talking about?

'Fair Use' and scholarship have always included the ability to quote a source, so long as the quotation is recognised, and footnoted (or source given). Fair use works for copyright holder as it allows for the dissemination and discussion of the work, without replicating the whole work, thus creating interest in the source, and a bigger market. But mainly for reasons of scholarship.

An entirely different position to advocating the wholesale plundering of an author's work for no payment nor acknowledgement.

You are a typical hypocrite preaching that which you have no intention of practising yourself because you know that such practise would spell the very end of life as a human being.

Jeez, I hadn't realised you were this loopy.

By the way I gave exhaustive reasons why your position is evil, although they are all summed up by the one, modified quotation:

'The [author] who produces while [file sharers ] dispose of his product, is a slave.'

Against this, is ...

You are a despot by nature and you crave for a world where every man lives not as an autonomous being but by permission. You are more dangerous than all the dictators and tyrants of the world put together.

Is that the best you can really do.

And an Objectivist quoting Ayn Rand is entirely appropriate I would have thought. As this thread seems to have come to the 'right end', let me quote you Ayn on your true position, which is certainly not objectivism, but Kinsella's anarchism:

Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

The Virtue of Selfishness “The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness

Good bye. I am leaving never to return to this ...

That's a pity Bala, in many ways: I like as varied an input to this site as possible. I know I was being obnoxious, that was my intent to balance out the evil of what you were sanctioning, without admittance of the fact - which was, and still makes me angry. But why always the flounce?

Right, the dog's been fed, now for the lawns, then work ...

"Good bye"

Fuck off.

[to preserve that last piece of nonsense by replying before he could recant]

.... do you take the permission of and pay her estate? Assuming you do not, how do you live down all the copyright violations you are engaging in day in and day out?

How do you learn given that every concept you learn and then apply involves a copyright violation? Do you pay the inventors of the English alphabet and the coiners of individual words every time you use them? You are a typical hypocrite preaching that which you have no intention of practising yourself because you know that such practise would spell the very end of life as a human being.

You call me head boy of the camp of enslavers. I'll tell you what. You are a despot by nature and you crave for a world where every man lives not as an autonomous being but by permission. You are more dangerous than all the dictators and tyrants of the world put together.

Repeating what Ayn Rand said does not make you an Objectivist. What it makes you is a parrot. Stew in your rot for all I care. Good bye. I am leaving never to return to this, the real dark side.

Before I start.

Bala said: What's to be uncomfortable about? All doomsday scenarios are just speculation on what might happen in the absence of IP protection for ideas.

Oh yeah, I’ve moved quickly back to the stage where you are truly on the evil side of the ledger, as bad as Kinsella. What’s to feel uncomfortable about?

'The [author] who produces while [file sharers ] dispose of his product, is a slave.'

And you are head boy of the Camp of Enslavers. But you don’t even get it.

(Also: Philip: I believe in the Internet age the battle for IP is the battle for capitalism itself: one of the most important debates that has to be won, and objectivism is the philosophy that can win it. But hence the evil of the Kinsella-Bala Axis who falsely hold objectivism to be anarchism, which couldn't be further from the truth.)

Right, Bala:

Bala put himself in the do-do by admitting, finally:

Just to demonstrate the point that these are primary aspects of reality, let me take the hypothetical scenario of Ogg the Caveman who invents the wheel. Let's say Ed the Caveman sees Ogg's wheel and how Ogg uses it. Being a human, he applies his powers of reason to figure out how the wheel works. He then proceeds to gather materials and fashion a wheel for himself. At the end of the day, Ogg and Ed each have their own respective wheels. None of them is any poorer. The idea of the wheel now exists in both their minds.

You don’t see the obvious, even though you state it. Ogg the Caveman who invents the wheel.

Absolutely consistent with my previous post, under this scenario Ogg truly did invent the wheel: his idea and then manufacture came before File Sharer Ed copied the product of Ogg's mind. You’ve admitted Ogg had a discreet, original idea first, as must always be the case:

Mises understands the reality of this as well as Ayn: The ideas that change the intellectual climate of a given environment are those unheard of before. For these new ideas there is no other explanation than that there was a man from whose mind they originated. From ‘Ideas’.

And yes, after the ‘creation’ of the physical wheel there is no more any scarcity of the wheel, both Ogg and Ed could have one, and Sheila: I state this only to show your scarcity argument was only ever a straw man.

And now here’s the glory.

Imagine if they’d had proper government protecting IP: Ogg could have taken out a patent, securing the product of his mind, and then he could have set up an industry around manufacture of the wheel, and with the capital made from that, set up an R & D unit, because it would’ve possible with IP to secure property in the process/manufacture of what they went onto invent: the car, the truck, then the airplane.

However, sadly, instead, Ogg had to sacrifice his mind to the File Sharing Tribe, his effort squandered, thus his wheel brought on only a slow trickle of innovation and mankind took tens of thousands of years to rise from the ignoble slime of collectivism, as represented by Kinsella, Bala the Evil, Bala the Enslaver, Bala the Blind, Bala the Beaten. In this example you have given me, I have also demonstrated how under your socialist/anarchist model – you are no more objectivist than Kinsella – capitalism is not possible.

Repeat from my post below, the item missing in your logic (apart from a complete incomprehension before the majesty of an individual’s mind) is chronology: that the thought, the process of manufacture/production, comes before the physical product or cyberspace product (thus, the difference between physical and cyber is nothing). To repeat myself:

Your thesis relies on there being a 'difference' in terms of property between an ebook and a physical shoe: but that only becomes self fulfilling once you manufacture your 'scarcity' argument - the floating abstract? And the scarcity argument is based on an error in thinking: the fact it is easier to copy the file than the physical shoe, but copy the shoe you can. The process of manufacturing the real Nike shoe and the ebook are no different in character and principle, and the manufacturers/producers property, their IP, is in that process, which is, very importantly, a-priori your false scarce / not scarce dichotomy.

Be noble, admit you’re wrong, (even I am the very odd time), recant the recant, cast aside the Dark Side.

Quite right, Bala- it's outrageous that Hubbard goes and walks his dog whenever he feels like it. He should, of course, remain at your beck and call....

I'm with him on one thing, though; I haven't a clue what you are on about, either.

This whole debate is one fucked-up mess. And some folk wonder why most people's eyes glaze over at the mere mention of the word philosophy...

.... I'll go off to work. I too have lot's to do and don't see acting busy as a good tool of argumentation.

" But the 'scarcity' you speak of is only because of the property right denying "

Wrong. "Scarcity" is the recognition of the aspect of reality that of any material object, there can always be only 1. If I take possession of a material object, it cannot simultaneously be in your possession. On the other hand, if I am in possession of an idea you produce, it does not cease to be in your possession. Any number of people may be in possession of the idea you produced but that still does not remove it from your possession.

This fact is a primary aspect of reality and precedes any discussion of the concept "property". It is the "nature" of the objects to which you wish to apply the term "property" to. So, you have said something completely meaningless.

Just to demonstrate the point that these are primary aspects of reality, let me take the hypothetical scenario of Ogg the Caveman who invents the wheel. Let's say Ed the Caveman sees Ogg's wheel and how Ogg uses it. Being a human, he applies his powers of reason to figure out how the wheel works. He then proceeds to gather materials and fashion a wheel for himself. At the end of the day, Ogg and Ed each have their own respective wheels. None of them is any poorer. The idea of the wheel now exists in both their minds.

If instead of doing this, Ed decides to grab Ogg's wheel, he would be initiating force against Ogg to do so because there is no other way of grabbing it (of course, he could grab it when Ogg has gone out for a hunt, but he would then have to use force when Ogg tries to retrieve it). Force apart, when Ed grabs Ogg's wheel, Ogg does not have the wheel any more. Ed is richer at Ogg's expense.

Your problem is the inability to see this difference and that "scarcity" of material objects is a primary aspect of reality, just as much as the "non-scarcity' of ideas is.

" do you at least have the decency to be uncomfortable with the logical ends to which your anti-IP argument leads? "

What's to be uncomfortable about? All doomsday scenarios are just speculation on what might happen in the absence of IP protection for ideas.

On the other hand, it is a wonder that even after I have repeatedly pointed out the lack of an inductive argument for the treatment of ideas as "property", i.e., the fact that the "right to exclude" others from the ideas one produced does not flow inductively from Objectivist premises and derives no support from the Objectivist concept of rights, you still don't seem to be uncomfortable with the obvious inner contradictions of your stand. On top of it, you act high and mighty and go off to walk your dog to escape addressing the serious problems inherent in your stand. So, it is you who lacks the decency to face the flaws in and the consequences of your own reasoning.

But the 'scarcity' you speak of is only because of the property right denying - to continue my enovel/ebook example - counterfeit publishing of the 'computer file' by the second hander file sharers, Bala, in denying the producer the product of his mind via the counterfeit that also 'seems' to create a lack of scarcity within 'your argument' for a product that exists in cyber space. It is thus irrelevant to the trumping 'production' source of the property right, in the case of a novel, in the copyright, per my last post, and pronounced upon fairly, squarely, and morally by the reasoning of Ayn Rand in her untrammeled support of copyright and IP.

No different to the fact I can go to street markets in China and buy knock off/copy Nike shoes, socks, Spalding tennis balls, Webster BBQ's: all copies yet all material 'products', but under your reasoning, 'not scarce' as you seem to be thinking. I can replace your Nike shoe with one that looks exactly the same, you'll know no difference, but that is not a Nike shoe, thus not denying you the use of it. The Nike shoe just happens to be slightly harder to copy than copying a computer file, but that doesn't change the principle here

Your thesis relies on there being a 'difference' in terms of property between an ebook and a physical shoe: but that only becomes self fulfilling once you manufacture your 'scarcity' argument - the floating abstract? And the scarcity argument is based on an error in thinking: the fact it is easier to copy the file than the physical shoe, but copy the shoe you can. The process of manufacting the real Nike shoe and the ebook are no different in character and principle, and the manufacturers/producers property, their IP, is in that process, which is, very importantly, a-priori your false scarce / not scarce dichotomy.

Yes?

I ask again: quite apart from the incomprehensibility of your argument, do you at least have the decency to be uncomfortable with the logical ends to which your anti-IP argument leads, which is the looters anarchic chaos that seems to be the wet dream of liberty hating socialist anarchists such as Stephen Kinsella?

I'm walking my dog.

However, apologies first. I was being defensive as I sensed a strong "attack". What you said was precisely the case. "Recant" was a story of my evolution.

Now to Greg Perkins' article. I had read it earlier, but rather cursorily. This time, I did go through it on your suggestion and am now in a position to articulate my argument in the light of past work in the area. I guess that is essential for anyone to understand what (WTH ) I am talking of.

As I understand it, there are many aspects to Greg's article and the section relevant to what I have been saying is the one where he addresses the question of "scarcity" vs "production" as the source of property rights. Greg's position is that "production" is the proper source of "property rights" as per Objectivist ethics. While Greg attempted to establish this by referring to basic Objectivist premises, I see him failing to do so effectively by omitting to refer to the meaning or definition of the very concept he is talking of - that of individual rights. Further, when one is talking of rights being "natural", i.e., originating in man's nature, it would be foolish to define man's relationship to objects (what we call the concept "property") without taking into account the nature of the objects involved and the consequences thereof.

It is these points that I am trying to address. My point simply is that taking "production" as the source of property rights does not flow inductively from Objectivist premises while taking "scarcity" as the source does. In effect, I am saying that when I use "scarcity", it is not a utilitarian or a pragmatic argument but a moral one. My point simply is that Greg Perkins is wrong on account of the reasons identified above.

I hope this gives Mark Hubbard the precis he has been asking me for.

Aaron, I won't be answering to Bala the Enslaver until someone can tell me what the hell he's talking about.

I'm still waiting for a precis of his argument that makes sense - I defy you to give me one.

Bala: now you're saying just because a product might not be 'scarce' (because it can be copied) that gives you an entitlement to leech off the products of an individual's mind and labour?

Is that the position now?

Again: The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness.

Or, restate the last sentence:

'The [author] who produces while [file sharers ] dispose of his product, is a slave.'

And again, what is your position on what I wrote below:

you don't understand IP. If you buy a book or ebook you have the right to do anything with it you please, other than the process that brought it into existence: that is from the time the author lifted his pen, wrote, made a contract with the publisher, then, final act, the publisher publishes. That is the process covered by the copyright: when you bought the book you did not buy the copyright, that property belongs to a contractual relationship between the author and publisher.

Now here's the thing: every copy made of the electronic file, is the end part of the process of publishing the book. In this instance, copying is publishing. You did not buy the right to publish the book, ergo, copying files is publishing is theft (of the money that was due to the publisher/author from the act of publishing the book).

The notion of scarcity is irrelevant, and I note the lack of scarcity is simply due to a counterfeit that you sanction.

By the way, I suggest the contradictory end point to the circular head-trip you're on is to end where Kinsella seems to me to be, that being private ownership of all property is a monopoly by the individual and must be disposed of along with proper government and the liberty of the individual. What Rand calls the 'naive floating abstraction' - note that term in relation to your own argument, whatever that is - of anarchy in other words, and the tribal nihilism of anarchist chaos where the gang with the biggest gun will rule.

Quite apart from the incomprehensibility of your argument, do you at least have the decency to be uncomfortable with the logical ends to which your anti-IP argument leads?

My latest retort to Kinsella, the uber socialist/anarchist:

http://blog.mises.org/archives...

Bala-
"I suggest that you read the entire "Recant" article before you attempt to haul me over the coals."

Why so defensive? I didn't break out the "You're saying A is not A - Evader! Whim-worshiper!" speech . I figured the differing quotes reflected a shift in views over time. Sounds like the later quote is accurate and the earlier one really meant something different with more surrounding context. Not that big a deal.

For reading, you may well have already, but if not I reiterate recommendation for Greg Perkin's "Don't Steal this Article". It is one of the best Oist writings I've seen, particular on apparent conflicts in tangible and IP rights. I'm assuming your post in question is 'Awaiting a "proper" reply from Mark Hubbard' (lots of numbered bullet points) and I tabbed it to check out closer sometime this weekend. I did read 'Recant' when it came out. I actually only recognized you initially as a commenter on Noodlefood and not as the recant author til you took credit in this thread. Keeping 'Recant' tabbed to reread pieces of again sometime this weekend.

Aaron

You are coming, albeit slowly and tortuously, to the nub of the argument.

" The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. "

Absolutely no disagreement on any of these. Just 1 small point. Given that rights are
1. moral concepts defining and sanctioning man's freedom of action in a social context (emphasis on "freedom" please)

and

2. a recognition of a condition of existence essential for the survival of man qua man,

could you please define what the right to property or the right to the product of one's effort is? If I am to define them consistent with the definitions of rights as given above, I can see that if a man has acquired a product (material objects or ideas) through his effort, he should be free to act on them. Where freedom of action is impossible without the exclusion of others from the product, such exclusion becomes a necessary condition for the freedom of action.

When the "product" in question is a material object, the fact that it is scarce (read as only 1 of that particular object), freedom of action demands exclusion of others. Thus, action taken to exclude others from material objects that one has expended efforts to acquire is morally sound.

When the "product" in question is an idea, the fact that it is not scarce means that any number of people may act to instantiate it without any infringing upon the freedom of any other to do so. Therefore, for freedom of action to exist, exclusion of others from the object is NOT an essential condition. Thus, moral legitimacy of actions taken to exclude others from ideas does not automatically follow.

Hence, ideas cannot be treated as "property" since the "right to exclude" is not applicable to them (assuming that the concept 'right to property" necessarily includes the "right to exclude").

Hence, in the case of material objects, if right to exclude is denied moral legitimacy, it is clearly a case of slavery. That is not true in the case of ideas. Hence, your claim that I am advocating slavery is incorrect.

Please point out the flaw in this. I will be glad to be corrected.

p.s. Jay Lakner or Peter Surda cannot give you a precis of my argument as they are not Objectivists or (I believe) have read Ayn Rand's writings as much as I have.

Gin, for some reason has started giving me a headache - although nothing like this thread. And as much as I love whiskey, I bought a bottle of brandy last week and I'm definitely in a brandy phase.

Reminds me, I've yet to set up the wine thread.

But I want to know what his argument is, as it's annoying the hell out of me. He obviously thinks he has an argument.

Oh, and I've bailed twice already, so bailing a third time now has as much logic as the Recant article at this stage. Dog and a bone stuff.

I'd suggest bailing, and a good stiff gin, on mental health grounds.

This thread should carry a mental health warning.

The guy should be locked in a room with Richard Goode.

You know I have made one mistake here, you're not so much the thief: you are the advocate of slavery. Compare:

My conclusion in that article was that IP is invalid not because it conflicts with physical property rights but because it conflicts with the Right to Life.

With Rand:

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness.

Or, restate the last sentence:

'The [author] who produces while [file sharers ] dispose of his product, is a slave.'

You advocate nothing less than slavery, and IP-socialist is a very appropriate term for your thinking.

Your theorising in Recant is so circular and convoluted, reducing morality to algebra, after a quick reading, and you've clarified nothing here, I don't understand what your point actually is and I defy someone else in this office to explain what Bala's point is? I need to study it much more closely, but reading it feels to me like you've created your own definition of property, assumed that property can only be this 'one thing', an erroneous definition, but then failed objectivism because it doesn't meet the straw man of your own definition. As I said, circular. As stated earlier on the thread: rationalism. And wholly immoral in its consequences.

Surda and Lakner: can you give me a precis of Bala's argument? (I don't think he will be able to supply me with sense in this).

" Those seem in direct contradiction. Have you been shifting back and forth and your description to me reflects your latest views, or is there more to it? "

You need to read what I wrote after that line in that article. My conclusion, even in that article, was NOT that IP is invalid because it conflicts with physical property rights. The discomfort that came out of the line you insist on quoting only led me to come up with a sound definition of the concept "property" (I even said that in the article) which I did based on the NIF principle (which in turn is nothing more than a logical corollary of the Right to Life). My conclusion in that article was that IP is invalid not because it conflicts with physical property rights but because it conflicts with the Right to Life. Once I realised it, I could see why the "conflict" existed - it was a crossing of a legitimate right (physical property rights) with an illegitimate one (IP rights).

The explanation I have given here adds to that by saying why IP rights are not legitimate rights. I suggest that you read the entire "Recant" article before you attempt to haul me over the coals.

Assertions without logical argumentation do not constitute proof.

Bala-
I've had no time to digest, read your 'Recant' post, or start a real response, but one thing stood out just from checking new articles now:

To me a dozen or so posts back: "If (and that's a big "If") IP is legitimate, the "conflict" between IP and physical property rights is a mirage because there can be no real conflict between legitimate rights. Just as one person's Liberty is limited by another person's Rights to Life, Liberty and Property (as I see it, through the NIF principle), so would the physical property rights of one person be limited (legitimately) by another person's rights to his IP. So, I do not see any relevance of the so-called conflict in dismissing the validity of IP."

From your 'Recant' article (as Mark quoted a few posts back): "To cut a long thing short, the moment I realised that there is a conflict between rights to intellectual property and rights to physical property, I also realised that something is wrong about the whole thing."

Those seem in direct contradiction. Have you been shifting back and forth and your description to me reflects your latest views, or is there more to it?

Aaron

That bloody Transformer again.

Only after you establish that ideas and patterns are legitimate "property" starting from sound premises can you hurl accusations of 'theft".

I have done that.
I have done that.

Not to beg the freaking question, but,

I have done that.

You do not want to see, nor understand, nor be responsible for what you write.

Only after you establish that ideas and patterns are legitimate "property" starting from sound premises can you hurl accusations of 'theft". That term is reserved for the "taking" of "property" without the consent of the owner with the aim of depriving him (the owner) of it permanently.

Unless you stop begging the question, you are unlikely to understand what I am saying.

Mark Hubbard,

" That is the process covered by the copyright: when you bought the book you did not buy the copyright "

When my basic question is "Are copyrights a legitimate form of property rights?", to say that I did not buy the copyright and hence cannot copy the book legitimately is begging the question. So, this point of yours is completely irrelevant.

More than my not understanding IP, the problem is that you are not aware that like Stephan Kinsella, you too are assuming that which you wish to prove and then claiming that you have proved it.

With your new response Bala, I need only repair to another previous post:

Linz on this site has often spoken to the existence of the airhead, via this debate I have learned of something far more sinister since it has the ability to ‘know better’, and that is the computerhead. A computerhead could rationalise the theft of property from his own grandmother.

From my IP is process post, you sanction theft ...

Take it away someone else.

I have repeatedly urged Stephan to delink IP from Anarchy or opposition to the State, but have not yet succeeded in getting him to do so. I believe these are two separate and non-overlapping discussions. Trying to club them vitiates the discussion and makes it pointless.

[Correcting the typos two of my posts down.]

But I will also say, you don't understand IP. If you buy a book or ebook you have the right to do anything with it you please, other than the process that brought it into existence: that is from the time the author lifted his pen, wrote, made a contract with the publisher, then, final act, the publisher publishes. That is the process covered by the copyright: when you bought the book you did not buy the copyright, that property belongs to a contractual relationship between the author and publisher.

Now here's the thing: every copy made of the electronic file, is the end part of the process of publishing the book. In this instance, copying is publishing. You did not buy the right to publish the book, ergo, copying files is publishing is theft (of the money that was due to the publisher/author from the act of publishing the book).

That resolves every issue for me.

IP is property. Copying is theft.

"Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort." [Capitalism The Unknown Ideal, p.122]

I guess you are missing the implications of the phrase "material element or resource", especially the word "material" and the point that the phrase "Any material element or resource" is the subject of this sentence (Sorry about the grammar lesson. That's one of the "bad" habits I picked up on account of teaching English. ). Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can this be extended to ideas and patterns.

"Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object." [The Virtue of Selfishness, p.94]

My point too. In fact, this statement is in itself erroneous if taken along with Rand's definition of Rights as a moral concept defining and sanctioning man's FREEDOM of action in a social context. (Sorry about the caps. I don't know other ways of highlighting on this blog) Rand made it a point to emphasis that the operative word is "freedom" and not "action".

So, if I take "rights" as defined above, with material objects, freedom of action demands exclusivity while with ideas and patterns, exclusivity is non essential.

Given this and Rand's other important statement on "rights" as a recognition of a condition of existence essential for the survival of man qua man, I am not able to inductively derive the conclusion that the "right to exclude" is relevant to ideas and patterns. If you think i am missing something relevant to the definition of "rights' per se, please point it out.

Out there on mises.org, in spite of my repeated requests, MichaelM REFUSED to address this point. Hence, to say that he has addressed my objection is grossly incorrect. If you go to that discussion, you will see that I stopped the discussion because he failed to address my points despite my repeated and explicit entreaties to do so. I hope you will be different.

Stephen Kinsella, lawyer (patent apparently), 'senior scholar' at Mises.org, said on a post to Bala's Recant thread the following:

In any event, Rand's basic philosophy was:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

I agree with all 4. How to apply them, and the details, get more interesting. That's why some of us realize that if you oppose aggression (implied by #4) you have to oppose the state; thus the most consistent Objectivists become anarchists (indeed Galt's Gulch is anarchist). And likewise, a really consistent adherent to these principles would have to oppose not only the state, but legislation and all artificial rights such as IP.

http://blog.mises.org/archives...

[My bold highlighting.]

Firstly, on the Recant thread MichaelIM put up a good debunking of your original recant, and you purporting to be an Objectivist:

http://blog.mises.org/archives...

You never addressed his points. What is your answer to him? (He actually uses the Rand quote I gave below).

You say:

As an instance of the other side, my printing and further sales of a book you wrote does not deprive you of the freedom to do so yourself.

Again, MichaelIM addresses this vis a vis Objectivism.

But I will also say, you don't understand IP. If you buy a book or ebook you have the right to do anything with it you please, other that the process that brought it into existence: that is from the time the author lifted his pen, wrote, made a contract with the publisher, then, final act, the publisher publishes. That is the process covered by the copyright: when you bought the book you did not by the copyright, that property belongs to a contractual relationship between the author and publisher.

Now here's the thing: every copy made of the electronic file, is the end part of the process of publishing the book. In this instance, copying is publishing. You did not buy the right do publish the book, ergo, copying files is publishing is theft.

That resolves every issue for me.

IP is property. Copying is theft.

To give the two quotations MichaelIM does:

"Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort." [Capitalism The Unknown Ideal, p.122]

"Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object." [The Virtue of Selfishness, p.94]

http://blog.mises.org/archives...

(Thanks for the education . I mean it.)

When I studied out there, computers were a novelty. Being a student of Aerospace Engineering, I hardly had any exposure to or a need to understand technology. Since graduating, I have done preious little related to technology. Hope that explains.

You said

" That is ‘what you see’ as the contradiction that made you re-examine your premises, yes? "

To begin with, yes. What made me change my stand was not that "conflict" (which I soon realised was a mirage) but a very fundamental problem involved in the definition of the concept "property" and what can or cannot be legitimate "property". I have presented precisely that in the argument I initially presented on this thread.

Rand said (and very rightly so) that "property" denotes the relationship of man to objects (and ideas). I start by making a slight modification, i.e., droppping the paranthesis and including ideas in the category "objects".

Then I asked myself another question - What is the nature of the concept "property"? The only answer I could get is that it is a moral concept. At a very basic level, I concluded that "property" denotes morally sound possession.

Understood this way, "property" is fundamentally an "ought". For instance, you could say 'That car "ought" to be in my possession'. Firstly, this "ought" is relevant ONLY because the same car could be in someone else's possession. That it "ought" to be in yours implies that your moral case for having it in your possession is the strongest and that someone else having possession makes it impossible for you to act, i.e., deprives you of the freedom to act to apply the car in the service of your life. As an instance of the other side, my printing and further sales of a book you wrote does not deprive you of the freedom to do so yourself. A right being a moral concept defining and sanctioning man's freedom of action in a social context, there is no basis to say that ideas and patterns need to be treated as "property".

This principle that someone else being in possession of an object renders it impossible for you to act to apply it in the service of your life is relevant only to physical property and not to ideas and patterns. Hence, the "right to exclude" is essential for physical goods that one obtains possession of while it is not essential for ideas and patterns. A right being a recognition of a condition of existence essential for the survival of man qua man, the non-necessity of exclusion for freedom of action to exist makes exclusion of others from ideas and patterns a non-essential condition. Hence, they cannot be treated as "property" and exclusion cannot be enforced under the umbrella of "right to property".

If you find anything wrong in this, please do point it out. I will be happy to be corrected.

"My technological challengedness should be clear in my inability to provide a link to that"

Bala, I just looked at your profile. How is it that a graduate from the Indian Institute of Technology manages to make this statement?

I just know I’m going to regret this given I’ve said I would not deal with you Bala, but you do seem to be a different case to Kinsella, and I want to get to the bottom of how you have been able to rationalise yourself away from a moral position to what is theft, because IP is legitimate, and file sharing is theft. Also, in that you really can’t even create a link, you do seem to be a Luddite who probably couldn’t figure out a file share program: although that makes absolutely no difference because you sanction the illegal activities of such sites, therefore taking you at your word, which I am entitled to do - take a man at his word - if you could figure out file sharing you would feel no moral compulsion not to do so.

The other reason I am wanting to still tackle this, at least a little further, is because Kinsella put up your ‘Recant’ article on Mises.org to demonstrate that your Damascus moment reinforces his own thieving, anarchist position (despite the fact you still have differences with him), thus making you some type of poster boy for file sharers.

Anyway.

From your post below, and your ‘Recant’ article on Mises, which I don’t have the wherewithal (time or energy) to wade through, I take your one crucial sticking point to be, from ‘Recant’:

To cut a long thing short, the moment I realised that there is a conflict between rights to intellectual property and rights to physical property.

That is ‘what you see’ as the contradiction that made you re-examine your premises, yes?

What I want from you next is on a single post give nothing other than a single example of what you mean - no regurgitation please of that huge ‘Recant’ article, I don’t have time for that.

From ‘Recant’ forget the ‘pattern’ issue, for myself I’ve dealt with that, Rand’s writings, reason, satisfy me well. Also from ‘Recant’ forget the difficulties of policing IP issue, that is irrelevant to the position that IP is legitimate (policing is after the event, and is no different to the complexities of policing against theft of all types).

Just one single real world example of a conflict between rights to intellectual property and rights to physical property.

[Note: to create a link here in SOLO all you need do is ‘copy and paste’ the url address, and SOLO makes that clickable when you post: For example, the url to your ‘Recant’ article.

http://blog.mises.org/archives... ]

Update: I suspect you are getting the 'physical object' and the right of the buyer/owner to do what they want with it, mixed up with the process that creates it, the manufacture which is where the IP is.

"Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object." [The Virtue of Selfishness]

You said

" What exactly do you mean here - that you don't see how Objectivist principles can derive 'created novel arrangements' as property, yet that you disagree with Kinsella (and most anti-IPers) in thinking that IP would not infringe on physical property rights? "

If (and that's a big "If") IP is legitimate, the "conflict" between IP and physical property rights is a mirage because there can be no real conflict between legitimate rights. Just as one person's Liberty is limited by another person's Rights to Life, Liberty and Property (as I see it, through the NIF principle), so would the physical property rights of one person be limited (legitimately) by another person's rights to his IP. So, I do not see any relevance of the so-called conflict in dismissing the validity of IP.

Therefore, it is important to establish/demolish the legitimacy of IP without reference to any rights other than the "Right to Life" (and its logical corollary, the NIF principle).

My arguments are in 2 parts. One is what Stephan published as "An Objectivist Recants on IP". The other is my comment on this thread - Submitted by Bala on Sun, 2010-01-17 08:51 (viewed on the last page of this comment thread - My technological challengedness should be clear in my inability to provide a link to that )

I understand that no one at mises.org has been and probably will ever be able to tell me if I am right/wrong or why. Only Objectivists will be able to do that, but for that, they need to grapple with what I have said. So far, no one has. I hope someone (maybe you, since you currently believe IP is legitimate) would.

And it is not "yet" but "and" in the segment I have copied above. I do indeed disagree with most of the people on mises.org who post against IP. I believe their reasons for opposing IP are flawed.

Being a pacifist is a moot point. In Kinsellaland there is no government so one's nation cannot go to war. That does not mean there is no war, however. Anarchy means constant tribal/gang warfare.

Watch out for "aggression". Kinsella uses it as a pivot point. He can turn on a dime when he deploys it. On the one hand he will insist 'of course that means initiation of force therefore I am against it, as all Objectivists should." However just as easily he makes an absolute construction that government is by definition built on "aggression". He does that to slide under the big elephant in the living room: there is such a thing as government devoid of initiation of force, even if not extent in the world today.

By the way i have never -- never -- seen Kinsella or Bala use the term "government." Isn't that interesting? If I am wrong and shown a case, I'll amend that statement.

I have made it a rule to always call him on the exact usage at the exact moment he uses the word "aggression", so you can see if he is using it as a pointed sword to skewer government, or a shield so he can 'claim' to be """a libertarian""" meaning something remotely akin to respecting individualism and property and a champion of non-agression.

Does that sound familiar? The anarchists are convinced they are morally right to condemn the protection of IP by legitimate government. They think they have arrived at this through some sort of actually rational argument. So.....no matter what the consequences, no matter what the context...we are obliged to condemn and obliterate government and with it as a trivial byproduct the protection of intellectual property. It is our moral duty to do so.

John, I think you're spot on with this paragraph.

Looking at what Kinsella is writing I believe on a fundamental level he doesn't understand the difference between a libertarian society and an anarchist one.

One of his more telling statements in the post I linked below on Mises.org was:

I am a libertarian. I oppose aggression consistently, which is why I oppose the state, which is the agency of institutionalized aggression. I can't fathom why an Objectivist would favor aggression.

I agree modern democracies have indeed become the 'agency of institutionalized aggression', but in the way he phrases this, and his anti-IP argument, he would seem to see no role for the state whatsoever, anarchy in other words. I wonder what he does think will happen once he has done away with 'everything'?

[Oh, also possible to see from this statement that like most anarchists I've ever come across, perhaps all, he is probably a pacifist? I can certainly surmise, now, why Linz refers to mises.org as Saddamite But that's another thread entirely.]

I am beginning to get interested in some deeper philosophical exploration of this syndrome.

Maybe it is RadicalCI (radical categorical imperative).

They might be infected.

Most Objectivists have heard the example of Kant being challenged about lying as a universal immoral act. I'm pretty sure the person who challenged him was confident Kant would have to say it was moral to lie to a certain known murderer about the whereabouts of his intended victim. Imagine the surprise when the response came back, (paraphrasing) 'No, it is still immoral to lie to a murderer even if you know with absolute certainty he will use the information to find the person and kill him. If he asks you 'which way did he run' you are morally obliged by the Categorical Imperative to tell him the truth. It is your moral duty.'

Does that sound familiar? The anarchists are convinced they are morally right to condemn the protection of IP by legitimate government. They think they have arrived at this through some sort of actually rational argument. So.....no matter what the consequences, no matter what the context...we are obliged to condemn and obliterate government and with it as a trivial byproduct the protection of intellectual property. It is our moral duty to do so.

You know, that is the opposite of "Morality ends at the point of a gun."
[sidebar: I always believe Rand was mocking Mao with that formulation, as well as making a huge point]
Kant's version would be: "Morality will get you killed by a gun."

Note: in refreshing my memory on this famous challenge I drilled down and discovered that Kant's challenger has bona fide good-guy credentials (that is if you champion limited proper government)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
this guy is VERY interesting.

Bala-
Good to see you still on here. Despite enjoying the topics, I was frustrated with this thread last night - too little time, burnt out after the Linz matter, lost a half-written response to Peter and don't know if he's still around, and feeling pissed off enough about the whole rampant charges of criminality deal to the point of just recommending everyone call anyone they feel like a thieving, murdering, bestia-pedo-necrophile. I figured I might even feed the 'action' troll and then bow out of the thread .

But I'm trying a real response.. Thanks for the explanation on Kinsella (did someone say he joined up and was on here?). A question on that below.

On the derivation of IP, I can't completely understand and relate since the connection between the creation of one's mind and property seems the same as with tangible property. There's absolutely complexities in dealing with non-rival goods that would affect how property rights would be recognized and enforced, but fundamental justification for recognizing property wouldn't differ. I mentioned homesteading and initial property creation before; it's true the concept isn't that often involved in tangible property simply because most land and raw resources have long been homesteaded and trade is far more relevant. However, the idea is important, as is the parallel between initial tangible property ownership and initial 'creation of a novel arrangement' (there may be a better concise term, but I think this captures something important beyond just 'pattern'), and I think very relevant in such products of the mind precisely because there we deal with new creation. When I had objections to deriving IP as warranting legal status, I found it was really based on different grounds (the apparent conflict between such property and others' tangible property rights, which I explained I moved past thanks to Perkins and some related discussions) than yours now, so am not sure if we're talking near the key point of disagreement. I think another no-IPer mentioned you having an inductive chain you were creating and to look at it; was that somewhere back in the posts on this thread, or elsewhere?

"I just wanted to make the point that Stephan Kinsella's role in my changing my position on IP was limited to repeated insistence on the dependence of implementation of an IP regime on the State and on the point that IP infringes on physical property rights. Interestingly, I disagreed (and continue to disagree) with him on this."

What exactly do you mean here - that you don't see how Objectivist principles can derive 'created novel arrangements' as property, yet that you disagree with Kinsella (and most anti-IPers) in thinking that IP would not infringe on physical property rights? That seems a very unusual combination and I don't see how you'd hold it, but I may not understand where you're really still not in agreement with Kinsella.

Aaron

You said

" particularly for Bala - coming from an Oist background and who's recognized IP til recent influence from Kinsella "

I just wanted to make the point that Stephan Kinsella's role in my changing my position on IP was limited to repeated insistence on the dependence of implementation of an IP regime on the State and on the point that IP infringes on physical property rights. Interestingly, I disagreed (and continue to disagree) with him on this. In fact, I have repeatedly told him that his argument is flawed as it presupposes that which he wishes to prove - that only material objects can be property - to prove that IP is invalid.

That said, my arriving to the conclusion I have stated out here came not out of anything Stephan said but out of an attempt to start from scratch and try to prove that IP is indeed legitimate. Unfortunately, I could not. The term "right to the product of one's mind" did not lead me to the conclusion that ideas and patterns are legitimate "property", especially when I started with the Objectivist definition of "rights" and Rand's own understanding of the concept "property" as a relationship between man and the objects in his environment.

My reason for coming here was primarily to see if Objectivists could tell my why I am wrong because no one at mises.org could tell me that. I would be happy to be proven wrong because I have no agenda and only wish to preserve my sanity, but for that someone has to tell me why I am wrong and why the "right to the product of one's mind" leads to the legitimacy of IP.

And finally, I am extremely "technologically challenged" and have not committed any of the acts of "stealing" that I have been accused of.

Stealing Music? He's linking to a site that plays recordings of these performances. As far as I know, you-tube does not knowingly allow content to be posted to its servers against the wishes of the owners of the material.

YouTube does not play recordings of classical performances. You do. When you click on a link to a YouTube video, you download a copy of the video to your computer. Your computer plays the downloaded copy, at your instigation.

And to say, "As far as I know, you-tube [sic] does not knowingly allow content to be posted to its servers against the wishes of the owners of the material," is a simple case of what Objectivists call evasion.

According to Wikipedia,

At the time of uploading a video, YouTube users are always shown a screen with the following message:

Do not upload any TV shows, music videos, music concerts or commercials without permission unless they consist entirely of content you created yourself. The Copyright Tips page and the Community Guidelines can help you determine whether your video infringes someone else's copyright.

Despite this advice, there are still many unauthorized clips from television shows, films and music videos on YouTube. YouTube does not view videos before they are posted online, and it is left to copyright holders to issue a takedown notice under the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Organizations including Viacom, Mediaset and the English Premier League have filed lawsuits against YouTube, claiming that it has done too little to prevent the uploading of copyrighted material. Viacom, demanding US$1 billion in damages, said that it had found more than 150,000 unauthorized clips of its material on YouTube that had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times". YouTube responded by stating that it "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works".

"Civility in the face of evil is no virtue; rage in the face of nihilism is no vice."

—Some Old Fart

BTW, Reisman hates all the anarcho-Saddamite stuff on Mises.org. I know 'cos he told me.

Aaron (and I love seeing you back by the way) you've hit on something crucial:

and particularly for Bala - coming from an Oist background and who's recognized IP til recent influence from Kinsella.

That is precisely why men like Kinsella are evil. The freedom movement is worse off with his ilk.

On one of the Mises.org threads I saw some computerhead moron (I'm going to get that into common parlance) proclaiming Bala as being, quote, a brave Objectivist hero.

Whereas he is anything but: he is Bala the Burglar.

That's why I will remain uncivil, because these men are the opposite of civil in their intent, and in the damage they do in the minds of men.

And from my response:

Someone arguing against IP is not sufficient evidence that they are doing unauthorized copying themselves. For years I actually held the view that there wasn't a philosophically valid way to justify IP laws - but I still recognized the value of human creation and wanted there to be a way to reward fruits of human endeavor. The result was that I'd have argued against IP laws. Yet I chose to pay for copyrighted works I wanted because I personally wanted to reward and encourage the creator, and advocated social pressures (like are done with 'tipping') for others to do so even though I didn't see how to justify IP as a legal matter. Maybe you think that combination is a bit bizarre and that the average Rockwell-ian anti-IPer is just a freeloading filesharer instead - and maybe many are. But especially because of my past views I don't think that's a valid conclusion to jump to for a given anti-IPer in general, and particularly for Bala - coming from an Oist background and who's recognized IP til recent influence from Kinsella.

As I said in the previous post, if the anti-IPers boasted of unauthorized filesharing it would change things. However, I think I'm up to date on the posts and haven't seen such claims, and Robert was asking a few posts back since he apparently didn't see such evidence either.

Aaron

By the way, as Linz as brought up the theft issue again, the opening of my reply to Kinsella on the link below sums up, again (and further) why I continue to use the term, that is:

[Kinsella] Thanks for the civility.That helps improve discourse and the atmosphere. (He was being facetious here).

Would you be civil with someone burglarising your house, or sanctioning the burglar to do so and giving them the excuse?

[The trouble is with computerheads, this is some sort of insane academic exercise with no consequences.]

Well, Kinsella is on board now.

I'll be interested to see if he answers my question, the final part of this post in reply to Kinsella's retort to me:

http://blog.mises.org/archives...

I take that question to be the litmus test on this issue.

In my private discussion with Aaron, I said this, among other things. I thought it might be useful to post it publicly:

Don’t agree with your dividing line. It’s the fallacy of moral equivalence. It assumes there’s no objective truth in any of this. Fact is, the anti-IP types *do* steal, at least from a legal standpoint, by their own proud admission. It’s not at all controversial to call them thieves. I do *not* steal, and I object to being called a thief. I don’t mind being told my views on IP lead me to steal inadvertently, but that’s different from “Go steal some more classical music,” as you’ve acknowledged.

So accusations of criminality cannot be the dividing line. They may be true!

The *existing* dividing line is abuse that is *gratuitous*—that is, there’s no clear and present reason for it. Of course, if and when push comes to shove, it’s over to me to decide whether there’s clear and present reason for it. This seems eminently reasonable to me.

I would add to this that, re "thieves," I was under the impression the anti-IP types here had proudly boasted of acting on their views. Was I mistaken? I can't be bothered trawling back and reading all that filth again. I freely confess my perceptions might have been clouded by nausea.



Now, about the accusation of "thieves."

1) It is not an accusation that Bala or Kinsella are concretely stealing in fact. It is not a contention that i have evidence of them in specific acts. So I thank "whoever" for dropping that mindset, anyone who has constructed my accusation as such and had my judgements in mind.

2) the charge of "thief" is not withdrawn, however. The judgement I am making is worse than that of 1) above. They endlessly, relentlessly and rudely advocate for outright anarchy with a chaser of oh-by-the-way-of-course-IP-unprotected. I have pointed out several times that the issue of "anti-IP" is absolutely trivial, even absurd given a backdrop of abolition of government "on principle." So they are professors of thievery, but far far more important: they are champions of the chaos, bedlam, subsistence and gang warfare of anarchy.

John Donohue

As someone who has gone around twice with Kinsella on his blog and at least twice with Bala on three blogs, who despises their hideous position to the root and who has called them both thieves more than once...

I would like to go on record that it is THEM specifically, not necessarily anyone else at von Mises Institute to whom all my judgements are directed. I have had in the past productive interactions with some elements there and have gotten knowledge, positions, arguments and satisfaction there. Particularly, I consider Mr. Reisman a hero.

John Donohue

Mark, Robert-

If one person represents Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI, mises.org) more than others, it would be Lew Rockwell, not Kinsella or Tucker. I don't believe I've seen anything directly by Rockwell pro- or anti-IP, and in general he's been Rothbardian, so I would have guessed he was pro- as Rothbard. However, given the amount of voice that Kinsella and Tucker are given and the fact that I've not seen a single apparent pro-IP article in two years of reading lewrockwell.com or mises.org headlines, I think it's a safe conclusion that Rockwell really is anti-IP and mises.org reflects it with his sanction. I still enjoy LvMI and think overall they are a force for good with their publications and articles against economic ignorance, bailouts, etc. However, the IP stance is a black mark, as is the (fortunately very rare at LvMI, not rare on lewrockwell.com) advocacy of Christianity as a force of reason.

Aaron

We agree, Kinsella is a looter. We agree that those who agree with him are looters.

But does that mean that we should consign everybody in that organisation as looters? I speak is someone who has just started Reisman's Capitalism.

The original text of my response to Linz and Robert is below, unedited from the original post that Linz rejected from moderation. Linz and I have had largely civil private correspondence, though, and above the line are updates based on that.

1) Linz has charged into a lot of threads wielding insults before - and I've considered him a nuisance and told him to 'shoo' or even 'piss off' plenty of times before. That's old hat to both of us, and I think I fairly accurately described the pattern - I've voiced that he's being a pest, but of course he doesn't shoo . I don't care more than I do about his going 'Bad Guys' and 'Anarchosaddamites' only because this is the kind of forum where we can also tell him to piss off. 'Shoo' isn't the key issue, which is:

2) I explained before and below my views on IP itself and copyright rightfully pertaining to items indefinitely older than current copyright law recognizes. Linz' history of thick skin and widely known attachment to classical music made him an easy target when I wanted to illustrate the point about crying 'thief' to Mark and company who were using the label without evidence on Bala. Obviously that didn't go well - with Linz or Robert, or really even to make my point. While I can't apologize for my views on IP and no-longer-legally-protected material, I do recognize that the tactic of actually crying 'thief!' to point out the idiocy of crying 'thief!' was not a good one. I regret not choosing some other approach, and would do something differently than drafting Linz into my example.

3) Linz also took issue with my characterization of his 'umbrage taking' below, stating that the key is that the umbrage wasn't gratuitous and premature. I'll agree there. I see a line between arguing philosophically about points that would mean someone is a thief by your ethics - and directly calling it out. I'd considered Linz' actions (premature) umbrage-taking only because he seemed to tolerate or even countenance such accusations of criminality without hard evidence on the forum, and took offense for himself but was not concerned with the general behavior. When it comes down to it, though, I agree it makes sense to take offense at being called a thief for any reason. Linz - or Bala too - had no need to respond to such comments with any argument more than 'fuck off!'. I just hope that the rebuke/moderation line will be something more universal, a general dividing line in harsh accusations.

Linz indicated that when this posts, I'm unmoderated. I've a few posts I want to post in the short term, but won't have time and energy to try to catch up even on IP topics I love.

Aaron

------

Linz-
You are I have had many disagreements on specific ideas and undoubtedly clash in personality. However, despite there being many things I don't care for about you, one thing I have always respected is that you have thick skin, you can dish it out *and* take it. It's for that reason that you were the appropriate person to make to point about the absurdity of getting into accusations when in an argument where views on what IP is differ. If you are itching for some excuse to moderate or ban me, obviously that's your business as this site is your domain. But I thought I explained my view of IP and the point of my statement well, and in any case I'm mostly disappointed you've gone to umbrage-taking now.

Robert-
"So your accusing Linz of stealing is as arbitrary as Mark's accusing Bala of stealing."

Both are examples of the absurdity of attempting to universalize one's own views IP and throw insults based upon it in a discussion about what 'property' even is.

"Seeing as you have made the accusation, I assume that you have evidence that the owners of those performances"

I suspect the composers are long dead, and it would take some serious effort to track down their rightful heirs. But you are confusing a current *legal* issue of copyright, i.e. it's currently only enforced 75 years+some renewals (or 50 years after death), with a normative *moral* issue of copyright, i.e. that the current limit is arbitrary.

I agree that if Bala or someone else was filesharing the fruits of someone else's mental labor without their permission (though we do not have evidence that he is doing so) that that would be a form of theft. However, where I differ is not considering a flip of the calendar suddenly making it OK to have a free-for-all to copy the fruits of their mental labor without permission.

"As to your assertion that copy-right should extend to infinity regardless of what the then copy-right laws/agreement voluntarily entered into by the owner and publisher says -- that's complete and utter fucking bullshit."

Bald, unsupported assertion. Should my property rights to my car or house only be protected for an arbitrary time limit?

"If you want an eternal copyright, go and lobby Congress and put your case before the Supreme Court."

I've got plenty of other priorities, but yes, I'd support it. However, again you are getting sidetracked on legal concerns in what is a moral argument.

It's quite clear that there's a double-standard here about who can accuse others of violating intellectual property rights. Regardless, I see my comment was poorly taken or misunderstood. I can't honestly apologize for it (funny to think of the idea of anyone else here apologizing for their accusations) since I do view unauthorized copying after some government mandated time limit expires as also still a form of theft - albeit one that isn't normally a priority to me or that I'd truly get on a moral high-horse about (instead of just referencing to illustrate a point). Perhaps I could have explained better or used a smiley or something, but anyway, I've explained plenty now. If you want to latch onto a trigger for your own moral indignation, that's your business, but I'm done re-explaining this and would prefer to talk about many other interesting aspects of IP that are going by. If I'm unmoderated, I'll be back.

Aaron

@Mark Hubbard,

It's sad really.

Stephen Kinsella: "How should the IP system be reformed? For those with a principled, libertarian view of property rights, it is obvious that patent and copyright laws are unjust and should be completely abolished."

Coward. He once again wishes to hide that he is a full blown anarchist.

Anyone so proposing and coming from a purported philosophical point of view has also incumbent upon himself the obligation to describe the practical outcome of such a proposal.

So Stephen, how will that look in the current United States?
How will that look if you abolish government?

I can tell you how: the end of capitalism. No corporation can exist without secure protection of its property by proper government.

Thief, burglar, etc ... they all do apply. I pass judgment on thee.

Mark Hubbard,

Someone says they can demonstrate a fundamental flaw in your position. You refuse to engage them.
Someone says they can demonstrate that your position leads to contradictory or absurd conclusions. You refuse to engage them.

Basically, you believe what you believe and anyone who can demonstrate potential flaws in your beliefs can be damned.

Fair enough. But you have no moral standing whatsoever to label anyone who disagrees with you as a "thief", "burglar", etc.
When you admit that you do not know the full story and have no wish to explore it, you forfeit the right to pass judgement on those who disagree.

Jay, (and Bala), I’m not interested from this point.

Linz on this site has often spoken to the existence of the airhead, via this debate I have learned of something far more sinister since it has the ability to ‘know better’, and that is the computerhead. A computerhead could rationalise the theft of property from his own grandmother. And even lawyers apparently aren't immune.

I know all I need to know from the IP debate. In IP the important word is property. And property it surely is. See my posts below. My novel, a McEwan novel, whatever, is a unique creation, over which I demand to have a monopoly on its ownership and use as I do with my car, my house, my property. It’s as simple as that, arguing over how many file sharers could be toasted on a single ember is not going to change it. I’m happy to have learned that Ayn Rand agrees with that reasoned position – but of course she would have - (and as I said at the start of this thread, if Objectivism held with the theft of property I would have to have reassessed my own position toward it).

Having satisfied myself, you’ll just have to get along without me, unless something else of interest happens on this thread, such as a debate on how IP should be handled, a minarchist state, private sector, etc. And yes, I know policing IP is fraught with ‘danger’ and complexity, but so is protecting against the theft of all property, and that for me is not the argument here: here it is just about establishing the only reasoned position that we are talking about property, and thus theft of same.

Anyway, to fill in your time, I’m sure you’ve already seen Kinsella’s latest justification of theft: go have a wet computer-head fantasy over that. I will continue to hold the computer-heads in contempt, as ignoble and unconscionable.

Note for Robert

From Kinsella’s latest attack on property rights, there’s nothing more direct than this:

http://mises.org/daily/4018

Quote:

How should the IP system be reformed? For those with a principled, libertarian view of property rights, it is obvious that patent and copyright laws are unjust and should be completely abolished.

The fact he would use ‘Libertarian’ to promote this, were I to think this Liberation, would make me reassess my position before that. But of course it’s not a Libertarian view, it’s a Looter’s view.

I shall certainly be reassessing my use of Mises.org. (Perhaps it’s a matter of reading the economics threads, but then how to you ignore the larceny happening on the numerous anti-IP threads, which over the last few days are proportionately way over-weighted compared to the economic analysis. But that’s for me to work out.

With this, I’m done arguing with both of you. I’d rather put the time into my work that pays, and then my second novel. (Although really, my novel, in a computerhead world of looters, why would I bother?)

I just edited it. I hope that fixed your problem.

Jay or webmaster,

Please edit node 83609 so I don't have to horizontal scroll to read the messages.

You should use <hr> instead of a bunch of dashes.

well then, we agree, but only theoretically, on this isolated speculative discussion. Going by the definition of "state" you are floating, we both hate it.

This has nothing to do with Objectivism, however.

Also, what is you definition of "government?"

The reason for using this definition is not purely because I'm parrotting someone else. Rather again, by using falsifiability. This means that other definitions I heard are either demonstrably wrong, or are too vague and do not allow me to distinguish whether certain entities are states or not.

Indeed, I insist on the word "initiation". This is a crucial part. The one who came up with the definition was aware that force is in some cases not initiated, but used in defence or retribution. And again indeed, I consider such an organisation very unethical. While it isn't the primary reason why I switched from minarchism to anarcho-capitalism, it is one of the reasons keeping me there.

In the eyes of most people, they view a state as something that provides them services. For example, the police, military and judicial system. However, it is also true that it denies entry for other producers supplying these services, or at least, in some more benevolent cases, puts up restrictions under which they can provide their services to customers. Also, some of the services are provided under compulsion and citizens are prohibited from opting out. Some of the services have mandatory financing, for example by taxes. Those that are unwilling to cooperate are threatened and thrown in prison. If these activities (restriction of competition, mandatory consumption, mandatory financing, imprisonment) were performed by a private person, we would call them assault, coercion, theft and kidnapping.

All these activities constitute an initiation of force. However, the states claim that they and only they, are performing them legitimately. This is, in my opinion, sufficient to conclude that the aforementioned definition applies to current states.

Once you come to the conclusion that a state cannot restrict competition, deny opt-out, enforce financing and imprison those who disagree with it, you are an anarchist. Whatever remained of an organisation after it abandoned these practises, even if it continued to call itself state, would not, according to the definition above, be state.

Peter Surda,

No, everything is crystal clear. You get your definitions as hand-me-downs and stick them on somehow. Objectivists form their concepts from reality through facts and logic.

Holding the definition of something as axiomatic and then going off on a binge of deduction leads to nowhere except perhaps the head of a pin. Miss Rand exposed this dead end as "rationalism."

I once got to this point in a conversation with an analytic philosopher who also rejected induction. When I asked him "how do you get the identification and validity of your existents he said "They are divinely given." He got his hand-me-downs from God! This guy was a high-profile professor at an important university.

I have little hope for this conversation, but will attempt one more iteration .

Taking your axiomatic definition of 'state' I must first challenge this:

"State is a territorial monopoly on the initiation of force."

Specifically, I refer to the word "initiation". Is it clear that you intend that word? I can tell you right this second that [leaving aside the fact I do not stipulate handed-down definitions] if in some possible world this were the definition of "state" I would hate it more than you and fight for the right to slam it to the ground and grind it s guts into the mud.

I assume you hate it too.

Do we agree then?

Mark Hubbard,
Since you ignored my post on Mises.org, I feel compelled to post it here.
This is from the "Copyright and Racism" thread...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hubbard,

You couldn't answer the hardest question of all:
Where is the error in Bala's inductive chain of reasoning that demonstrates that intangible entities should not be considered a form of property?

You ignore the critical point and go off on wishy washy utilitarian arguments for IP. You ignore pure logic and instead wish to engage in mud-slinging and slander.

You want to have a wishy-washy debate? Ok let's have one!

Here is an argument I made months ago (with a few changes) that puts severe doubts on your "copying is theft" position:

You are making the assumption that "ideas" are a form of property. One cannot "steal" something which cannot be owned. It is therefore crucial to clarify the definition of "idea" before one can decide whether or not it can be classified as property.

Let's look at a common definition and work from there. Idea:
- any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity.

Given the above definition, how can one claim ownership of an idea? Let's say that person A forms an idea. That idea is a conception that has formed in the mind of person A. The moment that idea is communicated to person B, the idea is then a conception in person B's mind. If you declare that the idea is the property of person A, then you are also declaring that a conception in the mind of person B belongs to person A.

But person B owns his own mind. Person A does not own it. To claim ownership over certain workings of person B's mind is to claim partial ownership over person B's mind. You have therefore assigned the material property rights of person B's mind to two different individuals.

If you don't see the problems with this, maybe an example will help. Let's say I bought and just finished reading a Harry Potter book.
1. Can I photocopy the book and give it to someone else?
2. Can I hand-write the entire book and give it to someone else?
4. Can I recite the book on audiotape and give it to someone else?
5. Can I translate the book into Italian and give it to someone else?
6. Can I translate the book into Ancient Hebrew and give it to someone else?
7. Can I translate the book into a made-up language and give it to someone else?
8. Can I copy the first 4 chapters and give them to someone else?
9. Can I copy one chapter and give it to someone else?
10. Can I copy a single passage and give it to someone else?
11. Can I copy a single paragraph and give it to someone else?
12. Can I copy an individual sentence and give it to someone else?
13. Can I compile every second word into a book and give it to someone else?
14. Can I copy the remaining words into a second book and give it to someone else?
15. Can I create 5 small books each containing every fifth word and give them to someone else?
16. Can I create 76944 separate books, each only one word long, and each being a consecutive word from the original Harry Potter book, and give them to someone else?
17. Can I create an extensive, paragraph-by-paragraph, summary of the book and give it to someone else?
18. Can I create a passage-by-passage summary of the book and give it to someone else?
19. Can I create a chapter-by-chapter summary of the book and give it to someone else?
20. Can I create an eight-page summary of the book and give it to someone else? 21. Four-page summary? 22. Two-page? 23. One-page? 24. Half-page? 25. Two-sentence? 26. One-sentence? 27. Four-word? 28. Two-word? 29. One-word?
30. Can I tell a friend what happens in the book during lunch?
31. Can I paint a picture of Harry Potter based on the descriptions of him in the book?
32. Can I paint an abstract picture of Harry Potter loosely based on descriptions of him in the book?
33. Can I draw a stick-figure of Harry Potter?
34. Can I create a piece of music capturing the emotional feel of the book?
35. Am I even allowed to ever communicate the words, "Harry Potter"?

If you take idea-ownership its logical extreme, the answer to all these questions is no. I need J.K. Rowling's express permission before "stealing" her ideas and expressing them to someone else in any way shape or form. She owns the idea, whoever's mind it should be in. Therefore all actions I partake in which require use of this idea can only be performed with her permission. If the story inspires me to write my own book, develop a new invention, write a new piece of music, develop a new dance routine or write an new piece of program code then doesn't J.K. Rowling have partial ownership over all these new things I developed? I used her idea without permission to develop something. She has partial ownership of my mind. I am not allowed to use my mind in any way which uses her idea.

Maybe you draw the line somewhere. But where? How do you decide where that line is? To what extent does an individual own an idea? What actions can they prevent others from performing? Does J.K. Rowling only have a partial-partial ownership of my mind rather than a partial ownership of my mind?

This goes even further. Is it justified to say that J.K. Rowling owns the idea of the Harry Potter books in the first place? We don't know what ideas she "stole" to inspire her to write her novels. It's also very clear that she must of based her novels on previous ideas. She certainly didn't invent the idea of wizards, magic, goblins, wands, flying-brooms, etc. And she didn't write the book in a made-up language using made-up symbols and a made-up system of grammar. It's clear that J.K. Rowling has used a plethora of previous ideas in the creation of her novels.

Every idea is simply an extension of previous ideas. By assigning ownership of ideas to individuals, you are placing a road-block on the natural evolution of ideas. This clearly must result in the deterioration of the rate at which new ideas will be generated. If the ideas of "wizards", "magic" and "flying brooms" had previous owners assigned to them, then the Harry Potter books may never have been written.

It seems impossible to justify classifying "ideas" as a form of property. To do so is to promote partial slavery. The holder of a copyright can prevent me from thinking and doing anything related to their idea. Not only do they have a partial ownership of me, but also a partial ownership of all my physical property, seeing as I cannot use it in anyway that infringes on "their" idea.

Mark Hubbard, it should be obvious from the above line of reasoning that this issue is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. You need to specifically define what a "copy" is before you can rightfully proclaim that "copying is theft". But how exactly can we possibly tell what is and is not a "copy"? The boundaries are subjective. How do we define exactly what "idea" is owned by an individual? Ideas are also subjective. Are you an Objectivist or a subjectivist?

*Edit: I lowered the number of "------" and fixed a typo.

The definition of state is not mine. I got it from Hoppe, who probably got it from Rothbard. I think you misunderstand the approach. It is not an inductive definition, rather an axiomatic one. It allows one to determine whether an entity is a state, rather than necessarily meaning what current entities called "state" are.

The juxtaposition with stateless society is that in such a society, the territorial monopoly on the initiation of force does not exist. The services that are nowadays typically associated with state do not have a territorial monopoly either and, if they are offered, the are provided by private entities through the market.

If anything is still unclear to you please elaborate.

Jeff Tucker and Kinsella are in relation to their views on property rights, the list of adjunct scholars and staff runs to maybe 100 folks -- one of whom is Prof. George Reisman.

I'm still not ready to consign Mises.org to the anarchist-fruitcake bin, but I'll keep a wary eye out.

Robert asked:

Kinsella = Mises.org

Sorry Mark, that one holds about as much water and for the same reason as concluding that the owners of the old SOLO website were in philosophical lock-step with MSK.

Firstly, though, like you I've used Mises a lot for their economic material; their Bailout Reader was a brilliant resource, indeed, I even sent a link round to my entire client base to use that as a resource, and that the Austrians, 'these guys' were good guys. All the while I've also seen the IP threads/header posts, because the 'IP' is distinctive, but because I've been there for economics in the main I have skipped them.

But I have a literary bent, indeed outside a busy schedule last year I wrote a 88,500 word novel. Now don't get excited I've fallen out of love with it, it might not be too good - it was my first full novel - and I've sent it off to Random House for confirmation of the fact, but in the meantime have reconciled myself to learning from my mistakes (overt Libertarianism in the body of a novel, mentioning Ayn Rand in the body of a novel, even mentioning Linz twice, so that is, 'preaching', a big no no) and writing a better second novel. That, and my first degree was in Arts, English literature, so I've always had an interest in copyright issues (currently tracking the Google affair). So anyway, I thought I better look at those article on Mises, and needless to say I got a nasty shock.

(I reckon this will be a good one to cross post).

Thus, the connection. The two main contributors to the anti-IP program seem to be Kinsella and Jeffrey Tucker.

Jeffrey Tucker's last post, to anti-IP thread is here, a response to a post of my own:

http://blog.mises.org/archives...

Incidentally, there was a lovely retort here from Silas Barta: http://blog.mises.org/archives...

Then my further questioning here: http://blog.mises.org/archives...

He's not replied to that one yet. His reply to the second half of it is what I will find telling or not as to their actual non-IP stand point.

But who is Jeffrey Tucker? If you click on the staff page, then scroll down to the bottom you'll see he is Mises.org's 'Editorial Vice President' - assumedly therefore the controller of what is going out, period.

http://mises.org/faculty.aspx

Then if you look at the top of the faculty page you will see that Kinsella is in the, I assume, upper echelon, listed as a 'Senior Scholar' on the faculty.

I conclude from this, and that there are no pro-IP articles, that the anti-IP stance is the 'official line'?

I said on one of my posts they should have called the site Rothbard, he was the anarchist, not von Mises.