About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10Page 0Forward one pageLast Page


Post 200

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 11:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Stephan wrote,
[T]o me scarcity is simply an economic concept--it basically means rivalrous. An idea is non-rivalrous (non-scarce) because my use of it does not deprive you of your use of it; it is not exhausted. A scarce resource, by contrast, by its nature as scarce good, can't be used simultaneously by multiple people; my use excludes yours. If I take your banana from you, you no longer have it. If my taking your banana did not deprive you of your banana--if I somehow looked at your banana and conjured up a duplicate in my hands, it woudl not interfere with your having and using your banana. It is theft for me to take it precisely because it is "scarce" (rivalrous). By contrast, if you have a way of planting corn that makes more corn, and I imitate this method in planting my own corn, it doesn't "take" (or "steal") your method from you--you can still use your method to plant your corn.
Yes, but what if I write a novel and seek to profit from its sale. If you can reproduce and sell it yourself and thereby reap the same profit, even though I wrote the novel, aren't you interfering with my ability to profit off of my creation? And doesn't that interference constitute a kind of rivalry?

- Bill





Post 201

Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 11:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Stephan, it's going to be more than a few days before I write anything about this. I understand your point about the source of scarcity: if A comes up with an idea, then that doesn't restrict B's ability to discover (and  implement?) that same idea. Also, I didn't mean that your approach to ethics is an offshoot of Austrian economics, although that's probably close to what I wrote. I mainly meant that your approach, and others similar to it, are popular among contemporary Austrians. At least I read about the Hoppe-Rothbard approach on the Mises site not infrequently. 

I think good ideas are as scarce as good thinkers. In the world of business, pathbreakers are unusual; most people are reasonably good at performing the chores necessary to implement a well known business concept, like selling insurance or real estate, running a hardware store or bank, drilling for oil using time tested techniques. But innovators are scarce, and so are the original ideas that give rise to innovation. Similarly, in the realm of more abstract inquiry, original thinkers--and thinkers with the confidence, ambition, and ability necessary to make sweeping logical integrations--are rare. Their best ideas and integrations clear away confusion and explain phenomena that had never been properly understood before. Perhaps we'd agree that, in this sense at least, those ideas are both scarce and valuable.

I'm really glad you provided all these links, because you've saved me a lot of time and effort. So I'll read all of this before I go further.
                                  ************************************************************************************************

Robert, thanks for the suggestion. I have one book by Tara Smith on ethics that I haven't read yet. But I'll have to get Viable Values and add it my my reading list. All this reading. Whew!


Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 202

Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 4:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

Yes, but what if I write a novel and seek to profit from its sale. If you can reproduce and sell it yourself and thereby reap the same profit, even though I wrote the novel, aren't you interfering with my ability to profit off of my creation?
I find it very interesting that -- after 200 posts -- that such a simple question need still be asked. Usually, when you find yourself this long into a conversation, and you're still asking such basic questions as if they still require an answer -- then someone's not thinking straight.

Usually.

:-)

Ed



Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 203

Saturday, April 19, 2008 - 11:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Bill and Ed,

Once the novel is released its contents become common knowledge. Sure, you could contractually require each purchaser to promise not to make copies, but what about a copy that party C finds in an alley? Forbidding party C from making copies —using his eyes (which are his property) his keyboard (which is his property) connected to his computer (his property) and his printer (his property)— this would constitute interference with the use of his property. Can’t have that. Got to make it the burden of the author to obtain contractual obligations, not only from each purchaser of the novel, but also from every person on earth. Once the voluntary agreement to never make copies of the novel is obtained from every person on earth, the author would release the novel. So you can see that there would be no serious impediment to creators in the absence of formalized IP. And voluntarism would be preserved.

Even if one of the persons on earth were missed is the contracting, and this person competitively published the novel—taking half, or 99%, or even 100% of the commercial sales— the author could still take said novel off of her shelf to partake in the joys of reading it, having it, and knowing that she and only she created it. None of the above can ever be taken away from her, so there is no rivalrousity. No rivalrousity, no scarcity. No scarcity, no property.

The unearned and exploitative privileges of IP allowed The Fountainhead to make Rand rich. This allowed for the tragedy of having ’43 through ’57 to blow on writing Atlas Shrugged. She knew she didn’t have to compete fairly with everyone else who owned eyes, a keyboard connected to a computer, and a printer—so she wasted all those years writing JUST ONE novel. Imagine if she had had to compete with everyone else on the up and up. She probably would have written four or five novels in that same time frame, maybe even released a new version of each every year with new illustrations, eventually even color illustrations. (Kind of like how the Printing and Engraving department releases newer and niftier versions of paper currency every year to ensure that its offerings remain preeminent.) Shit, she was AYN RAND. Surely she would have found a way to garner the lion’s share of sales of her own stories! Instead of having had the rights-violating power to restrict what other people did with their own property, imagine what she might have achieved during those years if she had had to compete consensually with everyone else who owns a printer? There’s no telling what she could have achieved in that case.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 204

Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 8:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon Letendre: "The unearned and exploitative privileges of IP allowed The Fountainhead to make Rand rich. This allowed for the tragedy of having ’43 through ’57 to blow on writing Atlas Shrugged. She knew she didn’t have to compete fairly with everyone else who owned eyes, a keyboard connected to a computer, and a printer—so she wasted all those years writing JUST ONE novel. Imagine if she had had to compete with everyone else on the up and up. She probably would have written four or five novels in that same time frame, maybe even released a new version of each every year with new illustrations, eventually even color illustrations."

I must say that this is one of the most bizarre and unjust arguments I've ever read on this website, and I've read a good amount of them. You point out that AR got rich by writing The Fountainhead and owning the copyright, which financially allowed her to work on her next novel for the next 14 years. Instead, you say, she should have devoted a huge amount of time and grueling mental effort into writing the book (anyone who doesn't think writing an excellent book requires grueling mental effort has obviously never written one), and then other people should have been able to copy the work ad infinitum and deny her the royalties, which would have therefore financially compelled her to write more books (assuming, of course, that she could turn out books as good as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in just a few years if she *really* wanted to). After all, you want more Ayn Rand books! I'm just flabbergasted that someone would advance that argument here.
(Edited by Jon Trager on 4/20, 8:25pm)


Post 205

Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 8:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I sympathize with the Trager viewpoint here.

Ed

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 206

Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 8:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The whole post is a parody, Jon.

Contracts with every person on earth. “Rivalrousity.”

Come on, Jon.


Ed, too! Jeeeezus, guys!



Post 207

Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 8:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

And it was fine parody, too. I got one lousy sanction for it.

Both of you numb-nuts would now sanction it if you had any honor.



Post 208

Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 10:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I got the parody, Jon. I thought it was pretty obvious. Of course, you never know how people will take these things, but I would not have expected two people on this list not to get it.

Yeah, I suppose I should have given you a sanction. Okay, here it is!

I guess our nemesis has exited the scene -- probably because he thinks we're spinning our wheels and are now covering old ground. I don't think we're likely to convince him, nor he, us. But thanks for your input. It has not gone unappreciated. :-)


Post 209

Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 11:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Letendre,

You are such a contrarian that I can't tell when you mean it (like the boy who cried "wolf!").

Ed

p.s. And it may profit you to be made aware of the fact that I'm not motivated (to "do the right thing") from receiving insults ("numb-nuts") and if-then intimidation ("if you had any honor"); though I can't speak for Jon T.

Post 210

Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 11:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Thanks, Bill!


Post 211

Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 11:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Ed,

You thought “numb-nuts” was a REAL insult…one I really MEANT?

No. When I wrote that I was still joking, dip-shit.



Post 212

Monday, April 21, 2008 - 12:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
hehe

You see? Now I get it!

But it had to be THAT over-the-top (when it comes to YOU).

Ed
[I get the same dismissal for my conspiracy theories, Jon -- because folks are "used to" me spouting them off, they somehow lose their 3rd-party perceived validity]

Post 213

Monday, April 21, 2008 - 12:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Ed,

Now that you grasp there was neither insult nor “if-then” intimidation, sanction my parody, sissy.



Post 214

Monday, April 21, 2008 - 7:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon Letendre: "The whole post is a parody, Jon.

Contracts with every person on earth. “Rivalrousity.”

Come on, Jon."

Oh. In that case, I apologize. After reading the absurd (and seriously intended) things that some people have posted on this site, I guess I can't tell when someone is joking anymore.


Post 215

Monday, April 21, 2008 - 11:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

No problem, Jon. Just having some fun with you and Ed.


Post 216

Monday, April 21, 2008 - 1:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon L.:

You funny, man, you funny!

Post 217

Monday, April 21, 2008 - 4:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Did I just read a Frenchman call someone else a sissy?

:)

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 218

Monday, April 21, 2008 - 9:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I shall settle this with reference to The Onion’s Our Dumb World, Atlas of the Planet Earth.

The entry for France begins thusly:

“One Nation Above God.

Home to Earth’s entire population of 62.7 million people, every single one of the planet’s 427 cities, and all of its history, culture, and beauty, France is the only country in the world.

Located directly in the center of the universe, around which everything else revolves, the nation of France is the sole beacon of life and civilization in an otherwise black and empty void.

Stretching from the globe’s southernmost point in Marseille to its northern tip in Paris, and extending all the way to the Far East, or Dijon, France is known throughout France for its streets, buildings, wine, and food—things that simply don’t exist anywhere else.

The French have produced every great achievement in every field of endeavor in the history of mankind, including the sculptures of Michelangelo, the symphonies of Beethoven, and the writings of William Shakespeare.

Today, this birthplace of art, aviation, democracy, coffee, man, Buddhism, socialism, reggae, John Wayne, pasta, karate, the American Revolution, arrogance, space exploration, the Nile River, and everything else that has ever come to pass, has earned its place as the finest, greatest, and best nation in all of France.”



The entry for Greece begins thusly:

“2,500 Years Past Its Prime

Ancient Greece was the birthplace of art, science, democracy, medicine, poetry, and philosophy. Today, however, the nation has more important things to do than contribute to the advancement of the human race.

Modern Greeks have bills to pay and families to provide for. Sure, they would love to sit around all day deducing things and studying triangles, but unfortunately, triangles don’t cut it in the real world. There is work to be done, and the less time one spends contemplating his own existence, the faster he can get home.

With 20% of the population living in poverty, most citizens are more worried about putting food on the table than developing entire mathematical systems to judge spatial distance. In fact, the only equation the Greeks have produced in the past 2,000 years is that time equals money.

Even if citizens had the energy to construct towering marvels of architecture or ducument 40 years of history when they got home from work, by the time they were done, they would be unemployed and divorced. And in the 21st century, the Socratic method can’t put the kids through college.

Although present-day Greeks have not gotten around to making any lasting cultural achievements, they point out that if their ancient ancestors had rising mortgage rates to deal with, perhaps we wouldn’t have physics today.

PEOPLE>>THE CHILDREN OF ZEUS AND SOME GOAT HE FUCKED

The people of Greece were once ruled by the gods of Mt. Olympus, whom they worshipped, prayed to, and occasionally had sex with. Today, however, most Greeks have turned away from mighty Zeus, instead choosing to follow Jesus Christ, who has never thrown a single thunderbolt in his life, and whose only power is Sin-Forgiving.

Greeks are known for their love of food, as one cannot meet a Greek person without being offered something to eat, something to drink, a menu, your choice of seating, and the days’ specials. They accept nothing other than cash in return for their goodwill.

The Greek’s success in the diner industry is logical, as they have a reputation for being a hospitable and generous people, especially with the cucumber sauce.

FACTS

LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH
Mustache asphyxiation

TOP OCCUPATION
Guy who washes graffiti off Parthenon

INVENTIONS
Science, art, philosophy, sodomy, Grecian Formula

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
EU, WTO, ΣΦΛ

NATIONAL SEX POSITION
The one where the goat is on top

Selections from HISTORY section…

1400 B.C. The Greeks domesticate the centaur, which they keep for milk, meat, and human companionship.

287 B.C. Although Archimedes creates the lever, and the compound pulley, his greatest invention is booth seating for ancient Greek diners.

2002 My Big Fat Greek Wedding is released in theaters worldwide, marking the nation’s first cultural achievement since geometry.




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 219

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - 8:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I can't even believe the Onion atlas never talks about the nations' flags! What kind of online atlas is that? Terrible. Well I did find the French flag though somewhere else....




I also found a video of the prestigious and world feared French Marines in training.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10Page 0Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.