RoR: Forum

Ed Thompson:

The state by definition is corrupt and unjust, since by its nature it either taxes, or outlaws competition. Either of these actions is corrupt/unjust.

That's inaccurate. It's a definition-by-nonessentials. What's essential for a governing body, or a state, is that it enforces rules of conduct somewhere. The "enforcement" is law enforcement. The "rules of conduct" are the laws. And the "somewhere" is the region. Without any one of these 3 essential characteristics, you can't -- by definition -- have a governing body or state.

Your definition smuggles-in the irrelevant non-essential of "mandated, general taxation" (MGT), and also the unacceptable "argument-against-non-competition" (AANC). What makes MGT irrelevant is that the state can exist without it (it's a nonessential). For instance, the US government existed without MGT for its first 75 years.

Okay, let me put it this way: anything that taxes is unjust. Anything that monopolizes the institution of justice by outlawing private arrangements between peaceful people is unjust. Now, if you think a state does not do these things, then we must be talking about different animals. I simply oppose any institution that does these things. Whether it's "essential" or not.

Now, do you oppose taxation, and the initiation of force involved in outlawing peaceful private defense arrangements? IF you so, you are an anarcho-capitalist in my book. If not, you support aggression, so are not a libertarian.

What makes AANC unacceptable (as an argument) is that it relies on prior acceptance of the faulty premise that "competition's always best" (CAB).

Actually, it doesn't. I've never made this argument. My argument is simply based on the observation that it's wrong to commit aggression (as Rand said), including aggression committed by the state, such as its taxation and justice-function-monopolization.

As a proper government administration doesn't have sovereign "authority to determine" objective law (only Reason can do that), neither do the people have the authority to determine objective law.

BUt the state is composed of people--people of the lowest sort, usually, who are armed, and who violently rule and tax the populace. Why would you think the state is able to determine objective law, if normal people aren't? Why is this argument any better than the liberal one that the government ought to have guns, but not private citizens?

Robert Malcom:

Taking the example of the fishing rod with the 'cool' mechanism - what if you decided not just to make one for yourself, but to make many of them, and in turn sell them..... is that theft, violating another's rights [the one who first made those rods], or enroaching on that other's ability to keep selling?

In my view, of course it's not theft. Of course, all human action and creativity relies on things others have learned or created. We rely on language, common culture and traditions etc. Trends are copied and adapted and learned. Business trends, methods, ideas, ways of doing things; science, technology, commerce; literature etc. They all continually build on things people in the past have done. This is human civilization. It is utterly bizarre, absurd, unjust, nonsensical, to try to arbitrarily single out some recipes, information, discoveries, etc., and to say they are "owned," and leave the rest as some kind of common background all are able to dip into.

I believe it is utterly arbitrary--the bete noir of Objectivists--to make the distinctions that IP necessarily does in protecting some types of intellectual creations but not others. It would be suicidal to try to apply the idae of IP consistently; thankfully, Objectivists don't do this, but to avoid this, they introduce arbitrary distinctions (limiting the scope of IP; limiting its duration to some arbitrary finite term).

Post 61

Monday, April 7, 2008 - 5:04pm

Ok then - what if you have an idea, but no means of financing it - yet if it is told to one with the financial means, what to keep that one from making use if it, leaving you out in the cold - why, then, bother creating the idea?

Seems there is a sort of Crusoe view being expoused here...

(Edited by robert malcom on 4/07, 5:05pm)

Post 62

Monday, April 7, 2008 - 5:05pm

John,

In response to Stephan's statement that "'Scarcity' here is economic scarcity--non-rivalrousness. NOt mere lack of abundance." -- you replied, "I don't think I ever recall economic scarcity defined this way. I believe economic scarcity means the supply of a product or resource cannot meet the demand."

No, that's not correct. You're confusing a scarcity with a shortage. If the supply of a product cannot meet the demand (because of a price ceiling), the result is a shortage, not a scarcity. Rent control is a good example. If the price of rental units is not allowed to rise to level off the quantity demanded with the quantity supplied, the result is a shortage of apartments.

A good is "scarce" if it commands a non-zero price. So, every good or service that is bought and sold on the market is "scarce" according to this definition.

- Bill

Post 63

Monday, April 7, 2008 - 5:25pm

Robert Malcom: "Ok then - what if you have an idea, but no means of financing it - yet if it is told to one with the financial means, what to keep that one from making use if it, leaving you out in the cold - why, then, bother creating the idea?

Seems there is a sort of Crusoe view being expoused here..."

It seems you asking what is the libertarian or Objectivist view on how to run a particular business. I don't think it's about that, or that we have to answer such questions. Let the entrepreneurs figure this out.

Many business ventures have costs of exclusion. That's just life. Drive-in movie theaters adopted speakers next to each car, so stop free riders. It cost someting to install this. If this cost had been prohibitive, there would have been no drive in movies, or they would have just put up w/ the freeriding. So what?

Post 64

Monday, April 7, 2008 - 6:13pm

Dwyer: "A good is "scarce" if it commands a non-zero price. So, every good or service that is bought and sold on the market is "scarce" according to this definition."

Untrue. It has nothing to do with price.

Post 65

Monday, April 7, 2008 - 7:34pm

Stephan,

... anything that taxes is unjust. Anything that monopolizes the institution of justice by outlawing private arrangements between peaceful people is unjust. Now, if you think a state does not do these things, then we must be talking about different animals.

We're talking about different animals. You're talking about some of the world's instantiations of government (and visualizing those concrete things as if they were effective "stand-ins" for the universal concept: "government"). I'm talking about what government has to be in order to be.

Now, do you oppose taxation, and the initiation of force involved in outlawing peaceful private defense arrangements?

I oppose taxation without representation, such as when the Feds take my cash for redistribution schemes such as corporate welfare (and hundreds of other schemes). I don't oppose "user fees" -- which are, at root, a "use tax." User fees ensure representation. One can always withdraw from paying user fees -- and such individual withdrawal of funds effectively keeps government moral.

I oppose outlawing peaceful private defense arrangements, but I don't oppose outlawing non-peaceful private defense arrangements -- such as those that break objective law; which happens to be something sufficiently discoverable through the use of objective reasoning (its discovery doesn't require a "market").

My argument is simply based on the observation that it's wrong to commit aggression (as Rand said), including aggression committed by the state, such as its taxation and justice-function-monopolization.

This reasoning appears guilty of the fallacy of Floating Abstraction. It ignores the idea that consentual user fees can pay for government (rather than conventional taxation), and it ignores the idea that discovery of objective rule of law is possible without a market. Once we reach the attainable ideal of objective rule of law, then private defense arrangements can be judged according to it. Undoubtedly, some of these private arrangements will be found to be unjust, and on that note alone force should be taken against them (unjust law is law in name only -- and should not be obeyed nor allowed to be propagated).

BUt the state is composed of people--people of the lowest sort, usually, who are armed, and who violently rule and tax the populace.

Good point.

Why would you think the state is able to determine objective law, if normal people aren't?

I didn't say that. Objective law is not "determined" in the strong sense of the term, but instead it is "discovered" through the human use of Reason. It's one issue -- perhaps the ONLY issue -- where "markets" aren't helpful to mankind (because they miss the point).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/07, 7:36pm)

Post 66

Monday, April 7, 2008 - 7:56pm

Last post for me on this one.

Stephan wrote:

I didn't mean to distinguish between labor and service. They are the same for purposes of this point. My point was it's imprecise to say you are "selling" your labor (or services).

Stop being obstinate. What does a doctor sell to his patients? A SERVICE. What does a lawyer sell to his clients? A SERVICE. What does a babysitter sell to her clients? A SERVICE.

There is a whole sector of the economy called the SERVICE INDUSTRY. What do you suppose they are selling? DUH! A SERVICE!

And that's it! I'm not talking about something so god damn simple as that anymore. Either you understand or you don't. I'm convinced you just want to be right for sake of being right.

the question is whether there IS intellectual property. If there is not, there is no stealing.

So for example, suppose I'm generally aware of the plot for Star Wars, but have never even seen it. Suppose I write "Stephan Kinsella's Further Adventures of Luke Skywalker". What am I "stealing"?

You are stealing George Lucas' creation of the fictional characters and plots he created for his films and books to which he copyrighted.

Next.

Or suppose I am generally aware of how lasers work, and decide to make my own. Of course, I learned about this b/c of the efforts of the original inventors. What am I "stealing" if I make a laser?

(another stupid hypothetical)

Suppose you are a drug company that spent millions of dollars on research and development for a drug. And another company steals the design for it and makes a copy. What happens to the original company that spent millions and what is the future incentive for any other drug company to spend millions on R&D only to have those efforts to have been in vain? What then?

Why Stephan, do you think the United States has invented more drugs, more products, more literary works, more music, more movies, more television programs THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!

I'm very thankful we have some recognition of intellectual property rights in this country, even if the current system is flawed. It is better than not recognizing them at all.

Stephan addressing the criticisms he brought up for the way the current patent and copyright laws work (as opposed to just philosophically denying or accepting the existence of IP as a separate discussion):

I don't think it's unfair; I see this all the time. I think those who have an inkling of how the patent and copyright system really work would realize there are hundreds of questions and doctirnes that have arisen out of necessity to refine IP law--so any IP system will have to answer these questions

I'm not about to say we have some perfect legal system for the protection of intellectual property rights. We don't have a perfect system for the protection of property rights period Stephan. That's not to say an effort to try and at least have some partial success in setting up a due process to protect our rights is not worthwhile. In fact it has proven to be very worthwhile. The United States produces more new drugs than any other country in the world and not surprisingly, the United States has for its legal code the most recognition of intellectual property rights than other nation in the world. That correlation Stephan is not a coincidence.

Well, no one ever accused Objectivists of not having a sense of humor. (Or have they? :) Look, I was only kidding--it's my analytical engineering background that has me poking fun at liberal arts types. Engineers are just as bad as liberal arts majors, when it comes to philosophy.

Why do you keep bringing up liberal arts majors? What the hell difference does that make? What in the hell does engineering have to do with the discussion of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS?

Post 67

Monday, April 7, 2008 - 8:15pm

Wait a minute, I checked Stephan's profile and he says he's a patent attorney. WTF? What gives Stephan? Was this whole thing some elaborate fraud on your part? You are a patent attorney but you don't believe in patents?

Post 68

Monday, April 7, 2008 - 10:44pm

I wrote: "A good is "scarce" if it commands a non-zero price. So, every good or service that is bought and sold on the market is "scarce" according to this definition."

Stephan replied, "Untrue. It has nothing to do with price."

From A Dictionary of Economics: "Scarcity: A condition where there is less of something than people would like to have if it cost nothing to buy. Thus this word is used in economics in a relative sense.... The importance of the existence of scarcity is that it gives rise to a need to allocate the available resources among alternative uses. If this allocation is done through a free market, capitalist system, rather than through a centralized command economy, then scarcity will necessarily imply positive prices for goods. [Emphasis added] Air does not have a price because it is not relatively scarce: everyone has as much as he wants; food has a price because it requires resources -- land, labour, machinery, seed, fertilizer, etc. -- which are relatively scarce, and could be used to produce other things." (p. 366, 367)

- Bill

Post 69

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 3:00am

Jeffery said,

�until someone figures out how to get all you other Objectivist-wannabees* to agree with all of my positions on the proper interpretation and application of this philosophy, I guess we are just stuck trying to use there labels as best as we can!

I know exactly what you mean, Jeffery. Could you please clarify all of your Objectivist positions for me, because I think we may have some possible disagreements, in which case I will need to condemn you irrevocably for being so flagrantly irrational. (Peikoff seems to find this effective, so I thought I would give it a try.)

Post 70

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 5:41am

Ed:

... anything that taxes is unjust. Anything that monopolizes the institution of justice by outlawing private arrangements between peaceful people is unjust. Now, if you think a state does not do these things, then we must be talking about different animals.
We're talking about different animals. You're talking about some of the world's instantiations of government (and visualizing those concrete things as if they were effective "stand-ins" for the universal concept: "government"). I'm talking about what government has to be in order to be.

Now, do you oppose taxation, and the initiation of force involved in outlawing peaceful private defense arrangements?
I oppose taxation without representation, such as when the Feds take my cash for redistribution schemes such as corporate welfare (and hundreds of other schemes). I don't oppose "user fees" -- which are, at root, a "use tax." User fees ensure representation. One can always withdraw from paying user fees -- and such individual withdrawal of funds effectively keeps government moral.

I oppose outlawing peaceful private defense arrangements, but I don't oppose outlawing non-peaceful private defense arrangements -- such as those that break objective law; which happens to be something sufficiently discoverable through the use of objective reasoning (its discovery doesn't require a "market").

Great. It seems you don't favor a state at all, so are an anarcho-capitalist like me.

My argument is simply based on the observation that it's wrong to commit aggression (as Rand said), including aggression committed by the state, such as its taxation and justice-function-monopolization.
This reasoning appears guilty of the fallacy of Floating Abstraction. It ignores the idea that consentual user fees can pay for government (rather than conventional taxation), and it ignores the idea that discovery of objective rule of law is possible without a market. Once we reach the attainable ideal of objective rule of law, then private defense arrangements can be judged according to it. Undoubtedly, some of these private arrangements will be found to be unjust, and on that note alone force should be taken against them (unjust law is law in name only -- and should not be obeyed nor allowed to be propagated).

First time I've been accused of the floating abstraction fallacy--ther's a first time for everything I guess.

Why would you think the state is able to determine objective law, if normal people aren't?
I didn't say that. Objective law is not "determined" in the strong sense of the term, but instead it is "discovered" through the human use of Reason. It's one issue -- perhaps the ONLY issue -- where "markets" aren't helpful to mankind (because they miss the point).

I never said the "market" does it. I simply don't think it makes sense to hold that a group of organized thugs are better at it than private citizens.

John Armaos:

Stephan wrote:

I didn't mean to distinguish between labor and service. They are the same for purposes of this point. My point was it's imprecise to say you are "selling" your labor (or services).

Stop being obstinate. What does a doctor sell to his patients? A SERVICE. What does a lawyer sell to his clients? A SERVICE. What does a babysitter sell to her clients? A SERVICE.

There is a whole sector of the economy called the SERVICE INDUSTRY. What do you suppose they are selling? DUH! A SERVICE!

And that's it! I'm not talking about something so god damn simple as that anymore. Either you understand or you don't. I'm convinced you just want to be right for sake of being right.

John: I simply don't want to be held to be admiting that we "own" our "labor" just b/c I grant that you can enter into a contract that is economically viewed by the parties as "selling" the labor. That's all. B/c I think that error has far-reaching implications.

the question is whether there IS intellectual property. If there is not, there is no stealing.

So for example, suppose I'm generally aware of the plot for Star Wars, but have never even seen it. Suppose I write "Stephan Kinsella's Further Adventures of Luke Skywalker". What am I "stealing"?

You are stealing George Lucas' creation of the fictional characters and plots he created for his films and books to which he copyrighted.

You don't copyright anything--it's not a verb. It's not an active thing, like a filign or registration. He is simply granted one automatically by federal law. But anyway, you are just begging the question here.

Why Stephan, do you think the United States has invented more drugs, more products, more literary works, more music, more movies, more television programs THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!

B/c we've had a freer economy? Anyway, is your case for IP that it generates more pharmaceuticals, or some similarly utilitarain case?

I'm very thankful we have some recognition of intellectual property rights in this country, even if the current system is flawed. It is better than not recognizing them at all.

Ah, so you ARE in favor of our current IP system. Except for all the defects in it that i keep pointing out.

The United States produces more new drugs than any other country in the world and not surprisingly, the United States has for its legal code the most recognition of intellectual property rights than other nation in the world. That correlation Stephan is not a coincidence.

How do you know this? I think it's despite IP law, not b/c of it. THe IP system as far as I can tell is a huge drag on the economy, if you want to get all utilitarian.

Why do you keep bringing up liberal arts majors? What the hell difference does that make? What in the hell does engineering have to do with the discussion of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS?

Dude, settle down. First, it's funny. Second, I'm an engineer and most patent attorneys are too. Third, liberal arts majors do often resort to emotionalist or incoherent/non-analytical arguments.

Wait a minute, I checked Stephan's profile and he says he's a patent attorney. WTF? What gives Stephan? Was this whole thing some elaborate fraud on your part? You are a patent attorney but you don't believe in patents?

Uh, the fact taht I'm a patent lawyer is all over the net, and mentioned in many of my anti-IP pieces; and even on this comment thread I mentioned I started questioning RAnd when I started practicing IP law.

What "fraud" are you talking about? Does a tax lawyer have to believe in taxes? Jesus. See my The Morality of Acquiring and Enforcing Patents, available here.

Post 71

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 8:58am

The anarchist v. minarchist debate is well laid out in Long/Machan, eds., Anarchism/Minarchism, Is Government Part of a Free Country (Ashgate, 2007). (My own contribution shows that although governments need to be paid for--their [legal] services are not free--how this is to be done is an open issue.)

Post 72

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 10:43am

Stephan:

John: I simply don't want to be held to be admiting that we "own" our "labor" just b/c I grant that you can enter into a contract that is economically viewed by the parties as "selling" the labor. That's all

I.e., you don't want to admit when you're wrong.

You don't copyright anything--it's not a verb. It's not an active thing, like a filign or registration. He is simply granted one automatically by federal law. But anyway, you are just begging the question here.

And like the rest of your posts, you don't actually lay an argument why I'm begging the question. And you are wrong, the term copyright can also be used as a verb.

dictionary.com

copyright:
noun

the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc.: works granted such right by law on or after January 1, 1978, are protected for the lifetime of the author or creator and for a period of 50 years after his or her death.

�adjective

2.	of or pertaining to copyrights.

3.	Also, cop�y�right�ed. protected by copyright.

�verb (used with object)

4.	to secure a copyright on.

Anyway, is your case for IP that it generates more pharmaceuticals, or some similarly utilitarain case?

Utilitarianism is an ethical doctrine that an action is moral if the overall effect is maximizing utility for all persons. I don't think by saying intellectual property rights leads to the creation of pharmaceuticals because it recognizes man's creations are his own to be free from theft, should mean that I'm making a utilitarian argument for IP. I'm saying without the recognition that man has the right to own his property, which includes his own creations, then it leads to the destruction of the creative mind. It's no surprise that because of pharmaceutical patents, drug companies are free to reap the benefits of their own creations.

Ah, so you ARE in favor of our current IP system. Except for all the defects in it that i keep pointing out.

As I already said Stephan, I favor some system that recognizes intellectual property. I don't presume that the system is perfect. I know there are flaws. But you think the whole system should be scrapped and we shouldn't recognize any kind of intellectual property rights. I don't care to talk about those defects because I don't know enough, and you obviously have a better understanding of the current legal system with that.

HOWEVER, I could make a similar argument that the current judicial system has flaws. That it has defects that I could point out. If you were to be logically consistent, then you would favor scrapping the entire judicial system and not recognizing murder is a violation of rights.

So again, it is a fallacious argument to philosophically deny the existence of a moral principle because the legal system is flawed because moral principles, i.e. rights, are derived before one can go about setting up a legal system for the recognition of those principles. The law comes after we first establish what is moral. So if the law is flawed, it does not necessarily mean the moral principle it is based on is flawed. I don't think that's all that hard to understand.

I originally wrote in response to Stephan's insults:

Why do you keep bringing up liberal arts majors? What the hell difference does that make? What in the hell does engineering have to do with the discussion of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS?

You respond:

Dude, settle down. First, it's funny.

Well I don't find it funny. And just because an insult is funny to you doesn't mean it's funny to me. Putting a smiley face at the end of your insult and telling me you find it funny doesn't exculpate you from the ad hominem attack. I find it cowardly to attack a debating opponent on his choice of a college major. I expect nothing more than honest debate and I will call you out for any intellectual dishonesty. My college major does not validate or invalidate any of my arguments any more so than your engineering degree validates or invalidates your arguments. It is totally irrelevant.

Second, I'm an engineer and most patent attorneys are too. Third, liberal arts majors do often resort to emotionalist or incoherent/non-analytical arguments.

Well I majored in Economics. Liberal arts degrees span a whole bunch of different disciplines of study. That you would make a hasty generalization like that again is just an effort to evade your own defective arguments by resorting to ad hominems and reflects poorly on your character.

Uh, the fact taht I'm a patent lawyer is all over the net, and mentioned in many of my anti-IP pieces; and even on this comment thread I mentioned I started questioning RAnd when I started practicing IP law.

What "fraud" are you talking about? Does a tax lawyer have to believe in taxes? Jesus. See my The Morality of Acquiring and Enforcing Patents, available here.

Ok fair enough. On the surface it seemed absurd to me that a patent lawyer would argue against the existence of patents. So I apologize for coming to a rash judgment like that. I I took offense to you repeatedly bringing up liberal arts majors as I view that as nothing more than a condescending insult. Will wait to hear your apology for that.

Post 73

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 12:44pm

Stephen: "Uh, the fact that I'm a patent lawyer is all over the net, and mentioned in many of my anti-IP pieces; and even on this comment thread I mentioned I started questioning RAnd when I started practicing IP law.

"What "fraud" are you talking about? Does a tax lawyer have to believe in taxes? Jesus. See my The Morality of Acquiring and Enforcing Patents, available here."

John: "Ok fair enough. On the surface it seemed absurd to me that a patent lawyer would argue against the existence of patents. So I apologize for coming to a rash judgment like that."

It still seems absurd to me. What, *in essence*, does a patent lawyer do? He argues for legal titles to intellectual property on behalf of his clients, no? If I'm wrong about this, I'd appreciate a correction. If I'm right, then Stephen's chosen work, the central purpose of his life, *by his own argument* primarily consists of helping some individuals violate the rights of others by gaining or keeping legal titles that he views as wrong (under his utilitarian analysis). If that's true, it's not just absurd; it's also immoral.
(Edited by Jon Trager on 4/08, 12:48pm)

(Edited by Jon Trager on 4/08, 12:53pm)

Post 74

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 1:22pm

John Armaos:

John: I simply don't want to be held to be admiting that we "own" our "labor" just b/c I grant that you can enter into a contract that is economically viewed by the parties as "selling" the labor. That's all
I.e., you don't want to admit when you're wrong.

Not so. Have you read Rothbard and Evers on the title-transfer theory of contract? My view is based on theirs. A Theory of Contracts: Binding Promises, Title Transfer, and Inalienability.

You don't copyright anything--it's not a verb. It's not an active thing, like a filign or registration. He is simply granted one automatically by federal law. But anyway, you are just begging the question here.

And like the rest of your posts, you don't actually lay an argument why I'm begging the question.

When I say you are begging the question, I'm saying your argument is not complete, that it is circular. How am I supposed to prove a negative? When the issue is whether intellectual creations are property, and you say it's "stolen," that begs the question by assuming what is to be proven--namely, that it's property (this is implied by "stolen").

And you are wrong, the term copyright can also be used as a verb.

John. Please tell me how you "copyright" something? When people say "copyright" as a verb, they say it b/c they mistakenly think that the coypright system is a registration based one, and that by "filing" a copyright registration, you are copyrighting the thing registered; or they maybe think that by stamping it "copyright" they are "copyrighting" it. I am pointing out that this is a mistaken assumption. There is no requirement to register, or to put a copyright notice. Yes, to "copyright" something does mean to "secure a copyright on"--but this has no referent, since you never secure a copyright on something. It's automatic, and the result of federal law.

Ah, so you ARE in favor of our current IP system. Except for all the defects in it that i keep pointing out.

As I already said Stephan, I favor some system that recognizes intellectual property. I don't presume that the system is perfect. I know there are flaws. But you think the whole system should be scrapped and we shouldn't recognize any kind of intellectual property rights. I don't care to talk about those defects because I don't know enough, and you obviously have a better understanding of the current legal system with that.

HOWEVER, I could make a similar argument that the current judicial system has flaws. That it has defects that I could point out. If you were to be logically consistent, then you would favor scrapping the entire judicial system and not recognizing murder is a violation of rights.

Well, as an anarchist, I DO favor scrapipng the current judicial system. But anyway, I don't oppose IP b/c of the flaws I identify: I oppose it for principled reasons: b/c in my view it's incompatible with individual property rights. Pointing out the flaws is mostly for the benefit of utilitarian or concrete-minded people.

So again, it is a fallacious argument to philosophically deny the existence of a moral principle because the legal system is flawed because moral principles, i.e. rights, are derived before one can go about setting up a legal system for the recognition of those principles. The law comes after we first establish what is moral. So if the law is flawed, it does not necessarily mean the moral principle it is based on is flawed. I don't think that's all that hard to understand.

All I can say is that as an IP attorney, with an intimate knowledge of the IP system, I am unclear as to the contours of the system you purport to advocate, so I am at a loss as to what critiques to make of it, otehr than the general, principled one I have already made in detail.

I originally wrote in response to Stephan's insults:
Why do you keep bringing up liberal arts majors? What the hell difference does that make? What in the hell does engineering have to do with the discussion of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS?
You respond:
Dude, settle down. First, it's funny.
Well I don't find it funny. And just because an insult is funny to you doesn't mean it's funny to me. Putting a smiley face at the end of your insult and telling me you find it funny doesn't exculpate you from the ad hominem attack. I find it cowardly to attack a debating opponent on his choice of a college major. I expect nothing more than honest debate and I will call you out for any intellectual dishonesty. My college major does not validate or invalidate any of my arguments any more so than your engineering degree validates or invalidates your arguments. It is totally irrelevant.

Oh, for God's sake. Sorry, okay! I "retract" my comments (officially, in the Official Objectivist Book of Retractions).

Uh, the fact taht I'm a patent lawyer is all over the net, and mentioned in many of my anti-IP pieces; and even on this comment thread I mentioned I started questioning RAnd when I started practicing IP law.

What "fraud" are you talking about? Does a tax lawyer have to believe in taxes? Jesus. See my The Morality of Acquiring and Enforcing Patents, available here.
Ok fair enough. On the surface it seemed absurd to me that a patent lawyer would argue against the existence of patents. So I apologize for coming to a rash judgment like that. I I took offense to you repeatedly bringing up liberal arts majors as I view that as nothing more than a condescending insult. Will wait to hear your apology for that.

Alright, I apologize to whoever was offended by my comments about liberal arts majors. They are not all stupid, and not all engineers are smart. Everyone is an individual. Etc.

But I am curious why you would think it absurd a patent attorney opposes patents. Surely people don't have to be corrupt and biased by things that are in their narrow economic self-interest? I could imagine a public school teacher who opposes public schools, just like many Objectivists are professors at state universities.

Post 75

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 1:35pm

Jon Trager:

Stephen: "Uh, the fact that I'm a patent lawyer is all over the net, and mentioned in many of my anti-IP pieces; and even on this comment thread I mentioned I started questioning RAnd when I started practicing IP law.

"What "fraud" are you talking about? Does a tax lawyer have to believe in taxes? Jesus. See my The Morality of Acquiring and Enforcing Patents, available here."
John: "Ok fair enough. On the surface it seemed absurd to me that a patent lawyer would argue against the existence of patents. So I apologize for coming to a rash judgment like that."
It still seems absurd to me. What, *in essence*, does a patent lawyer do? He argues for legal titles to intellectual property on behalf of his clients, no? If I'm wrong about this, I'd appreciate a correction.

Patent attorneys do many things. One thing is to advise clients on their legal rights. Another might be to file for patent applications--to help obtain patents. Another might be to defend them in litigation, or to help them sue a patent infringer.

Even if you oppose patents, there is nothing necessarily wrong with obtaining them--like guns, they can be used for good or for evil. To sue someone is arguably bad, but what if you are sued for patent infringement?--wise to have your own arsenal to strike back with. Etc. Most patents are acquired or defensive purposes anyway (which is another reason the whole system is a waste).

If I'm right, then Stephen's chosen work, the central purpose of his life,

My job is the "central purpose of my life"? Wow. Not my wife, or kids, or family, or maybe libertarian activism?

Anyway,

*by his own argument* primarily consists of helping some individuals violate the rights of others by gaining or keeping legal titles that he views as wrong (under his utilitarian analysis).

It's not true, as I noted above. Obtaining a patent is not violating rights. Nor is using one as a counterclaim (defensively). Only suing an innocent person is arguably rights-violating.

And even here: it is not MY decision, but my client's. Is the lawyer responsible for what the client decides?

I tried to explain some of this in my post, The Morality of Acquiring and Enforcing Patents, linked previously.

If that's true, it's not just absurd; it's also immoral.

This makes no sense to me: if enforcing a patent is immoral, it's only immoral if it's engaged in by someone who disagrees with patents...? But it's okay for those who mistakenly think patents are justified?

Look, let's suppose the patent system is immoral per se. Who do you expect to be able to see this and articulate arguments for--isn't an "insider" ideally suited to being able to see this? Your argument is reminiscent of one I find truly repugnant--when a black like Clarence Thomas opposes affirmative action, he is critized by the left--mostly by white latte liberals--for opposing it, since "he benefitted from it." This is a truly disgusting, evil argument (not saying yours is this bad--it just reminds me of it a bit in structure): first, the liberal is using the very arguments that he attacks when opponents of affirmative action make (i.e, we critics say that one problem w/ aff action is that it makes people doubt the success of really competent blacks; the liberal expresses outrage over this argument, yet relies on it here); second, he's saying that not only do we have to succumb to and abide by the immoral law he has succeeded in foisting on us, but that we can't complain about it either--that blacks can't complain... once you are roped into a system that "benefits" you, you are now forever unable to complain, b/c that woudl be hypocritical. So they are foisting the bad law, the bad system, on you, and also foisting on you a type of "hypocrisy" that you are unable to escape if you even criticize it. They try to turn everyone into dependent parasites, so that no one is morally clean enough to object any more. Utterly disgusting.

I agree with Rand, when she said we are not obligated to be martyrs. I agree with Rand's idea of the face without pain or fear or guilt. I have none. This G*ddamned legal system is not *my* fault, and I refuse to be penalized in my life for it, or to take blame for it. Not an ounce.

Post 76

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 2:02pm

Stephan:

John: I simply don't want to be held to be admiting that we "own" our "labor" just b/c I grant that you can enter into a contract that is economically viewed by the parties as "selling" the labor. That's all
I.e., you don't want to admit when you're wrong.

If you own a lawn mower and cut someone's yard for money, would it make any sense to say that you own the action of cutting the grass? It doesn't to me.

You own the lawn mower and your body, but I don't see how you can own the intangible actions associated with them.

Post 77

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 2:19pm

Right on, Fauth. Exactly right.

Look, dishonest and/or stupid types go crazy if you say there is no right to free speech, but only a right to own and control your own property. They dishonestly say that you are in therefore favor of censorship.

Likewise, many libertarians go nuts if you say you don't "own" your labor--they say, "you are in favor of slavery then!!" It's like, calm down. They don't realize that we simply believe that owning one's body and property one acquires is *enough* to let you do any of the other things we are said to have rights to--right to produce, to be free, to publish, to speak. These are all really just consequences of the basic right to self-ownership. They are not separate, independent, stand-alone rights. Rand at least implicitly recognized this:

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.

This is all I am saying if I say that we own our bodies, but not our labor; labor is what we DO WITH our bodies. It's not a separate thing or substance that you own. Since you own your body, you can decide *what to do with it*--what services, labor, or actions, to perform. This gives you the practical ability to obtain payment for performing these services--since your ownership of your body gives you teh abilty to choose whether to do a certain action or not. So you can make a deal with someone else who wants you to do something, so that he pays you if you perform it. None of this implies you "own" your labor.

Post 78

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 2:49pm

Jonathan:

If you own a lawn mower and cut someone's yard for money, would it make any sense to say that you own the action of cutting the grass? It doesn't to me.

If it is your effort, it is your own and not anyone else's. Does that make more sense? If it's not your effort, and your not entitled to trade that effort or that action for something in return, then you undercut the notion of freedom of action.

You own the lawn mower and your body, but I don't see how you can own the intangible actions associated with them.

Jonathan I don't understand what you mean by "intangible action". What kind of action is there other than tangible actions? One should be careful not to equivocate the language being used here. A tangible asset is not the same as a tangible action. Motion is not an object, but it is something that can be traded and in that sense it is tangible (tangible here meaning real or actual). You and Stephan are using ownership to only mean a tangible asset, I'm not defining ownership that narrowly. As Stephan agreed before you can trade your own labor, and it doesn't make much sense when you enter into a contract with an employer that you are trading your "body" for money in exchange. You are of course trading the motions of your body for money in exchange. That is you are trading your productive effort.

When you decide to mow someone's lawn in exchange for money, are you exchanging your body or your lawn mower with your client? Of course not, you are only trading the particular motions that your body and your lawn mower will be making.

Post 79

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 3:06pm