RoR: Forum

Armaos: no, I won't sue you. BUt I think you are pettifogging. The issue is whether IP is justified. Whehter or not I'm a hypocrite is irrelevant to this issue. these are deflections.

Dwyer:

I asked Stephan, "Suppose I tried to prevent you from stealing my invention. In other words, suppose I tried to stop you from marketing it without my permission." He replied,
Let's be clear: your hypos is this: suppose you tried to trespass against me and my property, to stop me from using it as I see fit, because you think you have a partial ownership claim over my property, due to your thinking of a useful way to use your property.
What I had in mind is this: I offer you the right to my invention for your own personal use at a mutually agreed-upon price, but under the terms of our agreement, deny you the right to market it for your own profit. But you break the agreement and proceed to sell my invention at a profit.

Well, in this case, it's not "stealing," it's breach of contract. And in this case, sure, you could sue me for damages. Sure. Because of a contract, not b/c there is any such thing as "intellectual property."

So, I get my defense agency to arrest you for marketing my invention without my permission.

Well, I doubt such contract breach would be regarded as a crime subject to arrest and punishment; it would probably be a civil action, a suit for damages, like any breach of contract.

But since you don't agree that I have any right to demand that you not profit off my invention,

But I do agree that you ahve this right, since we had a contract.

I think you are just trying to find a hole in anarchy, not in the opposition to IP. Look, I've addressed the issue of trying to base IP on contract, in detail, see pp. 33-41 of Against Intellectual Property.
(Edited by Stephan Kinsella on 4/09, 5:33pm)

***

One note: previously I hypothesized that Rand justified first-to-file b/c she mistakenly believed this was the US approach, and thus liked it or assumed it was right, or tried to justify it. I just realized that in another, older thread here, I noted another time she did something similar: "I have it on good authority that Murray Rothbard's correspondence indicates that around 1954, Herb Cornuelle convinced Ayn Rand to oppose eminent domain; she had peviously favored eminent domain because the Constitution (apparently) implicitly authorized it."

Interesting.
(Edited by Stephan Kinsella on 4/09, 5:35pm)

Post 121

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 5:43pm

What I had in mind is this: I offer you the right to my invention for your own personal use at a mutually agreed-upon price, but under the terms of our agreement, deny you the right to market it for your own profit. But you break the agreement and proceed to sell my invention at a profit.

So, I get my defense agency to arrest you for marketing my invention without my permission. But since you don't agree that I have any right to demand that you not profit off my invention, you get your defense agency and try to stop my defense agency from arresting you. You view it as an act of self-defense, because you don't agree that I have a right to stop you. And I, of course, view my action of stopping you as self-defense, because I don't believe that you have any right to sell my invention without my permission. We both believe that we are defending individual rights. We simply have a different view of what those rights entail.

Bill, you can't have it both ways.

If you have the right then the agreement is superfluous. By making the contract you are implicitly saying you don't have the right.

Furthermore, since you postulated a contract, what we have is a commercial disagreement. The standard remedy for which is suit and potential monetary compensation, not arrest and prosecution.

Post 122

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 5:49pm

Bill,

You wrote, �Under anarchy, the result of this kind of conflict is fairly predictable -- viz., a gang war.

That's not Objectivism's definition of a government or of a state. Ir's a definition by non-essentials. According to Objectivism, a government (or a state) is an institution that holds a legal monopoly on the use of retaliatory force.�

In previous discussions you have asserted that �holding a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force� is non-essential, and that all that matters is that government hold a monopoly on writing the rules for the use of retaliatory force.

I argued that the result would be anarchy, �a gang war.�

I think that in a discussion with avowed anarchists you should use your preferred version, which you insisted was in no way in conflict with the Objectivist politics.

Post 123

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 6:34pm

Stephan:

I originally wrote to Stephan:

But you still help people file a patent and you don't know what your client will do in the future with that patent.

Stephan replied:

actually, I do, since I only have one client--the one I work for. I control all that.
I then asked:

So you won't take any action against me if I start up a company of my own using an identical company name to your client's company name, logo and inventions etc?
To which Stephan said:

Nah, I have other things on my plate.
So let me just make this crystal clear. If I bought some land across the street from your sole client's current company location, and I built an identical building, with an identical sign, using an identical logo, selling identical products, advertising and marketing with this identical logo, you nor your client would take any legal action against me?

Stephan responds: "Armaos: no, I won't sue you. "

Does your client know that?

Post 124

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 6:36pm

Sorry, Phil, your post got lost in the flurry going on here.

But then we would have two terms "atheist" and "objectivist" that mapped to exactly the same set...

What's wrong with that? You know the saying: Eskimos have [insert a number higher than 10 here] words for "snow."

Are you seriously saying that only objectivists can be atheists?

I'm seriously saying they should be. Can they be? Probably.

That certainly flies in the face of usage,

Yeah, I know.

and it is hard to see how you can justify it epistemologically.

Why's that? Because it flies in the face of common usage? I don't agree that common usage is a matrix for knowledge, but that's digressive to this discussion.

Atheists state positively that there is no God, for reasons either good or bad. The reasons are not the issue, although certainly important in their own right.

See, that's the thing. I think the reasons are important on a primary level. Rand did too.

I wish I had more time. I'll get back to this later in the week, perhaps.

Post 125

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 9:08pm

Letendre, "In previous discussions you have asserted that �holding a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force� is non-essential, and that all that matters is that government hold a monopoly on writing the rules for the use of retaliatory force."

I confess, when I make an error, I am usually confused about whether it's the Floating Abstraction fallacy, the Stolen Concept Fallacy, or the Fallacy of Definition by Non-Essentials. What are the other buzzwords, catchphrases, and "bromides" these guys bandy about?

Post 126

Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 8:43am

Stephan, if you could please answer my previous post 123. I'll post it again:

Stephan:

I originally wrote to Stephan:

But you still help people file a patent and you don't know what your client will do in the future with that patent.

Stephan replied:

actually, I do, since I only have one client--the one I work for. I control all that.
I then asked:

So you won't take any action against me if I start up a company of my own using an identical company name to your client's company name, logo and inventions etc?
To which Stephan said:

Nah, I have other things on my plate.
So let me just make this crystal clear. If I bought some land across the street from your sole client's current company location, and I built an identical building, with an identical sign, using an identical logo, selling identical products, advertising and marketing with this identical logo, you nor your client would take any legal action against me?

Stephan responds: "Armaos: no, I won't sue you. "

Does your client know that?

Post 127

Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 4:31pm

Stephan,

After I said that I oppose general taxes and that I don't oppose certain instantiations of private defense agreements, you had this to say (about me) ...

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

No. I'm a minarchist, like Rand.

If I were an anarcho-capitalist (like you), then I would oppose every tax coming down the pipeline (included the "use taxes" -- better known as "user fees"). And, if I were an anarcho-capitalist, then I would not oppose ANY private defense agreement WHATSOEVER. Opposing private agreements would come across as something "unlawful" to me (if I were an "anarcho").

...it's wrong to commit aggression (as Rand said), including aggression committed by the state, such as its taxation and justice-function-monopolization.

Here's the required syllogism for that ...

Aggression is wrong.
"Taxation and justice-monopolization" are acts of aggression.
============
"Taxation and justice-monopolization" are wrong.

But premise 2, the minor premise, is based on a floating abstraction (i.e., it's not a premise that's true within context). Within the context -- a context which I've widening enough to allow for some "forms" of taxation (and one key form of justice-monopolization) -- taxation and justice-monopolization aren't necessarily acts of aggression. For instance, when a tax is a use-tax (i.e., a "user fee"), then it's not aggression.

Also, there is and ought to be a monopolization of justice. It's not an act of aggression if the "right" form of justice "takes over" a system. In fact, anything BUT this one right form of justice is wrong! Let's say that Sally thinks it's justice if she gets to wear Betty's clothes, but that Betty thinks it's justice if she gets to punish Sally -- if Sally wears Betty's clothes without permission.

One girl -- either Sally or Betty -- is right and one girl is wrong about that. That one "justice" is the right one -- and one "justice" wrong -- is knowable "a priori" (without any further information). You could even go so far as to say that Betty's "justice" ought to monopolize the system made up of Sally and Betty (and anyone else willing and able to wear Betty's clothes). It's not "aggression" if Betty's "justice" is allowed to supercede Sally's -- it's moral.

Ed:
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).

Stephan:
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.

You're setting up a Straw Man here. For instance, you're making the Founding Fathers -- folks who discovered that humans have individual rights against their own governments (and that only the Objective Rule of Law will ever protect for that) -- you're making these founding folks out to be "a group of organized thugs." Yeah, sure, when the very Founding Fathers are thugs ... anything goes! But the Founding Fathers weren't organized thugs, they were organized reasoners (with some rifles).

Yes, they used muscle (against mother England) in order to implement this country -- but they used the mind first (and only then implemented the mind's solutions with their muscles). It was one of the very first times in human history where right beat might (i.e., where "might makes right" didn't hold -- because it doesn't have to!).

Ed

Post 128

Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 8:35pm

Ed: "You're setting up a Straw Man here. For instance, you're making the Founding Fathers -- folks who discovered that humans have individual rights against their own governments (and that only the Objective Rule of Law will ever protect for that) -- you're making these founding folks out to be "a group of organized thugs." Yeah, sure, when the very Founding Fathers are thugs ... anything goes! But the Founding Fathers weren't organized thugs, they were organized reasoners (with some rifles).

Yes, they used muscle (against mother England) in order to implement this country -- but they used the mind first (and only then implemented the mind's solutions with their muscles). It was one of the very first times in human history where right beat might (i.e., where "might makes right" didn't hold -- because it doesn't have to!)."

Of course there is nothing wrong w/ using force (muscle) to protect one's rights. But the Founding Fathers were not some gods. They didn't "discover" that we had rights. They were political animals like all Congress-critters (in L. Neil Smith's felicitous phrasing). As for might-makes-right, they set up a flawed Constitution, via a coup d'etat, that was bound to devolve, via democracy and centralization, into the leviathan state we have now--as it has. They set up a state that left women and blacks to suffer as sub-humans. They destroyed a monarchist hierarchy in their naive utopianism that might have saved us from what has happened. In their war against the mother country, the conscripted soldiers, and shot deserters. Right beating might, eh? From the get-go, it was flawed, and destined to be, as all states are.

Post 129

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 12:31am

Stephan,

=========
... the Founding Fathers were not some gods. They didn't "discover" that we had rights.
=========

I didn't mean that they were THE FIRST to discover this fact of reality! Listen Kinsella, known things are either created (man-made) or discovered (metaphysical). Those are the only 2 options in the universe. In this respect, the Founding Fathers either created individual rights or discovered them (so they discovered them).

=========
As for might-makes-right, they set up a flawed Constitution, via a coup d'etat, that was bound to devolve, via democracy and centralization, into the leviathan state we have now--as it has. ... From the get-go, it was flawed, and destined to be, as all states are.
=========

There are only a handful of flaws in the Constitution -- nothing that hindsight couldn't fix. Quit beating up on humanity's best effort and learn from it. Why be so doom-n-gloom about this undeniable human progress, anyway??

Geez "Lew"-eeze, man! I suppose if we had done even better with American government than we already had -- then you'd be even MORE upset about the remaining imperfections!

:-/

Ed

Post 130

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 12:40am

Stephan I noticed you've dodged my question twice now. Should I take your silence to mean your client doesn't know your philosophical view on intellectual property rights? Would you mind if I told your client that you would not take action to protect their intellectual property? Because I can only think of three possible explanations for the facts here:

1) You are lying and would act to protect your client if I started using your client's intellectual property. Which means you're just a hypocrite.

2) You are telling the truth and your client doesn't know your position, which would mean you are committing a fraud against your client.

3) You are telling the truth and your client already has knowledge of your philosophical position (which is hard for me to believe) then you wouldn't mind if I asked your client if he knew.

I would be greatly disturbed to learn if my second explanation was correct.

(Edited by John Armaos on 4/11, 1:03am)

Post 131

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 2:54am

It is sad that so much of this discussion includes endless ad hominem attacks. Seems to reinforce the impression some folks have of Objectivists, namely, that they are reluctant to keep personal attacks out of intellectual disputes. Of course, disputants can have moral flaws but that is irrelevant to whether their arguments are sound and a forum such as this one is supposed to address the latter point, not the former.

Post 132

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 5:02am

John, I don't care to engage any further with you on pointless personal or meta-issues, thread-hijacks or derailing, sidetracking or deflecting. This post was about Tibor's article, which was about intellectual property and its legitimacy. I disagree with Tibor but for sincere reasons, and his argument is reasonable too. You guys have turned this into an inquisition on my job and anarchy and libertarianism. And you seem unable to discuss this civilly without getting threatened or upset when I make substantive points that are contrary to established or received Objectivist wisdom. Is this a discusion thread or not?

If you want a thread about Stephan Kinsella's personal career, uh, start one. I would be happy to discuss rights theory, or anarcho-libertarianism, on the appropriate forum/thread. This is about intellectual property.

Post 133

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 6:09am

As for might-makes-right, they set up a flawed Constitution, via a coup d'etat, that was bound to devolve, via democracy and centralization, into the leviathan state we have now--as it has. ... From the get-go, it was flawed, and destined to be, as all states are.
=========

There are only a handful of flaws in the Constitution -- nothing that hindsight couldn't fix. Quit beating up on humanity's best effort and learn from it. Why be so doom-n-gloom about this undeniable human progress, anyway??

You would do well to read the writings of the anti-federalists, whose points raged against the constitution proposal proved true in all major respects.... it is said history is written by the winners, and here it is seen in the demonization of the Articles of Confederation - which, in contrary to 'perceived wisdom', was not the unworkable document so claimed, but had only one major so-called flaw: it wasn't centralized one-yoked powered.....

Post 134

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 7:10am

Machan: "It is sad that so much of this discussion includes endless ad hominem attacks."

If you're referring in part to me, it's sad that you can't distinguish ad hominem from an allegation of hypocrisy. An ad hominem attack means trying to invalidate a person's argument by impugning his character. I for one haven't done that here. I merely noted that it's strangely hypocritical for someone who believes that state-granted patents shouldn't even exist to make his living as a patent lawyer, when part of one's job is securing those patents for clients. That's a personal comment, obviously, but it's not an "ad hominem attack" because I didn't state or imply that it means Stephan's view on the status of IP is invalid.

Stephan: "If you sell someone a gun, do you have to make them "stipulate" they will only use it for good?"

John: "Difference is using a gun for evil purposes is already against the law. Using a patent for what you deem to be evil purposes is not against the law."

Stephan: "This is irrelevant."

No, it isn't. The fact that using a gun to commit aggression is already punishable by law while using a patent to commit aggression (in your view) is sanctioned by law is the essential difference. You're dropping context by not recognizing that. Of course, it's not as bad (given your premises) if you truly never sue anyone for patent violations.

Regardless, I think I'm done with this thread. Given your choice of work and writing on the issue, I'm sure you find IP to be an interesting topic for lengthy discussion. But I really don't.
(Edited by Jon Trager on 4/11, 9:47am)

Post 135

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 10:09am

Machan I'm not using ad hominem attacks. Hypocrisy and fraud are not ad hominem arguments especially if they are true. I even stated Stephan's hypocrisy does not validate or invalidate his arguments on intellectual property. Did you miss that post where I stated this? If anything Stephan has been guilty of ad hominem attacks by initially attacking my college education and presuming liberal arts majors can't make coherent arguments. Should Stephan have the impression Objectivists are more interested in personal attacks, I should think I should legitimately get the impression anarchists are only interested in personal attacks.

At first I thought Stephan was not being intellectually honest about arguing against intellectual property by being an IP lawyer, which on the surface I found absurd, and thought he was playing devil's advocate with us, which not letting your debating opponents understand this upfront before intellectually engaging them I believe is fraudulent. Then Stephan chose to explain why he was an IP lawyer but didn't agree with IP laws, and only used them defensively. But his explanations were lacking.

Stephan:

John, I don't care to engage any further with you on pointless personal or meta-issues

If I'm correct in assuming your client doesn't know your philosophical position that you would not take any legal action to protect their intellectual property, defrauding your client is not a "personal" or "meta-issue". I think it's disturbing and flagrantly immoral.

(Edited by John Armaos on 4/11, 10:15am)

Post 136

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 10:37am

Stephen,

Just to understand your basic position, you're saying that if a drug company puts million of dollars into researching and developing a drug, another drug company, who did not put any money into its research and development, should have the same right to produce and sell the drug at a profit as the original company? Is this correct?

- Bill

Post 137

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 10:54am

I accused Stephan of "beating up on humanity's best effort" and of not "learn[ing] from it" and of being "so doom-n-gloom."

Then, I snuck-in a reference to Lew Rockwell and postulated that Stephan's 'rationality-compass' might actually be inverted -- so that the better that human governments got, the more he would complain and vilify them (instead of vilifying them less for their obvious improvements).

According to Merriam-Webster online (thanks, Rick!), I have got to admit that my behavior does qualify as ad hominem ...

2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

While I DID answer the contentions made by Stephan (in fact, I am of the falsifiable impression that I answered them quite superbly!), I did go ahead and take a jib-jab at the man for even being the kind of a man who would even hold such contentions in the first place. And that can't be very encouraging to an opponent in a debate.

I'm sorry, Stephan (and other viewers here). I think I'll probably be back to doing it all over again sometime soon, but I am sorry that I played a big role in the degeneration of this discussion into a potentially-deleterious hybrid of philosophical dialectic with just a little bit of plain ole' run-o-the-mill "mudslinging".

Ed

Post 138

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 11:06am

Actually, calling people hypocrites and frauds in the midst of an argument is exactly what ad hominem means--"against the person" rather than against the argument. I would suggest that in arguments one show that another has committed some fallacy, got some facts wrong, etc. Calling the person a hypocrite simply closes the argument--no one can continue arguing with someone who has demeaned him or her morally!

Post 139

Friday, April 11, 2008 - 11:29am