The US Will Become a Police State (not a joke)

by metatron 113 Replies latest jw friends

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety

    They aren't truly property to begin with.

    If they were, there would not be a limit on how long they exist under a legalized monopoly.

    If you own a spoon, isn't it yours essentially forever? You have property rights to your spoon, or home, or any physical thing you own. You have the right (or at least should have the legal right) to do whatever you want with these things so long as you don't use them to harm another person. You even have property rights to yourself, since you own your own body. There are no time limits to ownership of real property.

    A book itself might be property, since it is a physical thing.

    A patent, however, violates your real property rights. What if you bake an apple pie according to a recipe of your own devising? You own the sugar. The flour. The shortening. The apples--and the kitchen to cook it all in. You also own your body with which you make the pie.

    A patent on that recipe however, essentially says you cannot do what you have a right to do with your own things or body because someone else wrote it down and got the government to agree to enforce a monopoly on it.

    And copyright is essentially a restriction of freedom of speech and the press.

    All these things are not physical. They exist in the mind or on other people's property.

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    Not all products are tangible. Intellectual property is not tangible. It is deeply disrespectful to say that those who produce something that is held in the hand deserve more protection than those that produce something that is held in the mind. Following a recipe is not the same thing as copying a book. Yes, this does restrict some speech. Freedom of speech is does not translate into saying whatever you want, and it never did. Speech has always been restricted in one area or another.

    If someone's "product" is intellectual, it deserves some protection. That protection does expire, of course. Shakespeare is long dead and his writings have become a part of culture. We also understand that new innovations are needed to benefit and uplift society as a whole. So patent protection is also limited.

    I think you would have a very difficult time arguing that someone who puts just as much work into an intellectual idea, takes all the risks, incurs all the financial obligations of that property then has no exclusive right to it. Is this the libertarian world you grasp for? A world where people keep art and writing and ideas to themselves because they can't protect what they do, they can't fully devote themselves to it because they can't sell it, they can't be compensated for their efforts and their knowledge and skill? Well they "could" sell it, but since just anyone can take it away and profit, it is unlikely to work out well. You are all about private property, but you don't consider these things such.

    A person comes up with a unique idea for a design. They can't get a patent, but they'd like to start a small business producing. A larger more established business with more money and contacts can simply take that idea as their own destroying any chance the little guy has to compete.

    This libertarian world is starker and starker. It squealches innovation. It squealches the special things that make us human. A writer or an artist would lose all hope of supporting themselves with their talents and skill, because they could have no claim to their finished product. Anybody could sell it and profit from it. Baboons would sit around, wait for someone to create something special, and then simply take it and profit off of it. I could never be a libertarian.

    NC

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    It is deeply disrespectful to say that those who produce something that is held in the hand deserve more protection than those that produce something that is held in the mind. Following a recipe is not the same thing as copying a book.

    I live off mind-products. I write for a living. So yes, I can say it.

    It isn't a question of protection. It is a question of property.

    You own a horse, and I take it.

    I have stolen it. I have deprived you of the use of a horse.

    You design a web layout. Knowingly or not, I use the same layout.

    I have not deprived you the use of your design. Unlike a horse, you can still use it.

    Your design is not property.

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    Maybe you don't understand the concept of intellectual property. But just answer me this:

    If someone writes a book, do you think that another individual should be allowed to legally take that book and profit from it? Just that simple question. Does an unrelated individual have the right to profit off of another person's work?

    NC

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    A person comes up with a unique idea for a design. They can't get a patent, but they'd like to start a small business producing. A larger more established business with more money and contacts can simply take that idea as their own destroying any chance the little guy has to compete.

    It goes both ways, and in the real world, it usually goes towards breaking the little guy who does not have the advantage of a high-powered legal team.

    You say libertarians want to squash innovation. That is risible.

    There would be far more innovation in a world without restriction. No one could rest on their laurels and parasitize everyone else. In some industries, it is a nightmare. You cannot build a modern cell phone without having to pay royalties to dozens of different entities. How is that good for innovation?

    Incidentally, you are making a very good argument for no time limits on intellectual property. The man that invented the assembly line has a legal claim on 90% of the world's industrial production, according to your argument. How good would that be for innovation? Everything new gets built on something that came before. What if Craig Venter had sequenced the human genome first? Clinton's team beat him by mere weeks and he gave it away to the world. He did it to prevent the patenting of it. How much genomics innovation would have occurred over the past decade if the basic human genome was owned by one entity and anyone that desired to build on that knowledge was forced to seek permission?

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    Does Ron Paul copyright his books? Maybe this is not a libertarian idea, just a BTS idea.

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety

    Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist and supports patents and copyrights:

    Article I, Section 8:

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    Yep, I just looked it up. Oh well, guess we will continue to protect intellectual property. At least the constitution sees some value in it, the rest doesn't matter.

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety

    Incidentally, I notice you haven't engaged with the logic (or lack thereof) of my argument. You've changed the subject from ideas to persons.

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety

    Great minds discuss ideas
    Average minds discuss events
    Small minds discuss people

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit