More welfare for billionaires

[MisterChester]

 

[steveh_131]

They're your morals. Why do you hate my freedom to choose my own?

You're welcome to, but you want to force them on everyone else. Telling people what they can watch, what they can listen to, what they can say, what they can create. All regulated.

 

[jamil]

Oh ****. The world has turnt upsides down and I feel the blood rushing to my head. I think I may just be allied with Alpo in a debate with steveh_131. Can we talk about the EPA or something to jolt things back aright before I pass out?

 

[jamil]

You're welcome to, but you want to force them on everyone else. Telling people what they can watch, what they can listen to, what they can say, what they can create. All regulated.

You're pretty good at turning everything into a false dichotomy. Don't get me wrong though. I think the current patent system does go too far. Monsanto shouldn't be able to use US Patent law as a weapon to make farmers accidentally infringe on their GMOs. But I should get first dibs on my own ideas.

 

[steveh_131]

But I should get first dibs on my own ideas.

And I should be able to earn a living wage for a hard day's work, but life doesn't always work out that way. Using the government to force it to work out that way never pans out.

 

[jamil]

And I should be able to earn a living wage for a hard day's work, but life doesn't always work out that way. Using the government to force it to work out that way never pans out.

The constitution guarantees people the right to their own ideas. It does not guarantee people the right to a living wage.

 

[poptab]

I haven't had time to return to the material you linked; However, I am inclined to doubt that I will see any shift away from the premise upon which it rests which suggests that the collective good outweighs the good of an inventor, and that a person is entitled only to the product of the work of his back, not the work of his mind.

I suppose that I am just going to have to accept that I join the authors of our Constitution in being a pack of complete dumbasses.

Dave the guys who wrote that book are economists and are making an economic utilitarian argument because that is the argument that will most likely convince their peers.

You have a strong moral belief that ip is similar to tangible property and that people who steal ip are committing a crime.

I do not believe that ip is any thing like tangible property and thus theft does not apply. They very well might be commiting fraud or some other crime and those should be prosecuted. I also think that they may be commiting some sort of moral wrong depending on the case but not everything that I think is immoral should be illegal.

I do not know how to make a moral argument that copying an idea is not immoral other than what Steve has already said.

 

[steveh_131]

The constitution guarantees people the right to their own ideas. It does not guarantee people the right to a living wage.

Some think it does.

I do not know how to make a moral argument that copying an idea is not immoral other than what Steve has already said.

This is almost comical to me. New or original ideas are incredibly rare. Everything we do, everything we build, everything we think and say is built upon the things that those before us did, thought, built and said.

Assigning some sort of morality to the use of someone else's idea is just downright ridiculous. The very words that one would use to condemn it are 'stolen' from someone else.

Now I will accept as consistent the argument that it is economically necessary. I don't agree with the argument, but at least it is consistent.

 

[Alpo]

Oh ****. The world has turnt upsides down and I feel the blood rushing to my head. I think I may just be allied with Alpo in a debate with steveh_131. Can we talk about the EPA or something to jolt things back aright before I pass out?

Don't worry, I'm watching you, jamil. If you agree with me any more this week, I'm reporting it to the Mouse.

 

[jamil]

Don't worry, I'm watching you, jamil. If you agree with me any more this week, I'm reporting it to the Mouse.

Best I can tell, all the mouse does is give people free cheeseburgers.

 

[Alpo]

This is not relevant to the thread....or possibly it is relevant, but only in the most indirect way.

 

[poptab]

Some think it does.



This is almost comical to me. New or original ideas are incredibly rare. Everything we do, everything we build, everything we think and say is built upon the things that those before us did, thought, built and said.

Assigning some sort of morality to the use of someone else's idea is just downright ridiculous. The very words that one would use to condemn it are 'stolen' from someone else.

Now I will accept as consistent the argument that it is economically necessary. I don't agree with the argument, but at least it is consistent.

That book I linked refutes the argument that ip is economically necessary.

 

[IndyDave1776]

That book I linked refutes the argument that ip is economically necessary.

It only refutes the argument if you accept the premise that the collective good outweighs a person's ownership of his own ideas, and that the proper measure of what is right is the amount of product put on the street in a compact period of time. I reject the premise and therefore do not consider this to have refuted the argument for ip. I also have a problem with basing so much of an argument on a cherry-picked example that is completely irrelevant to US patent law aside from similarity in general principle.

 

[steveh_131]

If you think that IP expires then you are accepting the premise that the collective good outweighs a person's ownership of his ideas.

 

[steveh_131]

It only refutes the argument if you accept the premise that the collective good outweighs a person's ownership of his own ideas

Let me lay our your worldview in a more organized fashion.

A) Ideas can be owned as property.
B) If ideas are held as private property indefinitely, advancement is hindered.
C) Property rights may be compromised for the sake of the 'common good'.
D) We may 'expire' intellectual property rights and distribute that property to the collective.

Now based on your last post, it sounds like you disagree with (C). If you disagree with it then how do you logically arrive at (D) where you believe that this property 'expires' and may be distributed to the collective?

 

[jamil]

If you think that IP expires then you are accepting the premise that the collective good outweighs a person's ownership of his ideas.

No, I'm accepting that not everything is black and white.

 

[steveh_131]

No, I'm accepting that not everything is black and white.

Yes. I agree. You're accepting a shade of gray in between that compromises property rights with the collective good.

 

[MisterChester]

[video=youtube_share;tk862BbjWx4]http://youtu.be/tk862BbjWx4[/video]

Basically, current copyright law allows companies to infinitely renew copyright on IP, even if it goes against the clause about patents in the constitution.

 

[BugI02]

[STRIKE][/STRIKE]

Or... consistent thinking. Logical thinking.

There is nothing logical or consistent about calling a man a 'thief' for duplicating a work today then calling him a 'businessman' for duplicating it tomorrow.

I don't know. If you sell your stake in your company's stock the day before you announce earnings have tanked you're a thief, just after the losses are announced and you're a businessman



Is there nothing in the constitution that you'd have done differently?

Maybe. [STRIKE]A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,[/STRIKE] the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



Although I have nothing against them, I am not an anarchist. I support limited government, not no government. I support property rights, laws against force and violence, contract law, fraud prosecution, and the free market.

I do not support arbitrary economic regulations intended to benefit the 'common good'. You do. BBI does, in various forms. That's fine, but my disagreement does not make me an anarchist.

I think that the free market can protect individuals from abuse by employers better than OSHA or minimum wage laws.

How has that worked out for, say, the folks in Hinckley, CA (hexavalent chromium) or Fayatteville NC (ammonium perfluorooctanoate)

I think that the free market can protect consumers from abuse by corporations better than anti-trust laws can.

How has that worked in your own hot button topic of vaccine toxicity

I think that the free market can generate and distribute wealth better than the government can.

No disagreement here

I think that the free market can compensate creators of intellectual commodities better than the government can.

How is that working for news organizations vs content aggregators

I am consistent.

Can a consistent person still be wrong? Is an inconsistent person ever right?

 

[steveh_131]

I don't know. If you sell your stake in your company's stock the day before you announce earnings have tanked you're a thief, just after the losses are announced and you're a businessman

Fraudulent, maybe. Not a thief. Still doesn't equate.

How has that worked out for, say, the folks in Hinckley, CA (hexavalent chromium) or Fayatteville NC (ammonium perfluorooctanoate)

Good question. How did it work out? Did regulations prevent it or did they rely on civil action?

How has that worked in your own hot button topic of vaccine toxicity

Also a good question. Vaccine manufacturers are shielded from all liability by the Federal Government, yet are regulated by the Federal Government. And they certainly do abuse the **** out of the consumers. Clearly the regulations don't work. At least civil liability would have offered real compensation to the victims.

Can a consistent person still be wrong? Is an inconsistent person ever right?

An inconsistent person's views necessarily contradict, so they're bound to be wrong on one of their views.