Reactions to AC

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like this, a lot. It actually makes a case for IP as the product of your labor and the use of an idea requiring the consent of its creator.

[/ QUOTE ]
The AC objection that I've seen before is, "What if someone else comes up with the same idea independantly an hour after you did?" And of course then you have the wrangling over whether someone really did come up with an idea independantly, etc etc. Messy, if nothing else.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same thing that happens when someone independently discovers your farm an hour after you did.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, and we've been through this. Oh god we've been through this. The difference between an idea and property is that property is a finite measurable thing. If I own a gold nugget you can not also own that same gold nugget. We could both own half of the gold nugget, or share it in some way, but physical property must have limited ownership due to laws of the universe.
On the other hand I can tell you this idea for a great invention, called a dutch oven. I can tell you in great detail all you need to know to trap you girlfriends head in a funky, festering, field of flatulence AND I can still retain that full idea, go home and yank the sheets over my woman's head.

[_tolbiny_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like this, a lot. It actually makes a case for IP as the product of your labor and the use of an idea requiring the consent of its creator.

[/ QUOTE ]
The AC objection that I've seen before is, "What if someone else comes up with the same idea independantly an hour after you did?" And of course then you have the wrangling over whether someone really did come up with an idea independantly, etc etc. Messy, if nothing else.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same thing that happens when someone independently discovers your farm an hour after you did.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, and we've been through this. Oh god we've been through this. The difference between an idea and property is that property is a finite measurable thing. If I own a gold nugget you can not also own that same gold nugget. We could both own half of the gold nugget, or share it in some way, but physical property must have limited ownership due to laws of the universe.
On the other hand I can tell you this idea for a great invention, called a dutch oven. I can tell you in great detail all you need to know to trap you girlfriends head in a funky, festering, field of flatulence AND I can still retain that full idea, go home and yank the sheets over my woman's head.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the question was "What happens?", not "What is it?" So yes.

We have indeed been through this. Ideas aren't scarce I agree. My car is blue. Non sequitur that either is not property.
Not clear? Let me help you:


[rant]
1. Ideas are not scarce
2. ?
3. Ideas are not property.

[hysterics]
Somebody explain item 2 please. Post a link, something, anything, because I really don't get it. IP is about two things: Origin and novelty. I don't care how easy it is for you to copy my idea. It's still my idea!.
The problem lies not in scarcity but in the definition of property. There isn't one (I haven't found one, and can't come up with one.) I find it hard to accept that ACland will allow people to publish Romeo and Juliet as their own work (prose isn't scarce). I find it hard to accept that ACland I can sell my OS as Microsoft Windows (code isn't scarce). I can do all these things because the authors of the real thing still have it no matter what I do? If anything that should make it property! There is nothing else in all the universe that a human being can't have stolen, might doesn't make right no matter how mighty. If nothing else, that quality, makes nothing but an idea real property.

First use isn't enough to stake a claim.
Utility isn't enough to stake a claim.
Labor isn't enough to stake a claim.
Creation isn't enough to stake a claim.

But some mystical, magical combination of the above (determined by an arbiter) that'll do it?

Judge: 2OuterJitsu, you stand accused of Identity "theft". How do you plea?
2OuterJitsu: Not guilty your honor.
Judge: On what grounds?
2OuterJitsu: tolbiny still has it!
Judge: Case dismissed!
[/hysterics]

Property is like porn. I don't know what it is, but I know when it's mine. Take a close look at this post if you haven't noticed (I didn't want to actually break the law/rules even if I could). The great and prosperous ACland where all debts go unresolved indefinitely...legally!. Where there is no education public or private (can you enforce a contract enumerating the exchange of null items?)

I don't buy it.
[/rant]

IP will exist in ACland. The same mechanism that protects scarce property will protect non-scarce property. I don't know how patents will expire, or when copyrights will be considered public domain, but I am confident the market will decide.

Statitsts: I have in no way harmed the validity of AC. The government must as a priori recognize my property. DUCY?
Socialists: Start your own thread please [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Cody, do you really feel what you are saying? You are telling me that I need to be aggressed against and that it is my best interest to allow that. Why do you hate me so? You're also saying that your friends and family need to be aggressed against as well as yourself. And if that aggression did not happen then THAT would be awful.

As far as things like Ip go.. I have no idea how that kind of thing can work but I'm certainly not suggesting that I get to point a gun at you to make it work.

It is very possible that all this stuff is entirely not about government and is instead about family. Please! go to freedomainradio.com and listen to the podcasts on family and the boards there.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of probably 18 posts (Damn I have to stop going to bed, I miss too much).

Whew, this is really tricky. Here's where we get into theory v. practice. If EVERYONE in the world would suddendly have a clean government slate, then alot of governments could "work". But sadly, we live in a world that depends upon the reactions of many differnet groups, groups that often don't agree.

It's a lovely appluase line to say that "I shouldn't pay one tenth of a penny for anything I don't want" but that idea, when applied practically, ignores the fact such extreme privatization (if I understand AC correctly, 100%) leaves the people fractured. There are issues so large that they require a large touch. I use WWII as an example, a loosely affiliated group of private police isn't likely to win a war like that, but ACers just laugh and don't answer the question. Kinda hard to argue with that.

The point in all this is that in the practical world, there exists a need for larger organization. ACers say "fine, just leave me and my farm alone", and that's great until you realize that certain things (threats to security, infrastructure needs, etc) don't fit into free market ideas for one reason or another.

This is so hard to explain properly (you may have noticed) so keep asking questions and hopefully through my answers I can get some clearer answers out.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course the market isn't perfect, and we shouldn't judge it by that standard. i can create (and find actual examples) of people not getting treatment (or treatments remaining prohibitively expensive) because of choices the FDA makes. My only option is to prefer the situation that trends towards efficiency, the one that responds best to changes in opinion, needs, and technology.

[/ QUOTE ]

We both said that the FDA has problems, but splitting a not-for-profit watchdog into several independent groups with their own agendas doesn't automatically mean that there are in any way more effiecient.

[ QUOTE ]
I am very sorry to hear you take this position, because the market is not like a physics equation, or a law of nature. The fact that one situation in your opinion will result in a better outcome via government is not justification for it. As a pragmatist you should realize that we are weighing options, not describing true, across the universe laws for which one non fitting fact is fatal. You can come at me with iron clad proof (not that i think it exists) where Government is superior to AC and i would still support AC because of the nature of government. Setting up a system in which a select few are given the power to tax and create laws and institutions and sets their wants above the wants of others, grants them privileges others don't have, is a cost for which a single instance cannot justify.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my issue with AC (I wrote some on the point above). ACers always start from "government is inherently evil", and while I agree that our present incarnation is pretty bad (man it had a good 20-30 year run after Washington), I don't agree that ALL government is bad.

As for the pragmatic issue, that's what I'm attempting to do. I realize that neither you nor I not even the mighty PVN is smart enough to account for every variable, every eventuality. Not that the existance of the unforeseen justifies oppression (one's definition of 'opression' becomes important), it doesn't, but it does mean that it situations where there are large (and dangerous) external factors at play, there must occasionally be compromise.

The AC position is, as has been weeeeeell established, "hey that's cool, AC isn't going to tell you who you can talk to, just that I shouldn't HAVE to talk to anyone." Once again, we all agree that Power Corrupts (right?), how can we possibly believe that we can protect ourselves without some base amount of unity or rule of law, which of course, we won't because every town, city, or region will have it's own laws, and the "tools" to enforce them.

Cody

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cody, do you really feel what you are saying? You are telling me that I need to be aggressed against and that it is my best interest to allow that. Why do you hate me so? You're also saying that your friends and family need to be aggressed against as well as yourself. And if that aggression did not happen then THAT would be awful.

As far as things like Ip go.. I have no idea how that kind of thing can work but I'm certainly not suggesting that I get to point a gun at you to make it work.

It is very possible that all this stuff is entirely not about government and is instead about family. Please! go to freedomainradio.com and listen to the podcasts on family and the boards there.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of probably 18 posts (Damn I have to stop going to bed, I miss too much).

Whew, this is really tricky. Here's where we get into theory v. practice. If EVERYONE in the world would suddendly have a clean government slate, then alot of governments could "work". But sadly, we live in a world that depends upon the reactions of many differnet groups, groups that often don't agree.

It's a lovely appluase line to say that "I shouldn't pay one tenth of a penny for anything I don't want" but that idea, when applied practically, ignores the fact such extreme privatization (if I understand AC correctly, 100%) leaves the people fractured.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, noes. We can't have a fraktur of the Volk, can we? What does this even mean?

[ QUOTE ]
There are issues so large that they require a large touch. I use WWII as an example, a loosely affiliated group of private police isn't likely to win a war like that, but ACers just laugh and don't answer the question. Kinda hard to argue with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean, you make a bald-faced unsupported assertion, "ACers" point that out, and you don't like the answer.

Because centrally-planned, monopolistic solutions to national defense work so well. Maginot Line FTL!

[ QUOTE ]
The point in all this is that in the practical world, there exists a need for larger organization.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bald-faced assertion. Assumes your conclussion. Why? Because you say so? You honestly believe there "exists a need" for gigantic bureaucratic monopolies that violently remove and prevent would-be competition? And you honestly think this can somehow magically be good for the little guys? Seriously. I boggle.

[ QUOTE ]
ACers say "fine, just leave me and my farm alone", and that's great until you realize that certain things (threats to security, infrastructure needs, etc) don't fit into free market ideas for one reason or another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you say so? I have a tip for you: Just because you cannot imagine how the market could produce something doesn't mean that the market can't produce it. It really does amaze me. Do you have any idea that every single thing that is monopolized by government in one place either currently thrives in the free market or has in the past in other places and times, whenever it is allowed? Do you realize that all of the things we are told we need government to provide for us because we are too stupid to figure out actually predate the state and its interventions in and monopolizations thereof? Roads, money, law, courts, police, security, healthcare, bakeries, you name it. All are provided for in the free market when it is allowed. Most are provided all around you, in the very country in which you sit and scorn them.

How do you propose that a monolithic producer and enforcer of "solutions" to society's problems, including things like national defense, can possibly hope to produce better results than a free and competitive market, all else being equal? Are the people in the state omniscient in your world? Are they selfless perfect beings who know all? Are they angels?

[ QUOTE ]
This is so hard to explain properly (you may have noticed) so keep asking questions and hopefully through my answers I can get some clearer answers out.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard to explain propoerly because it's a bunch of ill-thought-out assumption, assertion, hand-waving, and apologetics for the status quo.

[plzleenowhammy]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a lovely appluase line to say that "I shouldn't pay one tenth of a penny for anything I don't want" but that idea, when applied practically, ignores the fact such extreme privatization (if I understand AC correctly, 100%) leaves the people fractured. There are issues so large that they require a large touch. I use WWII as an example, a loosely affiliated group of private police isn't likely to win a war like that, but ACers just laugh and don't answer the question. Kinda hard to argue with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

How could such a war be fought in Ac-topia? Armies are a waste of resources that only exist through the propaganda and false virtue of the state. Wars are fought because children are told that it is their duty to fight for their country. Without that indoctrination such wars would not be fought. Also, armies don't exist without taxation or "organization" as you would call it. Also, if there are certain people in government who are so great at organizing everything then all they would need to do is form a company to organize infrastructure in a community. I'm sure that people would voluntarily pay for that service, right?

Btw, how did your parents "organize" your childhood?

Thanks for the conversation, Cody. I think we might get somewhere.. eventually.

[plzleenowhammy]

[ QUOTE ]
we won't because every town, city, or region will have it's own laws, and the "tools" to enforce them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that already the case? Also, laws are tough to enforce - tough meaning expensive. And the communites with less laws will be wealthier.. I think. I'm still thinking about that.


Borodog, I love your posts but you sound really frustrated.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the market isn't perfect, and we shouldn't judge it by that standard. i can create (and find actual examples) of people not getting treatment (or treatments remaining prohibitively expensive) because of choices the FDA makes. My only option is to prefer the situation that trends towards efficiency, the one that responds best to changes in opinion, needs, and technology.

[/ QUOTE ]

We both said that the FDA has problems, but splitting a not-for-profit watchdog into several independent groups with their own agendas doesn't automatically mean that there are in any way more effiecient.

[ QUOTE ]
I am very sorry to hear you take this position, because the market is not like a physics equation, or a law of nature. The fact that one situation in your opinion will result in a better outcome via government is not justification for it. As a pragmatist you should realize that we are weighing options, not describing true, across the universe laws for which one non fitting fact is fatal. You can come at me with iron clad proof (not that i think it exists) where Government is superior to AC and i would still support AC because of the nature of government. Setting up a system in which a select few are given the power to tax and create laws and institutions and sets their wants above the wants of others, grants them privileges others don't have, is a cost for which a single instance cannot justify.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my issue with AC (I wrote some on the point above). ACers always start from "government is inherently evil", and while I agree that our present incarnation is pretty bad (man it had a good 20-30 year run after Washington), I don't agree that ALL government is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG. EMPHATICALLY, WRONG.

The moral argument for the free market is only one. Other, in my opinion, stronger arguments are rooted in economics. In Rothbard's Man, Economy & State, With Power and Market, Rothbard lays out the workings of the unfettered free market. Only then does he examine the effects of various kinds of coercive interventions into that market, showing explicitly the gigantic problems that result from those interventions.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the pragmatic issue, that's what I'm attempting to do. I realize that neither you nor I not even the mighty PVN is smart enough to account for every variable, every eventuality. Not that the existance of the unforeseen justifies oppression (one's definition of 'opression' becomes important), it doesn't, but it does mean that it situations where there are large (and dangerous) external factors at play, there must occasionally be compromise.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumes your conclusion that your "compromise" can provide better solutions than the uncompromised alternative, which is the free market. It cannot. To assume that it can is again, to just assume your conclusion.

[ QUOTE ]
The AC position is, as has been weeeeeell established, "hey that's cool, AC isn't going to tell you who you can talk to, just that I shouldn't HAVE to talk to anyone." Once again, we all agree that Power Corrupts (right?), how can we possibly believe that we can protect ourselves without some base amount of unity or rule of law, which of course, we won't because every town, city, or region will have it's own laws, and the "tools" to enforce them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last time I checked, every town, city, and region DOES have its own laws and tools to enforce them. What was your point again?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we won't because every town, city, or region will have it's own laws, and the "tools" to enforce them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that already the case? Also, laws are tough to enforce - tough meaning expensive. And the communites with less laws will be wealthier.. I think. I'm still thinking about that.


Borodog, I love your posts but you sound really frustrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Xenophobia? The status quo *restricts* my ability to do business with certain people who were born on the "wrong" side of an imaginary line. How is removing such restrictions more xenophobic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you're allowing fragmentation to the point of ensuring weakness. You're allowing people the freedom (I obviously hate freedom in all it's forms, UP WITH SLAVERY!!) to harm others, albeit indirectly. This is the point: We're all connected. This is the information age, we're no longer nomadic cave dwellers, and our actions effect others.

Man, I promise, I really want you to be able to do whatever the hell you want. Not only am I for gay marriage, I'm for animal marriage. You wanna marry a goat, then have a midday abortion, and then watch varying degrees of porn all day, you have a ball sir. There are only a few things I care about, and one is my own security, which I can have effectivly without your help.

You're a stone cold pacifist who doesn't want any army at all, well sorry, tough [censored], I'm still gonna need $5 a year from you (here for a reply you can just copy this "Ok 5 bucks eh, well how much is too much, 5-50-500, who draws the line, shouldn't we all get to draw our own line"). This is the friction we have. It's an absolute truth that you should NOT have to pay for anything you don't want. I should NOT have the right to take from you something unless you consent. The problem is that this is the real world, and if we don't ban together, someone's going to take both of our freedoms, and at that point it's going to mean very little that we, at one point, had freedoms.

That last example isn't 100% specific, but it's mearly a highlight of the larger "ideal v. practical" debate.

[ QUOTE ]
No, that's what happens when you advocate "reform" and simply remove one set of bozos and insert another, or replace one cog in the machine with another. The machine is still operating in the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

No there is always red tape and burracracy, even in the free market, it's mearly a shift. Companies in the free market waste money all the time, it's not as if it's perfect business evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
Denial?

The constitution has been basically ignored for years. Sure, every once in a while there's some lip service paid to it.

Do you read the news? Bush openly flaunts the law, struts while doing so, and there's a few peeps but mostly people don't really care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're letting your anger get the better of you, these are problems with THIS government, not with ALL government.

[ QUOTE ]
All areas where there are governments, last time I checked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simply because there is a government, doesn't mean that it has enough (or any) power and that there isn't de facto warlord rule.

[ QUOTE ]
False, and has been so demonstrated probably 100x here. The state may have a monopoly on law, that doesn't mean law cannot be provided through private, voluntary means.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on P, you're smart enough to realize that one unifying force (to say nothing of its coersion or force) is better at establishing law then a huge amount of smaller groups. It's true that it's possible for one unified set of laws, or hell just several that are compatable, COULD spring up, but we both know it's unlikely.

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, your "state" plan doesn't sound foolproof to me. Now what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm not happy with the government, and you're not happy with it, but insted of working towards compromise, you just want to scrap the whole thing and hope that through our own needs and/or goodness, we can come to an understanding.

Again, AC isn't compromise, it's a complete dissolution of the "ties that bind" and the hope that newer more effective ones come out of necessity.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, to avoid monopolies and price fixing, we need an even bigger monopoly, which engages in price fixing (AND makes you buy it's product)!!!

Sorry, doesn't sound foolproof to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I ceratinly don't want that, do you? Guess we'll have to come up with some way to prevent those companies from price fixing. Hmmm, well let's you and I band together, and lets get our friends, and then (we all have guns) we can make them play fair and....awwww dammit, we're a government. Well [censored] me.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I had no idea who you were referring to. And I can't read everything on this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you have no problem posting snide remarks to questions you make no attempt to explore. Are you still curious as to why more people don't listen to you. Oh that's right, their minds aren't ready.

Cody