Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist | Page 5 | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
SlowFlowPro
Stanford Fan
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
297947 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

Eh, it's expressly provided for in our Constitution. I think the writer is an idiot.

this isn't a constitutional argument. like my dick, it's much broader






Back to top
Y.A. Tittle
Winthrop Fan
Member since Sep 2003
49435 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

this isn't a constitutional argument. like my dick, it's much broader


I took his point to be that it was more than just an "Act of Congress" that created such a framework, as Mr. Kinsella's post seemed to be implying.






Back to top
Decatur
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17604 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Yeah I might have been too brash with the comment but that was what I was getting at. Just jumped in on the last page without reading the whole thread.

To Kinsella: Sorry for the comment, I don't think you're an idiot...just a bit misguided.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
SlowFlowPro
Stanford Fan
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
297947 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


well i hope that me including a reference to my dick in the response implied i was just joking more than anything

*ETA: and i meant for this thread, when arguing with anarchists it doesn't really do anything when discussing that another avenue of government created this right/power/monopoly/whatever. it will be auto-dismissed as statist



This post was edited on 3/19 at 2:38 pm


Back to top
  Replies (0)
WikiTiger
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
40721 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

How exactly does Canonical operate?


I just want to expand on this a bit because I think it's a good example of the type of innovation I am discussing here.

Canonical's main product, Ubuntu Linux, is actually a fork of another "flavor" of Linux called Debian. This means that Canonical took the code written by many other people who released it openly without copyright restrictions, and improved on it to create their product.

Debian came out in 1993 and was gradually built up into one of the most solid flavors of Linux around. It is still an extremely popular base distro. Ubuntu took all the good ideas of Debian and added their own.

Later on down the road, others took the improvements made by Ubuntu and further developed other "flavors", for instance, "Linux Mint was initially an Ubuntu based distro.

The point I'm trying to show is that this concept of open development and copyright free code has led to a proliferation of innovation and consumer choice, and not a deprivation of innovation like most pro-IP people claim would happen.

Here's a graphic representation of the innovation I'm talking about:








Back to top
Y.A. Tittle
Winthrop Fan
Member since Sep 2003
49435 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

Here's a graphic representation of the innovation I'm talking about:


I have no idea what's going on there, but I must admit it's rather pretty.






Back to top
WikiTiger
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
40721 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

I have no idea what's going on there, but I must admit it's rather pretty.





Open source software is beautiful.






Back to top
FT
Georgia Tech Fan
Aston Villa Supporter
Member since Oct 2003
15306 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Still no answer regarding who is meant to enforce contracts in a stateless society.





Back to top
WikiTiger
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
40721 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

Still no answer regarding who is meant to enforce contracts in a stateless society.


That topic has been discussed ad nauseam on this site.

If you are truly interested in the philosophy, then you could research anarcho-capitalism and other philosophies yourself. It gets exhausting typing the same things out over and over again.






Back to top
FT
Georgia Tech Fan
Aston Villa Supporter
Member since Oct 2003
15306 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Short answer?





Back to top
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


SlowFlowPro:
quote:

do you think companies will still spend millions/billions of dollars to develop new medicines if their formula will be distributed at a discount soon thereafter? what logic do you base this on?


Of course--many examples in history. See ch. 9 of Against Intellectual Monopoly by Boldrin and Levine. Open your mind. www.againstmonopoly.org

But the point of law is not to make sure there are enough drugs. There will always be some supply of R&D and innovation. You cannot seriously argue it would be zero absent the patent system. At most you could argue it would be lower than we have now. Well.... what is the right amount? And how much lower would it be? And what is the value of the extra pharmaceuticals produced given a patent system? And what is the cost of the patent system? Do you have any idea? If not, what are you talking about? Just repeating Big Pharma propaganda.






Back to top
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Rex:

If you keep a civil tongue and an open mind and try to realize when you are making assumptions, I will discuss with you.

quote:

"the entire purpose of patents it to protect people from competition."


I never said otherwise. The issue is whether or not that protection is justified in either a moral or practical sense.


Yes, and the burden of proof is of course on people like you who advocate the use of state force against innocent competitors.

quote:


You failed to address my point about your philosophy: you are all keen on sales competition but anti-competition with regard to product development, which in turn stifles technological innovation.


You have no reason to say this. This is just propaganda. Further: so what? tHe purpose of law is to do justice, not to make sure you have enough gizmos. Further: I am not pro or anti competition as such. I am just in favor of property rights and justice. Such a system permits people to compete with each other to make profits.

quote:


Why should Corning spend a dime on R&D when DuPont could then simply usurp the resulting processes as its own? Why should your love for "competition" stop at rewarding innovative sellers with something as legislatively artificial as money but not reward innovative developers? Is "competition" meaningful for you only when it rewards money?


Why is the fact that you have questions a justification for state grants of monopoly privilege?

quote:

Your apparent love for labels without regard to practicality strikes again.


What does this even mean? I think you need to read a bit of philosophy.

quote:

Sure, it's a "free market"... and even freer to the party who steals the innovator's process.


Using information to guide one's actions is not theft. You are just engaged in question-begging (look it up on wikipedia if you have never heard of this).

quote:

Sort of gumptionless for somebody who wants to turn capitalism on its head. It made perfect sense and was both quite coherent and civil.


You were very incivil earlier.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


SlowFlowPro: "again, it's steeling if that idea/process is property

it's not stealing if that idea/process is not property"

yes, and this is why it's quesiton-begging when people like Rex try to justify the property status of ideas by saying that it's "theft." He gets it backwards.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Decatur
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17604 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

Short answer?


Contract breakers are subject to vociferous public shaming...duh






Back to top
  Replies (0)
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Cold Cous Cous:
quote:

What's interesting about Kinsella (and he can correct me if I'm misinterpreting him) is that he's completely uninterested in consequentialist arguments. What matters is not the effects of a certain policy, but that policy's intellectual or ideological purity. It's the direct opposite of pragmatism.

Well it's not that I am uninterested in it. It's just that the primary argument is a moral and principled one. But of course the consequences of immoral laws tend to be bad too, as we see with patent and copyright. I detail many outrageous and obviously bad consequences in many blog posts and articles. see www.c4sif.org






Back to top
WikiTiger
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
40721 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

Short answer?


sigh


entity 1: Company that provides contract enforcement(CE1)

entity 2: Construction company that needs supplies (CC1)

entity 3: Brick maker that supplies construction companies (BM1)



CC1 wants to contract with BM1. CC1 and BM1 go to CE1 and negotiate out a contract. CE1 collect an agreed upon amount of earnest money (plus a fee for their services) from both parties to ensure completion of the contract.

upon sanctification of the contract, CE1 returns the earnest money to both parties and they go on with their lives.


if one party breaches the contract, CE1 performs an investigation to see who is at fault, and if it's found that BM1 did not deliver the agreed upon amount of supplies, then their earnest money is given to CC1.

CE1 would then have the option to blacklist BM1 from entering into further contracts, thus hurting their ability to do business in the future.


ETA: this is just one example of many methods



This post was edited on 3/19 at 3:19 pm


Back to top
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Gmorgan4982: "Property is based on the intersubjective consensus. I own my shirt because people look at me and my shirt and think, "Gmorgan owns that shirt." There is no "rights" in any of that.
"

but you just admitted you own your shirt. Ownership is a property right. You are confusing the basis of ownership with its nature.






Back to top
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Decatur: "Eh, it's expressly provided for in our Constitution. I think the writer is an idiot."

The constitution is not just. It also authorized slavery and now authorizes war and taxes. It is just a statist document providing cover for a gang of thieves.

That said, there is a good argument that copyright is unconstitutional, since it censors speech and the First Amendment was ratified in 1791, 2 years after the copyright clause. http://c4sif.org/2011/11/copyright-is-unconstitutional/






Back to top
Y.A. Tittle
Winthrop Fan
Member since Sep 2003
49435 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

CE1 would then have the option to blacklist BM1 from entering into further contracts, thus hurting their ability to do business in the future.


Who grants them such ability? Who insures they conform to their abilities in a just manner? Who do I go to for recourse when I think maybe they haven't?



This post was edited on 3/19 at 3:21 pm


Back to top
FT
Georgia Tech Fan
Aston Villa Supporter
Member since Oct 2003
15306 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


And CE1 is impervious to nepotism? Bribery? Threats? Not to imply that government is, but it's silly to think that replacing a sometimes corrupt system with no system at all is a solution.





Back to top


Back to top