Libertarian Discussion Thread

[Liberated Territories]

What is everyone's opinions on intellectual property?

Intellectual property is no different from physical property, and should be treated the same. If I make a wheelbarrow, it is mine and you cannot use it without my permission. If I make a painting, it is also mine and you still need my permission to use it.

Yet property only applies to tangible objects, i.e. that can not be reproduced easily.

I'm sure you can own the paint and canvas that makes up your painting, but you can not own the idea of say, a bowl of fruit that you painted, since that type of property is not scarce.

[Nulla Bellum]

Intellectual property is no different from physical property, and should be treated the same. If I make a wheelbarrow, it is mine and you cannot use it without my permission. If I make a painting, it is also mine and you still need my permission to use it.

Yet property only applies to tangible objects, i.e. that can not be reproduced easily.

I'm sure you can own the paint and canvas that makes up your painting, but you can not own the idea of say, a bowl of fruit that you painted, since that type of property is not scarce.

Can you imagine the royalties due the inventor of the wheel lol

[Geilinor]

Yet property only applies to tangible objects, i.e. that can not be reproduced easily.

I'm sure you can own the paint and canvas that makes up your painting, but you can not own the idea of say, a bowl of fruit that you painted, since that type of property is not scarce.

Can you imagine the royalties due the inventor of the wheel lol

Wheels are a tangible object.

[Liberated Territories]

Can you imagine the royalties due the inventor of the wheel lol

Wheels are a tangible object.

Wheels are a tangible object, but the idea of the wheel is not, so if the inventor of the wheel (or his sons) still were around, they could just trademark the wheel itself and collect royalties every time someone wants to sell wheels.

[Great Minarchistan]

Yet property only applies to tangible objects, i.e. that can not be reproduced easily.

I'm sure you can own the paint and canvas that makes up your painting, but you can not own the idea of say, a bowl of fruit that you painted, since that type of property is not scarce.

Can you imagine the royalties due the inventor of the wheel lol

He might've signed the copyleft agreement in a stone table. Santos Dumont did the same with plane invention (heck, he literally posted his plane schemes on newspaper ads).

[Athrax]

Wheels are a tangible object.

Wheels are a tangible object, but the idea of the wheel is not, so if the inventor of the wheel (or his sons) still were around, they could just trademark the wheel itself and collect royalties every time someone wants to sell wheels.

Depending on how far back the inventor of the wheel actually lived, a huge chunk of the world might be able to claim descent from him...
*Rushes off to file patent claim*

[Nulla Bellum]

Wheels are a tangible object, but the idea of the wheel is not, so if the inventor of the wheel (or his sons) still were around, they could just trademark the wheel itself and collect royalties every time someone wants to sell wheels.

Depending on how far back the inventor of the wheel actually lived, a huge chunk of the world might be able to claim descent from him...
*Rushes off to file patent claim*

Yes but my wheel has sparkles

[Aclion]

What is everyone's opinions on intellectual property?

Intellectual property is a compromise between competing interests both moral and practical, that people should be able to reap the benefit from their work and that allowing people to do so is necessary for future innovation, and that markets should be open to competition and keeping markets competitive is necessary to ensure that they operate efficiently.

It think the US had it pretty well at first; "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." unfortunately we've gone from using it to promote sciences and arts to using it to suppressing it.

What is everyone's opinions on intellectual property?

Intellectual property is no different from physical property, and should be treated the same. If I make a wheelbarrow, it is mine and you cannot use it without my permission. If I make a painting, it is also mine and you still need my permission to use it.

Intellectual property is a monopoly; If one can prevent other people from copying your wheelbarrow there is no reason, morally, why Internet Shopping Network should not be able to prevent Amazon from copying it's business model.

[Elwher]

Intellectual property is no different from physical property, and should be treated the same. If I make a wheelbarrow, it is mine and you cannot use it without my permission. If I make a painting, it is also mine and you still need my permission to use it.

Yet property only applies to tangible objects, i.e. that can not be reproduced easily.

I'm sure you can own the paint and canvas that makes up your painting, but you can not own the idea of say, a bowl of fruit that you painted, since that type of property is not scarce.

No, I cannot own the idea of a generic bowl of fruit, but I can own the idea of the exact bowl of fruit that I painted. If you want to copy that bowl, you need my permission; if you want to paint your own different bowl, go ahead. The role of the courts in this would be to determine if your bowl is sufficiently different from mine to not count as a copy.

[Nulla Bellum]

Yet property only applies to tangible objects, i.e. that can not be reproduced easily.

I'm sure you can own the paint and canvas that makes up your painting, but you can not own the idea of say, a bowl of fruit that you painted, since that type of property is not scarce.

No, I cannot own the idea of a generic bowl of fruit, but I can own the idea of the exact bowl of fruit that I painted. If you want to copy that bowl, you need my permission; if you want to paint your own different bowl, go ahead. The role of the courts in this would be to determine if your bowl is sufficiently different from mine to not count as a copy.

I think the only applicable rule here would be if someone passed a forgery of your painting of a bowl of fruit off as your original work for their own benefit or put their name on your original work to pass it off as their own for their own benefit. The former steals your intellectual property, the latter steals your personal property.

[Zurkerx]

Yet property only applies to tangible objects, i.e. that can not be reproduced easily.

I'm sure you can own the paint and canvas that makes up your painting, but you can not own the idea of say, a bowl of fruit that you painted, since that type of property is not scarce.

No, I cannot own the idea of a generic bowl of fruit, but I can own the idea of the exact bowl of fruit that I painted. If you want to copy that bowl, you need my permission; if you want to paint your own different bowl, go ahead. The role of the courts in this would be to determine if your bowl is sufficiently different from mine to not count as a copy.

I honestly don't have problem with intellectual property though, I do think some go too far (like someone trying to copyright or what not the Happy Birthday Song).

[Liberated Territories]

Yet property only applies to tangible objects, i.e. that can not be reproduced easily.

I'm sure you can own the paint and canvas that makes up your painting, but you can not own the idea of say, a bowl of fruit that you painted, since that type of property is not scarce.

No, I cannot own the idea of a generic bowl of fruit, but I can own the idea of the exact bowl of fruit that I painted. If you want to copy that bowl, you need my permission; if you want to paint your own different bowl, go ahead. The role of the courts in this would be to determine if your bowl is sufficiently different from mine to not count as a copy.

Let me let Stephen Kinsella do the talking

Similarly, if you copy a book I have written, I still have the original (tangible) book, and I also still “have” the pattern of words that constitute the book. Thus, authored works are not scarce in the same sense that a piece of land or a car are scarce. If you take my car, I no longer have it. But if you “take” a book-pattern and use it to make your own physical book, I still have my own copy. The same holds true for inventions and, indeed, for any “pattern” or information one generates or has.

Against Intellectual Property p. 32

According to Kinsella, there is no grounds for exclusivity in this realm, I cannot "steal" an idea any more than one can steal your air (outside of vacuum settings.) Therefore, I would not need your permission for copying 'your' idea. Furthermore, if you wrote a pattern of words, you would have to justify claiming ownership over other people's property if they decide to copy it. Could you imagine the descendants of Da Vinci claiming royalties from anyone who decided to sell a t-shirt with the Mona Lisa on it?

[Elwher]

No, I cannot own the idea of a generic bowl of fruit, but I can own the idea of the exact bowl of fruit that I painted. If you want to copy that bowl, you need my permission; if you want to paint your own different bowl, go ahead. The role of the courts in this would be to determine if your bowl is sufficiently different from mine to not count as a copy.

Let me let Stephen Kinsella do the talking

Similarly, if you copy a book I have written, I still have the original (tangible) book, and I also still “have” the pattern of words that constitute the book. Thus, authored works are not scarce in the same sense that a piece of land or a car are scarce. If you take my car, I no longer have it. But if you “take” a book-pattern and use it to make your own physical book, I still have my own copy. The same holds true for inventions and, indeed, for any “pattern” or information one generates or has.

Against Intellectual Property p. 32

According to Kinsella, there is no grounds for exclusivity in this realm, I cannot "steal" an idea any more than one can steal your air (outside of vacuum settings.) Therefore, I would not need your permission for copying 'your' idea. Furthermore, if you wrote a pattern of words, you would have to justify claiming ownership over other people's property if they decide to copy it. Could you imagine the descendants of Da Vinci claiming royalties from anyone who decided to sell a t-shirt with the Mona Lisa on it?

Two comments.

First, I notice that he is selling this book, not giving it away, so he seems to feel that he should be compensated for his ideas.

Second, if it a standard of usability defining property, does that mean that if I take your car while you are sleeping and return it before you awaken, having replaced the gasoline i used, there is no problem here?

As to the DaVinci example, of course there should be a time limit on these rights. Personally, I favor them expiring on the death of the artist. Others may have differing ideas, but indefinite is not a good option.

[Marcelleaux]

Let me let Stephen Kinsella do the talking



Against Intellectual Property p. 32

According to Kinsella, there is no grounds for exclusivity in this realm, I cannot "steal" an idea any more than one can steal your air (outside of vacuum settings.) Therefore, I would not need your permission for copying 'your' idea. Furthermore, if you wrote a pattern of words, you would have to justify claiming ownership over other people's property if they decide to copy it. Could you imagine the descendants of Da Vinci claiming royalties from anyone who decided to sell a t-shirt with the Mona Lisa on it?

Two comments.

First, I notice that he is selling this book, not giving it away, so he seems to feel that he should be compensated for his ideas.

Second, if it a standard of usability defining property, does that mean that if I take your car while you are sleeping and return it before you awaken, having replaced the gasoline i used, there is no problem here?

As to the DaVinci example, of course there should be a time limit on these rights. Personally, I favor them expiring on the death of the artist. Others may have differing ideas, but indefinite is not a good option.

In your example you deprived someone of their property. That's not the same thing as simply copying a pattern. In that case they haven't stolen anything.

[Liberated Territories]

Let me let Stephen Kinsella do the talking



Against Intellectual Property p. 32

According to Kinsella, there is no grounds for exclusivity in this realm, I cannot "steal" an idea any more than one can steal your air (outside of vacuum settings.) Therefore, I would not need your permission for copying 'your' idea. Furthermore, if you wrote a pattern of words, you would have to justify claiming ownership over other people's property if they decide to copy it. Could you imagine the descendants of Da Vinci claiming royalties from anyone who decided to sell a t-shirt with the Mona Lisa on it?

Two comments.

First, I notice that he is selling this book, not giving it away, so he seems to feel that he should be compensated for his ideas.

Second, if it a standard of usability defining property, does that mean that if I take your car while you are sleeping and return it before you awaken, having replaced the gasoline i used, there is no problem here?

As to the DaVinci example, of course there should be a time limit on these rights. Personally, I favor them expiring on the death of the artist. Others may have differing ideas, but indefinite is not a good option.

You conflate ownership with occupancy. Not the same thing.

If I take your car, I am still at fault for stealing your property, even if I refill the tank. If I copy your car, you still have your car, and nothing of value is stolen.

[Marcelleaux]

Two comments.

First, I notice that he is selling this book, not giving it away, so he seems to feel that he should be compensated for his ideas.

Second, if it a standard of usability defining property, does that mean that if I take your car while you are sleeping and return it before you awaken, having replaced the gasoline i used, there is no problem here?

As to the DaVinci example, of course there should be a time limit on these rights. Personally, I favor them expiring on the death of the artist. Others may have differing ideas, but indefinite is not a good option.

You conflate ownership with occupancy. Not the same thing.

If I take your car, I am still at fault for stealing your property, even if I refill the tank. If I copy your car, you still have your car, and nothing of value is stolen.

Someone should turn this into a 'you better not play trash' meme
I'm sorry

[Idzequitch]

Former LP presidential hopeful Austin Petersen is planning to run for US Senate in Missouri as a Republican.

Honestly, this guy is everything everyone dislikes about Libertarians and I personally wish he would just go away.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Former LP presidential hopeful Austin Petersen is planning to run for US Senate in Missouri as a Republican.

Honestly, this guy is everything everyone dislikes about Libertarians and I personally wish he would just go away.

I'm pretty miffed he's not trying as a Libertarian.

[War Gears]

What is everyone's opinions on intellectual property?

Personally I wouldn't care too much if people decided to use my "intellectual property" (if I had any). I would probably be flattered more than anything unless they tried to pass it off as theirs and then accuse me of plagiarism. Though I could understand why a successful author like, say, George R. R. Martin, would be miffed at the idea of someone publishing a novel about Jon Snow becoming King of Westeros and feeding Joffrey to the dragons he got from marrying Daenerys Targaryen.

It's not ideal, but it's the lesser of two evils.

[Idzequitch]

Former LP presidential hopeful Austin Petersen is planning to run for US Senate in Missouri as a Republican.

Honestly, this guy is everything everyone dislikes about Libertarians and I personally wish he would just go away.

I'm pretty miffed he's not trying as a Libertarian.

At this point, even as full of clowns as politics already is, I'm not sure anyone will take him seriously.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'm pretty miffed he's not trying as a Libertarian.

At this point, even as full of clowns as politics already is, I'm not sure anyone will take him seriously.

I'd still probably support him over whatever other candidates there are, I'm just bothered he isn't trying to win a seat with the LP. Though I certainly understand why it would be easier to go Republican.

[Northern Davincia]

Former LP presidential hopeful Austin Petersen is planning to run for US Senate in Missouri as a Republican.

Honestly, this guy is everything everyone dislikes about Libertarians and I personally wish he would just go away.

He's an extremely cool guy, and easily the GOP's best hope for reforming itself.

[The Flutterlands]

Thoughts on the potential lost of Net Neutrality? Don't take NN as 'Government-regulated' Internet. Net Neutrality is suppose to prevent predatory ISPs from screwing over consumers, not control the internet itself.

Now I believe in a Free Market, with perhaps the exception of healthcare, but should there be a difference between a Free market and a rigged market in this discussion?

[Liberated Territories]

Thoughts on the potential lost of Net Neutrality? Don't take NN as 'Government-regulated' Internet. Net Neutrality is suppose to prevent predatory ISPs from screwing over consumers, not control the internet itself.

Now I believe in a Free Market, with perhaps the exception of healthcare, but should there be a difference between a Free market and a rigged market in this discussion?

Net neutrality is an imperfect solution to the problem of the government being too in bed with government monopolies.

My argument against neutrality is that it should be compared to a fat guy lobbying the government to make every restaurant a flat rate (i.e; an all you can eat buffet). Non-fat people will have to pay more to consume the same amount, but the fat guy will eat much more relative to what he spends.

Similarly, net neutrality favors high-use corporations like Youtube while killing competition. Added the fact that such sites, such as Google, Twitter, etc. do not give a damn about spying on you (compared to say, DuckDuckGo), and there is a strong libertarian argument against opposing net neutrality.

[Liberated Territories]

At this point, even as full of clowns as politics already is, I'm not sure anyone will take him seriously.

I'd still probably support him over whatever other candidates there are, I'm just bothered he isn't trying to win a seat with the LP. Though I certainly understand why it would be easier to go Republican.

He's running in a highly Republican state against an unpopular Democrat. I would be surprised if he doesn't manage to pull this off.

The only thing that could hurt him is his "pyramids of pussy comments" and his spats between Cantwell.