Against Anarchism

[George H. Smith]

Right now I don't know how to protect the inventors of new drugs save through a patent system. The government effectively mandates a drug company spend--what?--a billion dollars. As for the rest of it it seems we might be able to chuck it out of hand, almost, then tackle the idea of what I see as this problem.

--Brant

Every time someone points out something like this I point out the drugs that are NOT on the market precisely because of the patent system, to which they reply that "oh, that's just because the patent system isn't perfect."

For the life of me I don't know why the moral issue is not clear on its face. If you think of something, it's yours, period, even if someone else thought of it too. You have to work within this basic moral truth, and you're not going to be able to square the circle.

Now, I could go down various paths talking about how this or that will actually work out for the better in the end, but so long as someone wants to try to square the circle, this never works.

Shayne

I think Brant was referring to the problem of replicating someone else's creation -- in this case, a drug that cost a billion dollars to develop. The standard question is: Why would an inventor go to all that expense to create a product if someone could replicate it and market it for virtually no cost?

Suppose a small-time inventor creates a remarkable new product. As soon as he puts it out on the market without a patent, large corporations could copy the product, mass produce it, and thereby undercut the price of the original inventor.

I cannot figure out a way to defend patents, so I am on your side in the controversy, but this is a legitimate problem that should be considered. As I understand his position, Brant is suggesting that there might be a way to protect inventors via patents without going down the road of "first one to the patent office gets the prize." He agrees (I think) that the latter is grossly unjust.

Let me put the question to you this way: If you could figure out a way to protect all independent inventors, so that late-comers would not be deprived of the right to their own work, would you still oppose legal protection for inventors via some kind of patent system?

Ghs

[sjw]

All of humanity's problems can be succinctly summed up and answered:

A is A

Ignoring this is why we don't get out of the muck. And it's just not that hard. It's all emotional baggage. It's all outside or inside emotional, irrational force trying to fool you that A is not A. We can talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, and if someone isn't going to take this proposition seriously, it is all completely hopeless.

Shayne

[sjw]

I cannot figure out a way to defend patents, so I am on your side in the controversy, but this is a legitimate problem that should be considered. As I understand his position, Brant is suggesting that there might be a way to protect inventors via patents without going down the road of "first one to the patent office gets the prize." He agrees (I think) that the latter is grossly unjust.

Let me put the question to you this way: If you could figure out a way to protect all independent inventors, so that late-comers would not be deprived of the right to their own work, would you still oppose legal protection for inventors via some kind of patent system?

Ghs

As it happens, I know a way to defend both patents and copyrights in a meaningful form, and do so in my book. But you cannot do this by referring directly to natural rights, you must base them in some form on consent (unlike Rothbard my approach actually deals with the third party problem). And when you do, patents get FORCED to be more reasonable, because people are not going to consent to a SYSTEM that systematically RAPES inventors.

Shayne

Edited April 5, 2011 by sjw

[George H. Smith]

I cannot figure out a way to defend patents, so I am on your side in the controversy, but this is a legitimate problem that should be considered. As I understand his position, Brant is suggesting that there might be a way to protect inventors via patents without going down the road of "first one to the patent office gets the prize." He agrees (I think) that the latter is grossly unjust.

Let me put the question to you this way: If you could figure out a way to protect all independent inventors, so that late-comers would not be deprived of the right to their own work, would you still oppose legal protection for inventors via some kind of patent system?

Ghs

As it happens, I know a way to defend both patents and copyrights in a meaningful form, and do so in my book. But you cannot do this by referring directly to natural rights, you must base them in some form on consent (unlike Rothbard my approach actually deals with the third party problem). And when you do, patents get FORCED to be more reasonable, because people are not going to consent to a SYSTEM that systematically RAPES inventors.

Shayne

Okay, fair enough. I will take a look at what you say in your book. Meanwhile, you might want to sketch your approach for people who don't have a copy.

Ghs

[sjw]

Okay, fair enough. I will take a look at what you say in your book. Meanwhile, you might want to sketch your approach for people who don't have a copy.

Ghs

It comes back to the federation of city-states concept. Outside of the cities, it is natural law -- patents and copyrights are unenforcible (just as American copyrights/patents are mostly unenforcible inside China). But the vast majority of good men will join together in city states, and will protect artist and inventors through reasonable and consensual means. A condition of joining a city could include that you will not violate copyright treaty.

I guarantee you, patents in their current form would not work, because creative people like me would leave and tell those who want this kind of regime to piss off. Their city would fall apart and the one people like me would found would thrive. Of course, long before that, they'd repeal their asinine laws.

Copyright enforcement in its current form may not work either (where you penalize someone $100,000 for downloading a few songs), but that is a far smaller problem than the current patent problem.

Shayne

[sjw]

Okay, fair enough. I will take a look at what you say in your book. Meanwhile, you might want to sketch your approach for people who don't have a copy.

Ghs

It comes back to the federation of city-states concept. Outside of the cities, it is natural law -- patents and copyrights are unenforcible (just as American copyrights/patents are mostly unenforcible inside China). But the vast majority of good men will join together in city states, and will protect artist and inventors through reasonable and consensual means. A condition of joining a city could include that you will not violate copyright treaty.

I guarantee you, patents in their current form would not work, because creative people like me would leave and tell those who want this kind of regime to piss off. Their city would fall apart and the one people like me would found would thrive. Of course, long before that, they'd repeal their asinine laws.

Copyright enforcement in its current form may not work either (where you penalize someone $100,000 for downloading a few songs), but that is a far smaller problem than the current patent problem.

Shayne

I would add to this: Note Brant how you asked me a question and the only rational answer is to refer to the federation of city-state concept. You know, the one you think is "weak", and that I shouldn't talk about.

A is A. You can't deal with the real problems we're facing without talking about how to solve them.

Shayne

[sjw]

Okay, fair enough. I will take a look at what you say in your book. Meanwhile, you might want to sketch your approach for people who don't have a copy.

Ghs

FYI: It starts on p. 79.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

As it happens, I know a way to defend both patents and copyrights in a meaningful form, and do so in my book. But you cannot do this by referring directly to natural rights, you must base them in some form on consent (unlike Rothbard my approach actually deals with the third party problem). And when you do, patents get FORCED to be more reasonable, because people are not going to consent to a SYSTEM that systematically RAPES inventors.

Shayne

For those who are unfamiliar with Rothbard's approach, here is how he deals with the copyright issue. (I assume he applies the same reasoning to patents, but I haven't read what he has to say on this subject for years.)

Rothbard's basic premise is that property rights can be transferred to others either in whole or in part. Thus a publisher, when selling a book, can specify that it is selling only some of the rights, and the buyer, in purchasing the book, agrees to this condition. A right that is not being sold is the right to duplicate the book.

Rothbard then considers the problem of a third party who acquires the book from the original purchaser. This third party has not agreed to the partial transfer of rights that was initially specified and agreed to by the original purchaser, so

does the third party have a right to duplicate the book, sell it, etc., without the permission of the publisher?

No, says Rothbard. Why? Because these rights of complete ownership were never attached to the book in the first place, so the third party cannot claim new rights over the book that the original purchaser never possessed. To argue otherwise, according to Rothbard, would be similar to arguing that a person who purchases stolen property, even in good faith, acquires a legitimate property title in the stolen merchandise that trumps the rights of the original owner.

I have no problem with the first leg of Rothbard's argument for voluntary copyrights (in effect), but I do have problems with the second leg. My problems may not be insurmountable, however. This is a subject to which I would need to give a lot more thought before reaching a definitive conclusion.

Ghs

[sjw]

I don't think you can bind all the third parties unless they come pre-bound already by virtue of joining a city-state.

Stephan Kinsella is the arch-enemy of IP on the libertarian scene, and has specifically addressed Rothbard's position in his writing on the subject. It's been a long time since I read Kinsella's argument (I can't remember what paper it was), but at the time I thought his arguments against Rothbard were sound, so I won't try to construct a specific argument here.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I don't think you can bind all the third parties unless they come pre-bound already by virtue of joining a city-state.

Yes, there is not a problem with third parties if they contract beforehand with property owners.

The problem arises when a proprietary community -- or a "city-state," if you prefer-- does not include a provision like this, or if it explicitly repudiates such a provision.

Suppose I steal your car and then drive it into a proprietary community owned and run by thieves who do not recognize or enforce property rights. This does not mean that you no longer have a property right in your car or (what amounts to the same thing) that you no longer have the right to recover your car from me by force, if need be. The laws and regulations of the community in which I choose to live cannot diminish or extinguish your legitimate rights to your property (assuming of course, that you don't live in the same lawless community I do).

Now consider the partial rights that were specified in an initial sale and agreed to by the original purchaser. For example, suppose I rent a car from you for one month and then drive it into my lawless city-state. You would still have the right to recover your car after one month, regardless of whatever agreements I have or have not made with the proprietors of my city-state.

Do you agree with me so far? I don't want to get too far into this until I know if we agree on fundamentals.

Ghs

[sjw]

George: In case your email address isn't working (you had some troubles with it in the past) I wanted to let you know here that I just sent you a private message, please let me know if you don't get it.

Shayne

[sjw]

Yes, there is not a problem with third parties if they contract beforehand with property owners.

The problem arises when a proprietary community -- or a "city-state," if you prefer-- does not include a provision like this, or if it explicitly repudiates such a provision.

Suppose I steal your car and then drive it into a proprietary community owned and run by thieves who do not recognize or enforce property rights. This does not mean that you no longer have a property right in your car or (what amounts to the same thing) that you no longer have the right to recover your car from me by force, if need be. The laws and regulations of the community in which I choose to live cannot diminish or extinguish your legitimate rights to your property (assuming of course, that you don't live in the same lawless community I do).

Now consider the partial rights that were specified in an initial sale and agreed to by the original purchaser. For example, suppose I rent a car from you for one month and then drive it into my lawless city-state. You would still have the right to recover your car after one month, regardless of whatever agreements I have or have not made with the proprietors of my city-state.

Do you agree with me so far? I don't want to get too far into this until I know if we agree on fundamentals.

Ghs

Yes, for any natural right, you have a right to defend them anywhere on earth, not just in your city-state, so long as you don't violate the principles of justice while doing so, which (contrary to our current insane justice system) puts constraints on what counts as legitimate defense.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

George: In case your email address isn't working (you had some troubles with it in the past) I wanted to let you know here that I just sent you a private message, please let me know if you don't get it.

Shayne

I got it. Give me a couple days to respond.

Ghs

[Peter]

Here is an interesting tidbit I found which illustrates the gulf between anarchism and objectivism.

Roy Childs on anarchism 1949-1992 By RONALD N. NEFF:

In his 1982 tribute to Ayn Rand in The Newsletter Update, Roy wrote of her influence on American culture and the libertarian movement. [20] In contrast to the ennobling potential of Objectivism he had described in 1968, he now described what could happen to a teenager who had read Atlas Shrugged out of the blue as "a shattering experience — and not always a liberating one, to be frank about the matter." Observing that Atlas was not set in America "as it was, or ever will be," he added that for readers influenced by it, "it became a way of viewing the world. It became, in short, part of people's minds, and they saw the world through that book." And how, he asked, is social change achieved in Atlas? "Through a gradual collapse of the world after the men of the mind go on strike. All right, you're a young libertarian, and you want to effect change. What do you do? Go on strike? You see the problem."

END QUOTE

I argue with Anarchist George occasionally, get disgusted for a couple of months, then I am right back at it. One of my “penny wars” against Rational Anarchism is that George maintains anarchism is contextual Objectivism. If it isn’t then he should stop using Rand’s metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics as an intro to his Anarchism, which never existed, is not being manufactured today, and will not pop into existence tomorrow.

That war is fruitless. No proof can change George’s mind. Like Roy Childs he has evolved from “anarchism is not practical but it is a handy forum for improving Objectivism,” to something he now calls “Voluntarism,” or some such thing. That is a cynical manipulation of something with no referent in reality. It is an additional layer of scam..

George H. Smith wrote:

Quote

Yes, there is not a problem with third parties if they contract beforehand with property owners.

The problem arises when a propriety community -- or a "city-state," if you prefer-- does not include a provision like this, or if it explicitly repudiates such a provision.

End quote

Jesus H. Christ George! *City States?* Why fast forward from the individual, skipping clans and gangs? The "unspeakably beautiful" doctrine of anarchy as Godwin calls it? Arrgh! Godwin goes on to call anarchism "the universal exercise of private judgment." Since there is no factual representation of that I can only think of a fictional depiction: Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.”

"O Romeo, Romeo wherefore art thou Romeo?

Deny thy father and refuse thy name.

Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love

And I'll no longer be a Capulet."

- William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, 2.2

Warring clans. Sword fights. Mafia type clout. Might makes right. A veritable roller coaster of conflicting wills, constantly changing personal justice which depends on whoever the next anarchist is that comes along, child abuse and animal abuse with no recourse to any governmental agency, and impermanency. No thanks. It is not something I want to vomit over as I go to see the movie, “Atlas Shrugged.”

You guys are no fun any more. There are important things happening in America and the world. Personally, I am dealing with eminent domain, wetland delineation, building permits, and sewer hookups. You don't need me to tell you to chatter amongst yourselves.

Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

I heard that Leonard Peikoff once said, decades ago, that the ideal sized state might be the city state.

--Brant

[sjw]

I heard that Leonard Peikoff once said, decades ago, that the ideal sized state might be the city state.

--Brant

Oh now you're really going to make Peter blow a fuse.

But thanks for the info, where'd you hear it? Now if we can just get him to accept this Lockean idea and we're there:

Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left, as they were, in the liberty of the state of Nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I got it third hand. Perhaps someone has a contemporary or other reference on this.

--Brant

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

I heard that Leonard Peikoff once said, decades ago, that the ideal sized state might be the city state.

End quote

You are pulling our legs, aren’t you? He must have been smoking dope )

Shayne quoted Locke.

Locke wrote:

When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.

End quote

Your jibes lack thought, Shayne. They need to actually be close to the person you are lampooning, or they are just dumb.

Shayne, you have never made a case for me to buy your book, which is also dumb. I spent the time to portray you as little Oliver Shine, now indulge me. Major character status, Whistler. George extensively discusses his books. It might make people buy them. “My book is good,” won’t do. Nor will any similarities to anarchism. What is your substitute for anarchism? City States? Jefferson’s untied, but united farmer politicians?

Before I push the don’t watch button, tell me why your thoughts are important.

Peter Taylor

No government? Oh no, Mr. Bill!~ what will we do with the elephant poop at the national zoo, Shayne?

What might a government shutdown look like?

By Ed O'Keefe

Updated 2:48 p.m. ET

If President Obama and congressional Republicans fail to agree soon on how to fund the final seven months of the fiscal year, some veterans might not receive benefits checks and other Americans would be unable to apply for Social Security. The State Department might not issue new passports, unemployment statistics would not publish as scheduled, museums and national parks would close, and worse -- piles of elephant manure might pile up in a National Zoo parking lot because workers can't ship it away for composting.

Budget disagreements between Bill Clinton and Republicans prompted these incidents in 1995 and 1996, as federal agencies halted operations and stopped paying workers.

Over the course of more than 20 days, about 260,000 District-area federal employees stayed home, or reported for duty only to be sent packing hours later. Security guards roamed the halls forcing out workers who lingered and some frustrated feds sought temporary jobs as bike messengers and waitresses in order to pay holiday bills, according to Post reports from the time.

Agencies retroactively paid workers once the doors reopened, but many government contractors -- paid separately by private employers -- earned nothing during the shutdowns.

Obama and congressional leaders must strike a deal by March 4 in order to keep the government running. Failure to pass a bill could cause an immediate stop to a wide range of federal services.

Depending on the proposal, the GOP is hoping to cut $60 billion to $100 billion, in an effort to trim the deficit and make good on a midterm election pledge to cut government spending. The White House has vowed to veto such plans. Numerous tea party groups have called on lawmakers to force a government shutdown, if necessary, but GOP leadership has vowed not to go that far.

"The government isn't going to shut down," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the second-ranking Senate Republican, insisted Tuesday night. "Nobody is talking about shutting the government down."

Actually, they are, according to sources. Federal agencies are beginning to instruct senior officials to prepare for a possible shutdown, ordering the cancellation of vacations or other personal commitments, said officials not authorized to speak on the record.

Jacob J. Lew, director of the Office of Management and Budget, disputed those reports Thursday. "We're planning on reaching the kind of agreements that make it unnecessary to put the American people through a government shutdown. I don't want to either intentionally or unintentionally send any signals that we're planning to the contrary," he said at a luncheon hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

At his press conference Tuesday, Obama also warned against suggestions of a shutdown. "This is not an abstraction," he said. "People don't get their Social Security checks. They don't get their veterans payments. Basic functions shut down. And it -- that, also, would have a adverse effect on our economic recovery."

"It is interesting to see this come up again," said Carol Bonosaro, president of the Senior Executives Association, which represents thousands of the government's career managers. "It seems the last shutdowns didn't leave a negative enough impression on Americans if lawmakers are entertaining the thought of them once again."

Some of Bonosaro's members reached Wednesday, who asked not to be identified, recalled awkwardly deciding in 1995 which "essential" employees could work through the impasse and which "non-essential" personnel had to go home.

"The main impact was a vast amount of work associated with building shutdown plans and determining exactly who was and wasn't essential, and all the morale issues associated with the fear of impending implementation of those plans," one SEA member said in an e-mail. "I worked hard to get as many as possible of our then-1,200 or so employees deemed essential as I could, and that helped with morale."

Even if non-essential workers wanted to work without pay, they could face fines of up to $5,000 or up to two years in prison for violating a federal law that prohibits agencies from accepting volunteer labor.

So how might it work this time? It obviously won't be quite the same, said Stan Collander, a longtime budget analyst.

"Instead of checks being mailed, they're now transferred electronically. But you've also got other things that didn't exist before like Homeland Security," he said. "There would have to be some reevaluation from last time. Those are big policy decisions. The next level down is to tell every agency to start preparing for a shutdown. Who gets to come in, who doesn't? What additional help do you need for security and computer systems?"

Stores and restaurants near federal buildings relying on daytime foot traffic would suffer and Metrorail revenues would plummet from lower ridership. It would be as if the movie industry shut down Hollywood, or if the auto industry temporarily closed shop in Detroit.

Government contracting firms are already mobilizing and preparing for potential disruptions, according to Stan Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council, which represents hundreds of mid-sized contracting firms.

"We want our folks to be as prepared as possible," Soloway said. "That doesn't mean it's going to happen, but it's not outside the realm of possibility either, so we can't ignore it."

Calculating the potential savings from a shutdown are difficult, primarily because agencies historically pay back workers for time lost and might spend more to compensate for lost productivity, according to Post reports from the period.

Cities and states relying on federal funds would also have to spend unavailable cash. During the Nov. 1995 shutdown, the District of Columbia saved about $1.2 million daily by keeping some offices closed, but concurrently spent $4.4 million to cover the salaries of 26,000 employees normally paid with federal funds. At the same time, Maryland's state government spent $1.4 million a day to cover the salaries of 9,680 state workers also paid with federal dollars.

The president is given wide discretion to determine which agencies and programs continue operations during shutdowns, meaning many employees of the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, State and Veterans Affairs would keep working in order to keep national security and defense concerns running smoothly. In 1995, Clinton signed a special appropriations bill that kept 12,000 Agriculture Department workers on the job.

Other self-funding agencies would also open for business. The U.S. Mint, which finances its operations through a special fund, would still produce coins, and neither snow nor rain nor threat of shutdown would keep postal workers from their appointed rounds.

And even if the waste piles up in the parking lot, it's likely zoo workers would feed and care for the animals, just as they did the last time.

Researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.

[sjw]

Shayne, you have never made a case for me to buy your book, which is also dumb.

All your years of rationalizing whatever Rand said has made you blind to the problem of modern government I address there (lack of consent). Why on earth would I want to hand a blind man a picture of the truth? Particularly when this blind man likes to yammer away at what he imagines seeing?

So, make your case for why I should care if you buy my book.

Now, it is true that most Americans are blind to this issue as well, but unlike you, at least they haven't put out their own eyes. They've merely been blindfolded. Hopefully one can entice them to remove the blindfold.

Shayne

[Peter]

Shayne wrote:

Now, it is true that most Americans are blind to this issue as well, but unlike you, at least they haven't put out their own eyes. They've merely been blindfolded. Hopefully one can entice them to remove the blindfold.

End quote

You are wrong. 58 percent of Americans polled (was it Rasmussen?) are favorable to the Tea Party, but not to the Republicans in Congress.

Unfortunately, the J’Obama ticket still has a high 40 percent approval rating, and a projected billion dollar war chest. Go figure. We will see.

You do know when you cut me, you are cutting Rand too? You have said her philosophy was a mish mash, or something to the affect. Her patriotism is my patriotism: see her West Point Address. Her vision of limited government is my vision, with some needed improvements like the Repeal Amendment. We have Objectivists in Congress. I was an Objectivist in law enforcement and in the Army. I did not violate individual rights. Government has protected us from short, brutish lives here in America for two hundred years.

Rand was not a fascist, nor am I, but you call us that. Jeepers Shine, calling a Jew a Nazi? I won’t mention this to my Uncle Levi. Is Wissler German? Ah ha! Where is your sense?

I am very generous Shayne, as some on OL know. I might be saying, “Let us see. I buy 1000 of your books and send one to municipal libraries in the Midwest, South, a couple to Alaska, paying for the shipping myself . . .”

I will wait for your reply, wondering why, and then I may stop reading your thread.

Peter Taylor

[sjw]

Peter,

I'm not an anarchist, practical or otherwise. I want a strong government, because in my view, government is the embodiment of a science of rights, and the stronger it is, then given that it actually is a science, the less that individual rights will be violated. And that is the goal: to secure natural rights to the highest possible degree, with the highest possible fidelity to the best possible conception of them. This requires strength, not weakness. I don't want a "weak" government, I don't want a "minimal" government -- I want a maximal defense of rightly understood individual rights.

The fact is that disdain like yours for individual consent actually weakens government. Every step that government takes toward immorality destroys that much of its credibility and thus, in the long run, its power. Rome fell from corruption. America is falling from the same thing.

Anarchists are having a heyday nowadays as the government yields more and more of its legitimacy not only by not improving its respect for true natural rights, but by gutting the Bill of Rights. And Objectivists cheer, and government slips further.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I argue with Anarchist George occasionally, get disgusted for a couple of months, then I am right back at it. One of my “penny wars” against Rational Anarchism is that George maintains anarchism is contextual Objectivism. If it isn’t then he should stop using Rand’s metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics as an intro to his Anarchism, which never existed, is not being manufactured today, and will not pop into existence tomorrow.

That war is fruitless. No proof can change George’s mind. Like Roy Childs he has evolved from “anarchism is not practical but it is a handy forum for improving Objectivism,” to something he now calls “Voluntarism,” or some such thing. That is a cynical manipulation of something with no referent in reality. It is an additional layer of scam.

Do you give any thought at all to what you write before you write it? Or do you view sitting at a keyboard as essentially the same thing as sitting on a toilet -- a situation in which you grunt a few times, wait a while, and then hope something comes out?

...

Warring clans. Sword fights. Mafia type clout. Might makes right. A veritable roller coaster of conflicting wills, constantly changing personal justice which depends on whoever the next anarchist is that comes along, child abuse and animal abuse with no recourse to any governmental agency, and impermanency.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/O3ZOKDmorj0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ghs