KInsella and Thin Air

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thanks. I assume you mean me--I'm Stephan (or Steph if you want) but not Steven or Steve. Different names.

Stephan,

Oops. Sorry. It's been a while, but that's still no excuse.

I guess you can say this informally but from the point of view of economics, you cannot say this. All "needs", values, desires, are subjective, and demonstrated in action.

I'm going to try not to quibble, but you certainly can say what I said from "the point of view of economics." Does economics have only one point of view? Not from what I have read.

There is one thing you will notice with my discussion manner. I have tried to eschew jargon when discussing essential points, principally because I see too much hardening of the categories with all kinds of things slipping in that shouldn't when I start going too far with jargon. (This goes for me and others.) That includes legal jargon, too. And libertarian jargon and Objectivist jargon. So I guess it's "loosey-goosey" for me when I write.

The "nonrigorous" part you alleged in your post is wrong, though. I am of the opinion that if the essence of a concept cannot be conveyed in simple language, then something is being obfuscated. I hold that my loosey-goosey-ness is a lot more rigorous than most of the jargon loading I have read. I am quite strict about which goose I let loose.

I also disagree that food, shelter, oxygen, etc., which are human needs, are subjective. But I don't know for sure what you mean by objective and subjective here, so I will wait a little and just register this point for later if it comes back up.

Property is the (legitimate, legal) right to control a given scarce resource. ... The purpose of property rules is to permit contestable things to be used in a peaceful way.

Are these definitions in wide use, or are they particular to a libertarian view?

I like beginnings to be implicit in my definitions (in a Randialn conceptual hierarchy sort of way). My problem with this definition--and with the Objectivist form, for that matter--is with how property starts. I haven't seen it included in either.

Judging by history, property seems to start by someone simply staking out a claim on a part of nature. And if someone else disagrees with him, especially if that someone else has already staked out a claim on the same part, they bonk each other over the head until one wins. This is how I see the start of property. That is how practically every country on earth throughout all of recorded history has started. (The ones I have read about, of course. Maybe there is something else out there that is different that I have not encountered so far.)

Property rules in this case are only peaceful for the winner. The loser--if he survives--has to go away. If he wants to use that same property after that, he either has to bonk another day and bonk harder, or he has become part of the winner. Even when there is a Mexican standoff, all that means is that the disputed property got divided for the time being.

How's that for scarcity? Still, when I contemplate Manifest Destiny and the small number of settlers in the 1800's, the idea of scarcity seems ludicrous.

That's just the start. Elements that create abundance where nothing was before is also part of the concept of property. (I realize that this is not true according to your definition as stated above, though.)

I hold that the scarcity and abundance components are not mutually exclusive premises, but I see them treated as such in the libertarian versus Objectivist approaches.

That's why I go back to loosey-goosey and start over. The exclusionary approaches (for the premise) don't make sense to me. When I look at things like an innocent child, I see way too many situations where they don't fit.

Michael

[nskinsella]

Thanks. I assume you mean me--I'm Stephan (or Steph if you want) but not Steven or Steve. Different names.

Stephan,

Oops. Sorry. It's been a while, but that's still no excuse.

No problem at all.

I guess you can say this informally but from the point of view of economics, you cannot say this. All "needs", values, desires, are subjective, and demonstrated in action.

I'm going to try not to quibble, but you certainly can say what I said from "the point of view of economics." Does economics have only one point of view? Not from what I have read.

There is one thing you will notice with my discussion manner. I have tried to eschew jargon when discussing essential points, principally because I see too much hardening of the categories with all kinds of things slipping in that shouldn't when I start going too far with jargon. (This goes for me and others.) That includes legal jargon, too. And libertarian jargon and Objectivist jargon. So I guess it's "loosey-goosey" for me when I write.

The "nonrigorous" part you alleged in your post is wrong, though. I am of the opinion that if the essence of a concept cannot be conveyed in simple language, then something is being obfuscated. I hold that my loosey-goosey-ness is a lot more rigorous than most of the jargon loading I have read. I am quite strict about which goose I let loose.

I also disagree that food, shelter, oxygen, etc., which are human needs, are subjective. But I don't know for sure what you mean by objective and subjective here, so I will wait a little and just register this point for later if it comes back up.

No problem at all; I just want to avoid upfront any possible--even unintentional--equivocation that could arise from misues of ambiguous terms and concepts.

Property is the (legitimate, legal) right to control a given scarce resource. ... The purpose of property rules is to permit contestable things to be used in a peaceful way.

Are these definitions in wide use, or are they particular to a libertarian view?

I think they are implicit in all normative views about property rights. It's always: who gets to control this.

Judging by history, property seems to start by someone simply staking out a claim on a part of nature.

more technically they appropriate a means of action--a given scarce resource.

And if someone else disagrees with him, especially if that someone else has already staked out a claim on the same part, they bonk each other over the head until one wins.

excactl. notice this happens only for contestable (rivalrous; scarce) things. otherwise no head-bonking is necessary.

This is how I see the start of property.

me too, though Objectivists will go wilding on you if you are too explicit about this--they'll say you are "inappropriately" "focussing" on "conflict" "instead of" on "man's" "creative capacity" or "need to live by the creation of values" or similar formulations.

That is how practically every country on earth throughout all of recorded history has started. (The ones I have read about, of course. Maybe there is something else out there that is different that I have not encountered so far.)

Property rules in this case are only peaceful for the winner. The loser--if he survives--has to go away.

Well surely we don't believe this. We all think that in a peaceful civilized law-ordered society we are all better off. The few criminals who are not better off--so what. We don't want them to be better offer.

If he wants to use that same property after that, he either has to bonk another day and bonk harder, or he has become part of the winner. Even when there is a Mexican standoff, all that means is that the disputed property got divided for the time being.

How's that for scarcity? Still, when I contemplate Manifest Destiny and the small number of settlers in the 1800's, the idea of scarcity seems ludicrous.

But every particular piece of property is still scarce, rivalrous.

That's just the start. Elements that create abundance where nothing was before is also part of the concept of property. (I realize that this is not true according to your definition as stated above, though.)

The market creates abundance in the face of scarcity. Abundance is good. Scarcity, if not bad, is a challenge we have to overcome. To impose it on patterns of information that we can all draw from to guide our actions is insane.

[Mike Renzulli]

Okay but, in terms of IP, do you have any specific things to replace it? I tend to agree with your premise but the biggest hole in your argument is a lack of ideas which could be used as an alternative to the current IP method.

If not, then don't look for IP to go away anytime soon since your writings could be useful as critiques but will not help to achieve the overall goal you seek to achive.

My idea is to identify state laws that are incompatible with individual rights, and to advocate for their repeal. among these are the draft, all forms of taxation, eminent domain, public education, the drug war, and IP.

[sjw]

The market creates abundance in the face of scarcity. Abundance is good. Scarcity, if not bad, is a challenge we have to overcome. To impose it on patterns of information that we can all draw from to guide our actions is insane.

The copyright construct is intended as a mechanism to permit the author of a work to control and profit from the products of his efforts. Without the author the work would not exist, no one is out anything by granting the author the legal right to profit. The insanity is only when the legal right to profit interferes with the right to think and create independently -- generally this is the hallmark of patents, not copyrights (although I would not go so far as to defend everything about copyright law, and I certainly do not defend the non-consensual manner in which copyright is foisted on everyone through totalitarian jurisdictions).

Shayne

[sjw]

Okay but, in terms of IP, do you have any specific things to replace it? I tend to agree with your premise but the biggest hole in your argument is a lack of ideas which could be used as an alternative to the current IP method.

If not, then don't look for IP to go away anytime soon since your writings could be useful as critiques but will not help to achieve the overall goal you seek to achive.

Yep. See my book for constructive arguments that repair the "damage" created by the recognition that IP is not a natural right.

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

Kinsella argues that without scarcity the notion of property makes no sense. He argues, for example, that if we could pluck bicycles out of the air, there would be no reason to prosecute people for stealing bicycles, because anyone who needed one could just wish one up at need. Besides the obviously arbitrary and hence invalid nature of the argument, he ignores the fact that the value of a bicycle that had been given to me as a gift by my now deceased father is a real thing, and I might be justifiably outraged if you stole my bicycle, no matter how easy it would be for me to replace it.

Wha???

The bicycle that your dead father gave you is valuable for two basic reasons. Well, just one actually.

1) Your father didn't pick it out of thin air and had to work for the money to buy it, and his love for you is reflected in his choice. In other words - SCARCITY. If he pulled it out of thin air this wouldn't apply, and the value would disappear.

2) No other bicycle is the one that your father gave you - that's right - one of a kind - SCARCITY

Value is certainly subjective, but I think scarcity is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for value.

Bob

Edited December 1, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[sjw]

The purpose of property rules is to permit contestable things to be used in a peaceful way.

Peaceful if you agree with the interpretation of the rules. What this is missing is a definition of "peaceful". NAP can't be coherently understood outside of the philosophic context which justifies it. This is pretty much Rand's criticism of Libertarianism, and she was right about that.

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

Likewise one's reputation. A reputation comes at the expense of hard work, not only one's own effort at integrity, but also one's advertising and self-marketing. If one wants to speak of scarcity (I would rather speak of the right to enjoy one's own moral investment) then what is more scarce than a hard won reputation? If we look at a real life example of libel, what could be more scarce than the reputation Rush Limbaugh has earned as America's number one broadcast personality, and what could be more rare that the ability to buy an NFL franchise?

Reputation is essentially what other people think of you. If I impugn your reputation, whether fairly or unfairly, I might change those opinions. But you have no property rights in the opinions of other people. You have no right to insist that other people think good things about you, or to use coercion against me if I influence their opinions.

Ghs

Not "fair or unfair" True or untrue. There is no right to make false defamatory statements against a person, such as accusations of theft or rape. When false accusations result in real harm suit for damages is entirely appropriate. Or are we arguing that there is a first amendment right to say whatever we like?

Of course, if like George H. Smith, you have been arrested on charges of s********g a **************** in Malibu, you might disagree with me.

That's only my opinion.

So do you think that I should have the right to bring legal action against you for your false remark about my having been arrested? If not, why not? What if someone, who didn't bother to check your link, took it seriously, subsequently repeated the allegation, and thereby caused me "real harm"?

False defamatory statements can include many allegations other than criminal allegations, and these can also result in "real harm." What you appear to be saying is that it should be illegal to tell lies about others, if such lies cause some "real harm." If this isn't your position, then where do you draw the line? Suppose I write a private email to your spouse in which I falsely accuse you of having an affair. Although this is not a criminal allegation, my lie could cause you "real harm" by messing up your relationship. Should this be illegal? What if the "real harm" consists of mental distress? Should that be legally actionable?

Yes, I do believe that the right of free speech includes to the right to tell lies about other people. But I would distinguish between general lies and lies told, say, to the police in an effort to get me arrested. Filing a false criminal charge involves far more than telling a lie; it makes the liar complicit in an act of aggression.

The age of the Internet has taught intelligent people a valuable lesson, namely, not to take personal attacks very seriously.

Ghs

It doesn't surprise me that you, George H. Smith, hold these positions as a notorious advocate and practitioner of b********y and m**-*** love. But surely you understand the difference between something being illegal and something being actionable. Or do r*****s like you, George H. Smith, fail to make the distinction?

Edited December 2, 2010 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That is how practically every country on earth throughout all of recorded history has started. (The ones I have read about, of course. Maybe there is something else out there that is different that I have not encountered so far.)

Property rules in this case are only peaceful for the winner. The loser--if he survives--has to go away.

Well surely we don't believe this. We all think that in a peaceful civilized law-ordered society we are all better off. The few criminals who are not better off--so what. We don't want them to be better offer.

Stephan,

This didn't grok for me.

I was looking at the history of mankind, thinking about all the wars throughout the ages, including the USA settlement of the West. I wasn't thinking about criminals (in the sense you are using the term here).

I believe as you say, but from what I observe, some people think "that in a peaceful civilized law-ordered society we are all better off," only if they are in charge. Otherwise, they think the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

Those are the ones that bother me, especially when they get their hands on guns.

I have stated in other places, if there were a way to eliminate bullying from human nature, I would probably be an anarchist. But in addition to bullying, I keep seeing how power changes people. It generally makes good people do bad things, and bad people do horrible things. Worse, they get other people to do their dirty work for them and those people gladly do it. That's been a constant in human history up to now and I see no way to get rid of the authority component in human nature. (The strength of the urge to obey authority over principle has been tested and corroborated time and time again in experiments.)

That means so long as there are bullies and followers of bullies, we need some way of constraining them. NIOF is cool, but it works better in discussions than in actually dealing with them--especially when a mob forms behind a bully and gets lathered up. The best solution I have seen so far is the system of checks and balances within a republic devised on individual rights that our Founding Fathers set up.

You can't get rid of power, but you can slice it up and spread it around. Then the power-mongers hold each other in check, since for one to gain more power, another has to give his up.

Far from perfect, but it keeps a lid on them up to a point.

But I digress from intellectual property...

I was merely trying to make sure my meaning was clear.

Michael

[nskinsella]

Okay but, in terms of IP, do you have any specific things to replace it? I tend to agree with your premise but the biggest hole in your argument is a lack of ideas which could be used as an alternative to the current IP method.

If not, then don't look for IP to go away anytime soon since your writings could be useful as critiques but will not help to achieve the overall goal you seek to achive.

My idea is to identify state laws that are incompatible with individual rights, and to advocate for their repeal. among these are the draft, all forms of taxation, eminent domain, public education, the drug war, and IP.

Mike, see my post Funding for Creation and Innovation in an IP-Free World and Innovations that Thrive without IP linked therein. Those are some ideas. I've tried to compiled some. But basically you seem to be saying you think I'l have a tough time converting consequentialists and utilitarians unless I find a really persuasive argument. I agree, but this is true of our whole argument for liberty. It's just a strategical or tactical question.

Let me also add this. One reason given for, say, the need for drug patents is to make R&D more affordable for drugs. But if you implement other parts of libertarian policies--get rid of taxes, employer regulations, union laws, trade tariffs, and the FDA--you that would give drug companies (for example) so much more freedom and money to engage in R&D. That's just one example of a complementary libertarian policy change that ought to make elimination of the patent monopoly more palatable to the consequentialist-minded.

Edited December 1, 2010 by nskinsella

[nskinsella]

The market creates abundance in the face of scarcity. Abundance is good. Scarcity, if not bad, is a challenge we have to overcome. To impose it on patterns of information that we can all draw from to guide our actions is insane.

The copyright construct is intended as a mechanism to permit the author of a work to control and profit from the products of his efforts. Without the author the work would not exist, no one is out anything by granting the author the legal right to profit.

Well, first, note that this is true only of copyright, not patent--most inventions would be invented by others anyway eventually or even at the same time.

And as for copyright: I dsiagree: people are "out something" namely liberty. Look, suppose I am a huge fan of Atlas Shrugged. I have some idea about the implications of those ideas. One way to illustrate my ideas about this would be to write a sequel: Atlas II. But I am prohibited from doing this because of copyright. This is censorship. This is because copyright is not merely a limit on the right to literally reproduce the pattern but related limiations such as the right to copy "a version" of it (say the plot, or a translation) or a "derivative work." It is the author who decides to reveal information to the world, to profit somehow from doing so, and then to expect the state to prohibit others from acting on the basis of the information he has released. This is absurd and unjust.

The insanity is only when the legal right to profit interferes with the right to think and create independently -- generally this is the hallmark of patents, not copyrights (although I would not go so far as to defend everything about copyright law, and I certainly do not defend the non-consensual manner in which copyright is foisted on everyone through totalitarian jurisdictions).

Shayne

[nskinsella]

Kinsella argues that without scarcity the notion of property makes no sense. He argues, for example, that if we could pluck bicycles out of the air, there would be no reason to prosecute people for stealing bicycles, because anyone who needed one could just wish one up at need. Besides the obviously arbitrary and hence invalid nature of the argument, he ignores the fact that the value of a bicycle that had been given to me as a gift by my now deceased father is a real thing, and I might be justifiably outraged if you stole my bicycle, no matter how easy it would be for me to replace it.

Wha???

The bicycle that your dead father gave you is valuable for two basic reasons. Well, just one actually.

1) Your father didn't pick it out of thin air and had to work for the money to buy it, and his love for you is reflected in his choice. In other words - SCARCITY. If he pulled it out of thin air this wouldn't apply, and the value would disappear.

2) No other bicycle is the one that your father gave you - that's right - one of a kind - SCARCITY

Value is certainly subjective, but I think scarcity is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for value.

Bob

good points, Bob; this helps to illustrate how crucial scarcity is to property.

[nskinsella]

The purpose of property rules is to permit contestable things to be used in a peaceful way.

Peaceful if you agree with the interpretation of the rules. What this is missing is a definition of "peaceful". NAP can't be coherently understood outside of the philosophic context which justifies it. This is pretty much Rand's criticism of Libertarianism, and she was right about that.

Shayne

I disagree; look at Rand's simple statement of the non-initiation of force principled I quoted above. It's in simple, elementary terms; this is why the TAS types at least see that the political part of Objectivism is basically libertarian. Come on. We basically all agree on the importance of property rihgts. it's just not that hard to see that IP undercuts this.

[nskinsella]

Likewise one's reputation. A reputation comes at the expense of hard work, not only one's own effort at integrity, but also one's advertising and self-marketing. If one wants to speak of scarcity (I would rather speak of the right to enjoy one's own moral investment) then what is more scarce than a hard won reputation? If we look at a real life example of libel, what could be more scarce than the reputation Rush Limbaugh has earned as America's number one broadcast personality, and what could be more rare that the ability to buy an NFL franchise?

Reputation is essentially what other people think of you. If I impugn your reputation, whether fairly or unfairly, I might change those opinions. But you have no property rights in the opinions of other people. You have no right to insist that other people think good things about you, or to use coercion against me if I influence their opinions.

Ghs

Not "fair or unfair" True or untrue. There is no right to make false defamatory statements against a person, such as accusations of theft or rape. When false accusations result in real harm suit for damages is entirely appropriate. Or are we arguing that there is a first amendment right to say whatever we like?

Of course, if like George H. Smith, you have been arrested on charges of sodomizing a two year old boy in Malibu, you might disagree with me.

That's only my opinion.

So do you think that I should have the right to bring legal action against you for your false remark about my having been arrested? If not, why not? What if someone, who didn't bother to check your link, took it seriously, subsequently repeated the allegation, and thereby caused me "real harm"?

False defamatory statements can include many allegations other than criminal allegations, and these can also result in "real harm." What you appear to be saying is that it should be illegal to tell lies about others, if such lies cause some "real harm." If this isn't your position, then where do you draw the line? Suppose I write a private email to your spouse in which I falsely accuse you of having an affair. Although this is not a criminal allegation, my lie could cause you "real harm" by messing up your relationship. Should this be illegal? What if the "real harm" consists of mental distress? Should that be legally actionable?

Yes, I do believe that the right of free speech includes to the right to tell lies about other people. But I would distinguish between general lies and lies told, say, to the police in an effort to get me arrested. Filing a false criminal charge involves far more than telling a lie; it makes the liar complicit in an act of aggression.

The age of the Internet has taught intelligent people a valuable lesson, namely, not to take personal attacks very seriously.

Ghs

It doesn't surprise me that you, George H. Smith, hold these positions as a notorious advocate and practitioner of bestiality and man-boy love. But surely you understand the difference between something being illegal and something being actionable. Or do rapists like you, George H. Smith, fail to make the distinction?

I thought this was supposed to be a civil forum. This is just ad hominem. Can we deal with substance and ideas please?

[sjw]

The market creates abundance in the face of scarcity. Abundance is good. Scarcity, if not bad, is a challenge we have to overcome. To impose it on patterns of information that we can all draw from to guide our actions is insane.

The copyright construct is intended as a mechanism to permit the author of a work to control and profit from the products of his efforts. Without the author the work would not exist, no one is out anything by granting the author the legal right to profit.

Well, first, note that this is true only of copyright, not patent--most inventions would be invented by others anyway eventually or even at the same time.

Yes, I've noted that repeatedly.

And as for copyright: I dsiagree: people are "out something" namely liberty. Look, suppose I am a huge fan of Atlas Shrugged. I have some idea about the implications of those ideas. One way to illustrate my ideas about this would be to write a sequel: Atlas II. But I am prohibited from doing this because of copyright. This is censorship. This is because copyright is not merely a limit on the right to literally reproduce the pattern but related limiations such as the right to copy "a version" of it (say the plot, or a translation) or a "derivative work." It is the author who decides to reveal information to the world, to profit somehow from doing so, and then to expect the state to prohibit others from acting on the basis of the information he has released. This is absurd and unjust.

And as I also noted already, by defending some notion of copyright, I don't mean to defend copyright as implemented in our legal system. I'm talking about copying Atlas and reselling it, not writing your own book based loosely on its ideas. I am talking about mechanically reproducing what somebody else created, not creating your own thing.

Shayne

[nskinsella]

That is how practically every country on earth throughout all of recorded history has started. (The ones I have read about, of course. Maybe there is something else out there that is different that I have not encountered so far.)

Property rules in this case are only peaceful for the winner. The loser--if he survives--has to go away.

Well surely we don't believe this. We all think that in a peaceful civilized law-ordered society we are all better off. The few criminals who are not better off--so what. We don't want them to be better offer.

Stephan,

This didn't grok for me.

I was looking at the history of mankind, thinking about all the wars throughout the ages, including the USA settlement of the West. I wasn't thinking about criminals (in the sense you are using the term here).

I believe as you say, but from what I observe, some people think "that in a peaceful civilized law-ordered society we are all better off," only if they are in charge. Otherwise, they think the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

Those are the ones that bother me, especially when they get their hands on guns.

I have stated in other places, if there were a way to eliminate bullying from human nature, I would probably be an anarchist. But in addition to bullying, I keep seeing how power changes people. It generally makes good people do bad things, and bad people do horrible things. Worse, they get other people to do their dirty work for them and those people gladly do it. That's been a constant in human history up to now and I see no way to get rid of the authority component in human nature. (The strength of the urge to obey authority over principle has been tested and corroborated time and time again in experiments.)

That means so long as there are bullies and followers of bullies, we need some way of constraining them. NIOF is cool, but it works better in discussions than in actually dealing with them--especially when a mob forms behind a bully and gets lathered up. The best solution I have seen so far is the system of checks and balances within a republic devised on individual rights that our Founding Fathers set up.

You can't get rid of power, but you can slice it up and spread it around. Then the power-mongers hold each other in check, since for one to gain more power, another has to give his up.

Far from perfect, but it keeps a lid on them up to a point.

But I digress from intellectual property...

I was merely trying to make sure my meaning was clear.

Michael

THanks michael. I appreciate yoru points but don't see how this justifies the granting of artificial utilitarian-based monopoly privileges by a (criminal) state. If you would be anarchist if there were no bullying--the problem is, if you have a state, the bullies rise to the top of the state and it's even worse.

Bullying just means there is crime and injustice. It doens't mean institutionalized bullying is thereby justified.

BTW I have long held the view that opposition to bullying may be one reason some people are amenable to libertarian ideas. See these posts.

note also, you wrote:

That means so long as there are bullies and followers of bullies, we need some way of constraining them. NIOF is cool, but it works better in discussions than in actually dealing with them--especially when a mob forms behind a bully and gets lathered up. The best solution I have seen so far is the system of checks and balances within a republic devised on individual rights that our Founding Fathers set up.

You can't get rid of power, but you can slice it up and spread it around.

I agree with this; if you look at the modern IP landscape, it's hard to argue that permitting a centralized state to grant monopoly privileges is compatible with your desire to decentralize and limit power!

Edited December 1, 2010 by nskinsella

[nskinsella]

The market creates abundance in the face of scarcity. Abundance is good. Scarcity, if not bad, is a challenge we have to overcome. To impose it on patterns of information that we can all draw from to guide our actions is insane.

The copyright construct is intended as a mechanism to permit the author of a work to control and profit from the products of his efforts. Without the author the work would not exist, no one is out anything by granting the author the legal right to profit.

Well, first, note that this is true only of copyright, not patent--most inventions would be invented by others anyway eventually or even at the same time.

Yes, I've noted that repeatedly.

And as for copyright: I dsiagree: people are "out something" namely liberty. Look, suppose I am a huge fan of Atlas Shrugged. I have some idea about the implications of those ideas. One way to illustrate my ideas about this would be to write a sequel: Atlas II. But I am prohibited from doing this because of copyright. This is censorship. This is because copyright is not merely a limit on the right to literally reproduce the pattern but related limiations such as the right to copy "a version" of it (say the plot, or a translation) or a "derivative work." It is the author who decides to reveal information to the world, to profit somehow from doing so, and then to expect the state to prohibit others from acting on the basis of the information he has released. This is absurd and unjust.

And as I also noted already, by defending some notion of copyright, I don't mean to defend copyright as implemented in our legal system. I'm talking about copying Atlas and reselling it, not writing your own book based loosely on its ideas. I am talking about mechanically reproducing what somebody else created, not creating your own thing.

Shayne

okay but you have to realize that this very veyr truncated version of IP: no patent, and copyright shorn of derivative works and non-literal copyring rights--would basically eradicate the whole system; your position would be denounced as anti-IP as mine is, by the pro-IP types. PLease realize this. your position is akin to a minarchist arguing for 0.5% taxation. It is opposed by the statists as much as my 0% tax policy is.

And yours is unrealistic and naive, too--to expect that giving the power to the state to grant these monopolies would not metastasize and expand continually in scope and term and penalty--DMCA, COICA, ACTA, and so on--is naive in the extreme. AS is the idea that there can be a minimal state, or that a 1% tax rate would stay at 1%.

[sjw]

okay but you have to realize that this very veyr truncated version of IP: no patent, and copyright shorn of derivative works and non-literal copyring rights--would basically eradicate the whole system; your position would be denounced as anti-IP as mine is, by the pro-IP types. PLease realize this. your position is akin to a minarchist arguing for 0.5% taxation. It is opposed by the statists as much as my 0% tax policy is.

I realize and agree. I'm arguing for what I think is beneficial not what I think would be popular among people with bad motives.

And yours is unrealistic and naive, too--to expect that giving the power to the state to grant these monopolies would not metastasize and expand continually in scope and term and penalty--DMCA, COICA, ACTA, and so on--is naive in the extreme. AS is the idea that there can be a minimal state, or that a 1% tax rate would stay at 1%.

No because my primary proposition is the abolishment of totalitarian jurisdictions. Once abolished, you'd have a wide diversity of competing governments with different consensual copyright laws; the ones that would prevail would be the most rational and productive. This would also be painted as "anarchy" by some minarchists and definitely by statists.

I would guess that you would consider my proposal "anarchy" too if only because of my absolutist position on consent (anarchists tend to define government as the agency that usurps consent, so if I define an organization that by definition does not, then they will refuse to call that a government). The arguments I tend to get into with anarchists concerns what the right definition of "government" is. Also the issue of secession comes up when I talk about the right to form geographically-connected towns.

Shayne

Edited December 1, 2010 by sjw

[George H. Smith]

So do you think that I should have the right to bring legal action against you for your false remark about my having been arrested? If not, why not? What if someone, who didn't bother to check your link, took it seriously, subsequently repeated the allegation, and thereby caused me "real harm"?

False defamatory statements can include many allegations other than criminal allegations, and these can also result in "real harm." What you appear to be saying is that it should be illegal to tell lies about others, if such lies cause some "real harm." If this isn't your position, then where do you draw the line? Suppose I write a private email to your spouse in which I falsely accuse you of having an affair. Although this is not a criminal allegation, my lie could cause you "real harm" by messing up your relationship. Should this be illegal? What if the "real harm" consists of mental distress? Should that be legally actionable?

Yes, I do believe that the right of free speech includes to the right to tell lies about other people. But I would distinguish between general lies and lies told, say, to the police in an effort to get me arrested. Filing a false criminal charge involves far more than telling a lie; it makes the liar complicit in an act of aggression.

The age of the Internet has taught intelligent people a valuable lesson, namely, not to take personal attacks very seriously.

Ghs

It doesn't surprise me that you, George H. Smith, hold these positions as a notorious advocate and practitioner of b********y and m**-*** love. But surely you understand the difference between something being illegal and something being actionable. Or do r*****s like you, George H. Smith, fail to make the distinction?

Could you not figure out on your own that by "legally actionable" and "illegal," I was referring to any rights-violating activity? Whether a violation of rights would technically be a matter of civil law or criminal law is irrelevant to the point. Indeed, in a libertarian society there might be little or no distinction between the two.

So are you interested in discussing this issue seriously or not? Or would you rather play games?

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It doesn't surprise me that you, George H. Smith, hold these positions as a notorious advocate and practitioner of b********y and m**-*** love. But surely you understand the difference between something being illegal and something being actionable. Or do r*****s like you, George H. Smith, fail to make the distinction?

Ted,

There is also the difference between something illegal and something just plain wrong.

I just now caught this.

The posts here on OL get crawled by Google, Yahoo! and Bing, (and other search engines) so your little prank to make your point could actually be used later by some religious nut--one who is disgruntled by George's work on atheism--from a Google search. To avoid that, I changed the offending language and replaced it with asterisks.

Let's say from now on, that kind of prank is illegal on this site.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

So do you think that I should have the right to bring legal action against you for your false remark about my having been arrested? If not, why not? What if someone, who didn't bother to check your link, took it seriously, subsequently repeated the allegation, and thereby caused me "real harm"?

False defamatory statements can include many allegations other than criminal allegations, and these can also result in "real harm." What you appear to be saying is that it should be illegal to tell lies about others, if such lies cause some "real harm." If this isn't your position, then where do you draw the line? Suppose I write a private email to your spouse in which I falsely accuse you of having an affair. Although this is not a criminal allegation, my lie could cause you "real harm" by messing up your relationship. Should this be illegal? What if the "real harm" consists of mental distress? Should that be legally actionable?

Yes, I do believe that the right of free speech includes to the right to tell lies about other people. But I would distinguish between general lies and lies told, say, to the police in an effort to get me arrested. Filing a false criminal charge involves far more than telling a lie; it makes the liar complicit in an act of aggression.

The age of the Internet has taught intelligent people a valuable lesson, namely, not to take personal attacks very seriously.

Ghs

It doesn't surprise me that you, George H. Smith, hold these positions as a notorious advocate and practitioner of bestiality and m**-b** love. But surely you understand the difference between something being illegal and something being actionable. Or do r*****s like you, George H. Smith, fail to make the distinction?

Could you not figure out on your own that by "legally actionable" and "illegal," I was referring to any rights-violating activity? Whether a violation of rights would technically be a matter of civil law or criminal law is irrelevant to the point. Indeed, in a libertarian society there might be little or no distinction between the two.

So are you interested in discussing this issue seriously or not? Or would you rather play games?

Ghs

I have to wonder why you didn't just say, "Yeah, Ted, I should have said actionable."

As for games? You are the fr*ud and crimin*l. Don't d*ny my r*ght to broadc*st it.

I am composing a l*st of your rather sl*my acts of plagi*rism, George, which I will post soon on a specially dedicated bl*g. I'll let you know when the list of your academic fr*uds is up.

In the meantime, no. Illegal has a specific meaning and it does not include actionable. I am not about to start assuming that words mean things that they don't so that your arguments come closer to having some semblance of sense. I am not an rhetorico-epistemological altruist. I don't ask you to argue on my behalf. Don't ask me to argue for you.

(edited out accusations under protest per MSK's post above)

Edited December 2, 2010 by Ted Keer

[George H. Smith]

So do you think that I should have the right to bring legal action against you for your false remark about my having been arrested? If not, why not? What if someone, who didn't bother to check your link, took it seriously, subsequently repeated the allegation, and thereby caused me "real harm"?

False defamatory statements can include many allegations other than criminal allegations, and these can also result in "real harm." What you appear to be saying is that it should be illegal to tell lies about others, if such lies cause some "real harm." If this isn't your position, then where do you draw the line? Suppose I write a private email to your spouse in which I falsely accuse you of having an affair. Although this is not a criminal allegation, my lie could cause you "real harm" by messing up your relationship. Should this be illegal? What if the "real harm" consists of mental distress? Should that be legally actionable?

Yes, I do believe that the right of free speech includes to the right to tell lies about other people. But I would distinguish between general lies and lies told, say, to the police in an effort to get me arrested. Filing a false criminal charge involves far more than telling a lie; it makes the liar complicit in an act of aggression.

The age of the Internet has taught intelligent people a valuable lesson, namely, not to take personal attacks very seriously.

Ghs

It doesn't surprise me that you, George H. Smith, hold these positions as a notorious advocate and practitioner of bestiality and m**-b** love. But surely you understand the difference between something being illegal and something being actionable. Or do r*****s like you, George H. Smith, fail to make the distinction?

Could you not figure out on your own that by "legally actionable" and "illegal," I was referring to any rights-violating activity? Whether a violation of rights would technically be a matter of civil law or criminal law is irrelevant to the point. Indeed, in a libertarian society there might be little or no distinction between the two.

So are you interested in discussing this issue seriously or not? Or would you rather play games?

Ghs

I have to wonder why you didn't just say, "Yeah, Ted, I should have said actionable."

As for games? You are the fr*ud and crimin*l. Don't d*ny my r*ght to broadc*st it.

I am composing a l*st of your rather sl*my acts of plagi*rism, George, which I will post soon on a specially dedicated bl*g. I'll let you know when the list of your academic fr*uds is up.

In the meantime, no. Illegal has a specific meaning and it does not include actionable. I am not about to start assuming that words mean things that they don't so that your arguments come closer to having some semblance of sense. I am not an rhetorico-epistemological altruist. I don't ask you to argue on my behalf. Don't ask me to argue for you.

Fine, Ted. If my terminology overloads your pea-brain, I should have said "legally actionable" -- even though, in libertarian terms, there is absolutely no difference between "legally actionable" and "illegal."

Meanwhile, if you ever get your brain farts under control, let me know, and maybe we can have a reasonable conversation without your stinking up the place.

I used to think you were a reasonable and intelligent guy. It didn't take long for you to ruin that illusion.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

It doesn't surprise me that you, George H. Smith, hold these positions as a notorious advocate and practitioner of b********y and m**-*** love. But surely you understand the difference between something being illegal and something being actionable. Or do r*****s like you, George H. Smith, fail to make the distinction?

Ted,

There is also the difference between something illegal and something just plain wrong.

I just now caught this.

The posts here on OL get crawled by Google, Yahoo! and Bing, (and other search engines) so your little prank to make your point could actually be used later by some religious nut--one who is disgruntled by George's work on atheism--from a Google search. To avoid that, I changed the offending language and replaced it with asterisks.

Let's say from now on, that kind of prank is illegal on this site.

Michael

I appreciate your concern, but I frankly don't give a shit.

The thing that concerns me is this: Ted is using his mini-libels in an effort to score polemical points. But by Ted's own standards, those selfsame libels are a violation of my rights in my own reputation.

We have thus learned the following about Ted: He is willing to violate the rights of other people, by his own standards, in order to make a point. What's next? A threat to kill me if I don't agree with him? Ted has established the precedent; the rest is a matter of degree.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I appreciate your concern, but I frankly don't give a shit.

George,

Say what?

So which is it?

You appreciate my concern?

Or you don't give a shit?

Actually, I'm didn't do that just for you. I would have done the same thing for anyone who posts here. I don't want this forum to be used for damaging people with libel, play-acting or not, whether protested or not.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

So do you think that I should have the right to bring legal action against you for your false remark about my having been arrested? If not, why not? What if someone, who didn't bother to check your link, took it seriously, subsequently repeated the allegation, and thereby caused me "real harm"?

False defamatory statements can include many allegations other than criminal allegations, and these can also result in "real harm." What you appear to be saying is that it should be illegal to tell lies about others, if such lies cause some "real harm." If this isn't your position, then where do you draw the line? Suppose I write a private email to your spouse in which I falsely accuse you of having an affair. Although this is not a criminal allegation, my lie could cause you "real harm" by messing up your relationship. Should this be illegal? What if the "real harm" consists of mental distress? Should that be legally actionable?

Yes, I do believe that the right of free speech includes to the right to tell lies about other people. But I would distinguish between general lies and lies told, say, to the police in an effort to get me arrested. Filing a false criminal charge involves far more than telling a lie; it makes the liar complicit in an act of aggression.

The age of the Internet has taught intelligent people a valuable lesson, namely, not to take personal attacks very seriously.

Ghs

It doesn't surprise me that you, George H. Smith, hold these positions as a notorious advocate and practitioner of bestiality and m**-b** love. But surely you understand the difference between something being illegal and something being actionable. Or do r*****s like you, George H. Smith, fail to make the distinction?

Could you not figure out on your own that by "legally actionable" and "illegal," I was referring to any rights-violating activity? Whether a violation of rights would technically be a matter of civil law or criminal law is irrelevant to the point. Indeed, in a libertarian society there might be little or no distinction between the two.

So are you interested in discussing this issue seriously or not? Or would you rather play games?

Ghs

I have to wonder why you didn't just say, "Yeah, Ted, I should have said actionable."

As for games? You are the fr*ud and crimin*l. Don't d*ny my r*ght to broadc*st it.

I am composing a l*st of your rather sl*my acts of plagi*rism, George, which I will post soon on a specially dedicated bl*g. I'll let you know when the list of your academic fr*uds is up.

In the meantime, no. Illegal has a specific meaning and it does not include actionable. I am not about to start assuming that words mean things that they don't so that your arguments come closer to having some semblance of sense. I am not an rhetorico-epistemological altruist. I don't ask you to argue on my behalf. Don't ask me to argue for you.

Fine, Ted. If my terminology overloads your pea-brain, I should have said "legally actionable" -- even though, in libertarian terms, there is absolutely no difference between "legally actionable" and "illegal."

Meanwhile, if you ever get your brain farts under control, let me know, and maybe we can have a reasonable conversation without your stinking up the place.

I used to think you were a reasonable and intelligent guy. It didn't take long for you to ruin that illusion.

Ghs

You are the one who holds the irrational position that freedom of speech countenances libel and slander. My reductio ad absurdum of that view was quite reasonable and quite intelligent.

I take it from your reaction that you don't like how your own theory works out in real life.

And if you had facts you would need to resort to name calling.

Nevertheless, your use of "pea-brain" and "fart" is simply adorable.

And no, you are still absolutely wrong to treat a civil suit and a criminal prosecution as the same thing, and you know it, or you wouldn't be so annoyed.