On 09/02/2016 01:03 PM, juan wrote:
> Why should rand get to write novels using ideas she stole from other pople? Because she was a LIBERTARIAN. That means your ethics STOP if they interfere with taking what you want. Feudalism with a less-frowned upon name to fool the rubes. Rr > On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 07:16:19 +0000 (UTC) > jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> This doesn't mean >> that I object to the current patent system. > > For the record, the current patent system has nothing to do > with libertarian philosophy. The patent system is a system of > state-granted privileges that are not compatible with private > property rights. And it comes from the middle ages and the > monarchies of that time. > > Not surprisingly it was adopted by the american slave state > that was 'founded' in 1776 or thereabouts... > > >> In her book >> Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand came out on the side of private intellectual >> property, > > > It's funny that all 'her' ideas about political philosophy were > 'stolen' from libertarians. Why should rand get to write novels > using ideas she stole from other pople? Did she pay royalties > to the libertarian thinkers she plagiarized? > > (as a side note : not only she stole 'her' political ideas from > libertarians - she never really understood libertarianism...) > > She also stole all the rest of 'her' ideas from rationalists, > individualists, atheists, and the like. > > >> objecting to the theft by government of metal-maker Henry >> Reardon's special metal alloy, >> "Reardon metal", by means of >> blackmail. Of course, I understand that by citing Ayn Rand's >> reasoning (and I am by no meansa Randian, having learned I was a >> libertarian years before knowing about Ayn Randand her books) it may >> seem I am committing the rhetorical sin of 'appealing toauthority'. > > It's OK to appeal to technical authority. Doesn't mean the > particular appeals are valid though =P > > And in the case of rand she was pretty mediocre from a > technical point of view anyway. > > >> And, I realize that there is something of a conundrum about >> advocating a 'free market' and yet implicitly supporting the one >> remaining control, that ofa patent system somewhat akin to what the >> world uses today. > > Yes. The patent system is an anti-competitive contraption that > goes against the competitive nature of the free market. > > >> (Who enforces sucha patent system, except a >> government?) Let me propose an outline of a solution which could >> square the circle: At some early point, say age 18, each person >> would be asked whether he wishes to livehis life WITH Intellectual >> Property rules, or not. > > There are so many...statist...assumptions and implications in > that. So, no, that is not workable in a libertarian framework. > > >> He can choose either way, butif he refuses, >> manufacturers can band together to agree to sell only to people who >> agree to those rules. Correspondingly, those who sign the >> pro-IntellectualProperty agreement agree thereby to bar themselves >> from buying products fromnon-intellectual-property agree-er >> manufacturers. Violations could be policed byan AP-type system. > > > You mean murdering people who copy 'patented' ideas - ideas the > patent holders most likely stole from other people anyway? > > > >> This wouldn't have to be a permanent decision, for any person. > > That's OK, because the kind of 'contract' needed to get the > system you want to work is not a valid contract. So in practice > it is not 'enforceable' > > >> Other >> manufacturers may make products that are made for sale to >> non-Intellectual Property agree-ers, but they will be shut out from >> dealing with what I expect will be the majority, let's call them >> "Pro-Intellectual Property"people and manufacturers. > > > Let's call them anti-competitive corporatists. > > >> I am fairly >> confident that the advantages of dealing withwhat I believe will be >> the majority, those that comply with Intellectual Property rules,will >> be sufficient to keep all but a small minority of the public willing >> to livevoluntarily with such rules. Put simply, I suggest that there >> are some rather powerfuladvantages to having a system which rewards >> inventors. > > Inventors do get the rewards they deserve when there's no > patent system. Of course the rewards they deserve are a lot > smaller than the 'rewards' they can get from monopolistic, > state-granted privileges. > > > > Jim Bell >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >