Couldn't post a reply: Ownership deprives others of use
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Dec 01, 2008 11:24 AM EDT |
The site kept saying, "You must enter your name", and then gave no field in which to enter a name. Konqueror _and_ Firefox. "Ownership deprives others of use" Kind of by definition, my ownership of something deprives others of the use of it. My car, for instance, means that it is no one else's car. Ideas, "Intellectual Property" by its expansive reading, causes a conflict with this. Since my "ownership" of an idea in no way deprives someone else of the use of that idea, how can I actually own it? My car, as above, is owned by me, but the same model of car, with exactly the same parts and style, is owned by someone else. Another person draws a picture of my car, but that picture (which looks just like my car) isn't mine either. Their posesion and use of the drawing, or the other car, does not deprive me of any of my "property rights" in my own car. An idea can be a secret, certainly, and the benefits of that secret utilized, but to sell an idea means that the idea itself goes into the common pool of knowledge. The sale of the idea or information is key, I think, to the illusion of information as property. Profits can be made selling them, which creates the impression that what is being sold is "property". But it is the reproduction of the information that is property, not the information itself. The book, not the words. That said, I also believe that passing someone else's ideas off as one's own is fraud, and therefore prosecutable. For example, people make lots of money performing or selling copies of Shakespeare. But if anyone claimed to have written them yesterday, they'd be a laughing stock. |
| dinotrac Dec 01, 2008 11:40 AM EDT |
>>"Ownership deprives others of use" Not exactly. You can deprive others of use without ownership (theft, squatting, destruction, etc) and you can own without depriving others of use. More accurately, ownership gives you a legally enforceable right to deprive others of use. |
| Libervis Dec 01, 2008 1:55 PM EDT |
Quoting:The site kept saying, "You must enter your name", and then gave no field in which to enter a name. Konqueror _and_ Firefox. Sorry about that, didn't realize. I've now made it optional to leave contact info for now so anonymous comments can be posted, until I can resolve the name thing. Quoting:Ideas, "Intellectual Property" by its expansive reading, causes a conflict with this. Since my "ownership" of an idea in no way deprives someone else of the use of that idea, how can I actually own it? They aren't using the idea that is in your mind, but rather the idea that is in their own. Your car example actually illustrates this well. Two persons can own two cars which are exactly the same, yet they are still separate cars and one is owned by one and other is owned by other. Same is with ideas. You may have the same exact idea that I have, and we don't even have to know each other for this to happen. You use your own idea and I use my own. To suggest otherwise only creates a host of problems as I explained in the article, particularly the "Collective ownership vs. No Ownership" part. No ownership isn't quite possible. You clearly have control over the idea in your own mind because you have control over your own mind, it is yours, you own yourself. To deny ownership of something within your mind is completely self-nullifying. Quoting:An idea can be a secret, certainly, and the benefits of that secret utilized, but to sell an idea means that the idea itself goes into the common pool of knowledge. I think you still misunderstand the ownership of an idea that I am referring to. What you own is not every idea that has the same content as your own just as you don't own every car in the world that looks just like your own. You are merely selling your own "copy", just as you would merely sell your own car. What happens when you sell an idea is that you charge a fee to *copy* it from your own mind to someone elses mind (by any means by which you can communicate it). The person you sold it to now owns the new copy fully unless he explicitly agreed that he doesn't (in which case it'd just be a lease). Of course, and as I suggested in the article, this leasing of an idea can be quite impractical because it's very hard to ensure that even after such an agreement has been made that the one you copied the idea to wont use it in a way that the terms of your agreement prohibit. And I certainly dislike such contracts. But it doesn't change the fact that you own the content of your mind, including the ideas that are in it. (You might say that if you agreed to only lease the idea from someone you don't own all of the content of your mind, but that'd be wrong because your very act of agreement with such a proposition is an exercise of control over your mind, you effectively restricted yourself!). Quoting:That said, I also believe that passing someone else's ideas off as one's own is fraud, and therefore prosecutable. For example, people make lots of money performing or selling copies of Shakespeare. But if anyone claimed to have written them yesterday, they'd be a laughing stock. That's not what I was suggesting though. If you know shakespeare's plays by heart you own that as the content of your mind, but you also know where you received that which makes it a dishonest act to claim you came up with all that by yourself. It simply doesn't change, however, the fact that you still own your mind-copy of shakespear and have total control over what you should do with it. If someone asks you to recite a part you can decline. If you want to write it all down for your convenience, you can do it etc. It's yours! |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 01, 2008 2:10 PM EDT |
> ownership gives you a legally enforceable right to deprive others of use. Thanks, Dino, that is a much better way of saying what I meant. > you still own your mind-copy of shakespear and have total control over what you should do with it. I don't think we're in any kind of practical disagreement, I was just putting my own spin on things. And as Dino pointed out, not the best spin. My kids are both sick, I think I'm distracted. Thank Cromm for naps! |
| Libervis Dec 01, 2008 4:18 PM EDT |
Right. The only issue I see with Dino's description is that it seems to describe only one of the subsets of ownership. Of course, if it's absolute and exclusive control over a thing that it also includes the right to deprive others of use. :) As for what "legally" means... that's for another time and place. :P I hope your kids get better soon Bob. Regards |
| azerthoth Dec 01, 2008 4:41 PM EDT |
Bob, I too hope your kids get better. Sucks when you have sick kids. Libervis, I really enjoyed that article. Very well said. I have gone over it 3 times this morning and find a little nuance or have it evoke a new thought with each read. |
| dinotrac Dec 01, 2008 4:49 PM EDT |
Libervis - Ownership is a legal concept, and does not exist otherwise. Legal in a broad context is little more than an agreed-upon set of principles and/or rules to govern behavior. Without that agreement, there is no ownership, only possession, and possession is fragile in the absence of ownership. |
| Libervis Dec 01, 2008 5:32 PM EDT |
Thanks azerthoth, I'm glad. Dinotrac, yeah I can see where you're coming from on that, but I disagree. :) I think human rights are an emergent property of every individual and property rights are really the basis of all liberty. If you put a man on an isolated island, I'm guessing you'll say ownership is a meaningless concept, yet it does not cease to exist at all. You still absolutely and exclusively have control over everything that you own on that island, including your self. There doesn't need to be another individual to come and say "look guy, I agree you have rights so therefore you have rights". That's just weird. :) I think rights are inherent to an individual who recognizes them in him or her self. It is only since someone else might not recognize them or respect them as well that it is required of anyone who actually cares about his/her inherent rights not being violated that (s)he has to be willing to demand their recognition and defend them. By your definition of legal, if most people in a society decided that you should be a slave to their king, you would say you don't have rights and no longer own yourself as if the majority vote somehow changed reality of who and what you by nature exist as. That doesn't work and I don't even think you'd just like that give up your rights simply because everyone else in your society succumbed to some fascist mental disease. ;) EDIT: My definition of "legal"? Legal acts are all acts which are non-coercive. Legal property is all property you acquired by voluntary interaction rather than coercion (theft). Simple as that. I don't need some parliament, king or president deciding legal for me. But I digress.. I think.. Cheers |
| dinotrac Dec 01, 2008 6:33 PM EDT |
>EDIT: My definition of "legal"? Legal acts are all acts which are non-coercive. Legal property is all property you acquired by voluntary interaction rather than coercion (theft). Simple as that. I don't need some parliament, king or president deciding legal for me. But I digress.. I think.. Hmmmm....would you look at that. While disagreeing with me, you feel compelled to come up with some code (non-coercive, agreement, etc) to define "proper" ownership. And, of course, you're correct in that no king or parliament is required. There is, however, one hitch: What do you do when bad guys poke around? Your ownership is meaningless unless you are a) strong enough to fight off the baddies yourself, or b) have others you can turn to for help. |
| Libervis Dec 01, 2008 8:05 PM EDT |
I didn't come up with any codes there. What do you think claiming that rights are emergent property of an individual leads to if not towards non-coercion being the only basic law? If an individual cannot be an individual without the rights inherent in being an individual then violation of those rights is obviously a violation of him or her as an individual human being. There needs to be no code that says that because this "rule" if you will itself is emergent rather than imposed by some decree or majority ruling. > What do you do when bad guys poke around? Your ownership is meaningless unless you are I would carry arms (I don't only because in this country its illegal and punishable because we too have a company which claims ownership over me and my property and a monopoly on all force, defensive or offensive). Otherwise I would hire someone to protect me, someone of my own choosing not someone imposed on me by some decree or majority ruling. It's about voluntary choice and interaction, not forcing someone to buy a defense or any other service from a company I did not choose (yeah you call that company "government" or USA). And if you don't want to go too deep into that topic in this thread I advise not to, since I assure you I wont budge. For the love of everything that is true I have been through some incredibly long discussions and challenges to this, but there is simply nothing that can possibly beat the idea that simply says: let's not coerce each other. You simply cannot convince me that initiated violence should have legal exceptions for anyone, not even government officials. I'm not trying to run from the discussion on that though. By all means you can go and prod me via PM if you want a challenge. Same goes for everyone else. ;) Cheers |
| NoDough Dec 02, 2008 10:12 AM EDT |
Lib, Just so that you are aware; Dino is a lawyer. That, of course, doesn't make your views any less relevant. However, I thought you should know that Dino spent a good part of his life studying these very issues. |
| dinotrac Dec 02, 2008 10:32 AM EDT |
NoDough -- **Was** a lawyer, and not an especially good one. Besides, Lib's picture of a world without criminals and police, despots and armies, contracts and courts, etc, is appealing, much like the notion of cartoon characters always getting up no matter how big the anvils on their heads. |
| Libervis Dec 02, 2008 11:41 AM EDT |
NoDough; > That, of course, doesn't make your views any less relevant. However, I thought you should know that Dino spent a good part of his life studying these very issues. I kinda prefer studying natural laws instead of arbitrary thou shalts. I think scientists and philosophers trump lawyers, no offense. ;) Dinotrac; > Besides, Lib's picture of a world without criminals and police, despots and armies, contracts and courts, etc, is appealing, much like the notion of cartoon characters always getting up no matter how big the anvils on their heads. Actually, I don't picture a world without criminals and police and certainly not contracts and courts, perhaps only standing armies because they're useful for nothing but destruction. It'd be grossly missing the point to state specific things which I do or don't see in a better world envisioned because those are merely an effect, not the cause. The cause I want to do away with is the belief in that initiated violence can be legitimate, largely stemming from collectivist delusions (like a belief in public property, "common good" of society even though society is just an abstraction for a number of *individuals* and other impossibilities and contradictions people accept as truth never daring to scratch beneath the surface). The point of this thread is that ownership deprives others of use, yet how many people in this thread make an incomprehensible exception for when it is the government who is trying to use your property? It's like the laws being followed are "thou shalt not kill, except if you're wearing the uniform", "though shalt not steal, except if you're working for the IRS", "though shalt not commit fraud, except when working for a central bank" and so on. All it takes is some more discipline in applying logical consistency to your beliefs to begin to realize the kinds of contradictions you're believing in. If you want to believe in property at all you have to reject all legitimization of theft. Otherwise you're simply not being honest with yourself. Cheers |
| dinotrac Dec 02, 2008 1:20 PM EDT |
>If you want to believe in property at all you have to reject all legitimization of theft. Wouldn't argue with that for a minute, but... to claim that you reject all coercion (and wield weapons for your own protection so that you need not rely on others) certainly seems counter to the notion of police and courts. Police are all about coercion -- ie, you don't do what the law says, we will make you do something you don't like. Ditto for courts. The contract may be an agreement based on individual free will, but enforcement in court is a coercive act. For that matter, even the contract, though arrived at freely, is coercive because enforcement essentially freezes free will to that at the time of the contract. Changed your mind? See me in court. Odd how you can chafe at the notion of legality but not give up on police and courts. |
| Libervis Dec 02, 2008 1:33 PM EDT |
Self defense is not coercion, but defense from coercion. Police is supposed to be for hire as self defenders, and you should be able to choose which police/defense agency you want to contract with for self defense just as you can choose an auto insurance company today or just about any other service currently still available in the US semi-free market. Same goes for courts. Enforcement is not coercion if you agreed to the terms and that if you don't follow those terms you will have to pay certain damages. Agreement is a voluntary consent. Coercion is opposite of voluntary consent, it is compelling an involuntary act. There is nothing odd about all this. |
| dinotrac Dec 02, 2008 1:45 PM EDT |
>There is nothing odd about all this OK. Just watch out for anvils. |
| Libervis Dec 02, 2008 1:49 PM EDT |
What's the deal with the anvils anyway? Google define says "a heavy block of iron or steel on which hot metals are shaped by hammering" and I don't quite get what you mean... I'm not a native english speaker though. Btw, for clarity's sake; when I say I don't oppose existence of "police" (rather defense agencies) or courts (rather arbitration agencies) I don't mean I support coercive monopolies in these markets (when nobody else can establish his own defense or arbitration agency to compete with the current ones to provide for better service, better terms, more efficiency etc.). |
| theboomboomcars Dec 02, 2008 1:55 PM EDT |
In many American cartoons, and possibly others around the world, Anvils are often dropped on the characters heads.
I am guessing he is refering to his previous statement:
Quoting:Besides, Lib's picture of a world without criminals and police, despots and armies, contracts and courts, etc, is appealing, much like the notion of cartoon characters always getting up no matter how big the anvils on their heads. It's kind of a humourous way to tell someone their are naive. But if you are unfamiliar with the cultural cues then it won't work so well. |
| Libervis Dec 02, 2008 2:44 PM EDT |
Ah, actually I was thinking it might be something of the sort, but didn't quite go all the way at grasping it. And I would probably call those "big stones" or something like that. :P Of course, though, calling me naive is a totally meaningless non-argument which could be construed as being used only to evade rational consideration of what's said. It's just too easy to call someone naive, and I can do it too. You are naive if you believe that people are so corrupt yet expect them to serve your interests once you give them a monopoly on violent power. "Humans are corrupt, so let's give them MORE power over others!" "Human can't govern themselves, but they SURE are capable of governing others." That's actually funny man... :D |
| dinotrac Dec 02, 2008 3:13 PM EDT |
>Of course, though, calling me naive is a totally meaningless non-argument which could be construed as being used only to evade rational consideration of what's said. Hmmm. Calling something a meaningless non-argument sounds like more of an evasion to me. Calling you naive in context is not an evasion at all. Having laid out my objections to your "argument", naivite is actually a reasonable characterization of your position. It fits my narrative, so to speak. |
| Libervis Dec 02, 2008 3:54 PM EDT |
I think I addressed those objections so that characterization is all that's left, supported by no further arguments. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 02, 2008 4:09 PM EDT |
If I may, Dino (and I, really) are trying to say that "ownership" is control. If I own something, I exercise complete control. I may share, but I may also deprive others of access. "It's my book, you may not read it. Go get your own." This circumstance of ownership arises without coercion. Contract, property, trade, specialization, none of them implies coercion. They are all voluntary actions of the parties involved. The structure and form of the voluntary cooperation has come to be called "law", "lawful", "legal". Coercion occurs with the violation of contract, property, etc. Various methods of responding to coercion exist, such as Libervis' "self defense", Dino's "courts". (this is all leaving out my personal anarchism, which sees "government" as a parasite on top of all of this, because "government" just doesn't enter into it at this level) In short, everybody is right. Shall we call "peace"? |
| dinotrac Dec 02, 2008 4:17 PM EDT |
Bob - So long as I'm right!!! |
| Libervis Dec 02, 2008 4:26 PM EDT |
Everybody is right, yet I am the naive one. But since I don't really care about such a meaningless characterization, yes we shall have peace. Did we have war at all? :P I actually posited no disagreement with either of you with regards to defining ownership. I just disagree with Dino on that we need a court and police *monopoly* in order to defend ownership, since that seems to be what he's calling me naive for. Also, Bob, it's not his "courts" and my "self defense". I believe in both. I just don't believe in coercive monopolies on services offering either of them. So obviously government does enter into all this. It IS the monopoly I'm referring to. Cheers |
| dinotrac Dec 02, 2008 5:25 PM EDT |
>since that seems to be what he's calling me naive for. Yup. |
| Libervis Dec 02, 2008 5:29 PM EDT |
I called you naive too above, so we're even. :P Who is more naive let the readers decide. :) Cheers |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 02, 2008 5:30 PM EDT |
Libervis, I'm also an anarchist, your disillusionment with monopoly services was obvious to me from the start. Ownership is, indeed, a monopoly. A private one. :^) Dino, of course you're right. You're always right! |
| jdixon Dec 02, 2008 5:45 PM EDT |
> ...calling me naive is a totally meaningless non-argument which could be construed as being used only to evade rational consideration of what's said. It's a non-argument, but it's not totally meaningless. It has a definite and well known meaning. Whether that meaning is applicable in your case is a matter best left to each reader to determine. |
| jdixon Dec 02, 2008 5:49 PM EDT |
> Dino, of course you're right. You're always right! Nah. I can recall at least two times in these very fora where Dino made incorrect assertions. Fortunately for my continued health, I've completely forgotten what they were, and I'm confident that they were nothing of enough importance to worry anyone's mind about. :) |
| dinotrac Dec 02, 2008 10:10 PM EDT |
jdixon - I've got my eye on you... |
| tuxchick Dec 02, 2008 10:52 PM EDT |
jdixon, he means that literally. He lost his other eye in a bizarre knitting accident. |
| TxtEdMacs Dec 03, 2008 8:20 AM EDT |
TC, Dam[...] [think it is disallowed here] you! How am I supposed to top that? I was just about to give him a third eye and you take a good one out with a knitting needle ... No longer your buddy, Txt. |
| dinotrac Dec 03, 2008 9:08 AM EDT |
Txt - Well, it was a bizarre accident. The German Shepherd had his part to play, which dismays me. Took him in as a puppy, and this is how he repays me. Oh well, can't let it faze me. ***edit*** "faze" was originally "phase", but happyfeet the grammarian slapped my silly. Mind you, I could have come up with some off-the-wall explanation as to why I chose "phase" in this context, but it would be a lie. I just screwed up. D***ed happyfeet. Those grammarians are everywhere. Except, of course, in the editors' offices at newspapers, advertising agencies, etc,etc. Sigh. |
| happyfeet Dec 03, 2008 10:37 AM EDT |
@dino - Good one, but I have to be picky about phase/faze. That's one of my pet peeves (Mad Magazine cartoon: This is my pet, Peeve). |
| dinotrac Dec 03, 2008 10:44 AM EDT |
happyfeet - Youch. You are, of course, correct and my usage is not. |
| TxtEdMacs Dec 03, 2008 11:14 AM EDT |
Dino, Stop taking guff from one of the seven dwarfs. Turn the phaser to full power and give 'em a Hot Foot, then ask him/her if it's time for a new name. Your buddy, Txt. |
| happyfeet Dec 03, 2008 11:45 AM EDT |
@Txt: Ouch! The name is from the movie "Happy Feet" about Emperor Penguins. |
| dinotrac Dec 03, 2008 12:11 PM EDT |
>Emperor Penguins. Dance, penguin, dance!!!! |
| jdixon Dec 03, 2008 1:03 PM EDT |
> You are, of course, correct and my usage is not. Uh oh. That makes three times. Fortunately for my continued health, I'm sure I'll have forgotten all about it by later this afternoon. (Nice German Shepard. See, I've already forgotten. You can go back to Dino now). |
| dinotrac Dec 03, 2008 1:13 PM EDT |
jd - It's ok. I'm going through a "nice" faze, er, phase right now. I'm even learning to live with Democrats ruling the country with an iron fist. I'm even smiling. It hurts, but I'm sure that will pass. Ouch!! Chuckled out loud. Must get some aspirin and/or ibuprofen and/or stiff drink and/or Oxycotin. |
| jdixon Dec 03, 2008 1:16 PM EDT |
> I'm even smiling. Probably a good idea. You never know when not smiling may become a thought crime. Besides, Obama hasn't submitted his proof of birth to the Supreme Court yet. Things could still get very interesting in the near future. |
| dinotrac Dec 03, 2008 2:23 PM EDT |
>You never know when not smiling may become a thought crime. And I do believe that legislation is pending that will make anything by anyone to the right of far left and interpreted by anyone to the left of far right as a smirk will be a hate crime. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 03, 2008 2:58 PM EDT |
> I'm even learning to live with Democrats ruling the country with an iron fist. You had to remind me. Waaaaaaaa! http://www.ncc-1776.org/tletoon/Baloo-obaman_liberal_media_p... > Obama hasn't submitted his proof of birth to the Supreme Court yet. If that legal ploy actually gets traction and the SCOTUS rules against him, I'll be flabberghasted. Fact is, one of his buddies at the CIA could whip up something in half an hour that would solve it. > will make anything by anyone to the right of far left and interpreted by anyone to the left of far right as a smirk will be a hate crime. Oh boy, this guy's T-shirts are going on the index if THAT law passes! http://www.cafepress.com/artemiszuna/6213875 Gee, we're getting deep into OT territory here. Speaking of Linux, I mentioned to the guys at my Karate class that Linux ran on everything, including a wrist-watch and almost all of the top 500 supercomputers in the world. They were astounded, and said they would have to "check that out" before they could believe me. At least they all commiserated that VISTA sucks. |
| jdixon Dec 03, 2008 3:38 PM EDT |
> ...If that legal ploy actually gets traction and the SCOTUS rules against him, I'll be flabberghasted. As will I, but you never know about these type of things. We'll just have to wait and see. As far as I can tell from the actual information available, neither he nor John McCain were actually eligible for the office, but you know what that and $0.79 will get you at 7/11. Hmm. on second thought, obviously politically oriented comment skipped. :) |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 03, 2008 5:34 PM EDT |
> but you know what that and $0.79 will get you at 7/11. An Ubuntu CD? |
| dinotrac Dec 03, 2008 5:40 PM EDT |
>An Ubuntu CD? An Ubuntu Slurpee. The flavor will be Calculating Cola as the world isn't quite ready for animal-flavored Slurpees, but will change to a new flavor every six months, leaving lovers of the old flavor, ummm, out in the cold. |
| azerthoth Dec 03, 2008 5:40 PM EDT |
Unless it's in China, where you can get that Ubuntu CD for $500.00 US. |
| NoDough Dec 03, 2008 5:53 PM EDT |
>> Slurpee Hmmm. Possible origin of word... He who drinks will SLUR from the top-end and PEE from the bottom-end. |
| Libervis Dec 04, 2008 3:09 AM EDT |
> Besides, Obama hasn't submitted his proof of birth to the Supreme Court yet. Proof that he was born on Krypton? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vws9fTtQgz4 Ah.. anything to entertain the sheep to keep their mind off the quicksand of tyranny and recession that's devouring their feet. :P |
| dinotrac Dec 04, 2008 8:07 AM EDT |
>the sheep Come on now. We know Obama supporters are a little short in the neural development department, but you don't have to call them sheep. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 04, 2008 9:16 AM EDT |
> but you don't have to call them sheep. Public school graduates. |
| dinotrac Dec 04, 2008 9:56 AM EDT |
>Public school graduates Is that an improvement? |
| theboomboomcars Dec 04, 2008 10:31 AM EDT |
I would like to think so. Although I don't produce wool, so maybe not. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 04, 2008 11:24 AM EDT |
Just in case you haven't seen the "Bailout Access Request Form": http://blog.mises.org/archives/009048.asp Mail yours, today! Billions are available, first come first served. |
| Libervis Dec 04, 2008 1:14 PM EDT |
That's awesome Bob, and very nicely describes the reality of those bail outs. :) Thanks |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!