6 ms·

>You need to reward innovators or you won't have innovation. It's unfortunate that the "reward" needs to come in the form of a monopoly over an idea. The fact

by ue_ 10y ago

>You need to reward innovators or you won't have innovation. It's unfortunate that the "reward" needs to come in the form of a monopoly over an idea. The fact that ideas themselves are valuable is such a capitalistic thing. I don't believe copyright or patents are justified enough; the idea that someone can force you not to implement a particular algorithm or not to share some data with your neighbor, I find it ridiculous. I have no respect for "IP", and no respect for private property. Down with the monopolies over what we can say and make and share, and down with the state that protects it.

COGlory 10y ago
You can't patent an idea. You can only patent an implementation of an idea.
CalChris 10y ago
I hope that you do not act on your ideas or you will almost certainly spend some time in prison. While a house guest of the state should you continue to act on your ideas there, then daily you will be rather forcefully reminded of their inadequacy.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >I hope that you do not act on your ideas or you will almost certainly spend some time in prison. I appreciate your concern, but I don't think an unjust law has weight; the only reason why I follow the ones that I do is so that I'm not put in prison. Not because I believe they are right. And the laws I break I do so when there is a smaller risk of being caught. Being a citizen is by no means being a house guest, as I am forced to be a house guest of some state anyway. I regard the state is illegitimate.
  - CalChris 10y ago
    > the only reason why I follow the ones that I do is so that I'm not put in prison Ok, so you are aware of disincentives. Well, patents are incentives.
    - ue_ 10y ago
      An incentive at the expense of my own freedom, which I refuse to accept as valid.
  - rlanday 10y ago
    There are over 200 sovereign nations you can choose to live in. The fact that you're not happy with any of them suggests you might have unrealistic expectations.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > There are over 200 sovereign nations you can choose to live in There are, perhaps, over 200 sovereign nations, but far fewer that allow at-will immigration such that you are simply free to unilaterally choose to love in them.
    - ue_ 10y ago
      >suggests you might have unrealistic expectations I hear this a lot, but I disagree with it. Of course I do not expect the state to just vanish, but my point is that I do not want to 'settle' for a state, because I disagree with the fundamental concept of the modern state, because it is neither anarchistic, nor implementing direct democracy, nor supporting the abolishment of private property. I don't want states to change. I want them to be destroyed.
      - CalChris 10y ago
        You are, however, not offering any good reasons for this. I've had a lot of arguments over the years with libertarians and I find them to be simplistic at best. Anarchists don't even rise to that level of engagement.
        ue_ 10y ago
        I'm not a libertarian in the economic sense. My reason for wanting the state abolished is firstly because it provides support via conferring of private property rights to the bourgeoisie; secondly, because the state's authority is unjustified as the world's entire divison into states results in non-voluntary association, thirdly because the state insists upon censorship and imposition of authority with threat of violence rather than voluntary association, thirdly my belief that man is born free, only constrained by power and class relationships which exhibit themselves currently as government-citizen and bourgeois-proletarian. But I would like to ask: upon what authority does the state, the private property owner and the landlord declare their dominion? Remember that if the defence of the state is something like "it has been democratically elected" it would follow that any other institution elected via democracy to replace the state would be in legitimate competition with the state, and be just as valid. Furthermore that the officers of the state are not subject to instant recall, and many parts are not democratic at all.
rlanday 10y ago
Do you not believe that ideas are inherently valuable? You think they only have value in a capitalist society? If you find a copyrighted work valuable enough to use or share with your neighbor but you don't think you should have to pay to support its creation, you're a freeloader. If everyone acted in this way, no one would be funding the development of such works and they wouldn't exist for you to share. I know most of us skirt the rules in various circumstances but at the end of the day, someone has to be paying for these works or they wouldn't get created in the first place.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  I'm typing this comment using close to 100% free software that I did not pay for.
  - rlanday 10y ago
    Free as in freedom, free as in beer, but not free to develop. Someone's paying for the development of those works.
    - greglindahl 10y ago
      Yes. There are a variety of business models in free software, just like there are a variety of business models in producing copyright content. So, now that we know that, why are you calling basically everyone on the planet a freeloader? e.g. why am I freeloading if I read articles in the 'free' newspaper (advertising supported, of course.)
- ue_ 10y ago
  >you're a freeloader In this case, I can't see the problem with being a freeloader. Information is a non-scarce resource, and the arguments against freeloading don't apply to sharing information, other than the continuance/incentive aspect. This aspect is present in capitalism, though not necessarily in other economic systems. I personally do not care if future material is no longer produced. I'll find something else to do. What other people do is not my business. Also, most businesses rely on employing people for wages, which I believe is exploitation, so in the case of information I don't really have a problem with these capitalists failing. >someone has to be paying for these works or they wouldn't get created in the first place. And if someone wants to pay, they surely can. I won't though.
lolsal 10y ago
You seriously have no respect for private property? Could you elaborate on this - I don't think I understand what you have written as-is.
- ue_ 10y ago
  Private property includes land and the machinery used in order to exploit labour within capitalism; I don't believe that those who hold the 'right' to this property do so legitimately, as they can only back up their claim via (i) the state (which has not been shown to be legitimate) and (ii) title transferred from a previous owner. The latter is a result of violent defence of property that someone claimed as his own long ago; again, the legitimacy of this has yet to be shown. I regard the following as illegitimate: (i) private property used in order to create profit via exploitation of labour in exchange for wages, and (ii) private property which is neither used (i.e occupied) nor laboured upon. My aim is not to have property shared amongst people, but rather to abolish the concept altogether, along with all concepts of morality and justice.

by ue_ 10y ago

COGlory 10y ago

You can't patent an idea. You can only patent an implementation of an idea.

CalChris 10y ago

I hope that you do not act on your ideas or you will almost certainly spend some time in prison. While a house guest of the state should you continue to act on your ideas there, then daily you will be rather forcefully reminded of their inadequacy.

ue_ 10y ago
>I hope that you do not act on your ideas or you will almost certainly spend some time in prison. I appreciate your concern, but I don't think an unjust law has weight; the only reason why I follow the ones that I do is so that I'm not put in prison. Not because I believe they are right. And the laws I break I do so when there is a smaller risk of being caught. Being a citizen is by no means being a house guest, as I am forced to be a house guest of some state anyway. I regard the state is illegitimate.
- CalChris 10y ago
  > the only reason why I follow the ones that I do is so that I'm not put in prison Ok, so you are aware of disincentives. Well, patents are incentives.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    An incentive at the expense of my own freedom, which I refuse to accept as valid.
- rlanday 10y ago
  There are over 200 sovereign nations you can choose to live in. The fact that you're not happy with any of them suggests you might have unrealistic expectations.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > There are over 200 sovereign nations you can choose to live in There are, perhaps, over 200 sovereign nations, but far fewer that allow at-will immigration such that you are simply free to unilaterally choose to love in them.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    >suggests you might have unrealistic expectations I hear this a lot, but I disagree with it. Of course I do not expect the state to just vanish, but my point is that I do not want to 'settle' for a state, because I disagree with the fundamental concept of the modern state, because it is neither anarchistic, nor implementing direct democracy, nor supporting the abolishment of private property. I don't want states to change. I want them to be destroyed.
    - CalChris 10y ago
      You are, however, not offering any good reasons for this. I've had a lot of arguments over the years with libertarians and I find them to be simplistic at best. Anarchists don't even rise to that level of engagement.
      - ue_ 10y ago
        I'm not a libertarian in the economic sense. My reason for wanting the state abolished is firstly because it provides support via conferring of private property rights to the bourgeoisie; secondly, because the state's authority is unjustified as the world's entire divison into states results in non-voluntary association, thirdly because the state insists upon censorship and imposition of authority with threat of violence rather than voluntary association, thirdly my belief that man is born free, only constrained by power and class relationships which exhibit themselves currently as government-citizen and bourgeois-proletarian. But I would like to ask: upon what authority does the state, the private property owner and the landlord declare their dominion? Remember that if the defence of the state is something like "it has been democratically elected" it would follow that any other institution elected via democracy to replace the state would be in legitimate competition with the state, and be just as valid. Furthermore that the officers of the state are not subject to instant recall, and many parts are not democratic at all.

rlanday 10y ago

Do you not believe that ideas are inherently valuable? You think they only have value in a capitalist society? If you find a copyrighted work valuable enough to use or share with your neighbor but you don't think you should have to pay to support its creation, you're a freeloader. If everyone acted in this way, no one would be funding the development of such works and they wouldn't exist for you to share. I know most of us skirt the rules in various circumstances but at the end of the day, someone has to be paying for these works or they wouldn't get created in the first place.

greglindahl 10y ago
I'm typing this comment using close to 100% free software that I did not pay for.
- rlanday 10y ago
  Free as in freedom, free as in beer, but not free to develop. Someone's paying for the development of those works.
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    Yes. There are a variety of business models in free software, just like there are a variety of business models in producing copyright content. So, now that we know that, why are you calling basically everyone on the planet a freeloader? e.g. why am I freeloading if I read articles in the 'free' newspaper (advertising supported, of course.)
ue_ 10y ago
>you're a freeloader In this case, I can't see the problem with being a freeloader. Information is a non-scarce resource, and the arguments against freeloading don't apply to sharing information, other than the continuance/incentive aspect. This aspect is present in capitalism, though not necessarily in other economic systems. I personally do not care if future material is no longer produced. I'll find something else to do. What other people do is not my business. Also, most businesses rely on employing people for wages, which I believe is exploitation, so in the case of information I don't really have a problem with these capitalists failing. >someone has to be paying for these works or they wouldn't get created in the first place. And if someone wants to pay, they surely can. I won't though.

lolsal 10y ago

You seriously have no respect for private property? Could you elaborate on this - I don't think I understand what you have written as-is.

ue_ 10y ago
Private property includes land and the machinery used in order to exploit labour within capitalism; I don't believe that those who hold the 'right' to this property do so legitimately, as they can only back up their claim via (i) the state (which has not been shown to be legitimate) and (ii) title transferred from a previous owner. The latter is a result of violent defence of property that someone claimed as his own long ago; again, the legitimacy of this has yet to be shown. I regard the following as illegitimate: (i) private property used in order to create profit via exploitation of labour in exchange for wages, and (ii) private property which is neither used (i.e occupied) nor laboured upon. My aim is not to have property shared amongst people, but rather to abolish the concept altogether, along with all concepts of morality and justice.