4 ms·

> If your serious about getting the government out, including out of copyright and patents, then let's talk. Until then, let's regulate these companies. I'm al

by ponow 5y ago

> If your serious about getting the government out, including out of copyright and patents, then let's talk. Until then, let's regulate these companies. I'm all for eliminating all government privileges and cronyism (which are really rights violations of the competition). In this world, there is no way we're going to get a grand bargain where all things will simultaneously change in that way. For each proposed change, ask whether we increase or decrease natural rights (especially to life and property). "Intellectual" property is a creation wholly new in human history before a few hundred years ago. Property in land and goods goes back to evolutionary times: it's basic territoriality, and respecting that keeps the peace. Free trade is the way forward to widespread prosperity.

an_ko 5y ago
Wouldn't being required to release hardware specs support that healthy competition though? I'm sure the market will eventually settle on the better product either way, but it will happen faster if systems are documented and interoperable enough that people can easily switch to a better competitor. Companies withholding data that would let consumers make better decisions, or deliberately making their systems incompatible, is anti-competitive and wasteful.
Buttons840 5y ago
> For each proposed change, ask whether we increase or decrease natural rights (especially to life and property). I asked myself and answered: Requiring companies to document their hardware for right-to-repair or right-to-utilize reasons has no effect on life, and some effect on property. It would give individuals more power over their own property - more power over their old school, physical possession, basic territoriality, property. The government protecting people's right to repair and utilize their physical possessions seems like a good thing. At this point you seem, to me, to have reversed position. Are you now okay with requiring companies to document their APIs for the benefit of consumers (in some cases at least)? Either way, this conversation is frustrating to me, and one I wont continue here (you're, of course, welcome to respond and debate with others). I'm frustrated because the "no regulation, no government" view hides a lot of nuance and shuts down conversations. It's so easy to throw out "no government" and so hard to talk past it, and I think this is one reason libertarian views like this often cause people to just roll their eyes and ignore. I'm sympathetic to a lot of libertarian ideas, but I wish people would give more acknowledgement to why people want regulation (in this case) before a drive-by "no government please" comment.
woolion 5y ago
Of course, people having control over the hardware and software that rule their lives is a net increase in natural rights. There is absolutely no natural justification for "intellectual property", since this travesty runs absolutely contrary to actual property -- physical property cannot be freely duplicated, whereas intellectual property in most cases cannot be used without being duplicated in some form -- its knowledge is generally enough to do so. All this to enforce laws that terribly hinder free-market, while being abusively enforced by the violence of government? Something smells fishy about this argument...
ShroudedNight 5y ago
> Property in land and goods goes back to evolutionary times: it's basic territoriality, and respecting that keeps the peace. This basically boils down to an argument in strict favour of primacy, which doesn't strike me as as any more obviously moral than alternatives

by ponow 5y ago

an_ko 5y ago

Wouldn't being required to release hardware specs support that healthy competition though? I'm sure the market will eventually settle on the better product either way, but it will happen faster if systems are documented and interoperable enough that people can easily switch to a better competitor. Companies withholding data that would let consumers make better decisions, or deliberately making their systems incompatible, is anti-competitive and wasteful.

Buttons840 5y ago

> For each proposed change, ask whether we increase or decrease natural rights (especially to life and property). I asked myself and answered: Requiring companies to document their hardware for right-to-repair or right-to-utilize reasons has no effect on life, and some effect on property. It would give individuals more power over their own property - more power over their old school, physical possession, basic territoriality, property. The government protecting people's right to repair and utilize their physical possessions seems like a good thing. At this point you seem, to me, to have reversed position. Are you now okay with requiring companies to document their APIs for the benefit of consumers (in some cases at least)? Either way, this conversation is frustrating to me, and one I wont continue here (you're, of course, welcome to respond and debate with others). I'm frustrated because the "no regulation, no government" view hides a lot of nuance and shuts down conversations. It's so easy to throw out "no government" and so hard to talk past it, and I think this is one reason libertarian views like this often cause people to just roll their eyes and ignore. I'm sympathetic to a lot of libertarian ideas, but I wish people would give more acknowledgement to why people want regulation (in this case) before a drive-by "no government please" comment.

woolion 5y ago

Of course, people having control over the hardware and software that rule their lives is a net increase in natural rights. There is absolutely no natural justification for "intellectual property", since this travesty runs absolutely contrary to actual property -- physical property cannot be freely duplicated, whereas intellectual property in most cases cannot be used without being duplicated in some form -- its knowledge is generally enough to do so. All this to enforce laws that terribly hinder free-market, while being abusively enforced by the violence of government? Something smells fishy about this argument...

ShroudedNight 5y ago

> Property in land and goods goes back to evolutionary times: it's basic territoriality, and respecting that keeps the peace. This basically boils down to an argument in strict favour of primacy, which doesn't strike me as as any more obviously moral than alternatives