5 ms·

Do you disagree? I was educated at a public school, went to college on tuition funded by scholarships, where I learned things written in public libraries by pe

Do you disagree? I was educated at a public school, went to college on tuition funded by scholarships, where I learned things written in public libraries by people studying with public funds, now I commute physically on public roads and digital cables... Anything I accomplish is tied up in our shared history. To say that the unique things I built are attributable to me and me alone is to ignore that someone else with the same knowledge and the same problems would likely come up with the same ingenious solutions.

seneca 4y ago
[flagged]
- mjdiloreto 4y ago
  Who is John Galt?
- benj111 4y ago
  So you don't use public roads as an adult? Or expect public courts to uphold your (copy)rights? I don't necessarily agree with the GP, but I don't think you can reject the argument out of hand because you don't like the answer. The GP has provided an argument as to why they are entitled to your copyrighted work. You haven't provided an argument in response.
  - tomcam 4y ago
    > The GP has provided an argument as to why they are entitled to your copyrighted work. You haven't provided an argument in response. Other way around. Western law has looked dimly for about the last 800 years on having property rights abridged.
    - benj111 4y ago
      But that's conflating property and intellectual property. If you steal my car, I don't have use of it. If I copy your book, we both have copies. Further western law for the past 800 years looked dimly on the rights of women. Should we deny women the vote, just because that's how it's alway been done? Is an argument not required to explain why women shouldn't have the vote?
      - tomcam 4y ago
        The challenge was against the status quo. It is up to such a challenge to provide a compelling reason to change the law. Anyone with common sense knows that copying my book is theft (Assuming standard copyright. I have released several books under permissive terms myself.) This goes way back to Dickens and Beethoven, who were damaged by piracy, along with many of their contemporaries.
        benj111 4y ago
        >The challenge was against the status. It is up to such a challenge to provide a compelling reason to change the law. Was that done all the times copyright was retroactively increased? >Anyone with common sense knows that copying my book is theft. Just because we use the same language for ideas as we do for physical things. Doesn't mean they are equivalent. Calling it intellectual property doesn't magically make it property. And it is common sense that copying is theft. Further book copying isn't theft, at least in the UK. Theft requires an intent to permanently deprive. If I copy your book I'm not permanently depriving you of it.
- sobkas 4y ago
  > I disagree quite strongly. It's an inherently collectivist point of view. It enslaves the individual and post-hoc justifies the theft of their property with terms that they never agreed to and which were imposed on them as a child. Nothing stops you from seceding or overthrowing government if you don't like it. But because what you want won't fly with the rest of society, peaceful options are not feasible. > Being born in the same country as you does not entitle you to my property and work. Of course you use collectivist idea that every individual can continue to own things while unable to defend them and themselves from potential new owners. Such idea is enforced by majority through government (it's not perfect especially in USA), it's collectivist idea. In natural state, people will fight for resources and take them from eachother. But such constant warfare also waste a lot of resources. So people compromised.
- Jochim 4y ago
  > Being born in the same country as you does not entitle you to my property and work. In that case you wouldn't be entitled to any of society's collective work either. Electricity? Sorry you didn't invent it. Fire? Not your intellectual property either, no heat for you. Have you reimbursed anyone for your use of a language you didn't create lately? After all, it's immoral to benefit from someone else's work. Libertarians have this strange lack of awareness of the fact that the world we live in is built on millennia of other people's work, without which they'd be foraging naked in the mud with sticks. > It enslaves the individual and post-hoc justifies the theft of their property with terms that they never agreed to and which were imposed on them as a child. Leave then. You're no longer a child, it's in your power to simply start walking. What's stopping you? Perhaps the "collectivist" society is actually quite comfortable? Perhaps life outside of one isn't all it's cracked up to be.
  - seneca 4y ago
    > In that case you wouldn't be entitled to any of society's collective work either. Electricity? Sorry you didn't invent it. I buy electricity. I don't tell the people creating that I am entitled to it because we're both members of the same society. > Fire? Not your intellectual property either, no heat for you. Have you reimbursed anyone for your use of a language you didn't create lately? After all, it's immoral to benefit from someone else's work. I'm not clear what point you're trying to make here. It's not immoral to benefit from someone else's work. Infact, mutual benefit is sort of the entire point of society. What's immoral is to take someone's work against their will simply because you feel entitled to it. > Libertarians have this strange lack of awareness of the fact that the world we live in is built on millennia of other people's work, without which they'd be foraging naked in the mud with sticks. Authoritarians have a complete lack of awareness of history, especially the history of societies that begin treating their productive members as kulaks to be robbed. > Leave then. You're no longer a child, it's in your power to simply start walking. What's stopping you? Perhaps the "collectivist" society is actually quite comfortable? Perhaps life outside of one isn't all it's cracked up to be. The US is still relatively individualistic. I quite like it still, for all its faults, and contribute quite a lot to it. Rather than leave, I intend to stay and continue to disagree with the collectivists hoping to change it, and advocate for individualism. Not wanting to live in a collectivist society doesn't mean not wanting to live in a society at all.
googlryas 4y ago
You can attribute your success to that, but that doesn't mean anyone gets ownership over a thing.
andromeduck 4y ago
Public school wasn't a choice.
- edgyquant 4y ago
  Further not everyone learns so much from it. I learned to read before attending public school and was mostly meh at it. I learned math in spite of it (my math teachers would be schockedto learn I use it daily.) That said the internet is where I learned most things and it exists thanks to the DOD and ISPs have a lot of subsidies to thank for their existence (at least the ones in the rural area I grew up in)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
auctoritas 4y ago
I agree it is tied up in our shared history. I hope you take that fact as reason enough to share your work in a reasonably accessible manner. But I cannot compel you to do so, at least not in most circumstances, exceptions being inevitable of course.
seti0Cha 4y ago
I agree with the essential point that no one exists in isolation, we all build on the work of others, but I don't see how your last sentence follows from the previous statements. We can all have the same background, but that doesn't make us all the same. There's strong evidence, for example, that genes play a large role in how we behave.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  > There's strong evidence, for example, that genes play a large role in how we behave. I’ve heard this said before. Can you link to some science about this please?
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    https://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-genetics.html https://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-g...
- Broken_Hippo 4y ago
  Ok. Genes play a large role in how we behave. But we are reacting to society. Hence, clone versions of you living 100 years ago, in current times, and 100 years in the future are going to react differently because there are different inputs and different accepted outputs to their behavior. They all are going to have different assumptions about the world around them because they live in worlds with different sets of knowledge. Schooling would be different (I'm assuming things continue to improve/change over time in the future). Nutrition, healthcare, transportation, communication... all has changed so much. And this is the same when comparing current times. Three clones of you might act similarly in some respects, but vastly different in others. We've studied this exact thing by studying identical twins, actually, and even growing up in the same country doesn't even out the differences. At the end of the day, it does mean that even though genes might affect the way we act, the comment you are replying to is absolutely correct.
  - seti0Cha 4y ago
    I don't understand your reply. I didn't say that people growing up in different times would act the same or that people with identical genes would act the same. I'm arguing that different people will act differently in the same circumstances. If you want to establish that OP is absolutely correct, you need to show that people with different inclinations and abilities act the same way as each other when in identical circumstances. This seems self-evidently incorrect to me. People have varying amounts and types of mental faculties and so make different choices, even when presented with the same situations.
8note 4y ago
How much ownership though? 50%? 1%? 0.05%?
- tptacek 4y ago
  I don't want to nerd out on this too much and, like, come up with a Dungeons and Dragons rulebook-style answer to this problem, but we could do something like: if you make up to, like, $10,275, we could ask for 10% of that, and then if you make up to $41,775, we could ask for 12% of that extra money, and then up to, I don't know, $89,075, we could take ownership of maybe 22% of it, and if you're making a cool $170,050, 24%. I know this seems a little fantastical and engineering-brain-y but it also means we don't have to spend much time thinking about how much of Obi-Wan Kenobi the state of Oklahoma owns; we can just settle the whole obligation back to society in dollars. I don't know, seems simple to me.
  - tomcam 4y ago
    > I don't know, seems simple to me. I think it’s already covered by a system called “taxation”, in which the government requires we pay for our income, the right to own the house we bought, the amount we made on retail sales, the right to live in our state, the right to live in our county, etc.
    - kevinventullo 4y ago
      whoooooosh

seneca 4y ago

[flagged]

mjdiloreto 4y ago
Who is John Galt?
benj111 4y ago
So you don't use public roads as an adult? Or expect public courts to uphold your (copy)rights? I don't necessarily agree with the GP, but I don't think you can reject the argument out of hand because you don't like the answer. The GP has provided an argument as to why they are entitled to your copyrighted work. You haven't provided an argument in response.
- tomcam 4y ago
  > The GP has provided an argument as to why they are entitled to your copyrighted work. You haven't provided an argument in response. Other way around. Western law has looked dimly for about the last 800 years on having property rights abridged.
  - benj111 4y ago
    But that's conflating property and intellectual property. If you steal my car, I don't have use of it. If I copy your book, we both have copies. Further western law for the past 800 years looked dimly on the rights of women. Should we deny women the vote, just because that's how it's alway been done? Is an argument not required to explain why women shouldn't have the vote?
    - tomcam 4y ago
      The challenge was against the status quo. It is up to such a challenge to provide a compelling reason to change the law. Anyone with common sense knows that copying my book is theft (Assuming standard copyright. I have released several books under permissive terms myself.) This goes way back to Dickens and Beethoven, who were damaged by piracy, along with many of their contemporaries.
      - benj111 4y ago
        >The challenge was against the status. It is up to such a challenge to provide a compelling reason to change the law. Was that done all the times copyright was retroactively increased? >Anyone with common sense knows that copying my book is theft. Just because we use the same language for ideas as we do for physical things. Doesn't mean they are equivalent. Calling it intellectual property doesn't magically make it property. And it is common sense that copying is theft. Further book copying isn't theft, at least in the UK. Theft requires an intent to permanently deprive. If I copy your book I'm not permanently depriving you of it.
sobkas 4y ago
> I disagree quite strongly. It's an inherently collectivist point of view. It enslaves the individual and post-hoc justifies the theft of their property with terms that they never agreed to and which were imposed on them as a child. Nothing stops you from seceding or overthrowing government if you don't like it. But because what you want won't fly with the rest of society, peaceful options are not feasible. > Being born in the same country as you does not entitle you to my property and work. Of course you use collectivist idea that every individual can continue to own things while unable to defend them and themselves from potential new owners. Such idea is enforced by majority through government (it's not perfect especially in USA), it's collectivist idea. In natural state, people will fight for resources and take them from eachother. But such constant warfare also waste a lot of resources. So people compromised.
Jochim 4y ago
> Being born in the same country as you does not entitle you to my property and work. In that case you wouldn't be entitled to any of society's collective work either. Electricity? Sorry you didn't invent it. Fire? Not your intellectual property either, no heat for you. Have you reimbursed anyone for your use of a language you didn't create lately? After all, it's immoral to benefit from someone else's work. Libertarians have this strange lack of awareness of the fact that the world we live in is built on millennia of other people's work, without which they'd be foraging naked in the mud with sticks. > It enslaves the individual and post-hoc justifies the theft of their property with terms that they never agreed to and which were imposed on them as a child. Leave then. You're no longer a child, it's in your power to simply start walking. What's stopping you? Perhaps the "collectivist" society is actually quite comfortable? Perhaps life outside of one isn't all it's cracked up to be.
- seneca 4y ago
  > In that case you wouldn't be entitled to any of society's collective work either. Electricity? Sorry you didn't invent it. I buy electricity. I don't tell the people creating that I am entitled to it because we're both members of the same society. > Fire? Not your intellectual property either, no heat for you. Have you reimbursed anyone for your use of a language you didn't create lately? After all, it's immoral to benefit from someone else's work. I'm not clear what point you're trying to make here. It's not immoral to benefit from someone else's work. Infact, mutual benefit is sort of the entire point of society. What's immoral is to take someone's work against their will simply because you feel entitled to it. > Libertarians have this strange lack of awareness of the fact that the world we live in is built on millennia of other people's work, without which they'd be foraging naked in the mud with sticks. Authoritarians have a complete lack of awareness of history, especially the history of societies that begin treating their productive members as kulaks to be robbed. > Leave then. You're no longer a child, it's in your power to simply start walking. What's stopping you? Perhaps the "collectivist" society is actually quite comfortable? Perhaps life outside of one isn't all it's cracked up to be. The US is still relatively individualistic. I quite like it still, for all its faults, and contribute quite a lot to it. Rather than leave, I intend to stay and continue to disagree with the collectivists hoping to change it, and advocate for individualism. Not wanting to live in a collectivist society doesn't mean not wanting to live in a society at all.

googlryas 4y ago

You can attribute your success to that, but that doesn't mean anyone gets ownership over a thing.

andromeduck 4y ago

Public school wasn't a choice.

edgyquant 4y ago
Further not everyone learns so much from it. I learned to read before attending public school and was mostly meh at it. I learned math in spite of it (my math teachers would be schockedto learn I use it daily.) That said the internet is where I learned most things and it exists thanks to the DOD and ISPs have a lot of subsidies to thank for their existence (at least the ones in the rural area I grew up in)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

auctoritas 4y ago

I agree it is tied up in our shared history. I hope you take that fact as reason enough to share your work in a reasonably accessible manner. But I cannot compel you to do so, at least not in most circumstances, exceptions being inevitable of course.

seti0Cha 4y ago

I agree with the essential point that no one exists in isolation, we all build on the work of others, but I don't see how your last sentence follows from the previous statements. We can all have the same background, but that doesn't make us all the same. There's strong evidence, for example, that genes play a large role in how we behave.

amanaplanacanal 4y ago
> There's strong evidence, for example, that genes play a large role in how we behave. I’ve heard this said before. Can you link to some science about this please?
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  https://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-genetics.html https://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-g...
Broken_Hippo 4y ago
Ok. Genes play a large role in how we behave. But we are reacting to society. Hence, clone versions of you living 100 years ago, in current times, and 100 years in the future are going to react differently because there are different inputs and different accepted outputs to their behavior. They all are going to have different assumptions about the world around them because they live in worlds with different sets of knowledge. Schooling would be different (I'm assuming things continue to improve/change over time in the future). Nutrition, healthcare, transportation, communication... all has changed so much. And this is the same when comparing current times. Three clones of you might act similarly in some respects, but vastly different in others. We've studied this exact thing by studying identical twins, actually, and even growing up in the same country doesn't even out the differences. At the end of the day, it does mean that even though genes might affect the way we act, the comment you are replying to is absolutely correct.
- seti0Cha 4y ago
  I don't understand your reply. I didn't say that people growing up in different times would act the same or that people with identical genes would act the same. I'm arguing that different people will act differently in the same circumstances. If you want to establish that OP is absolutely correct, you need to show that people with different inclinations and abilities act the same way as each other when in identical circumstances. This seems self-evidently incorrect to me. People have varying amounts and types of mental faculties and so make different choices, even when presented with the same situations.

8note 4y ago

How much ownership though? 50%? 1%? 0.05%?

tptacek 4y ago
I don't want to nerd out on this too much and, like, come up with a Dungeons and Dragons rulebook-style answer to this problem, but we could do something like: if you make up to, like, $10,275, we could ask for 10% of that, and then if you make up to $41,775, we could ask for 12% of that extra money, and then up to, I don't know, $89,075, we could take ownership of maybe 22% of it, and if you're making a cool $170,050, 24%. I know this seems a little fantastical and engineering-brain-y but it also means we don't have to spend much time thinking about how much of Obi-Wan Kenobi the state of Oklahoma owns; we can just settle the whole obligation back to society in dollars. I don't know, seems simple to me.
- tomcam 4y ago
  > I don't know, seems simple to me. I think it’s already covered by a system called “taxation”, in which the government requires we pay for our income, the right to own the house we bought, the amount we made on retail sales, the right to live in our state, the right to live in our county, etc.
  - kevinventullo 4y ago
    whoooooosh