3 ms·

Thank you. In software we all see the abuses of copyright and patents, so I can understand why you rail against them. You have again used the term "legal fict

Thank you. In software we all see the abuses of copyright and patents, so I can understand why you rail against them. You have again used the term "legal fiction" which I translate to "a law you don't like". What is a legal non-fiction? Our laws are rules. All rules ultimately only exist in our minds except rules (or sub-dependencies) imposed upon us by a god or the universe. > Trying to control your use of [a John Deere tractor] after the sale by abusing IP law. That control doesn't require any IP law at all: DRM can be equivalently enforced by private contracts and/or a secret that is too difficult to reverse engineer (recent gaming consoles). John Deere can negotiate a private contract with you that you must use their parts and service agents. Surely that is a likely outcome of a properly free market? > Property rights (like the rights to life and liberty) are inalienable. I think that statement is too vague to have any real meaning. Inalienable just means something like "very important rule" or perhaps "meta-rule". Property rights includes intellectual property rights (its all just rules). Your rights to life and liberty sometimes conflict with my rights to life and liberty. Laws and wars can result from compromise and conflict. Thank you for explaining your position better. I admit I am struggling to see internal consistency with your definitions. I guess I am mostly responding to you because I tend to read your comments as short political soundbites, and I prefer more comments with deeper explanations of any point someone is trying to make. I sincerely appreciate your time in giving me more detail. I actually expect we are mostly in broad agreement. Perhaps I would tend to give inaliable rights a higher priority than you? Rights to property, life and liberty need to be encoded in the legal constraints that restrict free markets in unobvious ways. Adding fair legal constraints is tortuous. Even more difficult is avoiding regulatory capture and other tricks that work against our inaliable rights, or give unfair advantages to some groups or individuals. Compromises are grey. Good engineering is making good compromises. Good lawmaking is equally about making compromises, but is much harder than engineering because the outcomes are more abstract, the measurements are harder, and there is more historical and political baggage.

WalterBright 4y ago
> Rights to property, life and liberty need to be encoded in the legal constraints that restrict free markets in unobvious ways. These rights are not restrictions on the free market. They are fundamental to the free market. > Your rights to life and liberty sometimes conflict with my rights to life and liberty. They don't. Your right to life, for example, does not require me to give you food. It means I cannot take your life. Your right to liberty means I cannot enslave you. There is no right to enslave another, regardless of what the law says. When I say "legal fiction" I mean writing laws that attempt to change reality. For example, a law that says π == 3 is a legal fiction. Your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not a legal fiction. The government frequently tries to create new "rights" that are not rights at all. Put another way, the government enforces rights, or abrogates them. It cannot invent them. Inalienable means it's an inherent property of being a human being. I.e. people still have a right to liberty, even if the government says it's ok to enslave them. Evidence? Communism tries to deny the right to property. The result is communist countries cannot even feed themselves. Slavery tries to deny the right to liberty. The result is a also poorly performing economy. Countries that guarantee the rights to life, liberty, and property thrive. One can sign a contract that enslaves you, but it is unenforceable in a free society. John Deere sells you a tractor but retains the "right" to remotely disable it? I'd say that would be unenforceable as they sold it to you, meaning it's yours to do with it as you please. If they wanted to rent it to you, it should be a rental agreement, not a sales agreement.
- robocat 4y ago
  I apologise, but I find almost every point you make to be opaque and incomprehensible. Perhaps we have different axioms. Perhaps it is a language barrier. Perhaps we have different logical dependencies. I sincerely appreciate your efforts to enlighten me: it is a shame that it is so very difficult to communicate using only a few written sentences. Cheers

WalterBright 4y ago

> Rights to property, life and liberty need to be encoded in the legal constraints that restrict free markets in unobvious ways. These rights are not restrictions on the free market. They are fundamental to the free market. > Your rights to life and liberty sometimes conflict with my rights to life and liberty. They don't. Your right to life, for example, does not require me to give you food. It means I cannot take your life. Your right to liberty means I cannot enslave you. There is no right to enslave another, regardless of what the law says. When I say "legal fiction" I mean writing laws that attempt to change reality. For example, a law that says π == 3 is a legal fiction. Your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not a legal fiction. The government frequently tries to create new "rights" that are not rights at all. Put another way, the government enforces rights, or abrogates them. It cannot invent them. Inalienable means it's an inherent property of being a human being. I.e. people still have a right to liberty, even if the government says it's ok to enslave them. Evidence? Communism tries to deny the right to property. The result is communist countries cannot even feed themselves. Slavery tries to deny the right to liberty. The result is a also poorly performing economy. Countries that guarantee the rights to life, liberty, and property thrive. One can sign a contract that enslaves you, but it is unenforceable in a free society. John Deere sells you a tractor but retains the "right" to remotely disable it? I'd say that would be unenforceable as they sold it to you, meaning it's yours to do with it as you please. If they wanted to rent it to you, it should be a rental agreement, not a sales agreement.

robocat 4y ago
I apologise, but I find almost every point you make to be opaque and incomprehensible. Perhaps we have different axioms. Perhaps it is a language barrier. Perhaps we have different logical dependencies. I sincerely appreciate your efforts to enlighten me: it is a shame that it is so very difficult to communicate using only a few written sentences. Cheers