28 ms·
As Orwell wrote, "the English language ... becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier fo
by ataggart 13y ago
As Orwell wrote, "the English language ... becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."
Considering that patents are entirely a government creation, "ban" or "outlaw" does not apply, for such language treats patents as something apart from the state. Perhaps "stops issuing" would be more accurate, but it's not clear from the article whether that's actually the case.
- diminish 13y agoWould NZ accept patents from USA (or other WTO countries), in legal processes?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- foobarbazqux 13y agoI don't know. Every legal concept is entirely the government's creation, including both physical and intellectual property, so I'm not sure it's worth quibbling about that part.
- johnchristopher 13y agoEvery legal concept is entirely the government's creation, including both physical and intellectual property, so I'm not sure it's worth quibbling about that part. Not entirely true. I want to point out that we have to consider how lobbying is influencing lawmakers.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoSure, lots of things influence the government. But the point is that none of our legal concepts actually exist until the government decides to make laws and enforce them.
- humanrebar 13y agoWhile intellectual property is almost entirely a legal creation, government is not necessary for property to exist. Indeed, John Locke considered property to be a natural right along with life and liberty.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoSorry, if it's you in the forest with a shotgun defending your property in a libertarian utopia, you're the government.
- homosaur 13y agoI get what you're aiming at but if you're holding the shotgun, that's not government. Government is when I cede the right to protect my forest with a shotgun in order that a government entity will do it for me. We give government a monopoly on force under the agreement that I generally should not be shooting people to protect my rights.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoIt's a totalitarian government where the dictator and the sole citizen of the state are the same person, and the citizen works for the dictator (well, there's no choice). Government is simply the application of force to create rights. No more, no less. But also, if you come onto my property, you don't have to cede authority to me, I'm still the government and I will make decisions about what happens to you, so you are bound to my laws whether you like it or not.
- sliverstorm 13y agoGovernment is when I cede the right to protect my forest We give government a monopoly on force No, that's just one incarnation of government.
- orclev 13y agoThat's not entirely true, at least in the United States. That's part of the purpose of the 2nd amendment. We cede some of our rights to use force to the government, but things like Castle Doctrine and the 2nd amendment mean we also retain those rights in specific circumstances. Another aspect of the 2nd amendment people often overlook (particularly gun control advocates) was that it was originally intended as a check to the power of the army. The idea being that should the government ever try to use the military to suppress the public, that an armed public would be able to fight back and presumably being bigger than the military, win. That theory has been greatly eroded in the last 70 years or so by the increasingly large gap between the weapons the military has access to and what the public has access to. Back when the constitution was drafted a rifle was a rifle was a rifle, and 200 soldiers versus 1000 citizens all armed with rifles, the citizens would likely win. These days with the military having tanks and jets and nightvision and all manner of other advanced weapons (including the much debated fully automatic rifles) means that your average group of citizens wouldn't stand a chance against the military in serious armed conflict.
- troyastorino 13y agoLegal concepts that are derivative from the natural right to liberty, e.g. freedom of speech, are protected by the government, but that is not the same as them being created by the government. An individual certainly has liberty, and thus freedom of speech, in the context of a state of nature. He does not, however, have a guarantee that an organization with a monopoly on the use of force, i.e. a government, will protect that liberty.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoDo you have the freedom to profit from your ideas in the state of nature?
- a-priori 13y agoAssuming we're talking about the Hobbesian "state of nature" then yes, of course you do have that freedom. Along with every other freedom. But you only have a right to profit insofar as you can keep others from exercising their freedom to steal your ideas (or anything else).
- foobarbazqux 13y agoIf I have a natural right to profit from my ideas, isn't it reasonable that I might want a legal right?
- a-priori 13y agoIn a state of nature, there is no such thing as a "legal right", or law of any kind other than might-makes-right.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoBut legal rights are synonymous with might-makes-right. A natural or human right is something we would like to have but cannot guarantee until it is made into law. I am just asking whether laws about intellectual property correlate to natural rights in the same way that laws about physical property do, since the original claim was that they are 100% fabricated.