If someone hacks a computer network and steals information (maybe software code), he should be fine with that. If someone randomly writes the same as one another, he should be fine with that.
If someone protects his own intellectual property, he should not be forced by anyone, to give up this protection. If he is able to protect his intellectual property with non-harming-methods, he should be fine with that.
@nolekulikali Some skill or knowledge you have that is unique; and that you don't divulge to others. And most importantly, you don't use the government/state to maintain a monopoly over its use.
In other words once someone else independently develops your unique skill/knowledge or becomes aware of it through coverts methods, you cannot use force to prohibit him from using it.
@needtoalwayslearn Yea trade secrets aren't violating anyone else's rights. On the other hand neither is reverse engineering the product. People generally prefer openness and trade secrets would also probably be generally frowned upon.
@Hashishin13 Why on earth should they be frowned upon. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy their product. Significant investments and risk may have been made to discover the trade secrets. It makes no sense for anyone to frown upon products made with a trade secret.
If the product is too expensive, no one would but it. If it's too cheap, the company selling the product may not get all their return of investment.
This video don't have en cuenta the production of money, and de production of interes that make the debt priceless. So, analize the monetary economic is most essential of the debate and not about the models of this: comunism, capitalism or socialism. All three models are fundamentally the same, they all use money produced by bankers with the figure of interest, making debt in check and Put the economies of countries to their service, which is very important, ...
@Edand29 ... , taking into account that even the countries called rich are not safe from debt. For that I emphasize my words, the real debate is about teh production of money and questioning that it is continue a good system for all. This worked good when the scarce goods, but today this not working. Finally, the development of tecnology in the robotic production that can reemplazar the manufacture production human in the repetitive and boring work, ...
@Edand29 ... how agriculture, clean, cooking, and in recent years, service sector. So this cibernetic production can produce benefits for all without cost, and this has not been seen in this video.
Patent laws protect intellectual property for only a certain number of years, i thought...or am I wrong? If this is true, then the ideas of one can be used by others, eventually.
I would say that the current model of intellectual property is a good start for guaranteeing that the authors of ideas are also the owners of the value that they create.There must be limits placed on this exclusivity, however, especially based on the grounds that no idea is born from a vacuum.
I'm slightly confused. He says that where there is poverty, there is a lack of freedom in entrapenourship, freddom to move etc. That lack of freedom is often a result of the geography of the region, though. I mean if somewhere has very little annual rainfall then they are 'free' to starve, without intervention from NGO's / governments...
@halep09 It's very cheap to move away from a place that has droughts: you pack up your things and you start walking. But people don't have the freedom to do this. Governments keep people out, no matter how peaceful someone is or how willing they are to work, and no matter how much unused land they have available.
I can't believe I have just seen this for the first time. This video is great man, the citations to other videos is such a nice touch. Question though, can you link to a specific time when using the annotations? It would be super cool to click the link and the link takes you right to the part of the video where the parts you referenced are discussed. Cheers!
@Nielsio IP laws protect an inventor's claim to the harvest from the seed of his idea, not the idea in and of itself. In your section on the environment, you point out that a property owner has an interest in protecting his property for future benefits. He has a right to future returns on his investment.
If, like the IP creator, a farmer plants a seed and another farmer upstream plants his own seed, and redirects all the water, the latter has stolen from the former.
@NativeNewMexican The seed and the water are physical property; the idea is not. Nor is hypothetical future profit. There is no creator's right to "the harvest from the seed of his idea", as this is a hypothetical notion and not a form of property. To stop someone from using their own property to replicate someone else's original creation, to enforce IP law, is a violent, anti-competitive and anti-capitalist.
@NativeNewMexican Oh, I see what you're saying, the "another farmer" is a criminal for redirecting the water stream to deprive his neighbour's plot. Okay then, what exactly has he "stolen"? What rightly owned physical property has he deprived his victim of?
It's not physical property rights being infringed upon. Physical property rights are _not_ the only rights worth protecting. Water "rights" are protected "expectations" of water flow. IP could and in my opinion, should, have similar protection.
@NativeNewMexican So you believe a person has a right to water which doesn't belong to them? By what right can they claim that? Why can't I just go ahead and claim a right to some water too? Water is physical property: it belongs to whoever owns it, not to whoever expects it.
Google Reasonable Use Theory. It's not like you can claim water rights to ANY water, only water that you have created the means to harvest via a well, irrigation, etc. Which follows the Austrian explanation of property rights like fencing land.
But, in any case, imagine I make a cloud sucking machine. I suck up 100% of all water vapor that passes through my property and bottle it. If this dried up the rivers, oceans and lakes around the world, so be it according to you?
@NativeNewMexican So be it indeed. A person has a right to own anything unowned which they can mix their labour with, including water vapour. By what principle do you claim a right to the expectation of water? If it passes unowned through your neighbour's plot they have every right to mix their labour with it and make it theirs. There can be no right to something unowned and unearned, not to the expectation of water and not to the monopolising of a concept. "IP" enforcement is a crime.
The fact is that property rights are also an act of aggression and therefore a "crime." I wish to "walk over there" and you forcibly deny me that right. We accept it because it is the most effective, logical, humane way to deal with scarcity. Similarly, establishing claims on water "futures" and enforcing them are no different and the same is true with IP laws. One cannot claim water rights beyond one's expected use and labors to cultivate it and the same is true of IP.
@NativeNewMexican but who would buy all the water? and at what price? there are zero cases in history that are analogous to your scenario. anti-private property theorists always use a non-earth setting to make bad points. they choose a single island or a tiny one-acre area to represent the whole world, and create characters of unprecedented ill-will who simply wish to destroy everything and have no profit motive or any goals. if you use earth, humans, and realistic scenarios you'll have nothing.
@plsvc1985 It's called appropriation or water rights or assignment and it has been used throughout history. There's no artificial construct here, it isn't some abstract theory, it's reality. You've made a straw man argument. How about a real one.
The fact is, that the establishment of an incoming stream of expected water that one has made claim to is just the same as establishing an incoming stream of expected customers. If you want to offer an alternative, feel free, otherwise it's theft.
The example was to prove a point. The farmer whose irrigation has established a claim to water rights has been stolen from when someone upstream diverts the water.
I don't need an abstraction to make the issue real.
I'm tired of hearing useful idiots say that the cause of all our problems today is capitalism. The system we're in now has almost NOTHING to do with capitalism - we're fascist and socialist (unfortunately)
@chuska8383 The problem is the abuse of capitalism. Also, anything in the extreme is bad. Other countries (that are doing better than us atm) are not purely socialistic. They have adopted a hybrid government that incorporates the good aspects of many different economic models. In America 50% of the elected officials in congress are millionaires. In order to stay rich and get richer, they abuse the power of capitalism. This is not speculation, it's fact.
@Clubbingshawn I am. The system we have now doesn't even resemble capitalism. Capitalism is a system in which all interactions are strictly voluntary and personal property rights are held paramount. Our tax laws, monetary system, and corrupted kangaroo courts are the products of socialist/collectivist mentality, and altruist morality. To say this is the "abuse" of capitalism and that the reason why so many congressmen are millionaires is because of a free market shows deep misunderstanding.
@chuska8383 I never said the reason why congressmen are millionaires is because of capitalism. The reason why they pander to big businesses is to STAY millionaires and to keep getting richer. They do this through loopholes and lobbyists and they disguise it all by claiming it to be fundamentally capitalism and free trade. When in fact they use these things as smoke screens to disguise their abuse of these systems.
@Clubbingshawn Well then we agree on what is going on. I am merely trying to get people to realize that what has/is destroying this country is not capitalism, but rather the lack of capitalism and market forces; the systems we have in place are socialism and fascism which are diametrically opposed to capitalism.
@chuska8383 Yeah I guess we do agree lol. That happens sometimes in text. I believe a hybrid government is what we truly need. I believe a mixture of capitalism, free trade and socialism would work wonders, but never 1 without the other. Hell, we are almost to that point now but like you said people believe one or the other to be bad. The point is they both can be bad alone, but together they balance out. IMO
@chuska8383 cont. Another problem is that over time our country has slowly moved away from a democracy into an oligarchy type of governing. Many people still cling to the fact that we are a democracy, but it simply is not true when you think of how we burden our middle class.
''Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, corporate, or military control
Trading has existed for generations all over the world. The problem is that scarcity does exist, primarily in the Southern Hemisphere and in arid lands. It would be nice if everyone could be born in countries where the climatic conditions and natural resources were beneficial to sustaining life, unfortunately this is not the case. That is why nomadic people have migrated from one area to another to gather resources to survive. That is why the poor go to richer countries to live.
I love Capitalism. I'm sick of people telling me capitalism is wrong because it's about self-interest. What makes them think their morals are worth more than the rest of us?
@cfarinho1 - Just to add onto what bitbutter just said.
I would like point out that you are more likely to die on your way to the voting booth than to decide the outcome in any election: watch?v=6uR4lqa7IK4
Given the lack of efficacy in government elections compared to what we otherwise have making purchases in a market, why should we expect elections to properly allocate resources and facilitate rational policy?
@cfarinho1 The idea that modern representative democracies can meaningfully represent the majority is implausible. The majority is not equipped, or sufficiently incentivised to keep track of the decisions of a state, or to understand the likely effects of these decisions.
@cfarinho1 "state means "current existing situation","
No, not in this context at least. It means an entity that holds a coercive territorial monopoly on the right to initiate force and ultimate decision making authority.
@cfarinho1 I prefer to differentiate between government and state to make things clear. Most people are statists because they don't make the distinction. e.g. a government is just an administrative service, a home-owner's association is a government; a state, is the violent enforcement of edict, it imposes, arresting people for voluntarily selling jarts is an example of state. Hence the term stateless: the way society organized itself was voluntary; YOU could choose which government best servd u
@cfarinho1 "you have a perfectly good motivation for contributing to the society you live in"
Besides profit, what (secular) reason do I have to contribute to society? And what does one person not patenting a vaccine have to do with anything? Coca Cola hasn't patented their formula, but that's because they don't want to release the secret and let others copy it. But for things that are easy to replicate, the original inventor would not be able to get a return on his investment without patents.
@cfarinho1 It's not that uncommon really, Canada's and Australia's "integration" policies of natives where such outstanding failures, the most ardent statist would deign to have to even discuss the matter.
@cfarinho1 Regarding western settlers, despite being armed they were small in number, they could not afford confrontation with natives. Do you really think they "stole" from the natives or that they settled in places the natives did not care for?
You should like into the US government's military adventures into the west if you're looking for killing natives, stealing their lands then putting them in reservations.
@cfarinho1 From wikipedia: There was no king or central executive structure. Iceland was divided into numerous goðorð which were essentially clans or alliances run by chieftains. The chieftains provided for defense and appointed judges to resolve disputes between goðorð members. The goðorð were not strictly geographical districts. Instead, membership in a goðorð was an individual's decision, and one could, at least theoretically, change goðorð at will.
@Nielsio Great job in explaining Capitalism. On a separate note, would you mind telling me the names of the songs you used at the end of the video (quotes and onward) ?
@AUSM92 Books are automatically copyrighted by the state. What a lot of authors do is they make a strong statement in their work that they will try to send the state after people who copy them.
This is why I also mentioned that Microsoft sues people under patents. And they participate and fund organizations who sue copiers. None of that is defensive.
@Draegar666 650 AD to 1650 AD. Their system of social organization (Túatha) persisted until Cromwell's massacre, where he slaughtered 215,000 irish (more than 14% of the population)
Massacres? Of native-americans? In the years of 1870-1885, in the 5 major cattle towns (Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell) only 45 homicides were reported.
In Abiliene, one of the "wildest" towns, nobody was killed in 1869 or 1870. Only 2 towns had 5 murders in any one year.
@98nafets When there is protection of ideas, then people build their business models around that protection. So it appears on the surface that people cannot profit without that protection. But when that protection is taken away, all that will happen is that people's business models will change.
As I put forth: property is adopted so that people's production isn't interfered with. But copying doesn't interfere with production, instead it creates a separate production. It's competition!
@Nielsio "when that protection is taken away, all that will happen is that people's business models will change"
That's easy to say in a theoretical world. But why would a pharmaceutical company invest millions to develop beneficial drugs if a competitor can just reproduce that same medicine immediately? The company that put in the effort to innovate wouldn't make money. Under that model, no one would invest in research and development.
@98nafets A pharm firm may not need to invest millions since it could use existing innovations of other companies to incrementally improve their products.
Also a competitor could not copy a product immediately. It would need to invest in reverse engineering, it would need to set up a production line, find distributors etc. The time it takes for competitors to do all this stuff is the window in which the innovator has a temporary natural monopoly.
@Nielsio Yes, the business models will change. People will stop inventing new things, since they will have no protection for their input into its invention. This was a problem that the world was suffering from up till we had a decent patent system. Then the US with the best patent system exploded with new ideas. The mistake you might be making is to assume that the value is in the creation of the object and that the brain power needed to first conceptualize the object is somehow less value
@iroseland It is quite the opposite though. The brain power to invent a new object or process is the most valuable thing we bring to the table. Give an idiot the tools and tell him to make a steam generator, the odds are good that you will end up with nothing. Give them to someone who understands a steam generator and you will more likely get one. But, he is likely standing on the shoulders of giants. Patents see to it that the giants get their recognition.
I understand your argument and agree with most of it. Except that even the "giants" are standing on the achievements of those who came before. No person invents something new without drawing on the previously acquired knowledge of those who came before. Edison for example didn't invent the incandescent light he took the idea and made it better which would not have happened had someone patented the concept of a lightbulb and thus restricting his ability to produce them better.
I think we agree even more than that.. But, imagine how screwed we would be without Geometry, Algebra. Heck, even the inventors of the simple machines. Pretty much no matter what we are always going to be standing on those shoulders. At the same time, we need to keep encouraging and rewarding true innovations. The real problem these days is that we let someone patent the idea, without the skill to actually execute on it. We need to protect IP but if there is no I then there is no P
@iroseland *note* the current patent system is broken. One should not be allowed to patent a an unfulfilled idea. To get the patent one should be asked to prove they can make the technology or process actually work. Right now there is too much patenting of potential going on and that has turned into a drag on the whole system. Also, Rand was not a believer in any kind of centralized control. But she did recognize a governments need to be present to protect the citizenry from violence.
@Nielsio What if I’m not part of a big business and I’ve used my time, effort and experience developing something new and unique. How can I profit from my invention or innovation without protection of my intellectual property? I have no business model to adapt in the first place. Using my idea without compensation wouldn’t affect production per se, it would prevent it from happening altogether. Why is physical property sacred (and I agree that it is) but intellectual property not?
@Nielsio That was a most excellent way of stating the case. I'm afraid that you are 100% correct, and are doing a great service pointing out this distinction and axiomatic truth.
@98nafets you can profit from anythin that other people value too. Just that you can not use coercion to prevent people from using their own property to compete with you etc. Patents and copyrights are preventing competition and creates artificial monopolies. One more thought - it's practically impossible to have a patent and copyright laws without the State.
@98nafets "Patents were what spurned the industrial revolution. They drive economic growth."
it's a myth. Patents is what slowed down the innovations. Monopolies never drive economical growth. I think that should be taught in econ 101, I presume.
"Yeah, the state does have a function. I'm not an anarchist. "
Fair enough, but so does rapists and thieves have their functions. So does war and other crimes. They all have "functions" in "societ". But are they moral? Are they necessary?
@MaikUniversum "Patents is what slowed down the innovations."
Not sure what you base that on since it is during the time patents were introduced that a lot of inventions were introduced. And like I said before, if one cannot profit from the time and energy spent into creating a new product, why would anyone innovate? Profit motive drives capitalism.
"rapists and thieves have their functions"
Clearly I meant that the government has a necessary role for a civil society.
@98nafets It would be great if you read the links I gave you in the PM about Intellectual Property and its cost to your "society". It's hard to argue such complicated issues in YouTube comments. You can drop by Mises forums or just continue in PM. Thanks.
@MaikUniversum "Patents and copyrights are preventing competition and creates artificial monopolies. "
I'd rather have monopolies on new and innovative inventions then not have those inventions exist at all. Patents were what spurned the industrial revolution. They drive economic growth.
"One more thought - it's practically impossible to have a patent and copyright laws without the State."
Yeah, the state does have a function. I'm not an anarchist.
@98nafets A new study published in The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review challenges the traditional view that patents foster innovation, suggesting instead that patents may harm new technology, economic activity, and societal wealth. These results may have important policy implications because many countries count on patent systems to spur new technology and promote economic growth.
The study is: Patents and the Regress of Useful Arts, by Dr. Andrew W. Torrance & Dr. Bill Tomlinson
@98nafets "why would I put the effort into innovate?"
Don't forget that the effort/investment required to innovate would be dramatically decreased because you'd be free to fully use the ideas of those who came before you.
"We need patents/copyrights to protect the work people do."
Unsupported. Abolishing IP would reduce the reward for certain individual innovations, but also lower the threshold for making innovations. Result: net effect is ambiguous wrt it's effect on encouraging innovation.
@98nafets "If I can't profit from my ideas/inventions, why would I put the effort into innovate?" Is that really what we are reduced to, thinking anything that means I don't get a profit is no worth creating. Should human behaviour be to help others and people need to start thinking about what's good for society and not just themselves.
@98nafets intellectual property is illegitimate and also slows human progress. imagine a car or a modern house, both of which showcase hundreds of thousands or millions of innovations. if each inventor had to approve and be compensated for use of his idea, nothing would ever get done. if you can't apply the concept of IP back to the invention of the wheel, it's false. why don't you ask all the innovators during the first 99.9999% of human history until late 1800s why they put forth the effort?
@plsvc1985 "if each inventor had to approve and be compensated for use of his idea, nothing would ever get done. if you can't apply the concept of IP back to the invention of the wheel, it's false. why don't you ask all the innovators during the first 99.9999% of human history until late 1800s why they put forth the effort?"
You're serious? We can see that innovation took its biggest leaps during and after the 1800's, after intellectual property was recognized.
Such a thing could not happen in a free market. Copyrights and patents are a way of shielding established businesses from competition, what we need instead is real capitalism."
"Microsoft has many thousands of software patent privileges adquired from the state, which it can use to stifle competition. Just do a search for the words 'microsoft sues patent'. But most of all, its software falls under copyright protection, which means that anyone who copies the software becomes a target of the state criminal system, even if there was not an agreement between that person and microsoft.
"Copying an idea or a piece of information from someone else is a peaceful act, it does not harm the physical integrity of the property of another. In fact, it is one of the most important ways that producers have to create beneficial offerings, because they can see what works and does not work, and produce what does work cheaper or build upon it in a new way or a new place."
Great job! I like the idea of beginning with the one-man economy. And the voice reminds me of the narration for "How Stuff Works" on the Discovery Channel!
My opinion about intellectual ownership:
If someone hacks a computer network and steals information (maybe software code), he should be fine with that. If someone randomly writes the same as one another, he should be fine with that.
If someone protects his own intellectual property, he should not be forced by anyone, to give up this protection. If he is able to protect his intellectual property with non-harming-methods, he should be fine with that.
No law needed!
nolekulikali 1 month ago
@nolekulikali You mean he should treat is as a trade secret ?
needtoalwayslearn 3 weeks ago
@needtoalwayslearn What is a trade secret?
nolekulikali 3 weeks ago
@nolekulikali Some skill or knowledge you have that is unique; and that you don't divulge to others. And most importantly, you don't use the government/state to maintain a monopoly over its use.
In other words once someone else independently develops your unique skill/knowledge or becomes aware of it through coverts methods, you cannot use force to prohibit him from using it.
needtoalwayslearn 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@needtoalwayslearn Oh, ya, then this is exactly what i intended to express.
Sorry for my bad english.
nolekulikali 3 weeks ago
@needtoalwayslearn Yea trade secrets aren't violating anyone else's rights. On the other hand neither is reverse engineering the product. People generally prefer openness and trade secrets would also probably be generally frowned upon.
Hashishin13 5 days ago in playlist Capitalism In One Lesson
@Hashishin13 Why on earth should they be frowned upon. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy their product. Significant investments and risk may have been made to discover the trade secrets. It makes no sense for anyone to frown upon products made with a trade secret.
If the product is too expensive, no one would but it. If it's too cheap, the company selling the product may not get all their return of investment.
needtoalwayslearn 4 days ago
Comment removed
nolekulikali 3 weeks ago
This video don't have en cuenta the production of money, and de production of interes that make the debt priceless. So, analize the monetary economic is most essential of the debate and not about the models of this: comunism, capitalism or socialism. All three models are fundamentally the same, they all use money produced by bankers with the figure of interest, making debt in check and Put the economies of countries to their service, which is very important, ...
Edand29 1 month ago
@Edand29 ... , taking into account that even the countries called rich are not safe from debt. For that I emphasize my words, the real debate is about teh production of money and questioning that it is continue a good system for all. This worked good when the scarce goods, but today this not working. Finally, the development of tecnology in the robotic production that can reemplazar the manufacture production human in the repetitive and boring work, ...
Edand29 1 month ago
@Edand29 ... how agriculture, clean, cooking, and in recent years, service sector. So this cibernetic production can produce benefits for all without cost, and this has not been seen in this video.
Edand29 1 month ago
This entire video is a HUGE ideological abstraction. "Imagine you are alone...." Ughhhhh.
juliaisafilmbuff123 2 months ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 As supposed to what ? Ideological reality ?
It deals with concepts. What are concepts ? Concepts are abstract entities.
Look up Wikipedia's page on abstract objects.
needtoalwayslearn 4 days ago
Patent laws protect intellectual property for only a certain number of years, i thought...or am I wrong? If this is true, then the ideas of one can be used by others, eventually.
finishstrongdoc 3 months ago
I would say that the current model of intellectual property is a good start for guaranteeing that the authors of ideas are also the owners of the value that they create.There must be limits placed on this exclusivity, however, especially based on the grounds that no idea is born from a vacuum.
MabusZero 4 months ago
@MabusZero
I think most Libertarians I talk to are actually directly against IP and view it only as a State grant of monopoly.
Illyrien 2 months ago
I'm slightly confused. He says that where there is poverty, there is a lack of freedom in entrapenourship, freddom to move etc. That lack of freedom is often a result of the geography of the region, though. I mean if somewhere has very little annual rainfall then they are 'free' to starve, without intervention from NGO's / governments...
halep09 5 months ago
@halep09 It's very cheap to move away from a place that has droughts: you pack up your things and you start walking. But people don't have the freedom to do this. Governments keep people out, no matter how peaceful someone is or how willing they are to work, and no matter how much unused land they have available.
Nielsio 5 months ago 4
I can't believe I have just seen this for the first time. This video is great man, the citations to other videos is such a nice touch. Question though, can you link to a specific time when using the annotations? It would be super cool to click the link and the link takes you right to the part of the video where the parts you referenced are discussed. Cheers!
dieyoung 7 months ago
You forgot to add what song you used for the ending quotes. :L
DirtyMidgetStudios 7 months ago
shame about the typography. otherwise this video is very well made.
AnarchoCapitalistTV 7 months ago
Okay the one quote at the end was neat, but I'm rather disappointed that this was linked in the Zeitgiest video. 'Cause this shit was boring o.O
BabeWhoPwns 7 months ago
Comment removed
BabeWhoPwns 7 months ago
@Nielsio IP laws protect an inventor's claim to the harvest from the seed of his idea, not the idea in and of itself. In your section on the environment, you point out that a property owner has an interest in protecting his property for future benefits. He has a right to future returns on his investment.
If, like the IP creator, a farmer plants a seed and another farmer upstream plants his own seed, and redirects all the water, the latter has stolen from the former.
NativeNewMexican 7 months ago
@NativeNewMexican The seed and the water are physical property; the idea is not. Nor is hypothetical future profit. There is no creator's right to "the harvest from the seed of his idea", as this is a hypothetical notion and not a form of property. To stop someone from using their own property to replicate someone else's original creation, to enforce IP law, is a violent, anti-competitive and anti-capitalist.
BelleAndTheBoy 6 months ago
@BelleAndTheBoy
Nor is hypothetical future water. The water isn't on his land, so he has no claim to it.
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
@NativeNewMexican Oh, I see what you're saying, the "another farmer" is a criminal for redirecting the water stream to deprive his neighbour's plot. Okay then, what exactly has he "stolen"? What rightly owned physical property has he deprived his victim of?
BelleAndTheBoy 6 months ago
@BelleAndTheBoy
It's not physical property rights being infringed upon. Physical property rights are _not_ the only rights worth protecting. Water "rights" are protected "expectations" of water flow. IP could and in my opinion, should, have similar protection.
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
@NativeNewMexican So you believe a person has a right to water which doesn't belong to them? By what right can they claim that? Why can't I just go ahead and claim a right to some water too? Water is physical property: it belongs to whoever owns it, not to whoever expects it.
BelleAndTheBoy 6 months ago
@BelleAndTheBoy
Google Reasonable Use Theory. It's not like you can claim water rights to ANY water, only water that you have created the means to harvest via a well, irrigation, etc. Which follows the Austrian explanation of property rights like fencing land.
But, in any case, imagine I make a cloud sucking machine. I suck up 100% of all water vapor that passes through my property and bottle it. If this dried up the rivers, oceans and lakes around the world, so be it according to you?
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
@NativeNewMexican So be it indeed. A person has a right to own anything unowned which they can mix their labour with, including water vapour. By what principle do you claim a right to the expectation of water? If it passes unowned through your neighbour's plot they have every right to mix their labour with it and make it theirs. There can be no right to something unowned and unearned, not to the expectation of water and not to the monopolising of a concept. "IP" enforcement is a crime.
BelleAndTheBoy 6 months ago
@BelleAndTheBoy
The fact is that property rights are also an act of aggression and therefore a "crime." I wish to "walk over there" and you forcibly deny me that right. We accept it because it is the most effective, logical, humane way to deal with scarcity. Similarly, establishing claims on water "futures" and enforcing them are no different and the same is true with IP laws. One cannot claim water rights beyond one's expected use and labors to cultivate it and the same is true of IP.
NativeNewMexican 6 months ago
@NativeNewMexican but who would buy all the water? and at what price? there are zero cases in history that are analogous to your scenario. anti-private property theorists always use a non-earth setting to make bad points. they choose a single island or a tiny one-acre area to represent the whole world, and create characters of unprecedented ill-will who simply wish to destroy everything and have no profit motive or any goals. if you use earth, humans, and realistic scenarios you'll have nothing.
plsvc1985 5 months ago
@plsvc1985 It's called appropriation or water rights or assignment and it has been used throughout history. There's no artificial construct here, it isn't some abstract theory, it's reality. You've made a straw man argument. How about a real one.
The fact is, that the establishment of an incoming stream of expected water that one has made claim to is just the same as establishing an incoming stream of expected customers. If you want to offer an alternative, feel free, otherwise it's theft.
NativeNewMexican 5 months ago
@plsvc1985
The example was to prove a point. The farmer whose irrigation has established a claim to water rights has been stolen from when someone upstream diverts the water.
I don't need an abstraction to make the issue real.
NativeNewMexican 5 months ago
I'm tired of hearing useful idiots say that the cause of all our problems today is capitalism. The system we're in now has almost NOTHING to do with capitalism - we're fascist and socialist (unfortunately)
chuska8383 8 months ago
@chuska8383 The problem is the abuse of capitalism. Also, anything in the extreme is bad. Other countries (that are doing better than us atm) are not purely socialistic. They have adopted a hybrid government that incorporates the good aspects of many different economic models. In America 50% of the elected officials in congress are millionaires. In order to stay rich and get richer, they abuse the power of capitalism. This is not speculation, it's fact.
Clubbingshawn 7 months ago
@Clubbingshawn No, that is not a fact at all and you stating so means you don't even know what capitalism is.
chuska8383 7 months ago
@chuska8383 Are you trying to prove a point?
Clubbingshawn 7 months ago
@Clubbingshawn I am. The system we have now doesn't even resemble capitalism. Capitalism is a system in which all interactions are strictly voluntary and personal property rights are held paramount. Our tax laws, monetary system, and corrupted kangaroo courts are the products of socialist/collectivist mentality, and altruist morality. To say this is the "abuse" of capitalism and that the reason why so many congressmen are millionaires is because of a free market shows deep misunderstanding.
chuska8383 7 months ago
@chuska8383 I never said the reason why congressmen are millionaires is because of capitalism. The reason why they pander to big businesses is to STAY millionaires and to keep getting richer. They do this through loopholes and lobbyists and they disguise it all by claiming it to be fundamentally capitalism and free trade. When in fact they use these things as smoke screens to disguise their abuse of these systems.
Clubbingshawn 7 months ago
@Clubbingshawn Well then we agree on what is going on. I am merely trying to get people to realize that what has/is destroying this country is not capitalism, but rather the lack of capitalism and market forces; the systems we have in place are socialism and fascism which are diametrically opposed to capitalism.
chuska8383 7 months ago
@chuska8383 Yeah I guess we do agree lol. That happens sometimes in text. I believe a hybrid government is what we truly need. I believe a mixture of capitalism, free trade and socialism would work wonders, but never 1 without the other. Hell, we are almost to that point now but like you said people believe one or the other to be bad. The point is they both can be bad alone, but together they balance out. IMO
Clubbingshawn 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chuska8383 cont. Another problem is that over time our country has slowly moved away from a democracy into an oligarchy type of governing. Many people still cling to the fact that we are a democracy, but it simply is not true when you think of how we burden our middle class.
''Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, corporate, or military control
Clubbingshawn 7 months ago
what is name of the song at the end !!
k131 8 months ago
@k131 Is This The Real Thing - DJ Madson
jiveyivey 8 months ago
Trading has existed for generations all over the world. The problem is that scarcity does exist, primarily in the Southern Hemisphere and in arid lands. It would be nice if everyone could be born in countries where the climatic conditions and natural resources were beneficial to sustaining life, unfortunately this is not the case. That is why nomadic people have migrated from one area to another to gather resources to survive. That is why the poor go to richer countries to live.
CrimsonSword36669 8 months ago
would be better without the long breaks to show the see also books
agents1986 8 months ago
@agents1986 I couldn't agree more with you. It's really aanoying!!!
loucohigh 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@agents1986 I couldn't agree more with you. It's really annoying!!!
loucohigh 8 months ago
I love Capitalism. I'm sick of people telling me capitalism is wrong because it's about self-interest. What makes them think their morals are worth more than the rest of us?
sircharles2012 8 months ago
A very good video. I'll have to share this with some of my less educated friends.
MabusZero 8 months ago
Excellent video!
vanraizen 9 months ago
@cfarinho1 - Just to add onto what bitbutter just said.
I would like point out that you are more likely to die on your way to the voting booth than to decide the outcome in any election: watch?v=6uR4lqa7IK4
Given the lack of efficacy in government elections compared to what we otherwise have making purchases in a market, why should we expect elections to properly allocate resources and facilitate rational policy?
StateExempt 9 months ago
@cfarinho1 The idea that modern representative democracies can meaningfully represent the majority is implausible. The majority is not equipped, or sufficiently incentivised to keep track of the decisions of a state, or to understand the likely effects of these decisions.
bitbutter 9 months ago
@cfarinho1 "state means "current existing situation","
No, not in this context at least. It means an entity that holds a coercive territorial monopoly on the right to initiate force and ultimate decision making authority.
bitbutter 9 months ago
@cfarinho1 I prefer to differentiate between government and state to make things clear. Most people are statists because they don't make the distinction. e.g. a government is just an administrative service, a home-owner's association is a government; a state, is the violent enforcement of edict, it imposes, arresting people for voluntarily selling jarts is an example of state. Hence the term stateless: the way society organized itself was voluntary; YOU could choose which government best servd u
Sinisterene 9 months ago
@cfarinho1 "you have a perfectly good motivation for contributing to the society you live in"
Besides profit, what (secular) reason do I have to contribute to society? And what does one person not patenting a vaccine have to do with anything? Coca Cola hasn't patented their formula, but that's because they don't want to release the secret and let others copy it. But for things that are easy to replicate, the original inventor would not be able to get a return on his investment without patents.
98nafets 9 months ago
@cfarinho1 It's not that uncommon really, Canada's and Australia's "integration" policies of natives where such outstanding failures, the most ardent statist would deign to have to even discuss the matter.
Sinisterene 9 months ago
@cfarinho1 Regarding western settlers, despite being armed they were small in number, they could not afford confrontation with natives. Do you really think they "stole" from the natives or that they settled in places the natives did not care for?
You should like into the US government's military adventures into the west if you're looking for killing natives, stealing their lands then putting them in reservations.
Sinisterene 9 months ago
@cfarinho1 From wikipedia: There was no king or central executive structure. Iceland was divided into numerous goðorð which were essentially clans or alliances run by chieftains. The chieftains provided for defense and appointed judges to resolve disputes between goðorð members. The goðorð were not strictly geographical districts. Instead, membership in a goðorð was an individual's decision, and one could, at least theoretically, change goðorð at will.
Sinisterene 9 months ago
@Nielsio Great job in explaining Capitalism. On a separate note, would you mind telling me the names of the songs you used at the end of the video (quotes and onward) ?
FreeAgentXIII 9 months ago
@FreeAgentXIII You can check out the 'Used sources' on the /capitalism page.
Nielsio 9 months ago
I recall Friedman arguing for private roads.
bcsizemore 9 months ago
Good video but I think how freedom and competition drives efficiency and innovation could have been explained better.
god0fgod 9 months ago
@AUSM92 Books are automatically copyrighted by the state. What a lot of authors do is they make a strong statement in their work that they will try to send the state after people who copy them.
This is why I also mentioned that Microsoft sues people under patents. And they participate and fund organizations who sue copiers. None of that is defensive.
Nielsio 9 months ago
@cfarinho1 Is it really?
Iceland was stateless for 300 years
Ireland was stateless for 1000 years
The "Mild" West was also incredibly peaceful despite all the ahistorical bs we put up with in movies and shit
Sinisterene 9 months ago
1000 years clarify that please
second the 'mild' west is a period in history that consists of many many massacres(though i find the word wild
incredibly distasteful)
Draegar666 9 months ago
@Draegar666 650 AD to 1650 AD. Their system of social organization (Túatha) persisted until Cromwell's massacre, where he slaughtered 215,000 irish (more than 14% of the population)
Massacres? Of native-americans? In the years of 1870-1885, in the 5 major cattle towns (Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell) only 45 homicides were reported.
In Abiliene, one of the "wildest" towns, nobody was killed in 1869 or 1870. Only 2 towns had 5 murders in any one year.
Sinisterene 9 months ago
If I can't profit from my ideas/inventions, why would I put the effort into innovate?
We need patents/copyrights to protect the work people do.
98nafets 9 months ago
@98nafets When there is protection of ideas, then people build their business models around that protection. So it appears on the surface that people cannot profit without that protection. But when that protection is taken away, all that will happen is that people's business models will change.
As I put forth: property is adopted so that people's production isn't interfered with. But copying doesn't interfere with production, instead it creates a separate production. It's competition!
Nielsio 9 months ago 20
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nielsio "when that protection is taken away, all that will happen is that people's business models will change"
That's easy to say in a theoretical world. But why would a pharmaceutical company invest millions to develop beneficial drugs if a competitor can just reproduce that same medicine immediately? The company that put in the effort to innovate wouldn't make money. Under that model, no one would invest in research and development.
98nafets 9 months ago
@98nafets A pharm firm may not need to invest millions since it could use existing innovations of other companies to incrementally improve their products.
Also a competitor could not copy a product immediately. It would need to invest in reverse engineering, it would need to set up a production line, find distributors etc. The time it takes for competitors to do all this stuff is the window in which the innovator has a temporary natural monopoly.
bitbutter 9 months ago
@Nielsio Yes, the business models will change. People will stop inventing new things, since they will have no protection for their input into its invention. This was a problem that the world was suffering from up till we had a decent patent system. Then the US with the best patent system exploded with new ideas. The mistake you might be making is to assume that the value is in the creation of the object and that the brain power needed to first conceptualize the object is somehow less value
iroseland 8 months ago
@iroseland It is quite the opposite though. The brain power to invent a new object or process is the most valuable thing we bring to the table. Give an idiot the tools and tell him to make a steam generator, the odds are good that you will end up with nothing. Give them to someone who understands a steam generator and you will more likely get one. But, he is likely standing on the shoulders of giants. Patents see to it that the giants get their recognition.
iroseland 8 months ago
@iroseland
I understand your argument and agree with most of it. Except that even the "giants" are standing on the achievements of those who came before. No person invents something new without drawing on the previously acquired knowledge of those who came before. Edison for example didn't invent the incandescent light he took the idea and made it better which would not have happened had someone patented the concept of a lightbulb and thus restricting his ability to produce them better.
Berelore 8 months ago
@Berelore
I think we agree even more than that.. But, imagine how screwed we would be without Geometry, Algebra. Heck, even the inventors of the simple machines. Pretty much no matter what we are always going to be standing on those shoulders. At the same time, we need to keep encouraging and rewarding true innovations. The real problem these days is that we let someone patent the idea, without the skill to actually execute on it. We need to protect IP but if there is no I then there is no P
iroseland 8 months ago
@iroseland *note* the current patent system is broken. One should not be allowed to patent a an unfulfilled idea. To get the patent one should be asked to prove they can make the technology or process actually work. Right now there is too much patenting of potential going on and that has turned into a drag on the whole system. Also, Rand was not a believer in any kind of centralized control. But she did recognize a governments need to be present to protect the citizenry from violence.
iroseland 8 months ago
@Nielsio What if I’m not part of a big business and I’ve used my time, effort and experience developing something new and unique. How can I profit from my invention or innovation without protection of my intellectual property? I have no business model to adapt in the first place. Using my idea without compensation wouldn’t affect production per se, it would prevent it from happening altogether. Why is physical property sacred (and I agree that it is) but intellectual property not?
johnds0351 8 months ago
@Nielsio That was a most excellent way of stating the case. I'm afraid that you are 100% correct, and are doing a great service pointing out this distinction and axiomatic truth.
themagus187 6 months ago
@98nafets you can profit from anythin that other people value too. Just that you can not use coercion to prevent people from using their own property to compete with you etc. Patents and copyrights are preventing competition and creates artificial monopolies. One more thought - it's practically impossible to have a patent and copyright laws without the State.
MaikUniversum 9 months ago
Comment removed
98nafets 9 months ago
@98nafets "Patents were what spurned the industrial revolution. They drive economic growth."
it's a myth. Patents is what slowed down the innovations. Monopolies never drive economical growth. I think that should be taught in econ 101, I presume.
"Yeah, the state does have a function. I'm not an anarchist. "
Fair enough, but so does rapists and thieves have their functions. So does war and other crimes. They all have "functions" in "societ". But are they moral? Are they necessary?
MaikUniversum 9 months ago
@MaikUniversum "Patents is what slowed down the innovations."
Not sure what you base that on since it is during the time patents were introduced that a lot of inventions were introduced. And like I said before, if one cannot profit from the time and energy spent into creating a new product, why would anyone innovate? Profit motive drives capitalism.
"rapists and thieves have their functions"
Clearly I meant that the government has a necessary role for a civil society.
98nafets 9 months ago
@98nafets It would be great if you read the links I gave you in the PM about Intellectual Property and its cost to your "society". It's hard to argue such complicated issues in YouTube comments. You can drop by Mises forums or just continue in PM. Thanks.
MaikUniversum 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaikUniversum "Patents and copyrights are preventing competition and creates artificial monopolies. "
I'd rather have monopolies on new and innovative inventions then not have those inventions exist at all. Patents were what spurned the industrial revolution. They drive economic growth.
"One more thought - it's practically impossible to have a patent and copyright laws without the State."
Yeah, the state does have a function. I'm not an anarchist.
98nafets 9 months ago
@98nafets A new study published in The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review challenges the traditional view that patents foster innovation, suggesting instead that patents may harm new technology, economic activity, and societal wealth. These results may have important policy implications because many countries count on patent systems to spur new technology and promote economic growth.
The study is: Patents and the Regress of Useful Arts, by Dr. Andrew W. Torrance & Dr. Bill Tomlinson
Sinisterene 9 months ago
@98nafets "why would I put the effort into innovate?"
Don't forget that the effort/investment required to innovate would be dramatically decreased because you'd be free to fully use the ideas of those who came before you.
"We need patents/copyrights to protect the work people do."
Unsupported. Abolishing IP would reduce the reward for certain individual innovations, but also lower the threshold for making innovations. Result: net effect is ambiguous wrt it's effect on encouraging innovation.
bitbutter 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@98nafets "If I can't profit from my ideas/inventions, why would I put the effort into innovate?" Is that really what we are reduced to, thinking anything that means I don't get a profit is no worth creating. Should human behaviour be to help others and people need to start thinking about what's good for society and not just themselves.
23lFrench 7 months ago
@98nafets intellectual property is illegitimate and also slows human progress. imagine a car or a modern house, both of which showcase hundreds of thousands or millions of innovations. if each inventor had to approve and be compensated for use of his idea, nothing would ever get done. if you can't apply the concept of IP back to the invention of the wheel, it's false. why don't you ask all the innovators during the first 99.9999% of human history until late 1800s why they put forth the effort?
plsvc1985 5 months ago
@plsvc1985 "if each inventor had to approve and be compensated for use of his idea, nothing would ever get done. if you can't apply the concept of IP back to the invention of the wheel, it's false. why don't you ask all the innovators during the first 99.9999% of human history until late 1800s why they put forth the effort?"
You're serious? We can see that innovation took its biggest leaps during and after the 1800's, after intellectual property was recognized.
98nafets 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@plsvc1985
To make money, and you want to deny them that.
NativeNewMexican 5 months ago
@AUSM92 What's there to troll if the owning of ideas is considered a crime (i.e. there's nobody who can legitimately enforce any patents)?
Nielsio 9 months ago
what exactly was mises glaring negation of capitalism?
Drumsgoon 9 months ago
I vote Nielsio the president of Ancapistan !
Wow, chapeau-bas my friend !
The1stArtist 9 months ago
Awesome work!
ostralopithicus 9 months ago
Who did the narration?
masonkiller666 9 months ago
@masonkiller666 I added the question to the Q&A on the /capitalism page.
Nielsio 9 months ago
Such a thing could not happen in a free market. Copyrights and patents are a way of shielding established businesses from competition, what we need instead is real capitalism."
Jaluzaga 9 months ago
"Microsoft has many thousands of software patent privileges adquired from the state, which it can use to stifle competition. Just do a search for the words 'microsoft sues patent'. But most of all, its software falls under copyright protection, which means that anyone who copies the software becomes a target of the state criminal system, even if there was not an agreement between that person and microsoft.
Jaluzaga 9 months ago
"Copying an idea or a piece of information from someone else is a peaceful act, it does not harm the physical integrity of the property of another. In fact, it is one of the most important ways that producers have to create beneficial offerings, because they can see what works and does not work, and produce what does work cheaper or build upon it in a new way or a new place."
Jaluzaga 9 months ago 5
This is probably the most scholarly video on Youtube. Nice work!
Killedkennyagain 9 months ago
Great job! I like the idea of beginning with the one-man economy. And the voice reminds me of the narration for "How Stuff Works" on the Discovery Channel!
N7a7v7i 9 months ago
Fantastic video, great production values. Thanks so much for creating new tools to introduce people to Voluntaryism!
SpykerSpeed 9 months ago
Great voice talent! Good work!
paulvahur 9 months ago 11
great video!!
fourdoorchevelle 9 months ago
Dollars and Sense
Ariesxe 9 months ago