Additionally, as Adam Smith knew, self interest can include the desire to fulfill moral virtue, such as altruism. I can want to make money (create value for both parties) so that I can give it away. Capitalism is not inherently driven by desire for your own gain, but it can also be for the gain for others. What about a father who works to provide for his family? What about the artist who creates to benefit the world? What about goodwill, which donates its earnings to charity? All self interest
As to whether or not people share in real life, they most definitely do. I don't have a cell phone. When I need really need to make a call (which is rare) I'll ask someone if I can borrow their phone, and they'll give it to me, let me make the call, and then take it back. Sharing is a moral virtue that is practiced, just perhaps not as much as it should. Also, what about all the volunteer work? What about the fact that there are more charitable donations in america than in the whole world?
I think this is the most damaging aspect of libertarianism because it goes farther than it needs to. People have trouble accepting libertarianism because of this supposed conflict with their moral virtue that objectivist philosophers propose. But in reality, objectivism can mesh very well with generosity being a moral virtue, for two reasons:
1. As you grow wealthier, your ability to be generous increases.
2. As each individual is an end, assisting individuals has inherent value.
The state capitalist system promotes brilliant, creative and wholly selfish people to succeed, while a free market system would support the first two qualities but not necessarily the third. Things like open source programs, ebooks, online blogs etc... demonstrate this. Giant corporations simply would not exist because competition would be too tough, a state would not protect their "personhood"/limited liability, they'd have no access to subsidies or be able to make regulations work for them.
For example, how far would Steve Jobs and Bill Gates have gotten if there was no state to protect "intellectual property"? Market discipline would enhance equity and cooperation, albeit via individual self-interest. That's the fatal flaw of Rand's philosophy: it ends with selfishness and that's it. However, as I see it: markets are good for you and they're good for me, and this empathetic recognition is a virtue. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, though brilliant, are corporatists and statists.
@forrestcrow There is no such thing as a "free market" if there is no protection of individual rights. The right to property is among them, and the protection of intellectual property is one of its most important facets. It ensures that creative individuals are guaranteed the benefits of the products of their own minds.
@AlexanderLee1 Property rights (though I prefer occupational-based over what we recognize now) and the freedom to organize are in sharp contrast to patents and intellectual copyright as they create artificial scarcity via state coercion. That has nothing to do with market discipline! What IP does is give creative individuals state power to monopolize the market. Minus such power, such individuals are forced to be MORE creative to profit off their ideas.
Ayn Rand's philosophy only has meaning in a state capitalist context. If you had a true free market in which the state didn't intervene, nobody would be part of a corporate type structure when they could be part of a more cooperative structure. The reality of the situation is that markets are ultimately determined by self-interest, Rand is absolutely correct, but the John Galts of the world could never have obtained the power they had in truly decentralized markets based upon free association.
@CaptainRidley It's not hypocritical to act in one's own economic self-interest when your entire philosophy is based on the view that rational self-interest drives economic decisionmaking. Opposing the policies on a theoretical level and receiving the benefits for which you were taxed for decades are two different things. Straw man argument.
There are so many holes in this philosophy that I never know where to start with Ayn Rand. The difference between market assigned value and actual value? Maybe that is where it all begins. If you allow the market to dictate societal norms, then you no longer have a rational society.
@Melthornal So the alternative is letting government determine value? On what basis do you believe that a few central planners will be any better at making that determination than individuals thinking for themselves? The reason why free markets further human dignity is that they accommodate for the RELATIVE values that different people place on different things. You have refuted nothing, and the history of the USSR in fact proves that the alternative is far less rational and efficient.
@jusnelso Classic example to prove my point: There is a school for young children, a preschool. The school ends at 4pm, and all parents are instructed to pick up their kids by 4:30pm. A small number of parents are always late, and pick up their kids at 4:45, 5:00 or even later, at the expense of the teachers who are staying on their own time to protect the young children. So the school implements a new policy, you are charged 30$ each time you are late. What do you think happens?
@Melthornal I'm going to guess that parents either pay the fee or respond to the incentive and pick up their kids on time. Either way, it is an example of the market correcting itself. But to take your example further, you are talking about the public school system after all, which is essentially a government monopoly. People free ride on free public services all the time. The problem you cite is an example not of a market failure but of what can go wrong when there are no market incentives.
@jusnelso No longer are the parents who are chronically late at picking up their children alone in being late. Now nearly all the parents are late. All of them have decided that it is easier to pay a small fine than it is to rush from work or whatever to pick up their kids. This is an example of the market having the opposite consequence as expected, and perverting a situation. A market cannot maintain societal norms, not even those which are required for basic societal function.
@Melthornal Ok I didn't see this second comment at first. But again, if parents are willing to pay the fine, and the school believes this is an adequate amount to compensate them for their extra trouble, why is this a bad thing? It sounds like an efficient market solution to me. If this fine is not enough to incentivize being on time, the school can raise the fine. That's how the market works. The market isn't a way to enforce or create social norms. It is a way to maximize efficiency.
@Melthornal In fact, the example you cite is far from a normal market transaction in many respects. Ordinarily, when someone sells a good or service they set it at a price that they believe will make people want to buy it. Here, the school tried to set a price that they thought would discourage people from buying the service. That of course backfired because that is not how these sorts of transactions are supposed to work. Deterrents are not the same thing as incentives.
@jusnelso Everything you just said could have been better said with the following statement: "You are completely correct and I completely agree with everything you just said."
@Melthornal If only that were what I had been saying. What you meant to say was that is what you wish I had said. Declare victory for yourself and I will do the same. This clearly isn't going anywhere.
@jusnelso You agree that the market cannot do anything other than grow economy. Which is exactly what I said. The market cannot ever give people rights, protect the people, or help the people in any way other than growing wealth. You agree with this. That is my point. In order to have a functional society, you always need forces external to the market to control everything the market cannot control. If you don't have these forces, you cannot have a functional society.
Today I saw two thin grown men take about six hours to till a very small piece of land. I took photographs as they labored in the mud. They wrestled with two hand carved wooden plows that were pulled by two water buffalo. I will gladly send you a digital copy if you wish. It is very thought-provoking. They planted rice on the small plot, before leaving for their huts, exhausted. (Philippines)
At the end of the day any system be it facism,capitalism,socialism still lives in the monetary system. Thus the creation of jobs is a necessity for them to survive. if a system continually takes away more jobs than it creates it will fail. Period.
If I'm short on capital and need to find someone who will trade with me the thing I have to trade is my labour. I need someone who is willling to exploit me, on terms I am willing to settle for. Like most others I'd like to be able to command greater compensation than most I meet might offer. I can hold out until I've talked to everyone I have the strength and ability I have left, until I'm near starvation if I choose to.
Moral defence but no mention of exploitation of workers. No mention of wasteful use of finite resources. I agree that the perfect society would be free of goverment but also free from the market. Individuel freedom and collective freedom is not something that can exist in a free market society because someone will always be exploited and be forced to work without having a self interest share in it other than basic necessities for life. This is not what i would consider personal happiness.
@riber99 How do you define exploitation?If you are a welder and you work in the construction industry and you have the capacity to engage in the same work for a different company,you have the roght to change you employment circumstances.Individuals are responsible for their own personnal happiness not government or employers.It is easier in a free market economy to pursue your own self interest to improve your social,economic circumstances .Life,Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
@damfst23 I do not agree that it would be easier to pursue your own self interest to improve your social,economic circumstances in a free market economy. It would indeed be alot easier if you were guaranteed basic necessities. This is what Maslow's hierarchy of needs shows us. In a free market system the worker will always be the one competing for jobs, i know you wont agree with that.
@riber99 As tech evolves the need for labor will decrease and therefore we will always be in a position of a surplus in the workforce. This would if you look at basic economic models mean that the wages will fall and the employers will be in the strong position and will also be able to exploit. exploitation simply means that you force a person to stay in employment by using force or economic pressure etc.
@riber99 The worker is forced to work for less than what he needs to make a living because of the of losing his job. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is not determend by accomulation of wealth.
@riber99 one thing my friend is robots can take the menial stupid jobs, but people can always re train and become the people that design these bots, or program them. Get new training
The increase in technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it merely reallocates them. The person that used to operate a switchboard at the telephone office didn't simply become unemployed for the remainder of their life when switchboards became automated. They retrained into a new career. That career may or may not be as good as the one they had, but that is entirely up to the ability of the individual.
the only way that your argument holds any value is if technology creates more jobs than it takes away on a continuous basis. I just dont think that is the case.
@ethcage No, you're misunderstanding the situation. Technology doesn't need to create more jobs, the people just need to retrain into a different job. The switch board operator might become a receptionist and the guy that used to paint cars for an automaker in Detroit might have to paint houses or work for a body shop.
As for the new automated switchboard or the robot painter, someone needs to manufacture them and maintain them, so new jobs were created with those technologies.
That study found that 40 percent of companies surveyed have had openings for six months, while 64 percent reported positions for which they cannot find qualified applicants.
Employers can't find qualified workers just as much as workers have trouble finding jobs. I blame the government for failing in its role of education.
@HeyItzMeDawg Government failed in it's role in education?
Why should government be blamed? Government has no true role in education! The role government has assumed in education is not only unconstitutional, but morally wrong as well.
If you want to assign blame, look at yourself and those around you that allow the government to make your kids into mindless, but useful, idiots.
@HeyItzMeDawg I´ve seen the research. But doesn´t this call for free education like we have in many european countries. And yes government is to blame for not implementing free education. But in the book "Worse than Watergate" it is mentioned that it is at government policy to keep people uneducated so that they are easier to control. Can´t remember the words precisely but it was said by Bush. Apologies for my grammatic errors. English is not my native language.
@riber99 Maslow shows no such thing. What it shows is the stages required to achieve self-actualization. Those stages MUST be achieved by the individual through their own effort or they have not really been met, have they? If you rely on me for food and water, you cannot have security since I can threaten you with denying you those things. However, if you learn how to provide them yourself and work to secure them yourself, how can I deny them to you?
Now that you have secured food and water, shelter will be no problem either since you have the strength to find create it. Now you can find a mate and be sure to provide for your family as well. Thus the third stage is met.
The fourth stage is achieved as well since true self-esteem and confidence are born of ability and security, not by having those provided for you.
Now you have the strength and confidence to achieve your full potential. With that the fifth need is met.
@damfst23 But in a free marcet economy you don´t take into account Bordieu´s theory on capitals and social heritage. These take away the notion that we all have equal opportunity.
@riber99 "because someone will always be exploited and be forced to work."
By, the way, this is a fact of life. Nothing happens if you don't work for it; the fact that people will always have to work if they want to sustain and/or improve their living conditions is not a problem inherent to the free market, but a scientific fact: you can't conjure up food or clothes with the power of your mind. Either you have to work to produce it or someone else does.
@novepe "I found funny how someone that thinks so high of ayn rand acepts donations on a video about her."
Why? Rand's view of charity was that there is nothing wrong with charity when the recipient is worthy and when you can afford the donation. It is a marginal issue an not a moral duty or primary virtue.
tinyurl c7t7zbc
Non-profit organizations are fully compatible with Free Market Capitalism so long as they are funded through voluntary contributions. (not gov't taxes)
Shit, why does if have to be someone with a speech impediment??? This is impossible to listen to. It's almost like a sick joke or something. "Let's see, I sound like Elmer Fudd...what should I do for a living?...I KNOW - PUBLIC SPEAKING!!!"
@WarVideo I'm sure I would find the transcript excellent. I also have a hard time listening to Rothbard's videos. I don't find his voice quaint, I find it annoying. I very much enjoy, and prefer reading his words.
@YJohannM You're right, foreign people shouldn't ever speak because their accents are different. Way to zone in on the essentials there.
You'll probably make a big deal of his 'r's... my point still stands: he's an expert in his subject, has credentials as a professor of finance and has made a productive career from investing. You're making a fuss about a non-essential as an excuse for not listening to something that you don't like but aren't able to critique.
@StudentOfObjectivism I actually agree with all of it. Just have a hard time listening to the goofy voice. You should also consider that almost EVERYONE who isn't familiar with reason and logic is probably thinking the same thing as well when they listen to this. This guy should stick to books perhaps. Get a more "listenable" person to advocate for truth.
@StudentOfObjectivism You are probably correct...but I think the probability is a little different; and would be MORE in favor with another presenter. Perhaps aesthetics shouldn't matter, but it does..
@WarVideo That's a joke right? This guy sounds almost like "Babba WaaWaa" and Tom Brokaw. I've always thought a massive joke was being played on the consumers of "media" with those two.
For a couple of people. Come on people, most people on this planet are starving, how can you make this argument when regulation has decreased. If the free market can't feed most people, it doesn't work! You forget to participate, you need money, to have money, you need a job. Jobs are not provided, therefore not everyone will have money, therefore not everyone will be fed. It automatically creates social stratification and you know that means poverty. Fuck that!
@punkwasher Given that we have relatively free markets (although decreasing in "free" every day), I think it has done a decent job in feeding people in the United States. I'm sure we are still regarded as the riches nation on earth too.
Also, I don't think you need money to make money. That's why you get a "job." :). There, you just made money without money.
So, jobs are not provided, but you think government can create a job comparable to the "free market" one right? If not, what's the diff?
@GeminiK Doesn't feed everyone in the States. Have you not been paying attention? There are tons of people starving in this country. Besides, I was thinking more on a global scale, to which the American population is way in the minority, but still we appropriate more resources than any other nation. That's greedy. Besides, the trend has been more work done by less people for less pay, which is what happened to me. Out of a 4 man team I am the only one left now.
@punkwasher "Starving" is probably, IMO, not as bad as "starving" in Africa. Even so, since you obviously think it's an important issue, we should only focus on the welfare of the United State's economy. Other people can wait until there is no more "starving" people here.
Btw, do you happen to know how we appropriate resources?
Also, there are less jobs out there, but I heard it was the fault of socialism for making life hard on employers.
@GeminiK I agree, this country should focus on itself. We need more infrastructure, which is socialism btw, you obviously need to do some research on that, because socialism doesn't really affect the job market, besides socialism sponsors soldiers, firemen and police officers. If anything it makes it easier for people to keep jobs and maintain a certain standard of living. As for the resource appropriation, we use more than twice the amount of oil that China uses.
@punkwasher Socialism seems to do good, but I think it isn't free. How do we pay for it?
On appropriation, I was wondering more specifically, how, who, when, were, and which resources? Are they bought, or stolen?
Apologies for this question, but I think it has to be asked: Don't you think it's selfish to focus on this country while other people in the world are so much worse off?
@GeminiK Taxes pay for socialism, obviously. That's why we also kind of need to tax the rich, because they have almost all the money. As for the appropriation, I'm not sure on the method, but as for oil, we just might have some deals with Saudi Arabia and buy most of the oil on the planet. I do think it's selfish to focus only on our country, but we don't really have the right to interfere with other country's policies, as shitty as they might be. A global resource based economy might help.
@punkwasher And if you tax the rich you only drive them out of the country or force the burden of taxtion onto the middle class once the rich have put their money into tax heavens - which I don't blame them for doing so. Do you want to destroy the country you live in? That is what socialism is doing. And please explain what a resource based economy is. People constantly go on about it yet fail to explain it coherently.
@punkwasher Then what we say to you is that if we lived in a truly free market - whereby the government played a minimal role and their was only spending allocated for the protection of rights - nobody would stop you from supporting the causes you would like to see helped. Do you think you, yourself, have to be forced to pay tax in order to benefit others because you'd fail to do so voluntarily? That, if the case, and if the case with others, is a fault of your own, not the rest of society
@danwhittle Society is a cooperative effort, we're not going to go anywhere as a species with a mine is mine mentality. I work to improve the lives of other people, in whatever minor way I can already, but right now we have a society that funnels most wealth and resources into the hands of people and organizations that destroy people and planet. If we don't enforce charity, no one is going to do it. Besides, I like my taxes going to a safety net. I don't like them going to war and corporations.
@punkwasher First of all, your taxes go to war and corporations. In a free market, they wouldn't go to corporations - so you'd be better off. Society is only a cooperative effort in the sense we mutually come to terms in order to benefit each other by firstly benefiting ourselves. You are putting equality before freedom and by doing that you negate freedom. People should be born free and have the opportunity to become equal, not the other way around. You cannot have both, it's unrealistic.
@danwhittle I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think you didn't think this all the way through. The corps lobbied to have those subsidies and the war. They profit from it. This is what happens to capitalism. Eventually, someone with the most money takes a hold of it and it seizes being the opportunity you proclaim. Remember when our economy was booming why that was? Because the wealth was more evenly balanced. So I guess you want people to benefit themselves to the point where no one else can?
@punkwasher I'm not American, I'm British (I assume you're from the states). Corporations only exist and have monopolies and the power to lobby governments because governments give them subsidies from tax payers money. That's not true capitalism, it isn't a FREE market. Those corporations are only lobbying to look after their own self-interest, and who blames them? Government give them the power to do so by not proving the roles they should provide: the protection of rights.
@danwhittle I love England, just by the way. But what you're describing sounds to me like the corps are doing pretty much what they want, almost as if... unrestricted. They've taken a hold of the system, so yeah, it's no longer free for us mere mortals, but again, that's what happens in capitalism. Someone gets all the money and then takes a hold of it. How to we prevent that? Decentralization of power, redistribute wealth and money as money is but quantified power.
@punkwasher As I've said, cooperation exist because of government and taxpayers' money. That isn't capitalism, it's socialism. It's centralisation of power, bigger government and the picking and choosing of the right to prosper in business by ways of bailout of subsidies. Tell me, what right do you have to take my money and give it to others in order for people to be equal? I'm losing out then, in a freemarket, although people may be poor, they have the opportunity to become rich...
@danwhittle You live in England, get free health care because of socialism and you still make arguments like that. I'd rather have the government use the money because they are supposed to be non-profit. You just don't want to share, admit it. You're completely independent of mankind and you created the wealth single-handedly. All generations previously did nothing to create a basis for wealth, no, that was all you, right? The problem is that sometimes it isn't enough until you have it all.
@punkwasher You can admit that too next time you're held up at gun point, its not sharing its stealing. And if sharing is so good, what is wrong with the rich sharing in your wealth? You earn what you worked for and thats what you get paid for, the fact that i can do my work with a machine that somebody else invented does not negate the work i did. The person who made the machine got paid for it. The only thing that he has to worry about now is idiots like you trying to take away his profits.
Its unrealistic to ask people to be born equal, it's only right for them to be free and have the opportunity to become rich while not being prevented to achieve their goals in life so long as they do not harm other people. Put it this way: if a human being turns down work - the way in which they survive - even though they are perfectly capable but just lazy, what do I or anybody owe to this person? If they refuse to work they refuse to live and they will die. Once they begin to starve, they work
And no, of course I don't. I want to live in a society where the individual is put before the collective; where if you work hard, if you apply your skills and live rationally, with yourself being your highest value, you will achieve great things for yourself and subsequently for others. I don't want to live in a world where banks are bailed out by governments when they should be allowed to fail and die - whatever the costs, as that is what they deserve.
@danwhittle Well, that's the world you live in. That's the way we've been doing things for millennia and it ain't going to change if we don't explore radical alternatives. I know the libertarian approach sounds cool and fun because it's all about me me me me, but the human species is about us. Staying the course is OBVIOUSLY not working. I'm tired of the same old capitalist libertarian take what's yours approach argument. As a society, we've tried that. It was called the feudal ages.
@punkwasher I'm sorry, but you clearly have no idea what self-interest and selfishness is, nor free market, capitalism and libertarianism. We have never had a truly freemarket. If you can find me an example, that would be great, but you won't. Socialism isn't working... Please tell me how you think my life is to be lived for others? I can tell you it isn't. It's disgusting how people like you believe that to be the case. How dare you.
@punkwasher The thing is with people like you is that you ask others to live for one another, but people like me, we don't ask of anyone but ourselves. You are forcing your ideal on others whereas all I'm advocating is freedom; with you negating that freedom with the advocation of socialism, altruism and equality. It's a nice idea, but it's not realistic.
@danwhittle I guess it's survival of the richest then. All the people in power got there because they were SO restricted in what the did, right? Now they're forcing their ideas on us. NO NO, please, we're not free enough to take it all! Some people still OWN stuff we want! How can that be? I worked hard, I deserve that share of your wage that would afford you health care! Yeah, that's the idea. I need more workers, but don't want to pay for them, let's starve some third world country! HOORAY!
@danwhittle So needles to say, I'm tired of this discussion. We know what centralization of power and wealth looks like, but I'm still hearing people arguing for it. I'm not arguing for any known system, I'm arguing for a reorganization of everything. I can't do it alone, that's why I seek confrontational arguments. I will engage the other side and try to see their merit, but it's the same old argument over and over and it's already been tried. Want deregulation? How about child labor?
@punkwasher Talk about being vague and not defining your terms, you don't differetiate between political power and economic power, you just lump them together as if they were the same thing. Offering someone money for their car is not the same as threatening somebody with a gun for their car. Also, you want a reorganization of everything but not based on any system, so by what standard do you judge how something is reorganized? You can't do it without an abstract framework.
@WarVideo YOU can't do it without an abstract frame work. Check out the Venus project for an idea, that may not be perfect, but it's WAY more progressive thinking than I'm used to from mankind. No one forces anyone into welfare, it's just is the right thing to do.
Which selfish interest is this guy pursuing by giving this talk? By definition all action is selfish, because it has value to the actor. What is valuable is subjective. What is in you self interest is a personal aesthetic theory. The free market is not about aesthetics but about morality, which is objective. Large corporations and unions are constantly lying and deceiving all the time to protect their government privileges. Lying is in their self-interest.
@alalelalex "By Definition all action is selfish" No. This is psychological egoism and was refuted by Nathanial Branden in his essay "Isn't everyone selfish" If you truly are interested to know I suggest you read Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness which contains this essay and much more besides. Lying is definitely not in one's self-interest as you proposed.
If the government protects property rights, then that is socialized property protection payed by tax money. So that is not a free market anymore. If it is not payed by taxes but by voluntary contributions then it is not a government.
Very well spoken. My only issues is the comments on Gates/Microsoft. At a birds eye view the statements are accurate. However I believe that any company that acquires others for the sake of destroying superior tech in order to make it "disappear" is not working in their own self interest. It's sacrificing long term gains for the short term, and not at all rational.
Yaron Brook has delivered a great lecture. Any one who wants to fight for capitalism needs to hear Dr. Brook's arguments and spread them. Everyone knows that the capitalism is the most productive system in history, yet we are losing the fight. This lecture explains the reason and the persuasive power of a morality based on reason.
@CurtHowland Interesting use of the word 'slavish'...
You realise of course that if a man can't copyright his idea then he is deprived of the opportunity to make profit from it... other people can steal his idea... he becomes a slave to his inferiors.
An individual ALWAYS has the one perfect monopoly, their own labor. They can CHOOSE when and how to release their work.
The statute monopoly of copyright has nothing to do with the originator of an idea, it only restrains and restricts others who have nothing to do with the original release.
Just like every other govt granted monopoly, it is destructive to human imagination and invention.
If an inventor does not want to share there invention, they are free not to do so. They are slaves to no one.
A writer can give out copies of their work with explicit contracts that the work may not be shared. And that way, languish in obscurity for eternity.
Or you can look at history, at how no one claims the work of Shakespeare as their own, at the Creator Endorsed Mark, and realize that copyright is a lie.
@CurtHowland If I can interject with your discussion with SofO, isn't it that an individual is entitled to the ownership of the fruits of his labor? And, isn't it that he may then sell his product at whatever price he likes? And, if the fruit of his labor is an idea, shouldn't he be able to deal with it in the same manner as a physical product?
If it's good for people to profit from what they produce, shouldn't they be entitled to do the same with an idea that wouldn't exist otherwise?
@GeminiK Indeed, which is why it is theft to take something from someone.
The problem with copyright is control of OTHERS.
If I violate my contract with you and give away your book, for example, how can you have a claim on the person to which I gave that book? The violation is mine, for contract violation, not a third party who was never aware of the contract at all.
Mises and Baen have had the same results with publishing UNPROTECTED ebooks, sales of paper books goes UP.
@CurtHowland If I buy a book, I then have the right to give it away. There is no breach of contract in the preceding case. So, if I have the right to give away the book whether it's sold or not, then how does copyright affect the price of the book?
Could it be that you mean someone else doesn't have the right to profit from the book, given that it is obtained from the original publisher? But, then how is it that re-sellers exist on Amazon if that was the case?
@GeminiK "If I buy a book, I then have the right to give it away."
Yet if you give me a book, and I use the words in that book, I am guilty of a crime for something I never bought, never signed a contract for. That is what I mean about binding 3rd parties.
Copyright is a restriction upon OTHERS, not the author.
@GeminiK I'm not disagreeing with you that authors and artists deserve to thrive because of their work. That's why I whole heartedly endorse the "Creator Endorsed Mark", just as Tolkien told American fans to "Please buy only the officially authorized volumes" and his fans did.
@CurtHowland I'm still unsure how copyright prevents me from using the knowledge of the book, given that it has been obtained from the publisher or third party re-seller. I mean, isn't that the purpose of publishing a book in the first place, so that others may "use" the good they payed for (or not if it was given)?
@GeminiK Restricting your use of the material is what Copyright is all about. If you do not believe you can be restricted from the use of the ideas, then you don't agree with copyright at its most basic.
Copyright, btw, was invented to prevent the spread of "unapproved" ideas, by making it illegal to print copies of books without permission.
It was created as a form of censorship.
Germany, which did not have copyright, flourished while England languished.
@CurtHowland That is about as effective for most people as asking for donations. All the supposed models anarchists endorse for artists to be able to make a living are less than a hundredth as effective as copyright (closer to a thousandth). I speak from personal experience.
@Panpiper "are less than a hundredth as effective as copyright"
I have no doubt that govt granted monopolies are much easier to make a living with than without. After all, that's why vested interests lobby govt to pass laws in their favor, rather than finding out how to do it through voluntary interaction.
@CurtHowland And I suppose that you think having a government paid police officer to protect the property of the fruit seller constitutes a "government granted monopoly" of the fruit seller to his fruit.
Now you will go off on a wholly separate obfuscation of the above, by talking about how the digital artist is not loosing his work if someone copies it, as opposed to a fruit seller actually loosing fruit.
@Panpiper "And I suppose that you think having a government paid police officer to protect the property of the fruit seller constitutes a "government granted monopoly" of the fruit seller to his fruit."
Yes. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Living off of tax money, collected at gun point from others, is wrong. It is wrong no matter how well justified the ends seem to make the means of coercion.
@CurtHowland Someone is flagging your posts as spam. It is not me. I wish they would not. Silencing discussion, even heated discussion, benefits no one.
@Panpiper "Someone is flagging your posts as spam."
Thank you for pointing that out. Sadly, I've seen it happen before when an unpopular view is voiced in a venue where many zealous folks would take offense at the position itself rather than just ignoring it.
@CurtHowland Let me get this straight, are you an anarcho-syndicalist, who does not believe in private property at all? If you are, I'll stop debating with you, because there is no ground for debate; you would simply be an utterly naive idealist who needs a few more years to wake up. But I do not think you are, you sound much more like an anarcho-capitalist, at least with regards to atoms. With bits, you are a pure communist. That being your defining characteristic of property; atoms/bits.
@Panpiper "who does not believe in private property at all?"
I believe in private property and voluntary interaction. Obligations on someone are wrong if they are not knowingly and voluntarily accepted.
So I have no problem with an author putting an "end reader license agreement" on the purchase of their book with lots of restrictions. I hear that some Harvard professors are doing that in their classes.
Copyright creates a legal obligation on third parties. That is why I object to it.
@CurtHowland I do not produce my work for my own benefit. Just because 'I' get to look at my work is not sufficient motive for me to have invested a million dollars of my own money and 15 years of my life producing what I have. I produced my work because it was of enormous value to other people, value they were willing to pay for before they discovered they could simply 'take' it for free. Now that they simply take it, I can no longer produce that value.
@Panpiper "I produced my work because it was of enormous value to other people, value they were willing to pay for before they discovered they could simply 'take' it for free. Now that they simply take it, I can no longer produce that value."
Labor theory of value again.
Your work has no market value if no one will buy it, it doesn't matter what YOU think it's worth, or what it was worth yesterday, or for what reason no one wants to buy it.
@CurtHowland People used to be willing to pay good money for my work. It then had value defined by the subjective theory of value. Now because they can steal it for free, all of a sudden it's value is the result of a labor theory of value? By that logic, if I can get away with stealing something, it's free, and anyone who says the contrary is asserting a labor theory of value because their claim of ownership is based on their labor and capital having gone into it.
@GeminiK Of course it's good for people to profit from their efforts, which is why depriving them of their work is called "theft".
But a copy does not deprive anyone of anything except "possible" profits.
Such potential future profits means that I, for example, have a prior claim on the property (money) of others, merely because I write a book which I believe would sell. How can I do that without enslaving others?
Defense of Copyright requires the Labor Theory of Value.
@CurtHowland Do mean that selling the rights of a book to a publisher should be a one time transaction? What if the clause is added that as a condition to the sale of the book the writer wants a specified amount of money per book sold? But if there were no copyright laws, a second publisher may the copy and sell the book with out paying the writer the amount he asked for with the first publisher. If it's the case that no publisher may sell the book without authorization, wouldn't that=copyright?
@GeminiK Whether a book contract is a one time deal or not is up to the contract. To assume that I know better than the author and writer is just as bad as assuming that I know better than anyone else what their business is.
What you're ignoring is fraud. Someone who sells a book saying "The author has authorized this copy" without the author actually authorizing that copy is fraud, and deserves to be prosecuted for that.
@CurtHowland Apologies in advance if you addressed the issue in your previous replies. Didn't see them while righting the response to the comment preceding lol.
I can suggest "Against Intellectual Monopoly", "Against Intellectual Property" and many writings of Stephan Kinsella if you want a more deeply intellectual argument against Copyright.
For me it's all about control of others. If I can control what other people do with an idea, then I own them. They are my slaves.
Another way to look at it, why don't we pay royalties to the heirs of the inventor of the wheel? Expiration is just another arbitrary rule. It's all arbitrary.
@CurtHowland Ok, will note down those works. I did posted one more question if you like to answer it :). It's ok if it's redundant because it's in the works you cited.
@CurtHowland You have an idea for a movie. Do you now have a movie? If Peter Jackson spends a billion dollars on a movie epic and you watch it, do you now suddenly have a billion dollar epic because you have the 'idea' of it in your mind? Viewing a movie does not mean you 'own' it and can now give it away for free. But you doing just that does in fact destroy the producer's ability to profit from their labor and capital.
@CurtHowland The digital product of my labor and capital is the common property of all man kind, that to you is freedom. My insistence that the product of my labor and capital is my own property that I have the right to control and profit from, that to you is socialism.
Wow. Great doublethink. Orwell would be so proud of you.
@CurtHowland You know perfectly well that is the precise effect of your moralizing. For you to turn around and say that is not exactly what you intend is a BALD FACED LIE, and you bleeping know it. At least have the bleeping honesty to admit to your truth.
Yours is a purely utilitarian argument. 'You' cannot figure out how to protect my property without government, so for convenience, you will just adopt the position that the product of my labor and capital is not property at all.
I haven't lied at all. I oppose statute copyright for exactly the same reason I oppose slavery. Both impose obligations on people who have not accepted those obligations voluntarily.
Now if you can define how that is a "utilitarian" argument, I would love to see it.
@CurtHowland It is irrational to expect the shop owner whom you are evicting from his property to be non-emotional it when you tell him that he has no right to profit from his shop, that in fact his shop now belongs to everyone. I have been absolutely destroyed by the culture of "if it is digital, it is free" and every time I have complained, I get 'your' philosophy regurgitated.
@Panpiper "when you tell him that he has no right to profit from his shop"
Please, good sir. Where did I say that?
Again, your failed business model is not my problem. If you can't figure out how to make profits in one business, try another. Then you can do what you enjoy doing as a hobby, just like other people do.
@CurtHowland Ah yes, and the farmer benefits from his production of grain "at the expense of others" because they incur expense paying for it.
If you make a chair, you certainly do have a chair right, at least to that chair. If you invest labor and capital to invent an entirely new approach to the design of chairs, then you certainly do have a chair right to that approach. I am sorry if it is inconvenient to the purity of your extremist philosophy.
@CurtHowland "Why do you support govt enforcement of the statute copyright?"
I don't. I am an anarchist myself. I can envisage a mechanism to support copyright utterly devoid of government force. And exactly how to do that is absolutely irrelevant for the same reasons that it is irrelevant how roads will be built without government. It is an ethical argument, not a utilitarian one.
Your anti-copyright stance is a purely utilitarian argument. You don't know how to do it, it cannot be done.
@CurtHowland As long as the government holds a monopoly on 'the commons' and an 'unfair' competition with 'enforcement' my idea will have to sit on the backburner.
@CurtHowland I have spent the last 15 years making a living and employing several people creating IP that people 'used' to be willing to pay for before piracy became ubiquitous. Now, if I produce anything new, I loose a ton of money every time due to people simply downloading it for free. Accordingly, all my staff are now unemployed, all my work is old, and I am on an Atlas Shrugged strike versus all these putative 'anarchists' who insist the product of my labor and capital is theirs for free.
Additionally, as Adam Smith knew, self interest can include the desire to fulfill moral virtue, such as altruism. I can want to make money (create value for both parties) so that I can give it away. Capitalism is not inherently driven by desire for your own gain, but it can also be for the gain for others. What about a father who works to provide for his family? What about the artist who creates to benefit the world? What about goodwill, which donates its earnings to charity? All self interest
thegreatapologist 1 day ago
As to whether or not people share in real life, they most definitely do. I don't have a cell phone. When I need really need to make a call (which is rare) I'll ask someone if I can borrow their phone, and they'll give it to me, let me make the call, and then take it back. Sharing is a moral virtue that is practiced, just perhaps not as much as it should. Also, what about all the volunteer work? What about the fact that there are more charitable donations in america than in the whole world?
thegreatapologist 1 day ago
I think this is the most damaging aspect of libertarianism because it goes farther than it needs to. People have trouble accepting libertarianism because of this supposed conflict with their moral virtue that objectivist philosophers propose. But in reality, objectivism can mesh very well with generosity being a moral virtue, for two reasons:
1. As you grow wealthier, your ability to be generous increases.
2. As each individual is an end, assisting individuals has inherent value.
thegreatapologist 1 day ago
Wow, I am amazed this is exactly what is needed!
Thank you so much for this upload and speech.
BellTollsForThee 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
The state capitalist system promotes brilliant, creative and wholly selfish people to succeed, while a free market system would support the first two qualities but not necessarily the third. Things like open source programs, ebooks, online blogs etc... demonstrate this. Giant corporations simply would not exist because competition would be too tough, a state would not protect their "personhood"/limited liability, they'd have no access to subsidies or be able to make regulations work for them.
forrestcrow 1 month ago
For example, how far would Steve Jobs and Bill Gates have gotten if there was no state to protect "intellectual property"? Market discipline would enhance equity and cooperation, albeit via individual self-interest. That's the fatal flaw of Rand's philosophy: it ends with selfishness and that's it. However, as I see it: markets are good for you and they're good for me, and this empathetic recognition is a virtue. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, though brilliant, are corporatists and statists.
forrestcrow 1 month ago
@forrestcrow There is no such thing as a "free market" if there is no protection of individual rights. The right to property is among them, and the protection of intellectual property is one of its most important facets. It ensures that creative individuals are guaranteed the benefits of the products of their own minds.
AlexanderLee1 2 weeks ago
@AlexanderLee1 Property rights (though I prefer occupational-based over what we recognize now) and the freedom to organize are in sharp contrast to patents and intellectual copyright as they create artificial scarcity via state coercion. That has nothing to do with market discipline! What IP does is give creative individuals state power to monopolize the market. Minus such power, such individuals are forced to be MORE creative to profit off their ideas.
forrestcrow 2 weeks ago
Ayn Rand's philosophy only has meaning in a state capitalist context. If you had a true free market in which the state didn't intervene, nobody would be part of a corporate type structure when they could be part of a more cooperative structure. The reality of the situation is that markets are ultimately determined by self-interest, Rand is absolutely correct, but the John Galts of the world could never have obtained the power they had in truly decentralized markets based upon free association.
forrestcrow 1 month ago
Did you guys know that Ayn Rand used Social Security and Medicare during the last few year in her life? What a greedy hypocrite.
CaptainRidley 1 month ago
@CaptainRidley It's not hypocritical to act in one's own economic self-interest when your entire philosophy is based on the view that rational self-interest drives economic decisionmaking. Opposing the policies on a theoretical level and receiving the benefits for which you were taxed for decades are two different things. Straw man argument.
jusnelso 3 weeks ago
There are so many holes in this philosophy that I never know where to start with Ayn Rand. The difference between market assigned value and actual value? Maybe that is where it all begins. If you allow the market to dictate societal norms, then you no longer have a rational society.
Melthornal 1 month ago
@Melthornal So the alternative is letting government determine value? On what basis do you believe that a few central planners will be any better at making that determination than individuals thinking for themselves? The reason why free markets further human dignity is that they accommodate for the RELATIVE values that different people place on different things. You have refuted nothing, and the history of the USSR in fact proves that the alternative is far less rational and efficient.
jusnelso 3 weeks ago
@jusnelso Classic example to prove my point: There is a school for young children, a preschool. The school ends at 4pm, and all parents are instructed to pick up their kids by 4:30pm. A small number of parents are always late, and pick up their kids at 4:45, 5:00 or even later, at the expense of the teachers who are staying on their own time to protect the young children. So the school implements a new policy, you are charged 30$ each time you are late. What do you think happens?
Melthornal 3 weeks ago
@Melthornal I'm going to guess that parents either pay the fee or respond to the incentive and pick up their kids on time. Either way, it is an example of the market correcting itself. But to take your example further, you are talking about the public school system after all, which is essentially a government monopoly. People free ride on free public services all the time. The problem you cite is an example not of a market failure but of what can go wrong when there are no market incentives.
jusnelso 3 weeks ago
@jusnelso No longer are the parents who are chronically late at picking up their children alone in being late. Now nearly all the parents are late. All of them have decided that it is easier to pay a small fine than it is to rush from work or whatever to pick up their kids. This is an example of the market having the opposite consequence as expected, and perverting a situation. A market cannot maintain societal norms, not even those which are required for basic societal function.
Melthornal 3 weeks ago
@Melthornal Ok I didn't see this second comment at first. But again, if parents are willing to pay the fine, and the school believes this is an adequate amount to compensate them for their extra trouble, why is this a bad thing? It sounds like an efficient market solution to me. If this fine is not enough to incentivize being on time, the school can raise the fine. That's how the market works. The market isn't a way to enforce or create social norms. It is a way to maximize efficiency.
jusnelso 3 weeks ago
@Melthornal In fact, the example you cite is far from a normal market transaction in many respects. Ordinarily, when someone sells a good or service they set it at a price that they believe will make people want to buy it. Here, the school tried to set a price that they thought would discourage people from buying the service. That of course backfired because that is not how these sorts of transactions are supposed to work. Deterrents are not the same thing as incentives.
jusnelso 3 weeks ago
@jusnelso Everything you just said could have been better said with the following statement: "You are completely correct and I completely agree with everything you just said."
Melthornal 3 weeks ago
@Melthornal If only that were what I had been saying. What you meant to say was that is what you wish I had said. Declare victory for yourself and I will do the same. This clearly isn't going anywhere.
jusnelso 3 weeks ago
@jusnelso You agree that the market cannot do anything other than grow economy. Which is exactly what I said. The market cannot ever give people rights, protect the people, or help the people in any way other than growing wealth. You agree with this. That is my point. In order to have a functional society, you always need forces external to the market to control everything the market cannot control. If you don't have these forces, you cannot have a functional society.
Melthornal 3 weeks ago
Today I saw two thin grown men take about six hours to till a very small piece of land. I took photographs as they labored in the mud. They wrestled with two hand carved wooden plows that were pulled by two water buffalo. I will gladly send you a digital copy if you wish. It is very thought-provoking. They planted rice on the small plot, before leaving for their huts, exhausted. (Philippines)
JosephHuntington 2 months ago
Yaron is fantastic! He does a great job of applying objectivism to current issues.
fender7802 2 months ago
reason is not madness! and I'm not mad for believing in reason!
republicunderground 2 months ago
At the end of the day any system be it facism,capitalism,socialism still lives in the monetary system. Thus the creation of jobs is a necessity for them to survive. if a system continually takes away more jobs than it creates it will fail. Period.
ethcage 2 months ago
If I'm short on capital and need to find someone who will trade with me the thing I have to trade is my labour. I need someone who is willling to exploit me, on terms I am willing to settle for. Like most others I'd like to be able to command greater compensation than most I meet might offer. I can hold out until I've talked to everyone I have the strength and ability I have left, until I'm near starvation if I choose to.
356pla 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Truth about Ayn Rand slate.com/articles/arts/books/2009/11/how_ayn_rand_became_an_american_icon.html
kropotkinbeard1 3 months ago
Moral defence but no mention of exploitation of workers. No mention of wasteful use of finite resources. I agree that the perfect society would be free of goverment but also free from the market. Individuel freedom and collective freedom is not something that can exist in a free market society because someone will always be exploited and be forced to work without having a self interest share in it other than basic necessities for life. This is not what i would consider personal happiness.
riber99 3 months ago
@riber99 How do you define exploitation?If you are a welder and you work in the construction industry and you have the capacity to engage in the same work for a different company,you have the roght to change you employment circumstances.Individuals are responsible for their own personnal happiness not government or employers.It is easier in a free market economy to pursue your own self interest to improve your social,economic circumstances .Life,Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
damfst23 3 months ago
@damfst23 I do not agree that it would be easier to pursue your own self interest to improve your social,economic circumstances in a free market economy. It would indeed be alot easier if you were guaranteed basic necessities. This is what Maslow's hierarchy of needs shows us. In a free market system the worker will always be the one competing for jobs, i know you wont agree with that.
riber99 3 months ago
@riber99 As tech evolves the need for labor will decrease and therefore we will always be in a position of a surplus in the workforce. This would if you look at basic economic models mean that the wages will fall and the employers will be in the strong position and will also be able to exploit. exploitation simply means that you force a person to stay in employment by using force or economic pressure etc.
riber99 3 months ago
@riber99 The worker is forced to work for less than what he needs to make a living because of the of losing his job. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is not determend by accomulation of wealth.
riber99 3 months ago
@riber99
The worker works for what his labor is worth, not for what he 'needs'.
MrSouthernWolf 3 months ago
@riber99 one thing my friend is robots can take the menial stupid jobs, but people can always re train and become the people that design these bots, or program them. Get new training
wowzinger 2 months ago
@riber99 You're incorrect.
The increase in technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it merely reallocates them. The person that used to operate a switchboard at the telephone office didn't simply become unemployed for the remainder of their life when switchboards became automated. They retrained into a new career. That career may or may not be as good as the one they had, but that is entirely up to the ability of the individual.
This is true for everyone.
gsh341 2 months ago 14
the only way that your argument holds any value is if technology creates more jobs than it takes away on a continuous basis. I just dont think that is the case.
ethcage 1 week ago
@ethcage No, you're misunderstanding the situation. Technology doesn't need to create more jobs, the people just need to retrain into a different job. The switch board operator might become a receptionist and the guy that used to paint cars for an automaker in Detroit might have to paint houses or work for a body shop.
As for the new automated switchboard or the robot painter, someone needs to manufacture them and maintain them, so new jobs were created with those technologies.
gsh341 4 days ago
@riber99 People who claim that technology reduces the need for labour; aren't they called Luddites?
SpellboundSolution 2 months ago
@SpellboundSolution Perhaps, but luddites were against tech. I´m not if that´s what you´re implying.
riber99 2 months ago
@riber99 "the worker will always be the one competing for jobs"
mckinsey(dot)com/Insights/MGI/Research/Labor_Markets/An_economy_that_works_for_US_job_creation
That study found that 40 percent of companies surveyed have had openings for six months, while 64 percent reported positions for which they cannot find qualified applicants.
Employers can't find qualified workers just as much as workers have trouble finding jobs. I blame the government for failing in its role of education.
HeyItzMeDawg 2 months ago
@HeyItzMeDawg Government failed in it's role in education?
Why should government be blamed? Government has no true role in education! The role government has assumed in education is not only unconstitutional, but morally wrong as well.
If you want to assign blame, look at yourself and those around you that allow the government to make your kids into mindless, but useful, idiots.
gsh341 2 months ago
@HeyItzMeDawg I´ve seen the research. But doesn´t this call for free education like we have in many european countries. And yes government is to blame for not implementing free education. But in the book "Worse than Watergate" it is mentioned that it is at government policy to keep people uneducated so that they are easier to control. Can´t remember the words precisely but it was said by Bush. Apologies for my grammatic errors. English is not my native language.
riber99 2 months ago
@riber99 Liberals are babies.
juicyappleish 2 months ago
@riber99 Maslow shows no such thing. What it shows is the stages required to achieve self-actualization. Those stages MUST be achieved by the individual through their own effort or they have not really been met, have they? If you rely on me for food and water, you cannot have security since I can threaten you with denying you those things. However, if you learn how to provide them yourself and work to secure them yourself, how can I deny them to you?
Maslow's first two stages are now met.
gsh341 4 days ago
Now that you have secured food and water, shelter will be no problem either since you have the strength to find create it. Now you can find a mate and be sure to provide for your family as well. Thus the third stage is met.
The fourth stage is achieved as well since true self-esteem and confidence are born of ability and security, not by having those provided for you.
Now you have the strength and confidence to achieve your full potential. With that the fifth need is met.
gsh341 4 days ago
@damfst23 But in a free marcet economy you don´t take into account Bordieu´s theory on capitals and social heritage. These take away the notion that we all have equal opportunity.
riber99 2 months ago
@riber99 "because someone will always be exploited and be forced to work."
By, the way, this is a fact of life. Nothing happens if you don't work for it; the fact that people will always have to work if they want to sustain and/or improve their living conditions is not a problem inherent to the free market, but a scientific fact: you can't conjure up food or clothes with the power of your mind. Either you have to work to produce it or someone else does.
HeyItzMeDawg 2 months ago
Wonderfully enlightening.
Paul1564566 3 months ago
I found funny how someone that thinks so high of ayn rand acepts donations on a video about her.
novepe 3 months ago
@novepe "I found funny how someone that thinks so high of ayn rand acepts donations on a video about her."
Why? Rand's view of charity was that there is nothing wrong with charity when the recipient is worthy and when you can afford the donation. It is a marginal issue an not a moral duty or primary virtue.
tinyurl c7t7zbc
Non-profit organizations are fully compatible with Free Market Capitalism so long as they are funded through voluntary contributions. (not gov't taxes)
zardozcs 3 months ago 9
@zardozcs ok, sure
novepe 3 months ago
Shit, why does if have to be someone with a speech impediment??? This is impossible to listen to. It's almost like a sick joke or something. "Let's see, I sound like Elmer Fudd...what should I do for a living?...I KNOW - PUBLIC SPEAKING!!!"
YJohannM 3 months ago
@YJohannM Sounded great to me.
WarVideo 3 months ago
@WarVideo I'm sure I would find the transcript excellent. I also have a hard time listening to Rothbard's videos. I don't find his voice quaint, I find it annoying. I very much enjoy, and prefer reading his words.
YJohannM 3 months ago
@YJohannM You're right, foreign people shouldn't ever speak because their accents are different. Way to zone in on the essentials there.
You'll probably make a big deal of his 'r's... my point still stands: he's an expert in his subject, has credentials as a professor of finance and has made a productive career from investing. You're making a fuss about a non-essential as an excuse for not listening to something that you don't like but aren't able to critique.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism I actually agree with all of it. Just have a hard time listening to the goofy voice. You should also consider that almost EVERYONE who isn't familiar with reason and logic is probably thinking the same thing as well when they listen to this. This guy should stick to books perhaps. Get a more "listenable" person to advocate for truth.
YJohannM 3 months ago
@YJohannM 'almost EVERYONE who isn't familiar with reason and logic is probably thinking the same thing as well when they listen to this'
If someone isn't familiar with reason and logic he is beyond helping... no matter how clear one's voice.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago 2
@StudentOfObjectivism You are probably correct...but I think the probability is a little different; and would be MORE in favor with another presenter. Perhaps aesthetics shouldn't matter, but it does..
YJohannM 3 months ago
@YJohannM Oh well, alsot, he doesn't have speech impediment, he's from Israel thats his accent.
WarVideo 3 months ago
@WarVideo That's a joke right? This guy sounds almost like "Babba WaaWaa" and Tom Brokaw. I've always thought a massive joke was being played on the consumers of "media" with those two.
YJohannM 3 months ago
@YJohannM no
WarVideo 3 months ago
Fantastic video! Thanks for this.
mkloppel 3 months ago
Yes, free markets work.
For a couple of people. Come on people, most people on this planet are starving, how can you make this argument when regulation has decreased. If the free market can't feed most people, it doesn't work! You forget to participate, you need money, to have money, you need a job. Jobs are not provided, therefore not everyone will have money, therefore not everyone will be fed. It automatically creates social stratification and you know that means poverty. Fuck that!
punkwasher 3 months ago
@punkwasher Given that we have relatively free markets (although decreasing in "free" every day), I think it has done a decent job in feeding people in the United States. I'm sure we are still regarded as the riches nation on earth too.
Also, I don't think you need money to make money. That's why you get a "job." :). There, you just made money without money.
So, jobs are not provided, but you think government can create a job comparable to the "free market" one right? If not, what's the diff?
GeminiK 3 months ago
@GeminiK Doesn't feed everyone in the States. Have you not been paying attention? There are tons of people starving in this country. Besides, I was thinking more on a global scale, to which the American population is way in the minority, but still we appropriate more resources than any other nation. That's greedy. Besides, the trend has been more work done by less people for less pay, which is what happened to me. Out of a 4 man team I am the only one left now.
punkwasher 3 months ago
@punkwasher "Starving" is probably, IMO, not as bad as "starving" in Africa. Even so, since you obviously think it's an important issue, we should only focus on the welfare of the United State's economy. Other people can wait until there is no more "starving" people here.
Btw, do you happen to know how we appropriate resources?
Also, there are less jobs out there, but I heard it was the fault of socialism for making life hard on employers.
GeminiK 3 months ago
@GeminiK I agree, this country should focus on itself. We need more infrastructure, which is socialism btw, you obviously need to do some research on that, because socialism doesn't really affect the job market, besides socialism sponsors soldiers, firemen and police officers. If anything it makes it easier for people to keep jobs and maintain a certain standard of living. As for the resource appropriation, we use more than twice the amount of oil that China uses.
punkwasher 3 months ago
@punkwasher Socialism seems to do good, but I think it isn't free. How do we pay for it?
On appropriation, I was wondering more specifically, how, who, when, were, and which resources? Are they bought, or stolen?
Apologies for this question, but I think it has to be asked: Don't you think it's selfish to focus on this country while other people in the world are so much worse off?
GeminiK 3 months ago
@GeminiK Taxes pay for socialism, obviously. That's why we also kind of need to tax the rich, because they have almost all the money. As for the appropriation, I'm not sure on the method, but as for oil, we just might have some deals with Saudi Arabia and buy most of the oil on the planet. I do think it's selfish to focus only on our country, but we don't really have the right to interfere with other country's policies, as shitty as they might be. A global resource based economy might help.
punkwasher 3 months ago
@punkwasher And if you tax the rich you only drive them out of the country or force the burden of taxtion onto the middle class once the rich have put their money into tax heavens - which I don't blame them for doing so. Do you want to destroy the country you live in? That is what socialism is doing. And please explain what a resource based economy is. People constantly go on about it yet fail to explain it coherently.
danwhittle 3 months ago
@punkwasher Then what we say to you is that if we lived in a truly free market - whereby the government played a minimal role and their was only spending allocated for the protection of rights - nobody would stop you from supporting the causes you would like to see helped. Do you think you, yourself, have to be forced to pay tax in order to benefit others because you'd fail to do so voluntarily? That, if the case, and if the case with others, is a fault of your own, not the rest of society
danwhittle 3 months ago
@danwhittle Society is a cooperative effort, we're not going to go anywhere as a species with a mine is mine mentality. I work to improve the lives of other people, in whatever minor way I can already, but right now we have a society that funnels most wealth and resources into the hands of people and organizations that destroy people and planet. If we don't enforce charity, no one is going to do it. Besides, I like my taxes going to a safety net. I don't like them going to war and corporations.
punkwasher 3 months ago
@punkwasher First of all, your taxes go to war and corporations. In a free market, they wouldn't go to corporations - so you'd be better off. Society is only a cooperative effort in the sense we mutually come to terms in order to benefit each other by firstly benefiting ourselves. You are putting equality before freedom and by doing that you negate freedom. People should be born free and have the opportunity to become equal, not the other way around. You cannot have both, it's unrealistic.
danwhittle 3 months ago
@danwhittle I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think you didn't think this all the way through. The corps lobbied to have those subsidies and the war. They profit from it. This is what happens to capitalism. Eventually, someone with the most money takes a hold of it and it seizes being the opportunity you proclaim. Remember when our economy was booming why that was? Because the wealth was more evenly balanced. So I guess you want people to benefit themselves to the point where no one else can?
punkwasher 3 months ago
@punkwasher I'm not American, I'm British (I assume you're from the states). Corporations only exist and have monopolies and the power to lobby governments because governments give them subsidies from tax payers money. That's not true capitalism, it isn't a FREE market. Those corporations are only lobbying to look after their own self-interest, and who blames them? Government give them the power to do so by not proving the roles they should provide: the protection of rights.
danwhittle 3 months ago
@danwhittle I love England, just by the way. But what you're describing sounds to me like the corps are doing pretty much what they want, almost as if... unrestricted. They've taken a hold of the system, so yeah, it's no longer free for us mere mortals, but again, that's what happens in capitalism. Someone gets all the money and then takes a hold of it. How to we prevent that? Decentralization of power, redistribute wealth and money as money is but quantified power.
punkwasher 3 months ago
@punkwasher As I've said, cooperation exist because of government and taxpayers' money. That isn't capitalism, it's socialism. It's centralisation of power, bigger government and the picking and choosing of the right to prosper in business by ways of bailout of subsidies. Tell me, what right do you have to take my money and give it to others in order for people to be equal? I'm losing out then, in a freemarket, although people may be poor, they have the opportunity to become rich...
danwhittle 3 months ago
@danwhittle You live in England, get free health care because of socialism and you still make arguments like that. I'd rather have the government use the money because they are supposed to be non-profit. You just don't want to share, admit it. You're completely independent of mankind and you created the wealth single-handedly. All generations previously did nothing to create a basis for wealth, no, that was all you, right? The problem is that sometimes it isn't enough until you have it all.
punkwasher 3 months ago
@punkwasher You can admit that too next time you're held up at gun point, its not sharing its stealing. And if sharing is so good, what is wrong with the rich sharing in your wealth? You earn what you worked for and thats what you get paid for, the fact that i can do my work with a machine that somebody else invented does not negate the work i did. The person who made the machine got paid for it. The only thing that he has to worry about now is idiots like you trying to take away his profits.
WarVideo 3 months ago
Its unrealistic to ask people to be born equal, it's only right for them to be free and have the opportunity to become rich while not being prevented to achieve their goals in life so long as they do not harm other people. Put it this way: if a human being turns down work - the way in which they survive - even though they are perfectly capable but just lazy, what do I or anybody owe to this person? If they refuse to work they refuse to live and they will die. Once they begin to starve, they work
danwhittle 3 months ago
@danwhittle It's a simple but very ethical point. Not enough characters to convey without sounding so crude.
danwhittle 3 months ago
And no, of course I don't. I want to live in a society where the individual is put before the collective; where if you work hard, if you apply your skills and live rationally, with yourself being your highest value, you will achieve great things for yourself and subsequently for others. I don't want to live in a world where banks are bailed out by governments when they should be allowed to fail and die - whatever the costs, as that is what they deserve.
danwhittle 3 months ago
@danwhittle Well, that's the world you live in. That's the way we've been doing things for millennia and it ain't going to change if we don't explore radical alternatives. I know the libertarian approach sounds cool and fun because it's all about me me me me, but the human species is about us. Staying the course is OBVIOUSLY not working. I'm tired of the same old capitalist libertarian take what's yours approach argument. As a society, we've tried that. It was called the feudal ages.
punkwasher 3 months ago
@punkwasher I'm sorry, but you clearly have no idea what self-interest and selfishness is, nor free market, capitalism and libertarianism. We have never had a truly freemarket. If you can find me an example, that would be great, but you won't. Socialism isn't working... Please tell me how you think my life is to be lived for others? I can tell you it isn't. It's disgusting how people like you believe that to be the case. How dare you.
danwhittle 3 months ago
@punkwasher The thing is with people like you is that you ask others to live for one another, but people like me, we don't ask of anyone but ourselves. You are forcing your ideal on others whereas all I'm advocating is freedom; with you negating that freedom with the advocation of socialism, altruism and equality. It's a nice idea, but it's not realistic.
danwhittle 3 months ago
@danwhittle I guess it's survival of the richest then. All the people in power got there because they were SO restricted in what the did, right? Now they're forcing their ideas on us. NO NO, please, we're not free enough to take it all! Some people still OWN stuff we want! How can that be? I worked hard, I deserve that share of your wage that would afford you health care! Yeah, that's the idea. I need more workers, but don't want to pay for them, let's starve some third world country! HOORAY!
punkwasher 3 months ago
@danwhittle So needles to say, I'm tired of this discussion. We know what centralization of power and wealth looks like, but I'm still hearing people arguing for it. I'm not arguing for any known system, I'm arguing for a reorganization of everything. I can't do it alone, that's why I seek confrontational arguments. I will engage the other side and try to see their merit, but it's the same old argument over and over and it's already been tried. Want deregulation? How about child labor?
punkwasher 3 months ago
@punkwasher Talk about being vague and not defining your terms, you don't differetiate between political power and economic power, you just lump them together as if they were the same thing. Offering someone money for their car is not the same as threatening somebody with a gun for their car. Also, you want a reorganization of everything but not based on any system, so by what standard do you judge how something is reorganized? You can't do it without an abstract framework.
WarVideo 3 months ago
@WarVideo YOU can't do it without an abstract frame work. Check out the Venus project for an idea, that may not be perfect, but it's WAY more progressive thinking than I'm used to from mankind. No one forces anyone into welfare, it's just is the right thing to do.
punkwasher 3 months ago
@punkwasher Change for the sake of change with no clue of what youre advocating.
"How about child labor?"
Sure why not.
WarVideo 3 months ago
@punkwasher "I work to improve the lives of other people"
And that, my friend, is why you won't succeed with what you're trying.
fab006 2 months ago
@danwhittle taxation*.
danwhittle 3 months ago
@punkwasher Free markets do not create poverty, poverty is the natural state of man, unless you produce.
WarVideo 3 months ago
Which selfish interest is this guy pursuing by giving this talk? By definition all action is selfish, because it has value to the actor. What is valuable is subjective. What is in you self interest is a personal aesthetic theory. The free market is not about aesthetics but about morality, which is objective. Large corporations and unions are constantly lying and deceiving all the time to protect their government privileges. Lying is in their self-interest.
alalelalex 3 months ago
@alalelalex "By Definition all action is selfish" No. This is psychological egoism and was refuted by Nathanial Branden in his essay "Isn't everyone selfish" If you truly are interested to know I suggest you read Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness which contains this essay and much more besides. Lying is definitely not in one's self-interest as you proposed.
zardozcs 3 months ago
If the government protects property rights, then that is socialized property protection payed by tax money. So that is not a free market anymore. If it is not payed by taxes but by voluntary contributions then it is not a government.
alalelalex 3 months ago
Very well spoken. My only issues is the comments on Gates/Microsoft. At a birds eye view the statements are accurate. However I believe that any company that acquires others for the sake of destroying superior tech in order to make it "disappear" is not working in their own self interest. It's sacrificing long term gains for the short term, and not at all rational.
Bouncelot 3 months ago
Yaron Brook has delivered a great lecture. Any one who wants to fight for capitalism needs to hear Dr. Brook's arguments and spread them. Everyone knows that the capitalism is the most productive system in history, yet we are losing the fight. This lecture explains the reason and the persuasive power of a morality based on reason.
HenryS1957 3 months ago
One communist didn't like this video.
dedalus1983 3 months ago
Absolutely brilliant. Thank you, Dr. Yaron Brook.
FilipinoObjectivist 3 months ago
Is it a rule that to be associated with Objectivism you have to have a vaguely foreign accent? lol Yaron Brook's speech was great tho.
BigDaddyDJD 3 months ago
This is fantastic.
tkloppel 3 months ago
#ybrook, just because something is illegal, it doesn't mean that it's bad......
allmanjoy 3 months ago
lol 9:50... the iPhone joke!
Not sneering, it's a good joke. It's just that for those of us that have listened to a lot of Yaron Brook's talks, that joke is a little old.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism Not only the joke, but the entire speech. He has made this speech at least two times before from what I have seen on youtube.
AlexanderEBott 3 months ago
The only problem I have with Objectivists is their slavish devotion to Copyright.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland Interesting use of the word 'slavish'...
You realise of course that if a man can't copyright his idea then he is deprived of the opportunity to make profit from it... other people can steal his idea... he becomes a slave to his inferiors.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
Oh man. . . I feel another anarchist debate coming on.
qtutoringhelps 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism Incorrect.
An individual ALWAYS has the one perfect monopoly, their own labor. They can CHOOSE when and how to release their work.
The statute monopoly of copyright has nothing to do with the originator of an idea, it only restrains and restricts others who have nothing to do with the original release.
Just like every other govt granted monopoly, it is destructive to human imagination and invention.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism Slavery is to be entitled to the work of another.
If an inventor does not want to share there invention, they are free not to do so. They are slaves to no one.
A writer can give out copies of their work with explicit contracts that the work may not be shared. And that way, languish in obscurity for eternity.
Or you can look at history, at how no one claims the work of Shakespeare as their own, at the Creator Endorsed Mark, and realize that copyright is a lie.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland If I can interject with your discussion with SofO, isn't it that an individual is entitled to the ownership of the fruits of his labor? And, isn't it that he may then sell his product at whatever price he likes? And, if the fruit of his labor is an idea, shouldn't he be able to deal with it in the same manner as a physical product?
If it's good for people to profit from what they produce, shouldn't they be entitled to do the same with an idea that wouldn't exist otherwise?
GeminiK 3 months ago
@GeminiK Indeed, which is why it is theft to take something from someone.
The problem with copyright is control of OTHERS.
If I violate my contract with you and give away your book, for example, how can you have a claim on the person to which I gave that book? The violation is mine, for contract violation, not a third party who was never aware of the contract at all.
Mises and Baen have had the same results with publishing UNPROTECTED ebooks, sales of paper books goes UP.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland If I buy a book, I then have the right to give it away. There is no breach of contract in the preceding case. So, if I have the right to give away the book whether it's sold or not, then how does copyright affect the price of the book?
Could it be that you mean someone else doesn't have the right to profit from the book, given that it is obtained from the original publisher? But, then how is it that re-sellers exist on Amazon if that was the case?
GeminiK 3 months ago
@GeminiK "If I buy a book, I then have the right to give it away."
Yet if you give me a book, and I use the words in that book, I am guilty of a crime for something I never bought, never signed a contract for. That is what I mean about binding 3rd parties.
Copyright is a restriction upon OTHERS, not the author.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@GeminiK I'm not disagreeing with you that authors and artists deserve to thrive because of their work. That's why I whole heartedly endorse the "Creator Endorsed Mark", just as Tolkien told American fans to "Please buy only the officially authorized volumes" and his fans did.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland I'm still unsure how copyright prevents me from using the knowledge of the book, given that it has been obtained from the publisher or third party re-seller. I mean, isn't that the purpose of publishing a book in the first place, so that others may "use" the good they payed for (or not if it was given)?
GeminiK 3 months ago
@GeminiK Restricting your use of the material is what Copyright is all about. If you do not believe you can be restricted from the use of the ideas, then you don't agree with copyright at its most basic.
Copyright, btw, was invented to prevent the spread of "unapproved" ideas, by making it illegal to print copies of books without permission.
It was created as a form of censorship.
Germany, which did not have copyright, flourished while England languished.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland that is some very bad reasoning on your behalf. contextless and non-essential, as well as being deduced from unstated premises
cooljool1 3 months ago
@cooljool1 Would you care to refute any of it, or just throw crap from the sidelines?
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland That is about as effective for most people as asking for donations. All the supposed models anarchists endorse for artists to be able to make a living are less than a hundredth as effective as copyright (closer to a thousandth). I speak from personal experience.
Panpiper 3 months ago
@Panpiper "are less than a hundredth as effective as copyright"
I have no doubt that govt granted monopolies are much easier to make a living with than without. After all, that's why vested interests lobby govt to pass laws in their favor, rather than finding out how to do it through voluntary interaction.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland And I suppose that you think having a government paid police officer to protect the property of the fruit seller constitutes a "government granted monopoly" of the fruit seller to his fruit.
Now you will go off on a wholly separate obfuscation of the above, by talking about how the digital artist is not loosing his work if someone copies it, as opposed to a fruit seller actually loosing fruit.
Panpiper 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Panpiper "And I suppose that you think having a government paid police officer to protect the property of the fruit seller constitutes a "government granted monopoly" of the fruit seller to his fruit."
Yes. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Living off of tax money, collected at gun point from others, is wrong. It is wrong no matter how well justified the ends seem to make the means of coercion.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland Someone is flagging your posts as spam. It is not me. I wish they would not. Silencing discussion, even heated discussion, benefits no one.
Panpiper 3 months ago
@Panpiper "Someone is flagging your posts as spam."
Thank you for pointing that out. Sadly, I've seen it happen before when an unpopular view is voiced in a venue where many zealous folks would take offense at the position itself rather than just ignoring it.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland Let me get this straight, are you an anarcho-syndicalist, who does not believe in private property at all? If you are, I'll stop debating with you, because there is no ground for debate; you would simply be an utterly naive idealist who needs a few more years to wake up. But I do not think you are, you sound much more like an anarcho-capitalist, at least with regards to atoms. With bits, you are a pure communist. That being your defining characteristic of property; atoms/bits.
Panpiper 3 months ago
@Panpiper "who does not believe in private property at all?"
I believe in private property and voluntary interaction. Obligations on someone are wrong if they are not knowingly and voluntarily accepted.
So I have no problem with an author putting an "end reader license agreement" on the purchase of their book with lots of restrictions. I hear that some Harvard professors are doing that in their classes.
Copyright creates a legal obligation on third parties. That is why I object to it.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@Panpiper "Now you will go off on a wholly separate obfuscation of the above..."
No, I won't. It's clear you've already dismissed the fact that you still have all your "digital" works while the apple seller does NOT have the apple.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland I do not produce my work for my own benefit. Just because 'I' get to look at my work is not sufficient motive for me to have invested a million dollars of my own money and 15 years of my life producing what I have. I produced my work because it was of enormous value to other people, value they were willing to pay for before they discovered they could simply 'take' it for free. Now that they simply take it, I can no longer produce that value.
Panpiper 3 months ago
@Panpiper "I produced my work because it was of enormous value to other people, value they were willing to pay for before they discovered they could simply 'take' it for free. Now that they simply take it, I can no longer produce that value."
Labor theory of value again.
Your work has no market value if no one will buy it, it doesn't matter what YOU think it's worth, or what it was worth yesterday, or for what reason no one wants to buy it.
It's a failed business model. That's all.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland People used to be willing to pay good money for my work. It then had value defined by the subjective theory of value. Now because they can steal it for free, all of a sudden it's value is the result of a labor theory of value? By that logic, if I can get away with stealing something, it's free, and anyone who says the contrary is asserting a labor theory of value because their claim of ownership is based on their labor and capital having gone into it.
Panpiper 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Panpiper "all of a sudden it's value is the result of a labor theory of value?"
No. Your assertion of "value" because of your labor is the Labor Theory of Value.
That your business model has failed because of changes in technology and culture has nothing to do with value.
"By that logic..."
Since the basis of your speculation is false, your speculation is also false. QED.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@GeminiK Of course it's good for people to profit from their efforts, which is why depriving them of their work is called "theft".
But a copy does not deprive anyone of anything except "possible" profits.
Such potential future profits means that I, for example, have a prior claim on the property (money) of others, merely because I write a book which I believe would sell. How can I do that without enslaving others?
Defense of Copyright requires the Labor Theory of Value.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland Do mean that selling the rights of a book to a publisher should be a one time transaction? What if the clause is added that as a condition to the sale of the book the writer wants a specified amount of money per book sold? But if there were no copyright laws, a second publisher may the copy and sell the book with out paying the writer the amount he asked for with the first publisher. If it's the case that no publisher may sell the book without authorization, wouldn't that=copyright?
GeminiK 3 months ago
@GeminiK Whether a book contract is a one time deal or not is up to the contract. To assume that I know better than the author and writer is just as bad as assuming that I know better than anyone else what their business is.
What you're ignoring is fraud. Someone who sells a book saying "The author has authorized this copy" without the author actually authorizing that copy is fraud, and deserves to be prosecuted for that.
Such does not require copyright.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland Apologies in advance if you addressed the issue in your previous replies. Didn't see them while righting the response to the comment preceding lol.
GeminiK 3 months ago
@GeminiK It's cool.
I can suggest "Against Intellectual Monopoly", "Against Intellectual Property" and many writings of Stephan Kinsella if you want a more deeply intellectual argument against Copyright.
For me it's all about control of others. If I can control what other people do with an idea, then I own them. They are my slaves.
Another way to look at it, why don't we pay royalties to the heirs of the inventor of the wheel? Expiration is just another arbitrary rule. It's all arbitrary.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland Ok, will note down those works. I did posted one more question if you like to answer it :). It's ok if it's redundant because it's in the works you cited.
GeminiK 3 months ago
@CurtHowland You have an idea for a movie. Do you now have a movie? If Peter Jackson spends a billion dollars on a movie epic and you watch it, do you now suddenly have a billion dollar epic because you have the 'idea' of it in your mind? Viewing a movie does not mean you 'own' it and can now give it away for free. But you doing just that does in fact destroy the producer's ability to profit from their labor and capital.
Socialism destroys that which it would steal.
Panpiper 3 months ago
@Panpiper "If Peter Jackson spends a billion dollars on a movie epic"
Labor theory of value.
"Socialism destroys that which it would steal."
Exactly why I oppose the Socialism that is copyright.,
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland The digital product of my labor and capital is the common property of all man kind, that to you is freedom. My insistence that the product of my labor and capital is my own property that I have the right to control and profit from, that to you is socialism.
Wow. Great doublethink. Orwell would be so proud of you.
Panpiper 3 months ago
@Panpiper "The digital product of my labor and capital is the common property of all man kind, that to you is freedom."
No.
I said I oppose statute copyright. That is all.
Everything else you are making up and pretending as if I said it.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland You know perfectly well that is the precise effect of your moralizing. For you to turn around and say that is not exactly what you intend is a BALD FACED LIE, and you bleeping know it. At least have the bleeping honesty to admit to your truth.
Yours is a purely utilitarian argument. 'You' cannot figure out how to protect my property without government, so for convenience, you will just adopt the position that the product of my labor and capital is not property at all.
Panpiper 3 months ago
@Panpiper My, you are emotional.
I haven't lied at all. I oppose statute copyright for exactly the same reason I oppose slavery. Both impose obligations on people who have not accepted those obligations voluntarily.
Now if you can define how that is a "utilitarian" argument, I would love to see it.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland It is irrational to expect the shop owner whom you are evicting from his property to be non-emotional it when you tell him that he has no right to profit from his shop, that in fact his shop now belongs to everyone. I have been absolutely destroyed by the culture of "if it is digital, it is free" and every time I have complained, I get 'your' philosophy regurgitated.
Panpiper 3 months ago
@Panpiper "when you tell him that he has no right to profit from his shop"
Please, good sir. Where did I say that?
Again, your failed business model is not my problem. If you can't figure out how to make profits in one business, try another. Then you can do what you enjoy doing as a hobby, just like other people do.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
Laws against murder have not been agreed to voluntarily by people. Those laws are imposed by the state. Do you therefor support murder?
Panpiper 3 months ago
@Panpiper "Do you therefor support murder?"
Non sequiter.
Yes, I oppose statute laws against murder for exactly the same reason I oppose statute laws about anything.
It does not follow that I "support" murder.
Murder is harming someone.
If my performing a play you believe is based upon your book has harmed you, prove harm and collect restitution.
If I publish that same book under my name and claim it as my own, that's fraud. Easily proven, and the buyers deserve restitution.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Panpiper "Wow. Great doublethink. Orwell would be so proud of you."
So let me ask you, why do you support govt enforcement of the statute "copyright"?
Do I get a "chair-right", that if I build a chair no one else can build a chair without paying me?
If I cannot have "chair-right", how can you support "copyright"?
Lastly, in my opinion, the reason you like copyright enforcement is because you benefit from it at the expense of others.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland Ah yes, and the farmer benefits from his production of grain "at the expense of others" because they incur expense paying for it.
If you make a chair, you certainly do have a chair right, at least to that chair. If you invest labor and capital to invent an entirely new approach to the design of chairs, then you certainly do have a chair right to that approach. I am sorry if it is inconvenient to the purity of your extremist philosophy.
Panpiper 3 months ago
@Panpiper "and the farmer benefits from his production of grain "at the expense of others" because they incur expense paying for it."
I'm sorry, who are you quoting?
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland I am quoting you; "The reason you like copyright enforcement is because you benefit from it at the expense of others."
Panpiper 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Panpiper "I am quoting you"
No, you're not. I said, "in my opinion, the reason you like copyright enforcement is because you benefit from it at the expense of others."
Copyright depends upon coercion against third parties. A farmer selling his produce is a voluntary interaction between specific individuals.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland "Why do you support govt enforcement of the statute copyright?"
I don't. I am an anarchist myself. I can envisage a mechanism to support copyright utterly devoid of government force. And exactly how to do that is absolutely irrelevant for the same reasons that it is irrelevant how roads will be built without government. It is an ethical argument, not a utilitarian one.
Your anti-copyright stance is a purely utilitarian argument. You don't know how to do it, it cannot be done.
Panpiper 3 months ago
@Panpiper "I can envisage a mechanism to support copyright utterly devoid of government force."
I can think of several methods myself for supporting "intellectual" producers too.
Best of luck, hopefully you can figure out how to monetize it without the use of coercion.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland As long as the government holds a monopoly on 'the commons' and an 'unfair' competition with 'enforcement' my idea will have to sit on the backburner.
Panpiper 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Panpiper "my idea will have to sit on the backburner."
Yes, govt regulations create a great deal of inefficiency, preventing innovation.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland I have spent the last 15 years making a living and employing several people creating IP that people 'used' to be willing to pay for before piracy became ubiquitous. Now, if I produce anything new, I loose a ton of money every time due to people simply downloading it for free. Accordingly, all my staff are now unemployed, all my work is old, and I am on an Atlas Shrugged strike versus all these putative 'anarchists' who insist the product of my labor and capital is theirs for free.
Panpiper 3 months ago
@Panpiper "I am on an Atlas Shrugged strike"
That is an excellent idea. If your business model fails, it's good to move on to doing something else which is more valuable.
CurtHowland 3 months ago