The problem with ideas is that, because they exist independently of our minds, they can be discovered independently as well. Indeed, when several people are working towards a certain goal, it’s inevitable that this will happen!

The standard model is to teach as a professor in a university–but since I have no desire to teach in such a setting, I’m currently stuck as a full-time computer programmer. I *could* look for applications for my mathematics, but such a search could easily take decades–and, unless I’m willing to become an engineer, or biologist, or what-not, I might not have the technical background to find such applications. And then I’ll have to become a businessman–which is something else that I don’t want to be!

I really wish we get compensated for our ideas, or even our labor, but we don’t! We get compensated for producing goods and services that *other people need*. I also want to write fiction, but I have no illusions that I need to practice a lot, before I get to the point where I can begin to make *mediocre* pay! I don’t have a right to earn money for drivel.

I’m confident that some day, I’ll find a model of employment that also gives me the free time to pursue math, or writing, or anything else I darn well wish to pursue. But as someone who wants to write, to experiment, and to play with ideas, what little IP protection I see, promises to limit me more than it promises to help me.

But there are those who propose that the radio spectrum *isn’t* a sparse resource, and that government regulation has inhibited its full potential. What we perceive as “interference” is merely the inability of our radios to focus on the radio wave we want to listen to; once we learn how to do that, the spectrum becomes unbounded.

If, or rather, when that happens, all your arguments for radio spectrum property become *completely* specious!

“The mistake is the notion that creation is an independent source of ownership — independent, that is, from homesteading and contracting. However, it is easy to see that it is not, that “creation” is neither necessary nor sufficient as a source of ownership.”

This is a silly argument against IP. It points out a third way that someone can own something, but says it’s not valid, as it’s not “necessary” or “sufficient”. Forgetting that the two other ways that the article writer accepts aren’t either.

Homesteading is not “necessary” if you have a contractual arrangement. And a contractual arrangement is not “necessary” if you homesteaded. So that creation is not “necessary”, does not invalidate it as a means to property ownership.

Homesteading is not “sufficient” to own property, not when one thinks about it. An overarching societal “contractual arrangement” that has the unspoken but assumed belief that homesteading is valid is needful. A settler can stake out and homestead a farm, but if the society surrounding him is that of 15th century Native Americans, it is doubtful that he will remain secure in title.

Contractual arrangements are also not “sufficient” to own property. I can contract with my brother to own your property, what of it? Was it either of our’s to contract? And do we live in a statist society with courts or a free market society with arbitration agencies? Or a tribalisitic society of illiterate hunter/gatherers who don’t know or care about contractual arrangements?

From this we see that while there are three different means of owning property, none of them are – of themselves – sufficient or necessary for property as such to exist as a concept.

“Creation” as a third means of owning property is as valid as the first two kinds. And relies on the same things. Who had it first? If one does not own the body that he had first, who could? If one does not own the land one made use of first, who could? And if one does not own the product of your mind, who could?

Of course the creation of a book using another pen and paper may give them some claim. Surely no more than the cost of the pen and paper and profit, but so be it. And if you are commissioned to write a book or invent something, then that is between you and your patron. It changes not this, though: That if one creates a new entity, using one’s own property, and are contractually beholden to none, then that creation belongs to them.

If they’ve not a right to it, they having created it and observed this new entity first, who could? Nor in their insistence on being paid for a copy of their literary achievement are they laying claim to your property by forbidding you to use your own pen and paper to copy them.

Consider the obvious – before the bestselling author wrote his latest blockbuster novel, you had absolutely no means of using your own pen and paper to copy that non-existent book. Now an author has wrote such a book. How has your right to use your property changed? You couldn’t use your pen and paper for a bestseller before, and since the author who could wants a fee, you still can’t do it now. There’s been no change in your “right” to use your pen and paper. You may use it just as much as you always could, but you still can’t use it in ways that others can.

Except in one small way – if you like, you can offer the author a payment, and he can show you a brand new way to use your pen and paper, to make a book, a song or an invention. If one is so concerned about not being limited in how they can use their pen and paper, then one would think they would encourage authors to feel safe that they will not be robbed for creating new ways to do so.

One does not encourage food production by waiting until a farmer comes up with a new hybrid of corn, and then insists “Give me some seeds of that, else you are depriving me of my freedom to use my soil to grow as I please.” Spare me. You have the right to offer payment for the new seed, you’ve no right to whine, “I want to do as you, but without the work, and without offering payment!”

Likewise, if you want a new way to use your pen and paper, offer money to those who know how to come up with new ways. But don’t tell them that they are infringing on your freedom to use your pen and paper – they aren’t. No matter how many novels the author rights, no matter how many descriptions the inventor comes up with, your ability to use your pen and paper will not change. You may use it as much as you ever could – and not one bit more.

If you want that one bit more, then break out your wallet. You don’t give your labor away, don’t expect the author to, no matter how many thieves/copiers claim otherwise.

And by the way, if you disagree with me, contact me with your credit card information. Don’t deny me this, I have the right (according to the anti-IPers) to use my pen and paper as I please, and if you withhold your credit card number, you are unjustly laying claim to my pen and paper, and preventing me from using it as I will.

“why I should have ANY concern”

DON’T have any: murder your brother if you feel it’s to your advantage, see how it goes for you. I don’t believe there is a mystical right and wrong; just stupid ideas. I am thankful the vast majority are still more sensible than EITHER one of us, despite what lunatics try to put in their minds. I know, I know, when you have Reason, you act in your own best interest and everything is peachy. What about the billions who aren’t as brilliant as you and don’t have as much time to formulate elaborate first principles? The ones here in America that I know and who fit that description are self-righteously screaming for free medical services.

“would also make interesting reading”

Try opening up some books on world history. Start with ones focusing on societies and communes based on “reason.”

“you imply that the answer ought to be ‘Yes. You are!’….

There is a word I want to call you, but I’m refraining. I am rolling on the floor at your “interpretation”. I have noted this for years: Fundamentalist Christians, creationists, particularly those who would say that the Universe is 6 thousand years old or that God created stars’ entire light beams at that time so that we may see them; they and virulent anti-theists are mirror images of each other: prosaic, overly-literal dunderheads merely with different agendas.

I didn’t say anyone should be a keeper! Refraining from murdering your brother is not being his keeper! Having concern is not being a keeper. Cain is the bad guy here, you understand, HE’s the one…[I'm just shaking my head here. You are hopeless. I give up.]

“feel free…”

What faith?

“entire trust on my mind to figure out right and wrong.”

Yeah, I was really impressed by the results from your rigorous and fair study of whether to support Israel or not. No worrying about you! In fact…I’m joining you! Hey, why don’t we take ‘em further out in the dessert and nuke them savages?! Yaahh hoo! Not back to the stone ages, mind ya, they’re already there! ha hah hahahaha!!!

“My (and Rand’s) simple point is”

You mean simplistic. You two wouldn’t be near so dangerous if you ever got to “half-baked.”

“For instance, when you accept Christian faith…”

Wrong, as per usual. And what if I were a Jew? The concept is not in their Bible, the one I’m discussing. (I’m not either Jew or Christian and to me it says it all about anti-theists that to them, anyone who is being fair about a religion MUST be a member.) MANY, not ALL, Christians INTERPRET things Paul said regarding the Hebrew Scriptures to extrapolate the concept of “original sin”. Never made a lick of sense to me, I think the concept is stupid.

“Unless of course you…” aren’t an over-confident simpleton who doesn’t believe there is a hell of a lot of insoluble mystery in the Universe and in people.

Let me just do your follow-up post for you and then we can wrap this up.

“These are not proper arguments. I am very disappointed that you are stooping to these childish attacks. Now: yada, yada…Rand…yada yada…faith…yada yada…virgin sacrifices..yada yada, yada. Now, I would be very happy if you will explain the world to me, thank you.”

OK, got it. Carry on. No, I’m done, I couldn’t explain a thing to you with a damned 2 by 4.

” This indicated that he was indignant that he should be expected by anyone to have ANY sort of concern for his brother’s well-being ”

Please do tell me why I should have ANY concern for my brother’s or anyone else’s well-being.

” Of course, successful human societies frown on this character’s benighted attitude ”

It would indeed be interesting to see the connection between concern for fellow human beings and the success of a society. I am sure the converse would also make interesting reading.

” Cain MURDERED his brother out of the basest emotions and motives, and when he was asked where his brother was he gave a smart-ass reply: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” ”

How interesting to note that you imply that the answer ought to be “Yes. You are!”. How about saying “No. You are not, but that’s not the issue at hand. I am trying to locate him.” That’s the difference between your position and mine.

Feel free to stew in your faith. I am quite comfortable free of any faith and placing my entire trust on my mind to figure out right and wrong.

My (and Rand’s) simple point is that when you take half-baked ideas on faith, a lot of rubbish comes along with it. For instance, when you accept Christian faith, you accept the concept of Original Sin. I wonder how you justify this abomination that makes every human being ashamed and guilty for being born a human being. I wonder how you will say that this does not declare man’s nature as rooted in sin and vileness. Please try. I am sure to be amused.

The simple point is that at some stage, when man had a more limited understanding of the world around him, religion was a source of Morality, something indispensable for man’s survival. However, the moral code of every major religion is a mixed bag unsuitable for a man to live a happy life on this Earth and live true to his nature, that of a rational animal with a volitional consciousness. Rand’s philosophy of rational selfishness provides a viable alternative moral code to a person who sees man as a noble being capable of heroism. Unless of course you see selfishness as a vice…..

Of course the major religions sprang from human nature (and the minor ones too). What are you saying, a super-natural being (or beings) invented them whole cloth and artificially placed their tenets in billions of minds?

You don’t know what I mean when I said the major religions? You don’t know what those are? You are really trying my patience. I guess I could link you to Wiki with my every reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_distribution.png

Not all faiths are the antithesis of reason.

All faiths could only seem to be “arbitrary diktats” to a very crude and ignorant man, I’m sorry. The great faiths contain much truth. Their tenets were not the result of some scam-artists throwing darts at a dart board with proposed wacky rules on them or whatever bizarre thing you imagine. Also, people use faith every day: HAVE to. I have faith that the builders of my roof were craftsmen and cared about their customers’ satisfaction (safety is a big part of satisfaction). I have faith they didn’t bribe the inspector (I have bordering-on-zero faith in the State’s inspector). No one can spend their lives getting 100% proof that things really are as they think or hope them to be.

Man doesn’t generally suspend his rationality; the average man is barely acquainted with it.

Your take is what I was vigourously mocking with my entire previous post. Your out-of-left-field invention that because the Bible advocates charity and discourages avarice this…I’m not going through it again.

Thank you, I know what “keepers” and “brothers” are (and “camels” too), I’m not fully down with your “man” definition though: I’m not a member of your faith.

You are taking (and as I do a Google search, I see this must be one of Rand’s catechisms) a part of the Bible and applying a boneheaded interpretation. In the story, or parable, or myth, (that is a useful, easy to understand life-lesson teaching tool for those not blessed with your awesome Reason ) Cain MURDERED his brother out of the basest emotions and motives, and when he was asked where his brother was he gave a smart-ass reply: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” This indicated that he was indignant that he should be expected by anyone to have ANY sort of concern for his brother’s well-being. Of course, successful human societies frown on this character’s benighted attitude.

“one of the worst of sinners”

Yes, you are wrong, hilariously wrong; but I’m done giving you my half-assed theology lessons for now, my headache is coming back.

” Check this out, Bala: religions sprang from man’s nature ”

Yes, but not faith-based religions. I don’t know what you mean by religion, but I meant faith-based religion. As I see it, faith is the anti-thesis of reason. To accept a set of arbitrary diktats on faith requires man to suspend his rational mind and hence goes against man’s basic nature – that of a rational animal with a volitional consciousness. I would like to see you explain how it is in line with man’s nature to suspend his rationality.

” as is your bizarre take on these Bible quotes here ”

I have not even specified my take but you have labelled it bizarre. So let me try your approach – defining the key words.

Man – A rational animal
Brother – Sibling
Keeper – Caretaker, person responsible for the well-being of

As I understand it, it does not specify any particular men but refers to man as in every man. Is there any different inference you think I should be drawing other than that it is every man’s responsibility to take care of his brothers’ well-being? Please do enlighten.

Similarly for the other quote. Since it does not specify a particular rich man, I infer that it refers to any rich man. Since the key criterion for entry into heaven is how much (or how little) of a sinner one is, a rich man is automatically deemed to be one of the worst of sinners. If you think I am making a mistake, please correct me. I shall be grateful for that.

I don’t have any handy solutions, plans or hopes. I don’t know what the right thing is for anybody else to do, I only know a couple wrong things for them to do. You’re barking up the wrong tree, Bala. I just spot and mock random violence advocating goofballs to keep from going totally insane myself.

I did read the article you gave the link to. I have just one question (and some supplementaries).

How will you explain the concept of Natural Rights to a person who firmly believes that Man is a creation of God, that his true nature is that of one who seeks permanent union with that God, that the right action in any circumstance is that which takes him closer to that permanent union with that God and that the right action or the way of identifying the right action is defined clearly in one or more specific religious texts that were revealed by his God himself?

To such a person, Moral actions are those that conform to the word of his God. If the pursuit of Liberty and the concept of Private Property conflicts with the word of God, he is bound to see the entire theory of Natural Rights as propounded so far as very practical and reason oriented but immoral. How then is one to sell to him the concept of natural rights and thus the consequent concepts of Liberty and Private Property?

Given that most of the world believes deeply in one God or the other and follows a moral code supposedly revealed by God and given that the Moral Codes of most existing religions are clearly altruistic and do not give a clear postive mandate for ideas such as Liberty and Private Property (e.g., the implications of statements such as “Man is his brother’s keeper” or “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to pass through the gates of heaven”), I think this is a pertinent question.

Replace God with Society and you get the Socialist’s problem in accepting the theory of Natural Rights.

In other words, how is one to sell the theory of Natural Rights to people who see such a theory as practical and beneficial but immoral and hence abhorrent? I am afraid most of the world as it exists today will do so. An answer would be appreciated.

was what I was referring to.

Near incomprehensible to you; well then I must be on the right track, ha ha. You’re the one with the Knowledge around here, I only give opinions and impressions and make calls for others to join me in looking at and searching for more. I didn’t really say what you’re interpreting here. I’ve told you about 30 times now that I am merely against crime. In speaking of crime today, the subject of the State and statists is bound to be predominant in my conversation.

” Here are some other “horrors” as examples since you have such problems understanding clear speech ”

I am not sure if you are seeing it the way I do, but while you think you are clear in speech, I think not (no offence intended). You are assuming a certain knowledge (which may not be possessed) and a certain perspective (which may not be shared) making your posts near incomprehensible.

But thanks all the same for the specific instances you cited.

” The things about the Constitution of the United States that caused George Mason to walk out of the convention; the “Louisiana Purchase”; both sides’ general policies in the CSA’s failed secession; the United State’s insanely idiotic entry in WWI; the creation of Iraq by the the empire America later took over. ”

I think I am once again beginning to comprehend your position.

What you are saying is that the problem revolves around the creation of the STATE of Israel and not Jews living in that region or even moving in as they did in the last 150 or so years.

You are also saying that if the Western powers had not created a whole host of States in the Middle-East (via the Balfour Declaration and its follow-up actions), you would not have had this problem at all. You are saying that the Statists within the Western world have created a Frankenstein that is now well and truly out of their control.

What you are also implying is that the only way out is the elimination of The State (that implies all the States out there and probably in the rest of the world too). If and once that is done, people will have to (and will probably choose to) rely more on social processes rather than political ones (which you see as inherently dangerous and prone to subversion of Liberty) to figure out all issues and disputes.

” Here’s an impressive coalition of “whites” (one in particular) on the scene splashing some gray on your cartoon world: ”

I think he is showing a new “white” rather than splashing grey. He is essentially introducing a new premise which is that the State is inherently evil and that people in general will be better of without it. That’s pretty much in-line with your overall position.

Thanks for all the links. I think I have understood a lot. I guess the next thing I would request is a few links to read Rothbard and his theory of Natural Rights. Couldn’t find the book on mises.org/book. In any case, is the book “The Ethics of Liberty”? Please confirm so that I may go ahead and procure it if it is not available in downloadable version (that being the easiest).

http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/Einstein.htm

“I guess you feel that making a negative characterisation of a group of people identifiable by certain characteristics is racist.”

Bala, you are making a fool of yourself. I rather like you and I wish you would stop. Yes, Bala, perhaps 99% of people would agree with your definition…my god. I actually make a distinction though. You have described “racialism”. I reserve the stronger “racist” for deliberate institutional policies of oppression based on race and the full support of said policies. I’m not sure I would put Rand in that box because of her sloppy thought and speech (apparently endemic to the lot of you). Along the same lines, to try to help you: I reject the dictionary definition of “statism”. My definition is the sensible one based on the root:

state = state
-ism = advocate
statist = Ayn Rand

“I wanted to know which specific horror”

I told you: the insanely idiotic creation of the state of Israel (what on earth is wrong with you?!?). Here are some other “horrors” as examples since you have such problems understanding clear speech: The things about the Constitution of the United States that caused George Mason to walk out of the convention; the “Louisiana Purchase”; both sides’ general policies in the CSA’s failed secession; the United State’s insanely idiotic entry in WWI; the creation of Iraq by the the empire America later took over.

“I fail to see how that is a valid argument”

It is not an argument or intimidation, it is an attempt to understand what in the world is wrong with you.

“why are my questions those of a pro-Israeli questioner?”

Are you kidding?

“Maybe that’s what is causing your headache”

I’ve said this time and again, here goes again: you have an incredible ability to ignore the obvious and invent what pleases you. Your mind-bending take on libertarianism verses liberty and my being faced with answering to it because of my own kookiness: that was the cause, Bala, as I clearly suggested.

“maybe it is the facts that you preferred to ignore while taking your “neutral” position???”

I took my neutral position based on my opinion that the political means is inherently evil. There are thousands of criminals and innocent victims on both sides, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to support either. I also take it on the fact that neither general side has ever done anything to me. I don’t even begrudge the Israeli people that AIPAC is so successful in persuading D.C. to steal my money for their purposes; at intimidating cowards and generally curbing free speech on all related matters. Go ahead and call me an “anti-Semite” now. I mourn for Israelis and the inevitable upcoming loss of their country and their lives too if they don’t get the hell out soon. But it could have been no other way, the creation of the state IS the horror. When our forefathers here picked out their spot for a “homeland”, times were different and they had the isolation, the numbers, the means and the will to slaughter or emasculate ever single male aborigine. Not in the cards for Israel. Demographics: look into the subject, all whacko Israel supporters. (I mourn for us too, we will never stop paying for what was done to the Aboriginal Americans. Don’t read this, Bala, this is for my own amusement and will definitely go WAY over your head. In the final scene of “The Maltese Falcoln” when leaving Bogart’s apartment, Mary Astor, under arrest, takes the elevator down and Bogart, free, takes the stairs down. Israel is Astor, we are Bogart)

“You seem to believe that being “neutral” is a virtue”

It sure is when neither side has done anything to one. It sure is when one doesn’t and can’t have all the facts. It sure is when one can’t know what subconcious idiotic prejudices may influence one. It sure would have been virtuous of U.S. lunatics to grow brains and stay out of WWI, for instance.

“In this case, whatever facts I have been able to dig up indicate that the Israelis are the ‘white’ and the Arabs are the ‘black’”

Yikes, Bala.

“present them so that I may understand…and…maybe even revise mine.”

That’ll be the day. Again, I like you, Bala, you’re crazy, but I like you.

” I was merely asking how your hero came to make such an insanely statist and racialist comment ”

Please explain what was Statist and Racialist about the comment. As I heard it, it was a characerisation of the Arabs who were fighting Israel around 1979. That, I guess means Arafat and his PLO. I guess you feel that making a negative characterisation of a group of people identifiable by certain characteristics is racist. I am not sure I would disagree with her assessment of Arafat and his men. So, if you would please explain yourself….

Oh!!! I really didn’t need the English lesson. I wanted to know which specific horror – the details of it – that you are referring to. Unless of course you do not wish to specify it.

As for refusing to answer my questions, why are my questions those of a pro-Israeli questioner? Is asking what caused specific recorded events or who did specific things indicative of a partisan approach? Elucidation will help.

Finally, about my sanity or the lack of it, I fail to see how that is a valid argument, unless of course you are trying to intimidate me. Now, YOU are getting rather childish in your posts. Sad to see the degeneration. Maybe that’s what is causing your headache. Or maybe it is the facts that you preferred to ignore while taking your “neutral” position??? As Rand said, facts cannot be changed by a wish, but the facts can destroy the wisher.

You seem to believe that being “neutral” is a virtue. I am sorry to say that nothing could be more ridiculous than that. In the choice between right and wrong, neutrality means submission to the wrong. Unless of course you believe that there are no “black”s and “white”s and only “grey”s. In this case, whatever facts I have been able to dig up indicate that the Israelis are the “white” and the Arabs are the “black”. If you have any other facts, please do present them so that I may understand your position and, who knows, maybe even revise mine.

There is no getting around the English lessons, I guess.

“horror: the quality of inspiring horror : repulsive, horrible, or dismal quality or character”

Of course I’m not going to go into any of your questions, all from the position of a pro-Israeli: I’m NEUTRAL! I DON’T CARE!!! (outside of feeling great pity for many on BOTH general sides and please don’t say now: then why did you bring it up? I was merely asking how your hero came to make such an insanely statist and racialist comment. She could have been speaking about the Cherokees and why she thought THEY all had to be COLLECTIVELY shafted and murdered or emasculated) The creation of Israel is to me (that’s: in my OPINION) the most insanely idiotic COLLECTIVE act ever perpetrated by a bunch of statists (state advocates). It will end in far greater horror than what we’ve already seen and I would say “I wash my hands of the whole idiotic matter” if I had ever had anything to do with any of it (other than to be robbed to pay the Israeli and Egyptian governments, among whatever other relevant robberies I’m dimly aware or wholly unaware of.)

Just adding to my set of questions…

Why should Israel talk to Hamas whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel?

Why was the PLO formed in 1964 with a charter to “liberate” Palestinian territory? To my knowledge, Israel occupied West Bank and Gaza in the 6-day war of 1967. What then was the PLO ‘liberating” in 1964?

Is the “horror” caused by the IDF or is it self-inflicted? Why do the Arabs keep electing to posts of power, representatives of Hamas which calls for the destruction of Israel? Does that or does that not make the average Arab in Palestine an eager and active participant in Hamas’ war on Israel?

” btw, there’s no wondering from me why the corrupt-minded like yourself reject liberty ”

Just detected a logical flaw. I only spoke of not buying into Libertarianism. I did not speak of rejecting Liberty. It is now clear who is having comprehension problems. Or is it a package deal you are talking of?

” there’s no wondering from me why the corrupt-minded like yourself reject liberty ”

I am ignoring these meaningless allegations coz they are clearly incorrect.

” can we be neutral on the PALESTINE horror ”

Could you please define what you mean by the “PALESTINE horror”? Specifically, could you please state the causes and the time-line of events? More specifically, could you explain why the founding charter of every group fighting for the Palestinian Arabs calls for the destruction of Israel? Could you explain how Israel has managed to have unbroken peaceful relationships with Arab neighbours like Egypt and Jordan which have recognised Israel’s right to exist while the problem is mainly with other Arab countries that refuse to do the same? Could you explain the causes for the murder of innocent Jews by Arab mobs in 1914, the killings that (to my knowledge) started off the violence? Could you please read up the report of the Haycraft Commission of Inquiry and give me your interpretation? Could you explain the causes of the Arab Riots of 1920-21, 1929 and 1937? Could you explain the odd coincidence that all 3 usually maligned Jewish Defence Forces – Haganah, Irgun and the Stern Gang – were formed AFTER one of these bouts of violence from the Arabs? Could you also try to explain who declared war on who in 1948?

I wonder who is having problems with logic and comprehension. Or are these problems related to refusal to recognise facts?

btw, there’s no wondering from me why the corrupt-minded like yourself reject liberty, it’s just a mystery to me why some are born loving it while most are apparently born slaves.