Let’s say that, in fact, creation is a source of property rights. Does that mean parents have intellectual property rights in their children? After all, they created them.
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/10604/random-thought/
Random Thought…
Previous post: Rothbard: The Origins of the Fed
Next post: Imagine This as Kennedy’s Last Speech
{ 59 comments }
← Previous Comments
Michael A Clem,
” How can all that is Right and True and Just become vested in just one organization without precluding the existence of any competing PDA? ”
I am not saying that. I am saying that it is in our long-term rational self-interest to have one Government rather than multiple PDAs. However, Governments of the past have been guilty of an enormous number of rights violations. How are we going to ensure that this Government does not do that? That is the question we need to address.
” Yet the idea of such law behooves us to ask how it can be achieved. ”
By deferring to a rational morality and then developing law that conforms to it.
” Or are you assuming that a competing PDA would necessarily vary from Objective Law? ”
It has to necessarily be different because a rational person who subscribes to a rational and selfish morality would be completely in agreement with the laws of the ideal Objectivist Government. He will have nothing to gain by forming a PDA. He would in fact be violating his own moral code. That would be like choosing life and then consuming poison.
Only a person whose moral code differed from that of an ideal Objectivist Government would try to form a competing PDA.
randians have never loaned friends a book, as that would be an offense against the creator-god (foregone opportunity profit).
they never use public libraries (lest they deprive the author-god of deserved monopoly rents).
…and then they wonder why people caricature them.
bala says:
“I am saying that it is in our long-term rational self-interest to have one Government rather than multiple PDAs.”
concentration of power is anaethema to freedom. federalism was an attempt to limit this. but then ip depends on legislative uniformity, hence randians get drawn into the centralized power model.
the logical end of this reasoning is international standardization of law, to stop copying from migrating to the weakest ip jurisdiction.
Wierd….I DID respond to that thing….Kinsela gave a lame response….and then comments went onto a different page. I guess it is blog anarchy here.
Ok, I may or may not resume. Checking the live thread now.
Very sad the von Mises Institute has been hijacked by anarchists.
…or maybe the institute was actually set up by anarchists?
newson,
” concentration of power is anaethema to freedom ”
An ideal Objectivist government would have little or no “power”. Hence, there cannot be a “concentration of power”. Such talk is absolutely meaningless.
newson,
” but then ip depends on legislative uniformity, ”
Wrong. As I have said elsewhere, IP depends on moral clarity.
There is a difference between creation and procreation.
bala says:
“An ideal Objectivist government would have little or no “power”.
then how would it enforce ip legislation? moral clarity doesn’t, by itself, ensure that laws will be respected. funding is also required.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }