Comments (59)

• Bala

  This "Random Thought" just reminds me of a very interesting aspect of human behaviour. That is the tendency to make more and more mistakes to cover up an initially made mistake. That's much like the statement "Oh! What a tangled web we weave when we first start to deceive."

  You make one bad choice to oppose IP and then make many more really miserable and stupid sounding statements to buttress your initial claim.

  Now to this random thought... Anyone with a basic understanding of the science behind the creation of progeny would acknowledge that parents do not create the child. They just have sex. Fertilisation is something that happens. It happens when a fertile sperm meets a fertile ovum. The rest is nature. These things happen inside a woman's body but they are not controlled by the woman. Or by the man whose sperm fertilises her ovum.

  So please. Let's cut the nonsense out and get on with some sensible points.

  Published: September 5, 2009 8:21 PM

• newson

  what about home-renovation? is not permission required from the architect-god? absent specific clauses denying architects enduring, injunctive rights over design-changes, then this is where randian creationism logic leads.

  oops, there goes half the building trade. no matter, we'll fill up the gaps with architects and lawyers.

  Published: September 5, 2009 8:37 PM

• S.M. Oliva

  "You make one bad choice to oppose IP..."

  How do you know it was a choice? Maybe I was born this way...

  Published: September 5, 2009 8:41 PM

• filc

  What if it's the women's intention to conveive a child? She knows the only way she can accomplish this is by having sex. If her intentions are to create a child, she owns the tools to do so,(her body, her organs) then how is she NOT making a baby? It's like saying a carpenter who uses a hammer did not actually make those cabinet's the hammer did.

  Also you've named human organs that function. They are owned and operated by the person. A heart is an organ, as is the egg, sperm, or liver. Saying that those organ's are separate and not apart of the women's body is folly.
  

  Fertilisation is something that happens. It happens when a fertile sperm meets a fertile ovum.

  The sperm and egg are the property and ownership of the women and man. Therefore they use these tools which they own to create a baby. So Stephen's argument is completely sound and your completely in lala land. Unless I misconstruied what you were saying and didn't read into your satire.

  Published: September 5, 2009 8:43 PM

• Andrew T

  I don't know if parents would have intellectual property rights for their children, but it could be argued that as both creators and responsible guardians of their children, they do in a sense "own" them. This "ownership" would continue either until the child reaches legal adulthood, or moves out to live on their own, whichever comes first.

  RT Bala: I'm not completely familiar with Mises Institute's position on IP. It could be argued, though, that you could have IP rights through private contracts, like software agreements that prohibit you from reverse-engineering the code. I don't know if Mises Inst. is against all IP, but there is certainly a case to be made against having gov't as the monopoly provider and enforcer of rights (IP or otherwise).
  

  Published: September 5, 2009 8:44 PM

• newson

  flic, stephen's giving ip-bashing a break for the weekend. skip's grabbed the baton.

  Published: September 5, 2009 8:57 PM

• filc

  haha! I should have looked to see who posted that. My apologies to S.M Olivia

  Published: September 5, 2009 9:01 PM

• Bala

  filc,

  " What if it's the women's intention to conveive a child? She knows the only way she can accomplish this is by having sex. If her intentions are to create a child, she owns the tools to do so,(her body, her organs) then how is she NOT making a baby? "

  This does not come under the term "creation". It comes under "production". That's why we use the term "produce babies".

  Incidentally, this post is one of the best ways of showing how your (IP opponents') approach to Rights is completely flawed. I'll soon be posting on that on SK's blog. To put it in succinct terms in this context, the child, once born, is a human being. You now make the choice of whether you want to talk of ownership of human beings. Thanks.

  Published: September 5, 2009 9:38 PM

• Renegade Division

  There is an argument raised by pro-IP Objectivists(which is directly taken from copyright chapter by Ayn Rand), which goes on like the reason why creator of IP reserves a right to extract a share of revenues from you, when you put his IP on your physical property and try to sell it.
  According to Rand that is justified because your property was valuable only when the Intellectual Property was put down on your property(like when you printed Atlas Shrugged on your paper, only then the paper got the value).

  Although it sounds like a legitimate argument my reply to that argument is simple, if putting your IP raised the value of my physical property and that's why I am responsible for giving you a share from the profits(even when we had no previous agreement of such sort) then you should also take the share of the losses. After all that's how pretty much every profit sharing deal is done in a capitalist society. Nobody shares profits unless losses are shared too, any implicit contract embedded in the theory which forces an individual to share the profits but not the losses is wrong.

  So when I print 10,000 copies of Atlas Shrugged and they don't sell, all that paper has gone useless so Ayn Rand's estate must pay me the price of the wasted paper.

  Similarly if I must pay the creator of IP when I put his IP on my property and create new value, since all values are subjective, what if I don't intend to sell my property, clearly I don't owe anything to IP holder as I am myself not profiting from his intellectual property.
  So under Randian argument all copyright violations done through P2P are perfectly ok as long as there is no commercial usage.

  Or in simple words Rand suggest a license similar to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license for all IP rather than the current form of Copyright.

  Published: September 5, 2009 9:51 PM

• Peter

  This does not come under the term "creation". It comes under "production". That's why we use the term "produce babies".

  I hear people use the term "make babies" all the time. I'd bet it's far more common that "produce babies"!

  Published: September 5, 2009 10:19 PM

• jc butte

  My random thought. When they circle the wagons, its a pretty good sign they are losing the battle.

  Second random thought...with western civilization in decline and US in particular, aren't there bigger fish to fry?

  Published: September 5, 2009 10:51 PM

• Rob Mandel

  I am still uncertain as to all the intricacies of IP and I do see much in the anti argument but also appreciate that there is some "property" to IP. It appears to me that there isn't a clear cut black and white issue here as with real, tangible, scarce property. So, I pose a couple of questions as I don't know how it fits in with the IP debate.

  I purchased two books recently, Meltdown and Hamilton's Curse. Both magnificent and well worth the money paid for them. Actually rather a bargain I'd say. Anyways, I gave the books to my father to read. No problem.

  What if I scanned the pages and posted them on my website? What if I photocopied the pages and gave them to my high school or college students to read?

  Would Mr. Woods or Mr. DiLorenzo find such actions acceptable? (And again, thank you both for outstanding works!!)

  Thanks.

  Published: September 5, 2009 11:38 PM

• newson

  to rob mandel:
  i'll present to you an alternative non-ip scenario. scanning is legitimate and widespread. woods and di lorenzo's works become even more widely read, demand for places at their public lectures increases, the cost of attendance goes up accordingly. and book sales (maybe autographed editions sold at the lectures) sag only slightly (many diehards still prefer the tactile pleasures of paper).

  mises.org free-download policy hasn't sent its bookstore broke. scanned books and paper books, despite having the same content, aren't all antagonistic. there is complementarity.

  Published: September 5, 2009 11:50 PM

• newson

  to renegade division:
  i like your equity loss argument. a lot of perfectly good paper gets ruined by ink. time for a randian redress.

  Published: September 6, 2009 12:14 AM

• filc

  I always thought the words Create and Produce were more or less synonym's. I don't know how productive arguing the semantics of it would actually be.

  Published: September 6, 2009 12:36 AM

• filc

  Second random thought...with western civilization in decline and US in particular, aren't there bigger fish to fry?

  The fed :)

  Published: September 6, 2009 12:40 AM

• newson

  little fish are sweet, and easier to catch.

  Published: September 6, 2009 2:00 AM

• Shay

  Apologies for responding to the first flame posting. I've changed a few words in the posting to yield this parody that I hope makes a point: "Now to this random thought... Anyone with a basic understanding of the science behind the mental function would acknowledge that people do not create the thought. They just eat and breathe. Thought is something that just happens. It happens when various chemicals combine in the brain. The rest is nature. These things happen inside a person's body but they are not controlled by the person. Or by the food and air that power the process."

  Published: September 6, 2009 6:45 AM

• jon

  creation is an act of god, so i would say no. humans invent and discover, but that's about it. they're not creators.

  assume otherwise for a moment. how do you demonstrate that any reason to procreate ever came into play? randians believe -- and i use the term believe purposefully -- that since you are self-owning, any idea you have, which is a part of you, also belongs to you.

  but they have no explanation for god, they just deny him. the fact that the majority of people are believers in one way or another? that's not evidence, you see, they're just all extremely mistaken.

  fine, leave them to it. but how do they explain the difference between ideas-becoming-cortlandt and the labor theory of value? i do not see one.

  Published: September 6, 2009 10:51 AM

• Scott Lazarowitz

  Self-ownership begins when the human being begins, which is at conception, regardless of how the human being was created. The parents can't own that individual, even if their actions and "tools" led to its existence.

  If you believe that a human life begins at some other point, then you might as well just place some line at whim along the being's full development, and say, "NOW you own your life, but until then your parents own you."

  Published: September 6, 2009 11:01 AM

• John Donohue

  first of all: SPLAT on your hideous suggestion of one human owning another. Shut your mouth.

  Second, what the hell is up with you? Why are you obsessed with separating creators from the fruits of their soul?

  It smacks of nothing less than bitter envy and the worst kind of soul greed.

  This is why Miss Rand had a special rung in hell for libertarianish/anarchistish flatheads: their special hatred of producers and creators.

  Published: September 6, 2009 12:09 PM

• Brad

  Law of the conservation of mass.

  Babies are not created. :)

  Published: September 6, 2009 12:12 PM

• Ray Birks

  When a new human being is created, I can see the father and mother being contributors to the process but not the ultimate drivers of the process.

  The father has effectively abandoned his sperm, so he can no longer claim ownership of it.

  The mother's egg has already been abandoned by her body by beginning the familiar monthly descent through the fallopian tubes. This egg would otherwise be discharged unless:

  The gametes recognize one another and, if successful, link up. If all goes well during the nine months, the resulting child makes its way into the outer world. The mother may push, yes, but guess who kept hanging around for nine months until deciding it was time to leave?

  While the parents do indeed expend some (and even a great deal of) labor to raise the child, it's hard to think of it as someone else's property when it is its own internal processes that performs the ultimate magic of creation.

  I can handle the Rothbardian sense of temporary ownership or first guardianship of the child (rather than the state or other secondary claimant), but once again, when the child decides it is time to leave, the parents must give up any claim to even temporary ownership.

  Published: September 6, 2009 7:00 PM

• newson

  john donohue says:
  "This is why Miss Rand had a special rung in hell for libertarianish/anarchistish flatheads..."

  isn't "hell" a little too religious a concept for an objectivist?

  Published: September 6, 2009 8:03 PM

• Rand go home

  There is no such thing as creation out of nothing.

  Patents are truly ridiculous because they hinder people to use their property.

  If one is a supporter of intellectual monopoly rights (called "intellectual property" rights by those) than he has to accept that this notion includes the pov that it is superior to real property rights.

  Remember:
  "He who owns the pattern owns the substance"

  Published: September 6, 2009 8:14 PM

• Troy Camplin, Ph.D.

  Bala is entirely correct. Parents do not create children. Parents have sex, fertilization occurs, and the child is generated through self-organization. There is no intentionality in the same sense as invention. Certainly, one may intend to have a child, but one cannot choose the timing, traits, etc. in the same way a poet can choose the words, rhythm, rhyme, etc. as the poet intentionally creates his poem. In other words, the random thought/objection is logically invalid. Two completely different uses of the word "create" are in play, which is where the logical error occurs.

  Published: September 6, 2009 8:40 PM

• John Donohue

  It is against my religion to waste any more time on the parasites here.

  To any creator/producers reading this: those demanding to take from you your wealth by force as a right think you will keep right on producing.

  Remember that.

  As in most things, Ayn Rand was chillingly, shockingly correct.

  Published: September 6, 2009 9:16 PM

• newson

  to any producers/creators reading this: there is no automatic right to monopoly profits for what is between your ears. use your talent, and not the crushing force of the state, to create a business-model that prolongs your economic rents.

  don't socialize enforcement costs.

  Published: September 6, 2009 10:26 PM

• John Donohue

  and with no legal right to my own works, my "talent" would then require smashing into your bedroom to take a sledgehammer to some CDs you used after cracking my anti-piracy scheme?

  breaking into every bookstore and buring copies of my books I did not authorize to be plagerized.

  sending my goons violently into drugstores to confiscate a drug I designed but who's manufacturing secrets were stollen by another goon from your team?

  That's all moral and legal, right?

  Such are the stripes of anarchy.
  The crushing force of the mob.

  Published: September 6, 2009 11:30 PM

• John Donohue

  Again, to any Objectivist reading....this is what comes from not having a philosophy that identifies man on as a being of volitional consciousness. The blank out leaves open the door of force. Anarchists have a virulent, vicious hatred of the idea of a state whose only purpose is to rectify violations of man's essential requirement for life: the protection against his mind and body being forced. They therefore declare man without rights, which means open season on violence.

  That someone could call a state which initiates no force -- yet deters and rectifies force -- as 'crushing'...what is the alternative? You are looking into a black hole.

  Published: September 6, 2009 11:46 PM

• Gil

  On the other hand, what's stopping the parents from presenting the child with a bill for all the expenses consumed and the child can't leave until he or she has paid the bill? Likewise why can't a slave owner claim ownership in a child whose parents were his slaves? All material required in creating a child belonged to the slave owner. What if the slave owner won't free the child until he pays off his expenses which would happen to be impossible because the slave will never be able get into a position to pay off the debt?

  Published: September 7, 2009 12:39 AM

• newson

  anarchists don't believe in thought control. randians seem to think that they owe nothing to all those from whom they learned, whilst demanding economic rent from all those who learn from them.

  that sounds fair.

  Published: September 7, 2009 4:30 AM

• Bala

  John,

  Nice to see a few sensible words. However, I don't think giving up is the right choice. The correct thing to do is to completely break down the "arguments" of the moocher mentality that rails against the concept of IP. I am working on it in the middle of my other work. I will soon do that.

  You are absolutely right. These (anti-IP) guys, by failing to recognise that man is a being of volitional consciousness, completely miss the meaning of the very concept of rights. No wonder they are not able to see the moral foundation of IP. This is what comes up when economists and lawyers sit down and try to act like political philosophers.

  Published: September 7, 2009 10:16 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  those demanding to take from you your wealth by force as a right think you will keep right on producing.
  
  This is two ideas. The first one begets the question: who is using force? The person who makes a copy of a cd? Or the person who arrests/fines him for it?
  
  The second part is definitely a legitimate concern, but once again, this goes back to Stephan's point in the Concise Guide post: Is IP protection truly beneficial to society? Perhaps without it, we wouldn't be deluged by so many second-rate stories and music. Or perhaps without it, only the better creators would get paid, as they would be recognized for their superior efforts. I'd like to see a real argument made for IP, instead of so many assumptions, assertions, and people trying to pretend that the benefits of IP are obvious and self-evident. Alternately, simply answer Stephan's arguments, instead of simply being outraged.>
  
  While I have concerns about how things would work without IP protection, I'm surprised by the continual flimsiness of the arguments by IP supporters.
  

  Published: September 7, 2009 10:48 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  Anarchists have a virulent, vicious hatred of the idea of a state whose only purpose is to rectify violations of man's essential requirement for life: the protection against his mind and body being forced. They therefore declare man without rights, which means open season on violence.
  
  Actually, I am very much a supporter of individual rights, and it is this that led me to becoming an anarcho-capitalist. But I'd really like to see a state that is limited to rights-protection--where does such a state exist? How can such a state exist? Objectivists usually fail to explain these little details...
  

  Published: September 7, 2009 11:54 AM

• Bala

  Michael A Clem,

  " where does such a state exist? "

  Nowhere. Whoever claimed it exists or ever did exist somewhere? It is an Ideal. Just as Capitalism is the ideal economic system we strive for though it has never existed anywhere at all.

  " How can such a state exist? "

  Wrong question. The correct one is "How will it work?". I should confess the answer to that either does not exist or is incomplete. However, if the intellectual laziness to try to figure that out means a choice of anarchy, that is rank stupidity.

  Published: September 7, 2009 12:05 PM

• John Donohue

  Mr. Clem,

  The person stealing my CD and selling it or giving it away is initiating force. He is forcing my mind. A government agency reacting to that violation is not initiating force, only rectifying the original violation.

  As to "is IP of benefit to society", you (or Kinsella) are positing at best a minor peripheral pragmatic contestation when the patient is lying bleeding on the table. Start by respecting the intellectual property rights of the creator as a moral right by desisting from disarming his self-defense. The 'real argument made for IP" is the one I am making: the creator owns his idea by the nature of reality. Anyone attempting to block government function to protect that property from theft is a looter and champion of looting. That's all the argument needed.

  P.S. Do the anti-IPs actually make the argument "perhaps without it, only the better creators would get paid, as they would be recognized for their superior efforts."? That can't really be possible, can it? That stripped of proper government protection of intellectual property, the world would only steal bad products but would voluntarily pay for the good ones?

  P.P.S If you wish to discuss the "benefit to society" contributed by properly protected intellectual property rights -- only after acknowledging the moral and legal correctness of protecting it -- perhaps it will help if you grasp that when an Objectivist calls someone a producer, they do not mean "someone working for the benefit of others." We mean someone who's motivation is to produce wealth for himself. We have observed -- as a sidebar -- that the existence of producers does, yes, result in peripheral benefit to a civilization. Additionally, a producer can only conduct business with other producers, to the enrichment of both. This has a tendency (irony) to produce producers. So, I was speaking producer to producer; 'take notice, these anti-IP people are agents of the anti-Mind.'

  Published: September 7, 2009 12:25 PM

• John Donohue

  Bala, go for it.

  Do you understand the situation with the von Mises Institute? I do not. Was von Mises himself an anarchist? Or has his legacy been co-opted by these anti-IPs?

  Published: September 7, 2009 12:33 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  Silly of me to not recognize that Objectivists don't make the common, pragmatic argument for IP. But to say "the creator owns his idea by the nature of reality" is terribly vague. As someone else occasionally points out, nobody can own an idea--it's only when the idea is fixed in some format or medium that you have a creative work or creative product: a novel, an invention, a compact disc, etc. It's discovering the proper way to protect these things that's important, and laws that restrict what a person can do with his own, personally owned property is the wrong way of going about it.
  
  Really, you seem to have just jumped into this, but Stephan has presented several serious arguments, including the one that creation is neither necessary nor sufficient for property rights--I'm simply trying to provide different viewpoints and perspectives to get a handle on it.
  
  And at least you do, in this last post, make the distinction of selling or giving away copies of cd's--I'd be terribly disappointed if you said that I couldn't make copies for myself.

  Published: September 7, 2009 12:40 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  Nowhere. Whoever claimed it exists or ever did exist somewhere? It is an Ideal. Just as Capitalism is the ideal economic system we strive for though it has never existed anywhere at all.
  
  Good answer, Bala, but it's one thing to have an ideal, and it's another to hold to a logical contradiction--I believe we went over the definition of a government in a previous thread. So, what's the definition of a "state", and how does that differ from a government?
  
  Wrong question. The correct one is "How will it work?". I should confess the answer to that either does not exist or is incomplete. However, if the intellectual laziness to try to figure that out means a choice of anarchy, that is rank stupidity.
  
  Laziness? No, my choice of anarchy was not laziness, but merely recognizing it as the ultimate, logical conclusion to the non-aggression principle. And I didn't come to that conclusion overnight, but over a period of several years. You see, the minarchist idea is to give some people coercive powers over other people, and then to somehow find a way to limit their uses of that power to only do "good things", like rights-protection. But once you've given them that power, there is no way to effectively limit their use of it. The only answer is to not give them legitimacy, that is, to not legally grant them that power in the first place.
  Rights-protection in an anarchist society takes some figuring out, too, but we shouldn't let intellectual laziness make us choose the easy way out and think that having an "ultimate arbiter" is a just or reasonable solution to the problem.
  

  Published: September 7, 2009 12:55 PM

• Bala

  " Rights-protection in an anarchist society takes some figuring out, too "

  Wrong issue. Actually what needs to be figured out is why Anarchy will not slip into rule by might. All arguments given for that so far appear flimsy. My (and the Objectivist) position is that it is in the nature of Anarchy to degenerate into tyranny. If you are selling anarchy, it is your responsibility to prove it won't.

  Published: September 7, 2009 1:07 PM

• Bala

  John,

  " Was von Mises himself an anarchist? "

  Actually, I think not. In Human Action, he has writting against Anarchy. He has denounced it in clear terms. Just because elsewhere, he has recognised the Individual's Right to Secede, these guys seem to have hijacked Mises into their arguments.

  In any case, I have posted my detailed position on 2 threads, both by SK (his two recent ones). Do feel free to add to it. Thanks.

  Published: September 7, 2009 1:11 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  Was von Mises himself an anarchist? Or has his legacy been co-opted by these anti-IPs?
  John, Mises was not an anarchist. But his legacy is Praxeology, which is not incompatible with anarchism. if anything, the Austrian economists are the most free market school in existence, more so than the Chicago school.
  And the anti-IP view is not universally held by Austrians, but I think some compelling arguments have been made and poorly answered. Also, the libertarian anarchists or anarcho-capitalists (market anarchists?) are a different breed from the traditional left anarchist-types, precisely because we fully support free-market capitalism (but not the necessity of the state to protect it). But again, not all Austrians are anarchists, either. Just to give you some more context.
  

  Published: September 7, 2009 1:15 PM

• Bala

  John,
  The 2 blogs on which I have posted are

  "Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars"

  "The case against IP: A concise guide"

  The latter is on the September archives.
  

  Published: September 7, 2009 1:24 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  My (and the Objectivist) position is that it is in the nature of Anarchy to degenerate into tyranny. And the reverse can be said, too: it is in the nature government to degenerate into tyranny (assuming it didn't start in tyranny, that is). The fact that all current governments far exceed the minarchist ideal means that you have to sell minarchism to a lot more than just us anarchists. If you like, consider anarchism as an ideal, too: a society where rights-protection doesn't require any initial rights-violations.

  Published: September 7, 2009 1:36 PM

• Bala

  Michael A Clem,

  " a society where rights-protection doesn't require any initial rights-violations "

  That such would be the case in the ideal government that we Objectivists visualise is a figment of your imagination. You are attributing to my ideal government tendencies of existing non-ideal governments.

  Oh please!!! Exercising force against a competing PDA is not considered initiation of force by us Objectivists. We consider the competing PDA immoral. So please think before you use it.

  Published: September 7, 2009 1:42 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  Bala, this is so close to finding the dividing line that it's almost too painful to think about. Yet, it seems to go back to the ultimate arbiter idea. You don't think that using force against a competing PDA is wrong, even if the competing PDA has not initiated force?? The mere existence of the other PDA is immoral? I will not willingly live my life for the sake of an ultimate arbiter, no matter how many people disagree.
  

  Published: September 7, 2009 2:14 PM

• Bala

  Michael A Clem,

  An ideal Objectivist government run on objective law based on an objective selfish morality would never be an ultimate arbiter. It would not even have the power to do so. It would be so dependent on you (each individual) that it could not even launch aggression against innocent individuals like you.

  I do agree that the choice is tough, especially if you have taken a strong stand for years, but it helps to think from a selfish moral long-term perspective.

  Once again, all the best in making the choice.

  Published: September 7, 2009 2:29 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  Well, Bala, you're talking in riddles and other vagaries. It cannot launch agression against innocent individuals, presumably because innocent individuals have not violated Objectivist law, yet it can attack competing PDA's because the mere existence of a competing rights-protection firm somehow does violate Objectivist law? Or are you assuming that a competing PDA would necessarily vary from Objective Law?
  
  Yet the idea of such law behooves us to ask how it can be achieved. How can all that is Right and True and Just become vested in just one organization without precluding the existence of any competing PDA? Yet how can Objective Law be derived within one organization, and accepted by society at large, and not be subject to experimentation, trial runs, and other variations? For that matter the very existence of a "government" that doesn't violate rights (except for its holy monopoly by virtue of its Objective Law) calls into question once more the definition of "government".
  I'm reminded of some lines from a Joe Jackson song: "They say two hearts should beat as one for us. We'll fight it out to see it through." I think it is much more likely that a common or customary legal procedure, with the proper economic incentives, and without coercive power, will tend society towards an objective standard, not Perfect Objective Law, but a reasonably close approximation, especially the longer the process functions. Obviously, there would be some differences, but these differences would be due to differing circumstances involved, and thus not truly a case of conflicting laws. This seems much more realistic and viable to me for imperfect human beings. The right process provides the right incentives, both for individuals and for the system.

  Published: September 7, 2009 3:06 PM

• Bala

  John,

  SK is beginning to respond on the blog "The Case Against IP:A Concise Guide". Do please join in. I am sure this would be interesting and your inputs (given how clear your ideas seem to be) would indeed add many dimensions.

  Thanks in advance.

  Published: September 7, 2009 3:07 PM

• Bala

  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.

  Published: September 7, 2009 3:17 PM

• newson

  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.

  Published: September 7, 2009 8:13 PM

• newson

  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.

  Published: September 7, 2009 8:24 PM

• John Donohue

  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.

  Published: September 8, 2009 12:00 AM

• newson

  ...or maybe the institute was actually set up by anarchists?

  Published: September 8, 2009 1:47 AM

• Bala

  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.

  Published: September 8, 2009 5:00 AM

• Bala

  newson,

  " but then ip depends on legislative uniformity, "

  Wrong. As I have said elsewhere, IP depends on moral clarity.

  Published: September 8, 2009 5:07 AM

• Some dude

  After all, they created them.

  There is a difference between creation and procreation.

  Published: September 8, 2009 10:08 AM

• newson

  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.

  Published: September 8, 2009 6:20 PM