Kawlinz

Why would anyone want to converse with you about this when asking for a definition is a cop out, irrational, playing games, grade school, and an indication that you don't understand english?

I can but I'm not going to, have fun with your discussion, sounds like you'll make lots of progress.

Kinda pricky, don't you think?

When you're talking about free will vs determinism, you kinda sorta gotta define choice. Economics, not so much.

I don't think that's a fair assessment at all, FWIW. It is rational to define terms.

I've watched the video and I find it only pushes the actual dichotomy further down the line, so to speak.

I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where simply asking if someone needs help (or "do you mind if I give you some advice on X?") can ruin their life. Could you expand on this and give an example scenario?

Good Luck man! Will it be recorded?

Guys, Nathan I believe is making one of those "joke" things.

Aruis has changed my mind on this. I don't think lying can be UPB, and this is just a thought I had to prove it, I might be wrong, but I'll give it a whirl and see what you think... When I say the statement "Lying can be UPB" I'm either lying or telling the truth. If I'm lying, then the true statement would read "Lying can not be UPB". If I'm telling the truth, then the content contradicts the form. Or has this been brought up already?

Food is what's called "non-durable" goods - you eat it, it's gone. A car is a durable good - you drive it, and it's still there. Durability is a distraction from the issue here. Eating a carrot and driving a car are both examples of consumption. A song copy is a durable good, so we can use the example of a car factory instead of a carrot farm, if that will be less distracting. To respond to the carrot analogy, if you plant a carrot top into your own land, you are not trespassing on my property, and you are free to that. The intellectual equivalent would be if you bought a copy of my song, listened to it, then wrote your own different song, then made a copy of your own song. You are incorrect to say, "Unless I sign a contract before I get the carrot, there aren't any restraints on how I'm allowed to use the carrot." You may not take the carrot and stab someone in the eyeball with it. All property rights, including the use of your own physical body, are limited in scope by other people's property rights. I have no desire to continue this conversation.

Are you aware that you're switching your position midstream and saying that intellectual property can be duplicated, whereas before you said that it can't be?And i disagree with this explanation. If I eat a carrot, it's gone. I can't "eat" a song. When I copy the song without your permission, I am creating my own carrots on whatever land I may have. Saying I'm trespassing on a song would mean I'd literally have to extract it from your brain, which I don't. If you play the song, whoever hears that song is getting a carrot, and what someone does with that carrot is up to them. Unless I sign a contract before I get the carrot, there aren't any restraints on how I'm allowed to use the carrot. If I want to plant the carrot top, there's nothing wrong with doing that.

If each is unique and can't be duplicated, then what are you actually making a pro IP argument for? How can you trespass on someone's intellectual property if every "intellectual object" is unique? If you played an original song on the sidewalk at 2 pm and I walk by, then the intellectual object in my head when I hear this song is unique and completely seperate from the one that was in your head. Then the one I think about at 2:02 is different again. Then I go home and make a recording of the song in my head, which is another unique object, and the next day I press up some CDs and sell them on the corner. I play a CD on my boombox (abother unique intellectual object), and you walk by to hear the song (another unique object).What would your response *be* to hearing this song while I attempt to sell it? What grounds could you possibly have to say that I'm doing something wrong? If I have properly homesteaded the object, the song is my intellectual property. From this property can be manufactured products, just as a factory churns out widgets from the assembly line. The use of a "song" for listening pleasure is completely different than the use of a "song" for making copies. They require different hardwares, different softwares, different human labor, different time, and, most importantly of all, they are distinct economic functions. Use of a "song" for listening pleasure is a consumer good, use of a song for making copies is a capital good. Therefore, the song in your head will be one of these two types of objects, depending on what you are using it for at that time. If it is for your your listening pleasure, it is a conumser good, like a widget. If it is for making copies, it is a capital good, like a factory. The widget is your property, and you may do as you wish with it. The factory is my property, stay away without my permission. Your first question does not appear to be written in English, so I can't respond. Inetllectual objects are scarce and rivalrous, therefore rightful property. Copying without persmission is trespass. Trespass is wrong. You're saying "the song" like there's only one, when you've said previously that every copy is a new and unique intellectual object. You said "the intellectual property can not be duplicated" and you also say that "copying without permission is tresspass" - so which is it?

If each is unique and can't be duplicated, then what are you actually making a pro IP argument for? How can you trespass on someone's intellectual property if every "intellectual object" is unique? If you played an original song on the sidewalk at 2 pm and I walk by, then the intellectual object in my head when I hear this song is unique and completely seperate from the one that was in your head. Then the one I think about at 2:02 is different again. Then I go home and make a recording of the song in my head, which is another unique object, and the next day I press up some CDs and sell them on the corner. I play a CD on my boombox (abother unique intellectual object), and you walk by to hear the song (another unique object).What would your response to hearing this song while I attempt to sell it? What grounds could you possibly have to say that I'm doing something wrong?

Why would anyone believe a statement they knew to be false? As far as I know, people only believe false statements when they believe the statements to be true. There's no valid argument that people ought believe false statements. Heck, I can only use "true=ought believe" because the opposite is impossible. Now, if you mean that a person might believe a false statement while imagining it to be true, that is often the case. However, believing a false statement which you imagine to be true is a bit like a gift-wrapped box of poo. The outside appears preferable, but the inside stinks. That is, upon learning that the belief is false, the person will reject it in favor of some other true belief. It's not a contradiction. A contradiction occurs when when two propositions are logically incompatible. You making a "this statement is false" isn't a contradiction, it's nonsense. I don't mean that pejoratively, there is actually no reason in statements which have indeterminate truth values. Let's explode your example (as I understand it) into two propositions: "I don't want to make a true statement"; "I don't want to reveal my desire to not make a true statement". In that case, I can simply say nothing. There is no contradiction as the two propositions are not incompatible. All of UPB is dependent on truth being the preferable condition. Check it out. Why is rape not UPB? Because it cannot be universalized without running into a logical contradiction. Why do I care if the act of claiming rape as ethical is logically contradictory? Because I've demonstrated a preference for truth in this line of questioning, and contradictory logic is the opposite of truth. Suppose I say "But I don't have a preference for truth". Of course, that's not true. The claim "I don't have a preference for truth" is a truth claim...and a self-defeating argument. There's no way around it, if you're gonna make arguments, you prefer true to false. Any claims about what people ought do are gonna end-up being part of an argument. Of course, you may make all sorts of statements without regard for their truth value. UPB is not a guide to what is possible. However, as soon as you start asserting that the irrational statements you have made ought to be believed, you've wandered into a whole world of hurt. People believe things which they imagine as true. If you present an argument with an indeterminate truth value (or worse, a false truth value), nobody should believe you. You're correct that by lying (making false statements) you've ventured beyond empirical statements and argumentation (both are flavors of UPB). It is impossible to rationally argue for non-UPB as something people ought do. It is impossible to rationally argue that people ought to lie (make false statements). Thus, people ought not lie (i.e. if A is not UPB then not A is UPB). I think this is a great conclusion and looks sound. What do you think brought you to the understanding?

Here again we arrive at that same problem. If false is sometimes preferable to true, then why are you disagreeing with me? If my argument is wrong (false), this is one of those times when false is better. If my argument is right (true), this is one of those times when true is better. If this isn't one of those times when the preferability of truth works in my favor, then the preferability of truth always works in my favor. Because this is one of those times when both false and true are better than each other, you should believe everything I say no matter what... See how all that just fell apart? The performance of correcting an argument or making an empirical statement that someone else ought to believe ("Bob is at his house") pre-supposes a universal preference for truth. True and false are such low-level concepts that it is pretty much impossible to argue against true or for false. In fact, I'm pretty sure that "for" means "is true" and "against" means "is false". My point is, even if you make a false statement, you still want the other person to believe it is true. In the act of making the false statement, you're betting on the other person preferring truth. That is, you are demonstrating a non-preference for truth, while counting on someone else having a preference for truth. It doesn't universalize. The universal is either everyone has a preference for truth or everyone has a preference for false. If everyone, somehow, has a preference for false, then no one should believe anything anyone else says (and lying successfully is impossible). If everyone has a preference for true, then people accept correction from each other when a false statement is made. As demonstrated, I reject the "sometimes" condition because argumentation breaks-down during its application. You're confusing things. Your statement was "If you are going to make a statement, which you expect anyone else to believe, it ought not be false" Which is not true, since you can expect people to believe false statements just as well. IF I'm correcting you I show a universal preferrence for truth, that's true. But that only means, that if I lie to someone I'm not really concerned of correcting him or having a debate with him. So every situation that isn't an argument/correction, that standard isn't applicable. (or you need to establish another implicitly true standard, which so far you haven't as far as I can tell.) Also, I don't see how you can say that my contradiction simply has "no truth value", because it self-contradicts (so it basically shouldn't matter), but when you come up with a similar scenario then it suddenly matters and goes a proof that your scenario is the right one. I think you make the basic mistake of having a UPB for a certain context and then apply it to every other context (even if it doesn't make sense there), that's like saying "Using mathematical symbols is UPB when doing math, so we should talk in mathematical symbols" (yeah, that's a bit of an extreme example, but just to show the principle at work) Like "if you debate your show a universal preference for truth, therefore you should prefer truth in every other instance as well". I don't see how that would follow I think the point here is that you're debating right now, so you've accepted it. And any attempt at correcting that statement (like "No, that is incorrect / false because...") is a debate or argument, so you've accepted truth over faslehood. Everyone is able to prefer truth over falsehood, so lying can't be UPB. Is that right? I also want to point out that I enjoyed making the typo faslehood.

The sentence is illogical. Just as-if I said "Right now, I'm lying". I think it's a round-about way of constructing a Godel statement (i.e. "this sentence is false"). Generally, such statements are regarded as having indeterminate truth values, in much the same way an empty or null statement (i.e. " ") has an indeterminate truth value. I think eating broccoli has the same truth value as a null statement, but that's just conjecture. I am sure Godel statements aren't false, I think they aren't true either. As such, if "making false statements" is prohibited, "making statements of indeterminate truth value" isn't. Though, I think that, in a polite conversation, people would think you were crazy if you started communicating in statements with indeterminate truth values. Murderer: "Where is Dave? I want to murder him." Me: "400 Tuesday hat: underground." *Eats broccoli* Here again we arrive at that same problem. If false is sometimes preferable to true, then why are you disagreeing with me? If my argument is wrong (false), this is one of those times when false is better. If my argument is right (true), this is one of those times when true is better. If this isn't one of those times when the preferability of truth works in my favor, then the preferability of truth always works in my favor. Because this is one of those times when both false and true are better than each other, you should believe everything I say no matter what... See how all that just fell apart? The performance of correcting an argument or making an empirical statement that someone else ought to believe ("Bob is at his house") pre-supposes a universal preference for truth. True and false are such low-level concepts that it is pretty much impossible to argue against true or for false. In fact, I'm pretty sure that "for" means "is true" and "against" means "is false". My point is, even if you make a false statement, you still want the other person to believe it is true. In the act of making the false statement, you're betting on the other person preferring truth. That is, you are demonstrating a non-preference for truth, while counting on someone else having a preference for truth. It doesn't universalize. The universal is either everyone has a preference for truth or everyone has a preference for false. If everyone, somehow, has a preference for false, then no one should believe anything anyone else says (and lying successfully is impossible). If everyone has a preference for true, then people accept correction from each other when a false statement is made. As demonstrated, I reject the "sometimes" condition because argumentation breaks-down during its application. I think that's a great insight. It has some weird implications in my head but that's probably some stuff that I'd want to explore on my own. And as I was about to delve into a lifeboat scenario - We're not in one, so it's not important.

Property binds "all third parties", i.e. everyone in the world. This is abosulutely correct, and applies to physical property just as IP. My claim of ownership of my house and my land gives me the right to exclude everyone uninvited, up to and including killing them if necessary. Property is a moral claim to exclude. Copyright law could absolutely arise through Common Law in a libertarian world, all that is needed is to understand and accept the Doctrine of Intellectual Space, Matter and Property. Intellectual Property then arises in precisely the same fashion and for precisely the same reasons as Physical Property, Kinsella's assertions notwithstanding. I think the only questions that need answering are these: Would you shoot someone who has not made a contract with you, if they reverse engineered your IP and made that IP freely available? Would you shoot someone if they disagreed with your stance on IP, and would not pay to people you approve of to enforce "IP laws (whatever those would end up being)"? If the answer to both are "no", then we agree.

I agree, nobody has any right to profit. Businesses that fail on the free market should fail, "free market" meaning a strict observance of property rights. So again, it comes down to whether or not a pattern of ideas can rightly be property. I'm providing, or at least attempting to provide, a previously unavailable theory of IP that does not require any deviation from self-ownership and NAP. It simply requires an acceptance of a new conceptual framework, like learning algebra after you have mastered arithmetic. In terms of persuading others to accept the philosopical correctness of NAP, with the Doctrine of Intellectual Space, Matter and Property there will now be a great advantage in NOT having to convince people that a correct ethical system means "no more movies". Might be a bit of an easier sell, don't you think? But it wouldn't mean no more movies. If movies are not very profitable, then I think the movies that get made would mean a lot more to the creators and any financers."I can't accept the NAP because I need a new transformer movie" is pretty weak sauce. No public schools, no centralized military and and "who would build the roads" are already difficult. If people can accept these but not "no more transformers movies" then I don't know what to tell them.

Subscribed i think a lot of people will enjoy this.

Just like "eating brocolli" isn't UPB, it doesn't mean that eating brocolli is immoral.

Financed is easy, documentaries find money all the time. How do you suppose Zeitgiest was funded? What about Thrive? Hell, Alex Jones can get backers for his crazy movies. Financially exploited is another thing altogether. If you mean "used to produce revenue", then the answer is simple: by public exhibition. I don't know if you've noticed, but movies at the theater make tens of millions of dollars in profit. Even with my rampant piracy, those studios still manage to earn a living. Those who hold IP are better off. I don't think anyone argues that holding a patent isn't financially advantageous. I believe those documentaries were funded through charitiable donations, I don't think they were profitable. Let's assume that for discussion. Unprofiability doesn't make the financing "easy", as a business venture it makes it "impossible". Yes, some people are willing to spend money on artisitic or educational projects that do not return an investment, but this is a hobby or recreation, not a way to earn a living. People have to earn a profit somehow before they have money to spend on hobbies. A lack of IP appears then to threaten the viability of artistic and educational projects as a business model. "Public exhibition" means showing a movie in a movie theater. Let's be clear on terms. A movie theater is private property, in a free society there is no "public" property. Would not the movie company require patrons of the theater to agree not to bring recording devices into the theater? Does a no-recording agreement represent an infringement of the physical property rights of the movie patron? imagine a world of no IP-enforcemnt, where copying a DVD is perfectly legal. Suppose further that the movie maker attemps to "copy protect" the DVD with some sort of technological solution. To explore this, let's consider the two extreme cases. In one scenario the copy-protect works perfectly and, even though copying is legal, would-be copiers are simply unable to do so. In the other scenario, the copy-protect is a failure, and users are easily able to copy the movie. Is it fair to say that successful copy-protection would allow for profitability of movies released on DVD, and failed copy-protection would mean DVD movies could not possibly be profitable? Is the success or failure of a copy-protect solution something that can be rationally assessed? If IP does not exist, on what basis can the success or failure of copy-protect possibly be assessed? In other words, what does copy-protect seek to protect? It's completely possible that motion pictures would not be profitable without IP, but so what?

I don't think TheRobin is saying "lying is UPB". Lying is not "making false statements", it is "making a false statement to a specific person at a specific time". He's not advocating that lies are ALWAYS preferable to truths. He's saying that sometimes, when he doesn't want to talk about a specific thing with a specific person, he may lie and is honest with himself as to why he is lying.

Me dropping some rhymes to an acoustic guitar. I should have the original dance version done soon, and a video (or two), but I'm too excited about this one not to share it. https://soundcloud.com/kawlinz/kawlinz-follow-the-lead