SnowDog

Stef, I think you may be interested in this. What troubles me is that this is becoming a regular occurrence at Yiannopoulos events. Free Speech is going away. This happened last night. Protesters disrupted the event, and then security refuses to remove the protesters, effectively allowing them to shut down the event.

James Flynn believes in universal morality and thinks that the world is turning more and more toward it. Fascinating talk. https://www.ted.com/talks/james_flynn_why_our_iq_levels_are_higher_than_our_grandparents?language=en

How do you know?

I'm not interested in practical enforcement, but rather the moral argument. If there is no moral argument for IP, then it's not immoral, and not in poor taste to take someone else's work, whether it be art or text, then change it however they choose, and distribute it for profit. They could take a novel, remove the author's name from it and sell it, or take a new released movie, remove all the credits and sell it. The truth is, all property is intellectual property. When we look at a car, we're not looking at the value of the material that went into the car, but rather the design and creation that became the car. It's the intellectual input that's valued. The fact that this value comes in a single package, the car, should not be relevant to what it is we're trying to protect, which is that value that some people put into changing the shape of nature into something useful. That's what we should be protecting. If we care about the value of the labor that went into the car, and therefore reimburse people for such value when the car is damaged in an accident, then we should care about the value that goes into property which can be easily copied. If I write a great novel, or spend millions of dollars and years of time producing a great movie, then it's my right to object that someone who has found a copy of a DVD is then redistributing it without my permission. The work is what's mine; not the package.And what the NAP should be designed to protect is the individual's physical body, and the product of his labor. This is key. To separate the product of someone's labor from moral protection is to disavow ownership of the labor that went into creating the item, and therefore to disavow the value that was conceived in the mind of the individual, before any work was done. The ability to live requires that people be allowed to pursue value, by imagining it, creating it, and then keeping it. This is the essence of Life, Liberty, and Property.

Of course you can work around it, but which is the simpler model?People set values; work to acquire those values; then expect to keep possession of those values after they acquire them. Contracts are validated. Fraud, as a moral breech is validated. IP is validated. Everything works.Or start with scarcity, [why?], and claim that everything which is scarce, and only that which is scarce, is up for possession. [Like the Moon?] Why?

"You said it yourself, 'a contract is valid only when it's viewed as an exhange of propety'" OK, so we engage in a contract for you to write a song for me. Then as soon as you write the song, I decline to pay you on the grounds that you don't, and can't, own the song. You either own the song, in which case the contract is valid; or you can't own the song, in which case it isn't valid. The purpose of property is to allow people to maintain control of the products of their labor, because this control is why they engage in the labor. It has nothing to do with the scarcity of the product. This whole idea that labor is based on scarcity is Kinsella's, and its base is inadequate to explain why we even require property to live as humans.

When I think about this, I see that all humans have several things in common, with very few exceptions; except maybe the comatose, children, and mentally impaired: 1) All humans set values they want to pursue in life. They do this every day. Their goals are both big and small; including such things as what they want for breakfast, and how to save up for their childrens' education. 2) They act to acquire these goals. 3) When they do acquire their goals, they expect to be able to keep them. In other words, if someone saves up for a new car, he expects to be able to own the car after he purchases it. These three actions represent Life, Liberty, and Property. Life encompasses all three. Liberty is the freedom of action; and Property is both the product of that action, and the object of new action. If we throw the idea of property out of the window, then the whole process falls apart. If people are not allowed to keep the products of their actions, then they will not act; and if people are not allowed to act, then they will not pursue goals; and will basically lose interest in life. All three are intricately tied together; and importantly, property must be seen as the product of action. Without property, Liberty is futility.

You're making lots of assertions, but you're not supporting them. If labor isn't property, then why are contracts valid? Let's say that I hire you to build my fence, and I supply the tools and lumber. Then after you build the fence, I refuse to pay on the grounds that you don't own your labor? Here, you're claiming that a contract is somehow valid, when the terms outlined in the contract are not owned by the parties of the contract. A contract is valid only when it's viewed as an exchange of property. Otherwise, there's no argument to make it any more valid than a simple promise.But a key point that's being overlooked is: what's the purpose of property? If you don't believe that property should be protected as the product of labor, then why should it be protected at all? How do you view the causes that give rise to the need for property in your model for the NAP?

I don't agree. If you make a movie and take the story from someone else, without permission, then you've stolen the story. The idea that you can do whatever you want with whatever ideas come into your head, by whatever method they get there, is incorrect. It's the same argument as if you go out and buy a diamond ring, and then come to find that the ring you bought, was stolen property, and is a sentimental heirloom. You'll have to return the property, even though it was honestly acquired and in your possession. Likewise, if you intercept intellectual property from someone who violated a contract to put it up on the internet in a torrent, then it's not his to give, and it's not yours to keep. What the NAP ultimately wants to do, is protect the product of someone's labor. This is why property is invented in the first place. The NAP protects us by allowing us to act and pursue our lives, as if we lived alone, even though we live amongst others.

Property should have nothing to do with scarcity. It should be designed to protect the product of labor. If someone spends three years working on a movie, say, then that person should be able to decide how and when that movie is distributed and seen. That's the point. This whole idea that property is related to scarcity is just Kinsella's nonsense. We can see this by exaggerating the point. If scarcity is the basis for property, the someone should be able to claim the Moon. Afterall, it's scarce. But no, the point is to protect someone's labor. He can then claim the use of unowned resources he needs to work, and he can use the product of his labor, which is property, to trade for other property. People should not be able to claim vast amounts of unowned land, or any other resource, as property. The fact that the entire world has already been claimed when only a small amount of it is used, is just an inconvenient truth.

I've written another model for the Non-Aggression Principle which I believe simplifies its understanding -- at least it does for me. So I thought I would push it out in case anyone was interested:https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4QESdNmbCJSN3FqWnpyZkE0bU0/edit