TheRobin

I'm quite annoyed after watching the talk just now. No where does he present any statistical data, only anectotes, which makes it hard to take anything of value out of it.Also he seems to simplify the act of choosing to only the number of choices available.For a satisfying choice one needs, options, knowledge about the options (and the expected outcome) and knowledge of one's own preferences.Only focusing on the number of options and ignoring the rest seems like it doesn't do the topic justice. And certainly is no prescription for happiness.

Larken Rose did a nice little improv/rant/first thoughts on this in case you missed it [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE9_NsjbE-E:640:480]

Oh, I see Yeah, written language does that some time Well, at least I learned a new word as a result of that (didn't know "facetious")

for what it's worth, I find your explanation very clear and easy to understand. Very good explanation and insightful points (to me at least)

From the outside it looks kind of weird. First you complain about how people censor things out to not have to accept reality, and then you end by censoring your own emotions through meditation. Is that really your own natural reaction to your own emotions or where and how did that start?Cutting one's self off from one's own emotions is never a healthy thing to do (well, except if you're trapped in a abusive situation that you can't leave, then it's perfectly healthy and esperately needed of course)

You seem to confuse the purpose of a tool (which is objective) with the outcome of using it (which is entirely dependant on the actual circumstance and events).Lowe D wrote about the prupose of doing philosophy is helping you get the life you want, not that it directly causes it. If you get a hammer to nail some nails into your walls, the hammer doesn't cause them to go in. And if they don't go in (for whatever reason) then that doesn't mean that the tool wasn't a hammer, or that the purpose of the hammer changed retroactively after not getting the nails in.

I don't think you can really "push people" anywhere. I mean, when has that ever truly worked? People just get resentful at whoever is doing the pushing and then naturally at the reason provided FOR the pushing, so it'd rather be counterproductive imo.

by that standard we sholdn't use science either, because some people still can't manage to use it to build proper bridges... Sure if someone wants to build a bridge made of paperplanes, then science isn't gonna help them, but that doesn't invalidate science in the slightest.

the most simple solution would probably be for the restaurant owner to call up his DRO and have them transfel the owed money to their bank account.Then the DRO would probably contact the bank (and/or that person's DRO) and have the money (plus some extra) taken out of the person who dodged the bill and make a remark in his file about that behaviour. An actual example frm the real world that happened to some guys I knew: They tried to run out without paying go caught at the door, didn't have money and then could chose between leaving their cell phones behind as insurance and come up with the money in the next few days or having the police called on them. So there's an example that didn't end with the restaurant owner having to personally incarcarate someone and still getting his money without even police violence involved.

I'm beginning to think thw whole argument boils down to this: "Everyone needs land. Therefore everyone should have a right to have land. Therefore everyone should have a right to compensation for not be able to use a specific chunk of land."

First of all thanks everyone for the participiation and your thoughts on the topic. Before I try and go to answer more detailed (can't garantuee that I will do that today at all actually, sorry), I just had a thought that I wanted to share and see if someone can make something of it.I just thought, that there seems to be a fundamental difference between art and other consumption goods (like say, food or cars). Because what is actually being sold isn't really the art, but the ability of being exposed to the art (like seeing a painting and experience the visuals of it, is what people value. Or listening to the music and experience the sound of it). And exposure is really only limited by arbitrary technical means (like, not enough space for more people in the same concert, or not enough room for more than x people in front of a painting/movie).While with other goods, one is sold the exclusive right of usage or consumption, like being able to drive one's own car makes everyone else not being able to drive the same car at the same time or eating a sandwich makes it impossible for everyone else to eat the same sandwich.So while exposure can be enhanced almost with no limit, exclusive usage of a good can't, so the goods sold seem to be already fundamentally different from that point. Not sure how that would or wouldn't change the morals behind the principles though. Just a thought that I just had and wanted to share at this point.So selling exposure is already a lot more tricky than selling apples for instance. But there's also no inherent right to not have people look at you (or your stuff) either. And if one can sell exposure to his painting, why can't another one sell exposure to a copy of the same painting? And if the one with the copy can make the exposure more cost-effective, why wouldn't he get the business over the first man? Isn't that just the generally accepted free market method anyway?

OK, well I hope you find the answer you're looking for. /emoticons/emotion-1.gif I'm sorry, in hindsight, my response was not at all helpful or productive either and by my own standard rather silly. But in what situation is telling a person that they need to be (more) honest with themselves ever helpful? Because even assuming there is dishonesty, then either it's intentional or not. If it's intentional, then the saying the person should be honest, won't change anything. And if it's unintentional, then the person is oblivious to his or her dishonesty in the first place, so telling them to be more honest would not help him or her see the dishonesty either. Or am I missing something?

ribuck: thanks for brining up the problem of using the word "sharing". It also made me quite aware of the fact, that I don't really know how copyright works (what it allows and prohibits) in the first place. Though from the wiki-entry it seems it includes a prohibition of "transmitting the data", which would be violated here, by the person who has his/her PC transmit the data to mine.The analogy would be more correct, if you would add, that the customer knows before buying that the shopkeep had a contract for seeling the stuff for more. How would the situation be then? Libertus: I don't quite undestand the claim that the government dictates the contracts in that regard. Surely no one is olbigated to have a copyright on his works, but if they do isn't that a contract between the one selling you the blueray and you. A contract that basically says that "I sell you this bluray, under the condition that you do not rip it and make it available for download" or something along those lines?I also don't quite udnerstand the video rental store example: Wouldn't they need someone to be willing to sell them the videos in the first place? and wouldn't that lead to almost no one wanting to give them anythign to rent in the first place?tasmlab: If it was really that simple I wouldn't have made a thread about it But basically, every entrepreneur wishes for people to buy his products. But they can't force anyone. So their preference isn't really that relevant here. If it's not immoral to download those videos, then it's up to them to come up with a better businessmodel to make a profit. On the other hand (and also as a response to MrCapitalism) just because they're businessmodel is silly wouldn't give anyone the right to act immorally towards them. They're free to have an ineffcient and silly businessmodel and hang on to that for the rest of their lives, if that makes them happy. In the same way as if I'd open a rock-store on mount everst and then never sell anything, that wouldn't give people the right to take my rocks out of the store for free.nathandiehl: if your principle for helping other people is to call what they do silly and tell them they're not being honest about their motivation, then that's just silly and you're probably not really honest about your motivation, seeing that that behaviour is not really helpful.

Maybe I can explain it again and see if it makes more sense:The breach in contract in that case is the sharing. Sharing requires a third party. So the breach of contract can only happen with assistance of a willing third party. Hence why I would say there's responsibility for the breach of contract held by said third party.I'm not sure how I would respond to the stolen painting/copying scenario. But I think a relevant difference is that the theft is theft regardless of a third party copying the painting or not. But the sharing can't happen without any third party involvment.I also completely accept the notion of no unchosen obligation in regards to having help person A. But as I said, the breach of contract can't happen without a person C involved in that specific case, whcih is where I see the moral responsibility.

I never said anything about copying being stealing. I said when someone sells you a blueray they do so usually under the agreement that you don't allow copies to be made (the copyright stuff). So when I download things I know someone had to breach that contract at some point, thus commiting fraud at least.And it's not about the idea. A movie isn't an idea it's a work of visual/audio-data encoded in a specific way to make it watchable for others given the right tools. I completely accept that ideas aren't property, which means everyone can reproduce that movie by reenacting it and sell their own product of it. But that doesn't really play into it here.A better example might be if I someone composes a song and writes it down on a piece of paper. The piece of paper with the writing on it is property. While everyone who hears the song is free to record his own take on it (even if it's 100% the same).But if the person would want to lock the piece of paper in a safe and not have anyone have a look at it, yet somehow it appears on the internet, you know it was either stolen or someone didn't hold the their agreement of confidentiality when having a look at it. And data isn't "free". If arranging data counts as free, then what makes data special in regards to every other thing one can invest one's energy in?There are jobs that do nothing but collect and document data, and depending on the data/field that's quite an expensive thing to do, so why would that data then be freely available for everyone?And if it shouldn't be freely available then it's no different from any other property one has the right to exclude others from and/or impose condition on its use, prior to any trade.

The first question that comes to mind is sold or rented by whom? One has to own something first before one can sell or rent it to others. So unimproved land would be simply unused land or unowned land, so who would do the selling? (always assuming its legitimate and not mere whimsical force in the sense of "If you pay me I'm not gonna shoot you if you're gonna use that scrap of unowned land"). In regards to capital and land: If you think they are used incorrectly, can you provide a clear definition of each and show how that accurately describes reality? Or how you see the terms being used incorrectly and how/why the definitions don't accurately describe reality?

Well if you know the goods you're gonna buy are stolen you're enabling the transfer of stolen goods and become complicit in that (not in the theft in that example), or not?Like, if you help some bankrobbers get away after the robbery by driving them in your car, then technically all you did was drive, which also isn't inherently immoral, but the context in which the driving took place (i.e. enabling the crime) makes you complicit in the crime, doesn't it?I'd say the principle would be that if the immoral action couldn't have taken place without your action, you become responsible to a degree. Which would also apply to the breach of contract, that wouldn't take place without a third party copying it.

I'm currently a bit in a clinch regarding my occasional (unpaid for) download of movies. Not because I think IP is valid, but because clearly the producers didn't want to have the data being available and shared (and as I understand it have sort of agreement with the buyers that prohibits them for making it available for sharing/copying) , so at some point a breach in contract or theft must have taken place in order for the data to be downloadable for free.So how exactly do you reconcile this morally? Are you responsible for some knowlingly gaining the benefits of another persons immoral actions? Is it even immoral to share it in the first place? Have the producers gained so much illegitimate money through the enforcement of false IP laws, that it's basically like stealing from a thief at that point (with no moral responsibility for the people cvurrently downloading)?And if it's immoral how would you make up for any already downloaded stuff?I'd really appreciate to hear some thoughts on that.

When one synthesyses truth and error one doesn't create something more whole, but merely makes truth even less accesible by entangling it in error. But I guess I'm just one of those who are not truly rational then

I started with a NES and currently own a PS3. And I don't regret getting the thing either, I enjoyed some really good games (both big company produced and indie ones) on that thing.But currently I'm really in love with PC classics (made re-available for win7+ systems) and indies, some of which have some of the most interesting gameplay mechanics and overall design. (And are produced sometimes by as few as 2 or three people).If you're really fed up with new games, have a look at games like "FTL:Faster than light" or "Reus" or "Primordia". All really great PC games for around 10$.Btw I find it intersting that no one mentioned the rise of eSports over the last 2 years, as there seems to be more and more stuff going on in that market (though as far as I can tell, mostly PC and RTS-strategy-game related)

ah yeah, I forgot. You're also free to redefine "existence" to fit the needs :)Other than that you rather sound like a salesman for the books than a person who wants to bring forth any actual claims/principles which we could analyze and debate about.No one's gonna buy a car if the salesman refuses to even give the basic specs and is unwilling to adress the concerns about them, and no one's gonna read any book if any question in regards to the basics is answered in vague mysterious language (or not answered at all and simply avoided).(apply the usual margin of error to the term "no one")

well, as I said, the day someone can actually prove their claims are more than just their personal mindfucks, I'm happy to accept that line of reasoning (of course "proof" is also redefined to fit the conclusion of said mindfucks usually). But until then it's all just in people's heads and doesn't really have any influence on the reality outside their heads in which I'm currently living.

Okay, but then I fail to see how this has anything to do with what I say and the principle put forward. I never claimed that anyone just owns land ad infitum, so why is the principle of creation/use/modification not good enough? Now I'm the first to admit I have no idea about homesteading in any formal sense and I'm really just here to see if the principle I would use actually would work or if there's a fundamental flaw to it, so I can't argue using other people's philosophies in homesteading or bring up famous names and know what they mean or stand for. I still hope it doesn't make debate impossible.

It's only a flaw for those who wish the contents of their minds be more real/important than what's outside their mind. For all others it's its major advantage But as you see, basically one can redfine "truth" to mean something different than an accurate claim about reality. and redefine reality as yet another thing etc. and then create a new metaphysics where science is completely bollocks basically. But as mentoned before, nothing new there, platonic realm reasoning as usual. Before anybody actually presents some concrete evidence by producing something that couldn't be produced using the scientific method it's nothing more than mindgames.

Maybe I miss the obvious here but: If the improvement is the property but the not the ground, then why would anyone own anybody else rent? Why can someone demand rent for something which he doesn't own (the ground)? What am I missing here?