JoinOrDie

You are correct. However, I am interested in philosophy as it relates to interactions between people and groups of people. I see what is going on here. I'm dealing with a philosophical absolutist. You either obey the principles or you die, you are either an anarchist or a totalitarian, It's black or white based purely on philosophical principles. I cannot debate from this perspective. I think most people realize that, in practice, such things involve a spectrum. We have been debating this concept from 2 different angles. You from the purely philosophical viewpoint and mine from a wider perspective where philosophy is tempered by ethics and reason. In the illegal download scenario, nobody is advocating killing someone for an illegal download. It may or may not be morally permissible to do so but ethics and reason don't allow it. Killing a person for initiation of force demonstrates both the nature of laws AND the theoretical extreme of the law if a compromise is not reached between the law and the lawbreaker. I can see where if you do not accept the premise that information is property, nothing I have said makes much sense. If you can agree that information can have the same property rights as tangible objects, which society as a whole has done, my position holds more weight. My argument was not that intellectual property rights exist because the law says so, but rather that the laws exist because people wanted protection for this type of property. The law is effect, not the cause of intellectual property rights. The analogy is parallel because these are both examples of the man's property. There is a difference in scale. If you do not accept the premise that information is property, there is no theft here. If you will recognize that a huge amount of resources have been expended to create the movie, and those resources belong to someone, and the movie belongs to someone, and someone takes that information without consent, then theft has occurred. This is true whether either party is aware or not, no consent given. Locking the kid up may be the nature, and extreme of the law but not the only possible outcome. That being said, I do admit that I am having a hard time answering yes to this question. I get a lot of "yes, buts". I suppose given the absolutes, I have to answer yes. If information is property, and property is taken without permission, and imprisonment or death is the extreme/nature of laws, then yes the kid is in trouble. This is not a real world answer but given the constraints of yes or no, then yes. Does the concept of possession apply to ideas? Ideas are information. Is the information our property? Or do our ideas, once conceived, belong to a collective mind where they can be used freely by everyone? Ask Monsanto, They own several patents for proprietary DNA that was created in their labs. Most corn and soy grown contain these genes. The physical aspect of the plant belongs to the farmer but the genetic information contained within belongs to Monsanto. Monsanto makes the farmer sign a huge contract before they sell seed that prohibits them from using seeds (genetics) for anything other that market sale. It is illegal to plant these F2 seeds.

I have often wondered about how the framers of the constitution could write such a document regarding liberty, freedom, natural rights, etc. while slaves were cooking their dinners and working their lands. This irony was not lost on them but they felt that the economic realities of large landowners at the time required slaves. If they would have stuck to the ideals of universal natural rights, slavery could have disappeared overnight and the free market would have favored ideas that got the work done without such savage tyranny. The economic engine that was fueling the new country could have been so much more if people were rewarded for their work instead of trying to profit from the gross inefficiencies of forced labor. The fact is if the framers freed their slaves they could have gone bankrupt. This would only be a temporary reset but they were unwilling to forgo a few years profits for their beliefs. They chose their current and mid term economic viability over their convictions of liberty. In this they failed. They literally put their lives on the line and were hunted and driven to live in the wilderness for the Declaration of Independence but couldn't give up a little land for the constitution. Yeah, sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're an idiot than to open your mouth to prove it. Wise words I usually try to live by but you caught me. I'll be checking out that thread for sure. Thanks.

This is getting frustrating. Can we first agree that our ideas are ours? Our personal property in much the same way our shoes are our personal property. Or do our personal thoughts immediately become property of a collective mind once they are created? Can we also agree that once in a while somebody has an idea that others are willing to pay money for? Think Music, movie, invention, hairstyle, process, etc. Any kind of innovation. What we are arguing here is basic property rights, maybe the single most important idea behind free speech in a free society. It's that important. Because property may not have a physical component is irrelevant. Information/intellectual/idea property is not physical but does need physical matter for creation, storage, and transfer. When you pay for and download information, lets say a movie, you are not receiving physical property. You are receiving permission to view someone else's intellectual property along with the electronic code of the property itself. Yes, the information does flow across hardware but the hardware is only the delivery mechanism for the information. Let me ask this, How much is a DVD with no information on it? Now, How much is a DVD with Spiderman 3 on it? Same thing physically, why the difference in price? Its the proprietary information on the disk that has the value. Like all other property, the value of intellectual property is dictated by what someone will pay, aka free market. Im not familiar with such things, please explain this concept and how it affects my argument. Thank you.

What makes your scenarios ridiculous is that they may represent the actual theoretical extreme of the law. What I meant here isn't that the scenarios you presented would never happen, it's that they theoretically could legally happen and may have happened in extreme cases. The fact that imprisonment or violence may be legal as punishment for this crime is ridiculous. In this I think we agree. I simply stated that I believe people's property needs to have a mechanism for protection but in doing so how do you draw the line so petty crimes aren't happening all the time. No derision or mockery intended. Your scenarios A and B are very similar, property rights violations, but differ in scale and the fact that the individual in B could be considered a threat to Mr. West's person. Is this is really your argument against intellectual property? That you can't touch it so it doesn't exist? So by this rationale, if millions of people started stealing cars, we would have to take grand theft auto off the books because too many people are going to jail? Too many people convicted of murder last year, so this year we are going to make murder legal because too many people were getting locked up. That's cute. I'm not sure what you think you've won. You've misunderstood my points, reduced yourself to obscenities and name calling, refuse to admit the fact that information is property despite several simple examples that prove it, and then you claimed victory in the throes of defeat. Tactics right from the modern statist playbook. Then there's the fact that copyrighted material, also known as legally protected intellectual property, literally surrounds you everyday, in all media, in all of its physical and digital manifestations. I'll give you a point though for not attacking my spelling, grammar, or semantics. That's another trick of those losing an argument. Just curious as to which state "Join or Die" is the anthem for. Please provide a link so I can improve myself with this knowledge. The "Join or Die" Political cartoon I'm using as my avatar was drawn by Benjamin Franklin as a call for the colonies to unite against the tyrannical statist power of King George III. Some colonists recognized that the Imperial power of Great Britain would never voluntarily relinquish its stranglehold on American colonies. They knew that the only way for them to achieve true freedom and self determination was by violent expulsion of occupying forces. However the colonies at the time were essentially their own little countries and would not survive a war with Great Britain unless united. It's not copyrighted, BTW.

The longevity of the old European powers was due to hereditary monarchy for the most part. In todays terms, dictatorship. Rule by the whims of a person. The US is theoretically governed by the rule of law. If Constitutional principles still applied and citizens still actually wanted to be free, that is, would accept the responsibility that freedom requires, the US may not be in the condition it is. Not sure what you mean by this. Please clarify.

Fake News. Along with any notion of human anarchy. Individuals can be anarchist, societies cannot. Any attempt at anarchist society only brings more lawlessness, violence, and ultimately oppression. Anarchist utopia is impossible given human nature. Those passages and analogies focus only on the structure of the brain/society and has some very debilitating flaws. 1) Neurons are ultimately working toward the same common goal. Individuals do not 2) All Neurons are happy to be little workers forever. Individuals are not. 3) Neurons have no power lust to control the brain. Individuals do. 3) Neurons do not kill each other. Individuals do. 4) The brain always strives for self preservation, societies do not. and maybe most importantly... 5) There is no competition amongst neurons for resources. They are all fed equally, by someone else.

Interesting. I have had that question burning for years and never could get a satisfactory answer. I do have 2 questions. 1) Why the militarization? Because an armed society is a polite society? and 2) What is UPB?. It sounds like it should be a commonly held belief system (non-diest pseudo religion) which might make an anarchist society look like a theocracy. I think that all theoretical forms of government have existed and may even have been benevolent for a short time. A lot of these ideas gained political power in the early 1900s. It doesn't take long for power to corrupt, however, and eventually all governments fall to the dark aspect of human nature. I believe that the founders of the US recognized this fact and wrote in their papers that good men need to keep vigilant for tyranny and destroy it upon sight to renew the service aspect of their government. I have always thought that these idiots you see going around with their masked faces, anarchist flags, and violence are the last people that could live in an anarchist society. Thank you, JN

Somebody please explain to me how an anarchist society can exist given human nature. True anarchy could only exist in a society with no rules. As soon as you impose a rule on a group of humans you have to be willing to enforce that rule to the extent of violence and even death. Wouldn't the organization of individuals that have power to judge an individual as to compliance and then enforce these rules constitute a government? Human nature is to collect resources for ones self and familiars. How do you stop an individual from amassing and controlling huge amounts of value? A handshake and an agreement toward economic equality is great for some people but there are those who it is in their nature to exploit those around them. Does an anarchist culture exclude these people? If so, How? Are there examples of anarchist societies? I don't think it's possible given that someone in the society will be a natural leader and impose rules/violence to keep themselves so. It seems dictatorship is the end of the evolution of an anarchist society. On a bigger scale, despite humans being social animals, it seems human nature is the unraveling of all types of societal structures. Communism and socialism are destroyed by greed and incompetence of the leaders. Democratic and republican governments are destroyed by the greed of the masses and leaders. Anarchy is destroyed first by the imposition of rules then transition to dictatorship. I admit that I am a proponent of the constitutional republic, or rule of law to govern people. A society agrees to a group of rules and holds themselves individually personally responsible for compliance. The American example (as founded) of this assumes personal responsibility and the that the common person rise up to not only participate in their own government but to depose those who pose a threat to that system.

I really hope you can be a catalyst for some major change. I live about 45 minutes from Sarnia, ON. I like to watch news from Canada because I have spent some time there and it is close enough to go on a whim if I'm feeling like international travel. One thing I don't understand is how in the hell Trudeau got to be Prime Minister. He has NO qualifications. He is trying to erase traditional Canadian culture and boasts "The first post national country in the world". He may not recognize his history and culture but the people swarming to his country sure are going to recognize theirs, and impose it on everyone else. I'd better quit there, palms are getting sweaty. Sadly, governments have grown so onerous and imposing that it can seem near impossible to effect change. That doesn't mean we don't try. It sounds like you are in the running for all the right reasons, I'm going to try to keep an eye on the election. As a side note, where I live, government jobs (civil servants, not officials. My supervisor office pays a whopping $300/month.) are the best paying around if you aren't a farmer or a doctor. My grandpa used to tell me that when he was a young man government jobs were what you did when nobody else would hire you. Now people aspire to be a mid level pencil pusher. A soulless job for stolen pay.

The question is irrelevant because you asked my opinion which I have not expressed and which has been irrelevant to this point. I have only presented facts and an example of how the current law regarding information (intellectual) property law might work. I should restate my original answer as Yes. Period. Because information is property. Most information is what may be considered as public domain, common knowledge, etc. That is, generally accepted knowledge that we live with everyday. The sun comes up in the morning and 2+2=4, etc. Original thought and other proprietary information has a much greater value than common information. Proprietary information has a value that can be converted to other kinds of value, ie money, if other people want the proprietary information enough to trade money for it. If I tried to sell you the solution to (6 x 1.5) for $9 you would most likely have a good laugh. If I sold you the colonal's secret recipe for $9 you might buy. Would you say the value in information is somehow different than the value in physical objects? Should someone be able to enjoy the value of Kanye's house without paying as they might enjoy the value of his music without paying? Go give it a try, I bet he has his house protected just like he has his music protected. As far as my "statist paradigm", I am simply explaining how the copyright laws in the US protect intellectual property from theft. If there is statism in those ideas it comes from copyright law, not me. The statist paradigm may be more accurately described by the masses freely using proprietary information created by the few. "From each according to his ability, To each according to his need." No value transfer needed. All value belongs to the state and can be freely used at state discretion. If you want my opinion, I think intellectual property does need to be protected, but I don't know how to do that without creating the ridiculous scenarios that you have referenced. I think it could in cases where the creators of the information value patronage more that royalties. This will happen in some individuals but most everyone else will want the money.

Irrelevant. By law, said 13 year old opens themselves up to legal action by breaking the copyright laws. Do you suggest that this 13 year old should be able to enjoy the talents, productivity, and investments of others for free? That is a slippery slope. I was thinking of copyrights. I presented no logic, but I see you understand the basic premise of copyrights. The original question was regarding information property, not physical property. In the case of a book, the paper and ink are the physical. The ideas, story, and storytelling are the information. Nobody copyrights paper and ink per se (patents, yes), the copyright is on the information contained within. Same with flash drives, dvds etc. The physical object is only a substrate, or delivery mechanism for the real value which is the information contained within. Even when there is no physical medium, as in a digital download, the information has value and it is the information that is protected. Continuing with the book example. Lets say you spent the money, blood, sweat, years, and tears to write a NYT bestseller and got it distributed nationwide in book format for $36 a pop. I bought the first copy and scanned it to my website and gave the information away free. How much are you going to make from your years of work? I have very little invested and it costs me nothing to share. Enter the copyright. If your book is protected by copyright, I would go to jail for infringing on your information property rights and you make a million dollars selling your ideas. I agree that the situation can seem petty when talking about tween song downloads, etc. but where do you draw the line?

Yes. If legally protected. That's why you cant legally copy dvds or music or software, etc. Its why you have to pay for the Mayweather fights. Mayweather doesn't make his money fighting, he makes it by selling proprietary information, ie televised fights. I didn't follow the link but it would be interesting to see the outcome if pepe was created without protection then protected after he became popular.

Personal happiness is subjective as to source and fleeting in reality. A shallow dopamine hit temporarily covers the hole in your soul made for contentment. To answer the original question, and again this answer may be subjective, is that personal happiness is NOT the most important thing in life. Personal fulfillment or contentment may be that important, but personal happiness may actually hinder the realization of personal fulfillment. Using the Arsonist example, and it may not be the best, if the arsonist who gets a short term but extreme dopamine buzz by burning other peoples stuff spends a lot of time in jail or in hiding he may not get to experience that which is truly personally fulfilling. He may never experience the deeper contentment of real, good work. The opportunity cost of his temporary happiness may prevent real contentment. As for children, I have 2 and sometimes I wonder what if. There is no replacement for the love of your child. There is no greater joy (i.e. happiness) than helping then watching your child master the world one piece at a time. There is no greater struggle than raising a child.

If you are accepting American opinions, I have one. Do it. I ran for township supervisor last fall following a request from someone already on the board. Ours is a small rural Michigan Township but not without issues. Budget was mostly good but factions of personnel and elected officials were at war. The tax assessor had created a mess out of her office with incompetence and procrastination. The people were upset about some shady dealings with tax monies and the general verbal garbage poured out at every board meeting. The election itself took care of some of the personalities and the new board took care of the rest. For the time being we are running a very small government focused on service to the public and transparency in all of our work. The gears of government turn more quickly in a smaller government and I would think your situation in Calgary would be much more challenging due to many factors. Change has to start somewhere, let it start with you. To answer your request for ways to reintroduce freedom to a jaded population, I have a few. I don't consider these "Red Pill" concepts, just sound principles for living. It seems they have been lost in our respective governments. 1) Remind everyone that the government works for the people, not vice-versa. 2) Remind people that the government does not have a dollar that it did not take from productive citizens, and that productive citizens are the engine of success not their government. 3) Be honest and genuine in your dealings with everyone. Treat everyone with respect and dignity, especially if they are assbags. In today's world people are usually treated like trash. People remember those that treat them with respect. 4) Voluntarily provide the public complete transparency for yourself and demand it of all other councilmembers. 5) Make it a point to be fiscally conservative and scrutinize every dollar spent. Not to be cheap, but to get what you pay for. The most value for the dollar. 6) Volunteer your TIME, not money, to help people in need. It helps you get to know the needs of your various communities. 7) Lead people to ideas rather than force ideas on them. A concept is more valuable if an individual brings themselves there rather than someone else beating them over the head with it. 8) Remember a government position is a service position. If you are looking for personal gain, stay home. 9) Remember that government is a thankless job. Nobody will be there to help you out or recognize your sacrifices, but lots of people will insult you and complain about every move you make. Don't take it personal and don't get emotional, it's part of the territory. The people who are pleased with your work will never tell you and the complainers will never stop. Just make sure that the complainers remain the smaller group. I hope this helps, Best of luck, Canada needs many more like you. JN