Bradford26

Thanks for your comments. I agree that the ability to duplicate something does blur the line between right and wrong. I don't know the answer to that. I agree that the content of a message can't be owned, since a message is just an idea. An Analogous Example The example of radio waves and cell messages is analogous to sound waves and voice messages. When communicating verbally, you must send your sound waves in all directions, just like cell radio waves. There are certain things you can do to prevent people from intercepting the message, like whispering into someone's ear or closing your door, just like encryption on a cell radio wave. If your office neighbor closes their door to make a private phone call, you can sometimes hear muffled sound which can easily be dismissed, just like the cell radio listening for messages addressed to itself and dismissing the others. If you take a cup or directional microphone and put it against the wall to to hear the message clearly, it's just like setting up a computer program, or browser (or whatever) to eavesdrop on wireless communications. Eavesdropping is unethical, but it isn't immoral. "Maybe the ownership of something physical like a letter or parcel, or even an electronic device, but not a specific configuration of electromagnetic waves." I think you make an illogical leap when you list a specific configuration of electromagnetic waves along with parcels and electronic devices. Technically, it would be the electronic waves themselves! Do people own the electromagnetic waves that their cell phones generate? I submit that they do, because if you send out enough waves to make people sick, you'd be held responsible for the damage. Therefore, when you eavesdrop on encrypted wireless communication, you are manipulating electromagnetic waves that belong to someone else in order to extract a message that you know they do not want you to receive. That sounds very close to immoral to me.

Level of Deterrence - Are safeguards in place to prevent theft? Aggression depends on the person being affected by an action. There are situations when people are allowed to take things from others because they don't care if the items are taken, a washing machine on the curb, for example. However, if there are safeguards in place to communicate that an item is not available for taking, then it is no longer acceptable to take that item. Doors, fences, chains and locks all qualify as deterrents Level of Control - Is the owner known? It becomes tricky when control is lost or ownership isn't immediately clear. A stray dog may be owned, but without a collar or tracking chip, it's acceptable to pick the dog up and claim it. When the owner of the dog is clearly identified by a tag or tracking chip, then it is no longer acceptable to take the dog. Negatives can also accrue this way, in case the dog attacks someone or whatever. Level of difficulty in discovering the owner could also effect the level of control. Aggression Spectrum No Deterrence/No Control - No ownership Low Deterrence/No Control - Weak ownership. It would likely be a jerky move to take this. High Deterrence/No Control - Medium ownership. This would likely be stealing. No Deterrence/Low Control - Weak ownership. It would likely be a jerky move to take this. No Deterrence/High Control - Medium ownership. Taking this would likely be stealing. Low/High Deterrence/Low/High Control - Strong ownership. This would more likely be stealing. Radio Waves Radio waves might be classified as No Control/Low to High Deterrence since the owner isn't known and it usually (?) has some kind of encryption. However, I assume that by breaking the encryption, the original owner could be discovered. If so, then the classification changes to Low to High Control/Low to High Deterrence. Conclusion Based on the above analysis, I conclude that the NAP is broken somewhere along the spectrum when the level of deterrence (theft prevention) and level of control (known ownership) combine to create a high enough ownership value.

You're right. It is a verb. The Dictionary.com definition starts with, "To express or feel..." so it still seems like a feeling word. Other forms are Deploration (noun), Deplorer (noun), and Deploringly (adverb).

Deplore 1) to regret deeply or strongly; lament. 2) to disapprove of; censure. 3) to feel or express deep grief for or in regard to. Deplore works well because it addresses your feeling of regret for the injustice, disapproval of those responsible, and grief for those harmed.

Employers offer sick pay as a benefit. Sick pay is the allocation of an amount of your future income to receive when you are absent due to illness. This has two major benefits. First, it is insurance against a sudden loss of income due to an extended absence. Second, it encourages taking sick days for lesser illness in an effort to prevent major illness and longer absences. A good practice is for companies to pay out sick days at the end of the year to discourage employees spending them because they are about to disappear. This way, all employees get the benefit whether they take the days or not. Companies could allow employees to exchange their sick days for vacation days or simply make the employees use vacation days for illnesses. Inevitably, for every problem, a range of voluntary solutions are found. When I was diagnosed with cancer, I benefited from a program at my company where people could dedicate up to a certain amount of their paycheck to help me with whatever costs my cancer policy didn't cover. If I used it, their paychecks would be deducted by their fraction of the value. They had a similar program which allowed people to donate vacation days, since I went through my reserve pretty quickly.

Thanks for your feedback! "There is no reason to assume that inventive people should also be successful entrepreneurs." I agree. If you're not one of the entrepreneurs, outsource that job. The modern system forces you to outsource to the coercive system of the government. When you're forced to interact with a coercive system, morality is out the window, so you're not a bad person for getting a patent. "No one can invent new things, great things year after year." Successful companies manage to innovate over a long period of time. Maybe the only way to have long-term success as an inventor is to associate with a team of individuals or a large company. I don't know. Would there even be isolated inventors in the absence of patents? "Patents also inhibit people from developing innovative ways to profit from their inventions." What I meant by this was that, without the guns of the state enforcing patents, effective processes would be developed over time to solve the problem peacefully. Organizations might pitch inventions for inventors, or provide a framework for them to do it themselves. "I would not have minded organizing my business around something else than patents, but I could not, nor could anyone around." I agree. "Patents motivate inventors, at least they motivate me... In the absence of patents, all other things being equal, I would have done something else, like growing potatoes." Your second option was growing potatoes? People want to invest in cost saving inventions. It's win-win! As a company, I would want to make sure that I was paying the person who originally developed an idea, instead of a copycat who was just trying to profit from someone else's invention. As an inventor, the motivation may persist, since patents may just be replaced with whatever peaceful method the free market comes up with.

A patent is welfare for people who do not have the ability to convert their invention into cash or the capacity to continually innovate. Patents also inhibit people from developing innovative ways to profit from their inventions. The idea of patenting an invention and then collecting huge sums of money over a long period of time has always seemed like a get-rich-quick scheme to me. Unfortunately, the current system forces you to patent your inventions so that someone else doesn't wield the power against you. JeanPaul, if your company has been founded and organized around the patent model, then the company may have no ability to convert inventions into profit without patents. That's completely understandable. Why would you do it any differently, when patents are just about the only way to make money from an invention? Ultimately, asking how inventions would work in a free society is like asking how cotton will be picked without slavery. We don't know. Nobody does. We have some ideas. We only know for sure what is immoral and worth standing up for. The question you should be asking is, "In the absence of patents, how would the structure and decisions of my company be different?

The scale of the invention should determine your actions going forward. If the new tire is a minor improvement over normal tires, it makes more sense to sell it to a tire company. If the new tire is light years ahead of all other tires, it makes sense to gather investors and create a new tire manufacturing company. Next, don't talk about the invention in public, nor reveal anything about it to anyone (like how many new chemicals and range of cost for each). A researcher who may be close to the same invention could use subtle clues to come up with it and share it on the internet. Now that you've decided to sell your invention to a tire company, it is time to do the research. How much money does the new tire save for a prospective buyer? How much initial investment will it require to convert their tire factories? How long will it take before their investment in your invention will begin to pay off. It will be worth it to do a serious market analysis. The more information you have, the better equipped you'll be to maximize profit from the sale of your invention. How much time and money have you invested in this invention so far? What research did you to do determine if that amount of investment would pay off? It sounds like you have a team who helped create this. Is it a business? Does the business have any other revenue? If you expect (interesting word choice) to receive 25 million dollars over 10 years, doesn't it make sense to spend a small percentage of that amount to pitch the invention? I would travel to each and every tire manufacturer and pitch the invention (getting non-disclosure agreements the whole time) using all the research I've done. That would be a small price to pay for millions later. Additionally, you could pitch your idea to the research and development team at a tire manufacturer. Keep the NDA and get those tires on a race car or a Tesla or anywhere with high visibility. "How are you winning so many races?" "it's the JeanPaul brand tire formula!" *money comes raining down from the sky* Use your invention to get hired at a lucrative tire company. Demonstrate your scientific brilliance and maybe become an Experimental Tire Engineer at Yokohama Tires. These are a few ideas off the top of my head, I'm sure there are plenty more. One thing is certain though, your work has only just started. If the payoff is as great as you expect it to be, show up, dress up, and never give up!

Great point. How and when can external praise replace an internal goal mechanism? If the child has learned that the parents only respond to "me plus," or the child plus an accomplishment, then they are more likely to achieve solely for the praise. Unconditional love from the parents would definitely help temper this possibility. I don't think it's rational to never celebrate or say "good job" to someone who achieves. We shouldn't be expected to be completely self-reliant in this regard. Humans are social. Even the anti-social ones benefit from encouragement. Being involved with a group that builds each other up can be a very powerful force in a person's life.

These are great questions. Why should something be celebrated periodically? With anything worth celebrating, it's important to celebrate in a frequency and intensity appropriate for the event. Similarly, it's important not to over or under celebrate. A very large gift makes sense a few times a year, while smaller gifts like cards, fancy nights out or flowers can maintain their effect if they are more frequent. However, large fancy gifts, or extravagant nights out every day would quickly lose their effect and become meaningless. I think I understand your malice toward holidays. For example, when Valentines day rolls around, men are essentially forced to do something to maintain the status quo in their relationships. If they don't comply with the rules of the holiday, things get worse in their relationship. This has always seemed somewhat coercive to me. However; the activities that Josh was talking about are not coercive, bullying, or negative in any other way. In the example, it is important to explain that the celebration is not what makes the children adults, or that they have accomplished any great task simply by being alive (Although, that accomplishment might warrant a cake and balloons every, say, 365 days or so ). It can't be bad to celebrate genuine accomplishments with encouragement and kindness.

I think this is great! Getting encouragement from family and friends as they pass from one phase to another may make them proud of their accomplishment, reinforce their goals and dreams, and give them extra enthusiasm for the next phase. Celebrations that mark the passage of time may have different levels of importance to different people, but are not arbitrary. A big achievement or having a child is a great reason to celebrate, and it seems like it would be very important to mark the passage of time since those events. Wedding anniversaries are the same way. Why wouldn't you periodically celebrate something so great that happened? Another example might be to keep track of years since you were cured of cancer. I know you're just celebrating things 365 days apart from eachother, but how else could you do it?

This is a fantastic discussion. I feel like we've got the question surrounded and need to recognize a few nuances to get it solved. Where we agree I believe we all agree that it is fraud to misrepresent what you are selling. For example, if the contract states that you are selling a car that has 20k miles on it and it is later discovered that the car actually has 100k miles on it, that is fraud, a breach of contract and you owe restitution. Where we disagree Whether it is immoral to take advantage of someone else's lack of knowledge, unawareness, or gullibility. Is it immoral to tell a lie in an effort to manipulate someone's purchasing decisions if it DOESN'T involve misrepresenting what you are selling? To manipulate someone's reality for profit is unethical, but is it immoral? Can we use force to neutralize these individuals? Followup Questions Are there any aspects of society that contribute to gullibility? Are parents responsible for their children's gullibility? Should the gullible be considered victims, not of the manipulative salesman, but of bad parenting and/or schooling? If we place blame on being ill-prepared, does the solution look different? Could warranties or insurance solve this problem? Thanks for reading.

A Personal Story In high school, there was this popular guy who was dating a girl that I was physically attracted to. Everyone liked him, even though he wasn't very smart, and I was regularly made fun of. I was always so confused why so many people hung out with him and why they didn't see what I saw. One day, in weight training class, I see him walk in and... he has toilet paper hanging out of the back of his pants! "This is it!" I thought to myself, "I get to see the popular guy made fun of and shunned by the whole class!!" Nothing happened. People saw it. Nobody cared. How could this happen?! Why did nobody respond?! I realized that the popular guy was popular because of what other people need. They needed a person to revere and, subsequently, a person like me to pick on and put down. I think that your 'theory about a NASA conspiracy' is my 'toilet paper in the pants of the popular guy'. You believe it's the thing that will finally, once and for all, convince people that the government is corrupt and bad. However, if the government lied about the moon landing, it would merely be another lie to add to the ever-expanding pile of lies that fail to convince everyone that the government is corrupt and bad. It's time to consider that the government is something that people have a psychological need for. If this is the case, it's time to consider what events in their childhood or adult lives have caused them to be dependent on a corrupt and bad system and what makes them oblivious to these causes. One final question: If today, your theory is proven to be 100% true beyond a shadow of a doubt and is broadcast around the world for everyone to see, what will you do tomorrow?

Dwain Dibley, you seem to have two misunderstandings with the non-aggression principle. I'll try to explain what I think they are and offer an alternative way to look at it that might help clear the air. Misunderstanding #1 The non-aggression principle is an action. You are assuming that the non-aggression principle is an action that people can be violently forced to comply with. The Truth The non-aggression principle is more like a non-aggression proposal. When two people are interacting, the proposal says, "I won't aggress against you if you don't aggress against me." One or both parties are perfectly able to disagree with the proposal. However, they may not rationally complain about being aggressed against if they themselves are behaving aggressively. Misunderstanding #2 Self defense is a violation of the non-aggression principle. You are assuming that the non-aggression law dictates that anyone who chooses to comply to it may not use force in any way to defend themselves. The Truth The non-aggression principle is based around the concept of aggression. Self defense is not aggression, it counters aggression. Preventing someone from stealing from you or hurting you does not violate the non-aggression principle, since the person who is being defended against has already broken the non-aggression principle and is therefore no longer protected by it. I hope this helps and I look forward to your feedback.

Here are some of my thoughts about the ideas brought up so far. Making room for the next generation? It is not immoral to take up space and voluntarily exchanging goods. If there are fewer goods and less space because of overpopulation, then those goods and that space will cost more. They will continue to cost more until the price of the space/goods on earth is high enough to make settling another planet an economic choice. Additionally, as these costs go up, so does the cost of having children. When the cost of having children goes up, fewer children are born. Super rich only? Throughout history, technological advances are always very expensive. It follows that super rich people could afford something as advanced as robotic bodies. However, they are also the ones to discover the obscure bugs left in the process. Over time, more and more people will be able to afford this. The danger here is that if this technology beats Libertopia, then there will be "Universal Robotics" legislation arguing that there is a "right to robotics" which will ruin it all. More free time? Maintenance and Costs. Human bodies are fragile and high maintenance. Converting your body to a robot body would only introduce a whole new maintenance schedule that you must follow. A robot would still need to be recharged, oiled, buffed waxed and dried, calibrated, repaired. A robot would eventually get old and need parts replaced. A human mind in a robot body would still be frantically moving forward trying to be prepared for the next problem, all while continually earning enough money to support it. The good thing is, in Ancapistan, cheaper and better technology is always coming out which would help minimize these problems. Backups? Clones? Just like cell phones can gain new powers by installing an app, these robot-humans have the potential to be really amazing. Memory would suddenly be perfect, comprehension super fast, and you could learn anything instantly. Everyone would want to ensure that their minds were backed up regularly in case something went terribly wrong. How would subconsciousness work? Could you just erase all of your traumatic history? If a robot body went down for prolonged maintenance, would the robot dealership give you a fancy new model loaner body? Also, if you could transfer your mind into a loaner robot, couldn't you also duplicate your mind into another robot? Would the new robot version of yourself believe that he were you? Inside and Outside the Matrix. If your mind were digital, you could easily create virtual worlds to inhabit. Dumb worker robots could take care of all the maintenance and resource gathering and everyone could just exist in virtual worlds. At some point, humans may no longer exist in any real way. The planet would consist of worker robots maintaining computer systems that are constantly chugging away at virtual worlds. If somehow real world human-robots were no longer maintained, there would be no way for the minds to get back out.