Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Jan 2000 02:32:35 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@!stopspammers!novera.com
|
Viewed:
|
1859 times
|
| |
|
|
My capitalist running dog lackey Frank Filz answered most of this append
faster and better than I could. However a few points remain...
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> Patents are an artificial invention to encourage new ideas. Fine. But
> they also have the ability to stifle competition. We put up with that
> for the gains. If patents would not expire, the overall picture
> reverses itself.
>
> Extending the (apparently) libertarian idea that one should be able to
> protect oneself, or pay for ~, why have patents at all? Why not just
> have the requirement to keep things a closely guarded secret if you
> want them to remain secret?
You can do that if you wish. Coke did, seems to work for them. However
if someone else susses it out, you're stuck. I support some sort of
framework around ideas as property, although the current one is a bit
creaky. Should they expire? A back of the envelope
"rights calculation" says no. Feel free to carry out your own derivation
and report back.
> I still occasionally wonder why the US hasn't ratified the universal
> declaration of Human Rights.
I can't speak to that, not being a member of the US Senate, where all
treaties must be ratified. However I can say that I am GLAD we haven't.
It's flawed.
http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm
Just to name a few flaws, not claiming this is an exhaustive list.
Article 1. Is it mandatory that we act in a spirit of brotherhood?
Twaddle, linguistic filler, or wrongheadedness?
Article 12. Do we ban the National Enquirer? I think the common law
prohibition of slander and libel is good enough.
Article 16. Only Man-Woman? What about other compatible partnerships?
Why recognise this person to person voluntary act as meriting special
treatment??
Article 17 (2). So deliberate deprivation of property is OK?
Article 22. The whole article is flawed. What exactly are cultural
rights indispensible to dignity? Sounds like free goods to me.
Article 23. The whole article is flawed but (3) especially is way out
there. Free goods again.
Article 25. How is this different from 23? It isn't. Free goods again.
Article 26. Now we spell out a particular kind of free good. No one has
a right to a free education. (3) I can choose the kind but I have to pay
for the kind I don't choose??
Article 27. So what about patent laws? Those are null and void so I can
"share in scientific advancement"???
Article 28. Who bells the cat?
Article 29. Can someone parse this one for me? It's registering null
semantic content to me.
> Take the canonical example: You have a right to swing your fist, I
> have the right not to be hit by it. Bingo, rights conflict.
Bzzt, let's actually get the canonical example right: "You have a right
to swing your fist, which ends just short of my nose." Bingo, no rights
conflict.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
