Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Jan 2000 23:55:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1728 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000 02:32:35 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net>
wrote:
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
> > 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 don't see how you can support ideas as property at all.
Remember that this means that if a person happens to have the exact
same idea, independently of the other guy (and this has happened
before - see Gutenberg and the others as a canonical example), you
have no right to market it.
A patent system, based on the idea that stimulating innovation is
good, is one thing. Granting a monopoly on a manufacturing technique
or idea for all time is inestimably bad.
Whatever happened to "there are no natural monopolies, only manmade
ones"?
What do you think would be the state of the world today if the
transistor had been patented, without timelimit? Just as a random
example. Or book-printing, for that matter.
The IP system, it being based on actual direct wording, rather than
the ideas expressed in the work, is another matter altogether.
> > 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?
No. It says "should", not "must".
Read this like a legal document, not like a pamphlet.
"should" implies that it would be a good thing to do it, but not
illegal to not follow it.
> Article 12. Do we ban the National Enquirer? I think the common law
> prohibition of slander and libel is good enough.
You're missing the word "arbitrary". "Arbitrary accusations upon
honour and reputation" sounds a lot like slander and/or libel to me.
www.m-w.com:
Slander: No useful definition (at all, not just to me).
Main Entry: 1li·bel
Pronunciation: 'lI-b&l
Function: noun
<snip>
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that
conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or
representation published without just cause and tending to expose
another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or
representational means <snip other definitions>
Good enough for me.
> Article 16. Only Man-Woman? What about other compatible partnerships?
> Why recognise this person to person voluntary act as meriting special
> treatment??
It says "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to
race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a
family." It says nothing explicitly either way about homosexual
relationships. It also says nothing explicitly either way about
polyamorous relationships.
About the only marriages it doesn't allow are pedophiliac and
xenosexual ones. And I don't know about you, but I for one don't
approve of one or the other. Until non-humans are found that are
intelligent enough to communicate with us, and not intelligent enough
to stay away, I think it does fine.
It doesn't even place limits on incestuous relationships, which is
IMHO a good thing, provided the entrants into such are of sound mind.
>
> Article 17 (2). So deliberate deprivation of property is OK?
You wouldn't want acceptance of this to immediately disallow taxation,
would you? It may not be a clause to your liking, but it's necessary
as long as not everyone is a libertopia.
It doesn't say deliberate deprivation is OK, of course, but you know
that, and you're just being disingenuous.
I don't have to tell you that, since you've said many times that the
rights of a US citizen are not limited to what the US constitution
guarantees as a minimum.
> Article 22. The whole article is flawed. What exactly are cultural
> rights indispensible to dignity? Sounds like free goods to me.
If you don't agree with the way most Western countries (inclusing the
US) organize their charity, you're obviously not going to agree with
this article. That doesn't mean that it is flawed. You seem to be
using "flawed" as a synonym for "I don't agree".
> Article 23. The whole article is flawed but (3) especially is way out
> there. Free goods again.
What's wrong with (1), (2), and (4)? (3) is merely an extension of
A22.
>
> Article 25. How is this different from 23? It isn't. Free goods again.
You seem to be using a really strange definition of "free goods". What
do you mean when you say that?
>
> Article 26. Now we spell out a particular kind of free good. No one has
> a right to a free education.
Providing free education is a good thing for a country as a whole.
And no, the wealthy won't provide free schools just because the
country prospers because of it. See the wonking history books.
> (3) I can choose the kind but I have to pay
> for the kind I don't choose??
Yup.
>
> Article 27. So what about patent laws? Those are null and void so I can
> "share in scientific advancement"???
IMHO, they should be. See earlier this post.
Scientific advancement has absolutely nothing to do with patent laws,
of course, and you probably know that, so you're just being
disingenuous again.
You cannot patent laws of physics, for example, and to allow that is
as bloody stupid as allowing the "windowing" method of dealing with
Y2K to be patented. Literally _decades_ after it was first used, I
might add.
> Article 28. Who bells the cat?
Huh? You can read, can't you? "United Nations Declaration of Human
Rights".
>
> Article 29. Can someone parse this one for me? It's registering null
> semantic content to me.
"Other than where it infringes the rights of others or the law, you
may do anything".
>
> > 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.
Disingenuous again. Why does your right to swing your fist end at my
nose? _Because_ it conflicts with _my_ rights.
Really Larry, I've rarely seen you post with this little thought
behind it.
Jasper
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
