Michael Shermer at Libertopia

[Tom-Palven]

Just received a press release that Michael Shermer, one of the listed speakers at Libertopia this Fall, is to present an award

Michael Shermer presenting Sovereign Award to Jay Snelson at Libertopia
Jay Snelson, a professional speaker for fifty years, created the V-50 lectures, based on the innovative theory of property by astrophysicist Andrew J. Galambos. He has presented the V-50 lectures to approximately 15,000 students over the years. More recently, he has developed a new model of social action, Win-Win Theory, which clearly demonstates that the only way to attain the grand triumvirate of peace, prosperity and freedom throughout the world is to maximize win-win exchange and minimize win-lose exchange in all arenas of human endeavor.
http://www.libertopia.org/home/

Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic Magazine, monthly columnist for Scientific American, and author of The Mind of the Market, was one of Jay Snelson's V-50 students. He says "V-50 changed my life, clarified my thinking and showed me a completely new way to look at the world. V-50 will do for the social sciences what Newton did for physics and Darwin did for biology."
Sovereign Awards for Lifetime Achievement Banquet - Saturday 10/16 at 7pm
The Sovereign Awards for Lifetime Achievement will be presented to three outstanding individuals for their lifetime contribution to advancing the ideas of sovereign individuals, peace, freedom and a voluntary society. The banquet is a high end affair, a scrumptious feast, served buffet style to allow plenty of choices for the discriminating palate. Most of the speakers are expected to attend, so it is also an opportunity to get to know them and other members. Not to be missed!

[Martin Brock]

http://blog.mises.org/5442/galambos-and-other-nuts/

I'm no authority on Galambos, but his innovative theory of property seems to incorporate an absurdly expansive notion of intellectual property, the sort of idea that leads Ayn Rand to lionize an architect who blows up a building he designed, on the grounds that evil corporatists had spoiled his design in the implementation, never mind the property of every investor, carpenter, brick layer and interior designer he destroyed in the process. Ideas are rarely unique to anyone but emerge out of complex social interaction. They aren't handed down by God to his prophetic Thinkers. They aren't the perpetual natural right of some individual to be enforced by a state enforcing little else but enforcing these nominal "rights" by any means necessary. This portion of Galambos' theory of "property" is not innovative. It goes back to Lysander Spooner at least, and it's not at all the classically liberal property of John Locke, which involves the proper possession of a natural means production, like a parcel of land, by an individual employing the means directly to produce and improving it in the process. Galambos' "property" seems more like the worship of intellectuals as Nietzschean supermen.

[Tom-Palven]

I gotta say that IMHO, of all the illogical, unethical, and illegitimate descriptive privileges called Constitutional rights, state's rights,  or legal rights, and all the convoluted delusional mental constructs called divine rights, normative rights, God-giiven rights, inherent natural rights, and basic human rights (Did I miss any), up at the top with the least logically defensible are "intellectual property rights".  If either Spooner or Galambos defended the legitimacy of intellectual property rights, they should be added to the long list of people who occasionally make mistakes.
(The rest of us continually make mistakes.)

[xouper]

the least logically defensible are "intellectual property rights".

I'm not sure I follow. Is that sarcasm, or do you truly believe you are entitled to take property that does not belong to you?

[Tom-Palven]

No sarcasm at all.  I just don't believe in the divine rights of writers and  song-writers.  If you want to protect a song or a story, try to find some way you can do it, or just keep it to yourself.    But if you put it out in public, you gave it away,  and  if I whistle that tune or do anything at all else with it, I fail to see how I have cheated or coerced you. Have you noticed that intellectuals feel that "intellectual property rights" are valid, while hunters defend "gun rights"?  Mere coincidences?

[Martin Brock]

I'm not sure I follow. Is that sarcasm, or do you truly believe you are entitled to take property that does not belong to you?

The question is: What is my property? Do I properly have a right to force other people not to copy/read this post without my consent? Does this forcible right have no bounds? Is it perpetual? May my heirs a hundred generations hence still force people not to copy/read this post? How about this sentence? How about this "word"? How about this "?" How about translations of this post into another language? How about any sequence of words asking the same questions that this post asks?

The U.S. Constitution is very clear on intellectual property. Intellectual property in the U.S. may only serve a utilitarian purpose. It is not a natural right of authors and inventors. It is a forcible imposition of the state for a public purpose, to encourage the useful arts, not simply to protect some natural right of authors and inventors. Copyrights in the U.S. today last 120 years. The first U.S. copyright law protected an author's copyright for fourteen years, at a time when publishing and distributing a text was far more costly and far more time consuming that it is today, when manuscripts were handwritten and books were pressed by handset type one page at a time and traveled to market in horse drawn carriages.

The question is: Why isn't fourteen years enough to encourage the useful art of writing? Current copyright law is manifestly excessive. Something like 300,000 books are published each year in the U.S. alone, and the number continues to grow. More works of fiction are published each week than I'll read in a lifetime. Why a copyright for a particular period at all? Why not threaten to shoot people for copying an author's book only until the author has earned a million bucks selling it, say, or for 20 years, whichever comes first? A million bucks isn't enough incentive to write a novel?

The intellectual worship of Galambos and others gives us nonsense like this. The Russians are absolutely right about Tanya Grotter. They properly tell us to shove our incredible forcible monopolies up our collective ass, because in this case at least, they understand the value of freedom better than we. The popularity of the Grotter novels is clear evidence, from the market, of this value.

[xouper]

No sarcasm at all.  I just don't believe in the divine rights of writers and  song-writers.  If you want to protect a song or a story, try to find some way you can do it, or just keep it to yourself.    But if you put it out in public, you gave it away,

Apparently we disagree.

 and  if I whistle that tune or do anything at all else with it,

For your personal use, such whistling it to yourself, no problem.
Selling to others when you did not create it, that's theft.

Have you noticed that intellectuals feel that "intellectual property rights" are valid, while hunters defend "gun rights"?  Mere coincidences?

I am not a hunter and I defend gun rights as a personal liberty. I also defend gun rights on the grounds self defense, and that is how it is written in my state's Constitution.

Michigan Constitution Article I, Section 6
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

Has nothing to do with hunting.
Has everything to do with personal liberty.

[xouper]

I'm not sure I follow. Is that sarcasm, or do you truly believe you are entitled to take property that does not belong to you?

The question is: What is my property? Do I properly have a right to force other people not to copy/read this post without my consent? Does this forcible right have no bounds? Is it perpetual? May my heirs a hundred generations hence still force people not to copy/read this post? How about this sentence? How about this "word"? How about this "?" How about translations of this post into another language? How about any sequence of words asking the same questions that this post asks?

The U.S. Constitution is very clear on intellectual property. Intellectual property in the U.S. may only serve a utilitarian purpose. It is not a natural right of authors and inventors. It is a forcible imposition of the state for a public purpose, to encourage the useful arts, not simply to protect some natural right of authors and inventors. Copyrights in the U.S. today last 120 years. The first U.S. copyright law protected an author's copyright for fourteen years, at a time when publishing and distributing a text was far more costly and far more time consuming that it is today, when manuscripts were handwritten and books were pressed by handset type one page at a time and traveled to market in horse drawn carriages.

The question is: Why isn't fourteen years enough to encourage the useful art of writing? Current copyright law is manifestly excessive. Something like 300,000 books are published each year in the U.S. alone, and the number continues to grow. More works of fiction are published each week than I'll read in a lifetime. Why a copyright for a particular period at all? Why not threaten to shoot people for copying an author's book only until the author has earned a million bucks selling it, say, or for 20 years, whichever comes first? A million bucks isn't enough incentive to write a novel?

The intellectual worship of Galambos and others gives us nonsense like this. The Russians are absolutely right about Tanya Grotter. They properly tell us to shove our incredible forcible monopolies up our collective ass, because in this case at least, they understand the value of freedom better than we. The popularity of the Grotter novels is clear evidence, from the market, of this value.

Translation: You want free stuff and you want others to give it to you.

Sorry, I don't accept your argument.

[Tom-Palven]

I would argue, for instance, that when you release a movie as a DVD that it then belongs to the owner to do with as he or she pleases, and if Chinese companies undercut monopoly prices by selling it cheaply, so be it.  If you control it's distribution through theatres, fine and dandy.  The pragamatic argument for patents is that things won't be invented or produced without enforced patents.  I doubt that's the case, but the argument is that the ends justify the means in endorsing the use  of forceful police intervention  against peaceful "counterfeiters".  It seems to me that the greatest beneficiaries of patent, copyright, and libel laws are lawyers, both state-employed bureaucrats and those in private firms.

When you purchase a movie ticket, there is an implicit contract that you will not yell fire, talk loudly on a cell phone, or in other ways disturb other movie-goers.  But when you physically purchase a CD or a DVD I don't see the implicit contract.  It seems as bogus as other "social contracts", just an authoritarian power-grab of someone else's liberty.  No?

[Martin Brock]

Translation: You want free stuff and you want others to give it to you.

Sorry, I don't accept your argument.

You haven't translated anything or considered any argument. You've only reflexively repeated some vague position of your own. I asked specific questions, but I might as well discuss the subject with a stone wall.

[xouper]

... No?

No.  

[xouper]

... but I might as well discuss the subject with a stone wall.

That's pretty much how I feel about you too.

You and I rarely ever agree on anything, so what's the point?

Perhaps we should resume our truce and put each other back on ignore?

[Tom-Palven]

[xouper]

... just an authoritarian power-grab of someone else's liberty. No?

Are you seriously arguing that you have the right to take property that does not belong to you?

Are you seriously arguing that YOUR liberty is infringed if you do not have that right?

[Tom-Palven]

I don't view it as private property.  If it's thrown into the public arena I view it as jetsam, and as the saying goes:  Finders keepers, losers, weepers.  So there!  Roll that into a stogie, stick it in your hat, and call it macaroni, or, er...somthing...

[OlegTheBatty]

When you purchase a movie ticket, there is an implicit contract that you will not yell fire, talk loudly on a cell phone, or in other ways disturb other movie-goers.  But when you physically purchase a CD or a DVD I don't see the implicit contract.  It seems as bogus as other "social contracts", just an authoritarian power-grab of someone else's liberty.  No?

No.
When you buy a movie ticket, you are buying permission to view the movie at that particular venue. You are not buying the movie, nor are you buying the right to view it at a different venue. The implicit contract you refer to is with the other movie-goers, not just the ticket seller. Its because it is a public venue.

When you buy a DVD, you are buying the thing the music or movie is inscribed upon, and the permission to view/listen on your own playback devices. You are not buying the movie or music, nor permission to copy it or sell the movie or music. That remains the property of its creator.

[xouper]

I don't view it as private property. ...

OK, then that's where we differ. See Oleg's post above for more details. I agree with Oleg. When you buy a DVD, for example, you are not buying the rights to the movie to do anything you wish, you are only buying a personal copy for your own personal use. The maker of the movie did not give you permission to use their property for commercial gain. The maker of the movie did not "throw it into the public arena" in the manner you implied, they only sold you a personal copy, nothing more.

[Tom-Palven]

This is a long article arguing against intellectual property rights. It's so long I didn't read it all and don't know if it makes sense.  
http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

[rrichar911]

Win-Win Theory, which clearly demonstates that the only way to attain the grand triumvirate of peace, prosperity and freedom throughout the world is to maximize win-win exchange and minimize win-lose exchange in all arenas of human endeavor.

Exactly who did not already know that?  

I knew that when I was 3 years old.  It is called captalism operating under a just set of laws in a free society.

[fromthehills]

Tom, say you did a great painting, took a photo of it, and made post cards for the family. Then your aunt Beth, whom you don't really like, takes the postcard to Hallmark and sells the design for a modest mint. You don't see a dime, but after all you did send her a postcard. Now you are trying to sell the postcards, but are being sued by Hallmark, since they already bought the design.

It's about property, Tom. Intellectual property is property. Just as if I invited you to a party at my place, doesn't mean you get to move in. My take on it, think about it.

[Tom-Palven]

If there were no copyright laws Hallmark couldn't sue me, and they probably wouldn't have a legal team.  If I have a Palven clan Christmas card made and send it out and someone photoshops horns on my head and then sells it to someone who puts it on the web, I can scream bloody murder out that I 've been libeled, slandered, and all manner of my rights have been violated, and I think that it would be perfectly ethical of me to do so.  I just don't think that it's any business of "the people" or "concerned citizens" or lawyers, or politicians.  I do not think that anyone would owe me restitution.  This probably boils boils down to a basic belief that people should be free to do anything they want to, including selling crack and alcohol and pornography to minors, as long as they do not physically, directly, confine, restrain, or injure someone. Call this individual liberty in extremis if you want to, I'm for it.

[fromthehills]

But see, that's where you would be restricting someone like me. Someone like me would see a fella sell crack to a kid and have an exigent need to pistol whip some sense into the seller, and seize the item from the kid, and shake them and tell them "NO!"

What about that freedom? In my view I would be preventing harm coming to a minor.

[Tom-Palven]

I don't think that it would come to that FTH.  If all drugs were totally legal there probably wouldn't be any profit in marketing them in inefficient, unconventional, ways, and thus no effort made to get anyone hooked on them.  If, on the other hand, you outlawed candy bars, there would be small, illicit, candy bar makers,  and only outlaws would sell candy bars.

Let me add that there is probably one psycho in billions of people who will go into a kindergarten and murder a bunch of kids regardless of the fact that that is illegal, and the other billions of people wouldn't murder a child even if there were no laws against it.  How many people would want to hurt kids with drugs if there wasn't a great profit in it?

[fromthehills]

I understand where you are coming from, Tom, I'm just a little more wary of my fellow man. My point being that if ultimate liberty were granted to all people, we would all be in charge of protecting our individual liberties. A charge that not everyone is up for.

On the other hand, I was watching something that showed a shop, in Holland, across the street from a high school, where pot and mushrooms were sold. The kids interviewed had no interest in it. They were of the attitude of " Sure we could do that, but education is too important".

Sometimes I lean towards, and have to catch myself, being that metaphorical strict father figure that Lakoff writes about. I was indoctrinated into it, and it's not necessarily logical.

[Tom-Palven]

Well, you don't seem to have turned out too bad having had a strict father figure.  My father wasn't strict, but my sister and I vied for his attention, and generally wanted to behave and get good grades in order to please him.  Marge's father, on the other hand,  was supposedly a strict army man,  and his seven kids, 4 boys and 3 girls, really run the gamut from Marge's youngest brother who's always been in debt and sometimes in jail, to her oldest with a PhD and a top job with the Scholastic Aptitude people.  There's another with a very high-paying job who is a jerk, and another who has a low-paying job and is a nice happy-go-lucky  guy.  Her two sisters and all the grandchildren vary greatly also.  Her father had his 90th  birthday party at our place recently.  The family mainly like the old codger, with some mixed feelings, and but no one takes him too seriously.

[Martin Brock]

That's pretty much how I feel about you too.

Your feeling is irrelevant. I make specific points, citing specific historical precedent, and ask specific questions. You simply ignore the points, the precedent and the questions and repeat your position dogmatically. That's an empirical observation. The posts are still up there.

[xouper]

That's pretty much how I feel about you too.

Your feeling is irrelevant. I make specific points, citing specific historical precedent, and ask specific questions. You simply ignore the points,

That's a false accusation. I did not ignore your points. I summarized your points into a single comment and stated my observation. Just because you didn't like my summary and observation does not mean I ignored your points. To infer otherwise is a fallacy.

I'm sorry you want to have a long drawn out fight over the points you raised, but I do not. I have given your arguments and points all the careful consideration they deserve. You have earned no more than that from me.

In case you still not get it, let me be blunt. I have read your points. I have given your argument careful consideration. I simply do not agree. And that's all I am going to say. I am not going to waste any more of my time trying to justify to your satisfaction that I am entitled to my opinion. I am allowed to state my opinion on this forum without being bullied into to participating in a pointless debate about it, especailly with someone who argues using non-standard semantics.

[Tom-Palven]

xouper  Using semantics to obfuscate is really boring, but I haven't noticed Martin Brock doing that.

I really like this quote that D Black posts at US Politics.com:
"Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."— Robert A. Heinlein

Patent, copyright, libel, and slander laws, like laws in general, are aimed at controlling people's activities.  You may argue that some of these laws are necessary, and perhaps you are right, but another quote  I like anyway, from one of the William Pitts, is-  Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom."

Ah, yes, another quote I really like is from Rabbi Hillel several decades before Christ's Sermon on the Mount:

"Do not unto others that which is hateful to you.  This is the whole of the law.  The rest is commentary."

(edited out the "v" on Rabbi)

[xouper]

xouper  Using semantics to obfuscate is really boring, but I haven't noticed Martin Brock doing that.

Perhaps not yet in this particular instance, but in every other "debate" I've been involved with Martin, he has indeed done that, and I see no guarantee that this time will be any different. The debates with Martin almost always seem to degenerate into quibbling over what "is" means or some such silliness. Waste of my time.

I really like this quote that D Black posts at US Politics.com:
"Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."— Robert A. Heinlein

That's a nice way of putting it. Heinlein is one of my all-time favorite authors. But I think you are using this quote of out context. I don't think Heinlein was an anarchist.

Patent, copyright, libel, and slander laws, like laws in general, are aimed at controlling people's activities.

So is putting Charles Manson in jail for murder. By taking away his right to murder someone, you are trying to control his behavior.

My right to live trumps his right to kill me. Apparently you do not agree.

My right to my property also trumps his right to take it from me without my permission. Apparently you do not agree.

Yes, I know, you do not consider intellectual property to BE property, and again you and I disagree on that point as well. We've been over this already, so why are you bringing it up again?

[Tom-Palven]

Fisrt of all Xoup, I don't think that either you or I or Charlie have any rights....(Uh oh, here's goes Palven, falling out of his rocking chair again...)