Implication of post, related to title: Those who oppose the validity of IP deny man his liberty through his inability to limit, or seek redress for, harm.This post is based on a Misean-framework of man, and a Randian-framework of living - of a person who holds his body AND mind (including Novel Creations, including Art) as his property, and his rationality as his tool to maximize his life. And that the use of IP without the artists' consent, is theft.\------------------------Forward:"The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it's exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system."\-Friedman\------------------------Note: The quotes and excerpts are to bolster and echo the concepts, and induce emotions, which somewhat relies on familiarity with the works - that said, understanding them isn't required to understand the post. Wordplay and odd capitalization is the same.
\------------------------"To the socialists of all parties." -Hayek:Regarding those who support redistribution (implying) as practised, I am not surprised by the reaction against AI training on your Novel Creations without your consent - nor may you be - by reason of the degree of use of your consciousness and the consistency of your philosophy."Emotions are estimates of that which furthers man's values or threatens them, that which is for him or against him - lightning calculators giving him the sum of his profit or loss."\-Rand\------------------------The Road we're on:"A few third-raters, as you would call them. Really, there was very little difficulty. None of them could have begun to conceive of the first step towards the concept of your energy-transmission formula, but given that - the rest was easy.That panel is known as the Xylophone - because one must be darn careful to strike the right keys, or, rather, to pull the right levers ... there will be nothing else to see. The ray itself is invisible. It has long been conceded by all progressive thinkers that there are no entities, only actions - and no values, only consequences."\-Rand\------------------------
pre-tldr;post is bigger than IP.\------------------------Grouped as 3 on purpose:"The market came with the dawn of civilization and it is not an invention of capitalism. If it leads to improving the well-being of the people, there is no contradiction with socialism."\-Gorbachev"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.\-RandThe test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.\-"Gatsby Guy"\------------------------Prologue - The Inversion:Epictetus held that a slave retained liberty of mind even when his body was another's - that ownership of the person could extend only to the flesh. Cognition remained untouched territory.Apply that to intellectual property and the premise inverts.The product of cognition is precisely what stands outside the recognized category of ownership. So the retreat Epictetus offered - the inner citadel - becomes the very site of the expropriation. You are not free within your thoughts when the thoughts' external expression carries no ownership, the denial of ownership is treated as liberation, and that liberation is passed off as principle.\------------------------
tldr:Even those sincere in the goodness and efficacy of their actions are parasites and enablers of other parasites - they must be opposed and their ideas exposed, if libertarian relations are to exist.\------------------------Subject of this post:Libertarian consistencyConsent.Refuting anti-ip's scarcity/non-rivalrous aspect.Showing that IP, from a Misean/Randian ("...and I don't like that name.") (Would have been shorter and easier to spell, if not for this parenthetical, if I didn't need to ask you whether you'd feel loss for had you known this parenthetical was a device, that, though, serves both our ends, is a Novel Creation of mine done to disproportionately benefit producers at the expense of the looters? Or would you rationalize pain?) perspective, induces the same protections as physical property.That recognizing that IP is valid is the continuation of disbelieving that man's mind should have complete control of the results of its Actions.\------------------------
Intro:Purported allies who are inconsistent in their position are more dangerous to their own cause than the most skilled opponent.An enemy fights in the open.An inconsistent ally opens the gates.\------------------------The bind:"There was a time when men were afraid that somebody would reveal some secret of theirs that was unknown to their fellows. Nowadays, they're afraid that somebody will name what everybody knows. Have you practical people ever thought that that's all it would take to blast your whole, big, complex structure, with all your laws and guns — just somebody naming the exact nature of what it is you're doing?"\- Rand\------------------------
Defining property:People own themselves.A person acting converts what is theirs - their temporal existence - along with unowned inputs - to alleviate their uneasiness. This conversion results in physical and intellectual goods.Property begins where labor ends. The cotton is yours because you picked it. The technique is yours because you invented it. Scarcity describes the cotton. It says nothing about the technique. Kinsella's test smuggles that silence in as a verdict.\------------------------Claim: Scarcity - that ideas aren't rivalrous because using another's idea doesn't affect the person who discovered it."If I invent a technique for harvesting cotton, your harvesting cotton in this way would not take away the technique from me. I still have my technique as well as my cotton. Your use does not exclude my use; we could both use my technique to harvest cotton. There is no economic scarcity, and no possibility of conflict over the use of a scarce resource. Thus, there is no need for exclusivity."\-Kinsella\------------------------
Counter:Property is the fruit of labor.One's novel conceptions' value to themselves is affected by others employing the novel conception, to the detriment of their autonomy.The mechanism involves the marketability of one's Novel Conceptions when others use them to influence the market in a way only possible by the employment of that Novel Conception, in the absence of any compensation requested by the originator for use.Suggesting that scarcity affects whether something can be property implies that any idea or form of matter can be unlimited, which may actually be true of the universe, but on Earth it's a spectrum that Kinsella pled-especially-well-for to justify that intellectual output's novel conceptions cannot be property because they cannot be policed, implying that people have no right to force Recompense. Expropriators of wealth weaponize this Logic in their taking of the fruit of man's mind while espousing their charity, Case taking as many bananas as they can get away with taking, according to the effect that political Funders desire for individuals, to the degree that Funders affect what the politician chooses. Applies to all sources of Force.That is, IP not being property denies recompense of harm, and as such, that anti-IP is incompatible with Misean/Randian libertarianism.\------------------------
Timeline to the retreat:" 'The tycoons can stand being squeezed, they've amassed enough to last them for three generations' — then, later, had yelled: 'Why should the people suffer while businessmen have reserves to last a year?' — now were screaming: 'Why should we starve while some people have reserves to last a week?' "\-Rand\------------------------IP results from labor. But no creator works from nothing - every mind stands on the shoulders of giants whose contributions can never be fully credited or compensated. That cumulative debt doesn't erase the creator's claim. It bounds it. A right that never expires would demand payment from minds that built on what came before, forever, without end. So the time limitation follows from the same principle that makes IP valid, not from philosophy or pragmatism. Where the line falls can't be fixed objectively - but neither can the line between one man's contribution and the giants beneath him. Indeterminable is not arbitrary. The anti-IP side engaged in fallacies to contrive time limits. They can have them. Without the fallacy.\------------------------"Scientists are not supposed to believe anything. Scientists are supposed to have some evidence that leads them tentatively to some conclusion or to some action. They're supposed to be able to show that to other scientists, any interested person in fact who's willing to understand what it is that was used as evidence, should be able to say, yeah, I agree with that, that makes sense, using rules of inference that we've used since Aristotle. Okay, and it's not complicated at all. You learn it in sixth grade. Most scientists forget it pretty quickly. But science is not a set of beliefs. I mean, there's only one belief in science, that you have to retreat to commitment at a certain point."\-Kary Mullis\------------------------
Our Fatal Conceit:"We have never had to set up and direct the entire system of nature as we are forced to do today with society. Mankind is tending more and more to regulate the whole of its social life, although it has never attempted to create a second nature."\-Mannheim, Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction
>>546051918IP is not property
>>546051918People are growing tired of pointing to someone esle to define value, society is beginning to sense that the princess is always in another castle and people are pointing to pointers all they way around. People are starting look for their intrinsic value, not the market resale rate. Were fathoming all paid influencers, ad campaigns, enshittified ech, value engineered appliances, corporate corruption, ceos that wont eat their burgers - do you even value what your selling?? People would rather go to blockbuster at this point than pay 7.99 for a movie rental while already paying for amazon prime. IP is at the core heart of many of these right to repair right to distribute problems. And more are waking up that its not a value driver, loss lead your culture, be thankful someone is reamplying your memes and norms, thats Teslas future that he worked so hard for and is his
