Libertarianism and Objectivism: Compatible?
William Thomas on point. I think this is a pretty companionable piece with some excellent references. Inspired by WilliamShipley's question to me here: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
The discussion keeps involving statements such as 'some libertarians believe x' and objectivists don't believe that. The key is 'some'. It is perfectly reasonable to say all A is B but not all B is A.
As someone who has generally considered myself a libertarian, I haven't found anything in the objectivist philosophy that doesn't lie within the broad definition of libertarianism.
Even the article quickly switched to explaining the things that some libertarians believed which were inconsistent with objectivism -- but that isn't at issue. The issue is whether there are things that objectivists believe that lie outside the broader circle of beliefs that could be called libertarian.
But once again we seem to be talking about how libertarians aren't all objectivists. No question there. I recently attended an EFF gathering where the people who thought all IP should be free fought with those who made their living off of IP and disagreed.
Not to trigger yet another IP battle I will say that our discussions have caused me to think about the philosophical underpinnings of my thoughts on IP.
While I unhesitatingly believe that I have the right to my intellectual creations, I am having difficulty with the idea that I have the right to prevent anyone else from independently having the same idea. Is that not their intellectual creation?
This discussion will be better have over coffee, beer or your beverage of choice at some point in the future.
Now proving independence could be tricky but that's a practical consideration not a moral one.
My perspective is that I am entitled to the fruits of my intellect. If that is mean spirited - so be it.
I do not apologize for having strong feelings about the industry I spent the last 40 years in, the first half of which was before the explosion of software patents in the 1990's. I don't actually agree with the view of the industry you espouse. I think software patents are destroying what once was a vibrant industry that people in their garages could get into. Had the patent office only patented unique concept like the LZW patent it would be one thing but when they start patenting things like ring buffers storing bits they move into locking down obvious algorithms that any professional can come up with -- which they are not supposed to do.
You are a sophist and more bluntly a SCUM.
Anyway, you have not shown that independent invention does not occur. You have stated it, that's different than showing it. As you well know, demonstrating prior art is cause for invalidating a patent -- and one that happens often.
Does that mean that the person filing the patent stole the original idea or that he independently invented it and thought he was the first creator.
I admit there are practical issues but I am specifically interested in the morality of essentially stealing the independent creative work of a second person by declaring that since you thought of it and filed some forms he is not entitled to the fruits of his labor.
Of course the frequency of this problem is directly related to the broadness of patents as well as the willingness of the patent office to grant patents on relatively obvious inventions.
I care about facts, but claims are not facts. Claims are simply claims.
Is it your statement that patents are never overturned for prior art? If they are does that mean there was theft or independent invention?
This is not a rhetorical question. You must have an opinion on a situation that happens in your profession?
I notice you wound up with a -1 and I wound up with a 0. I will state that I have NEVER down counted one of your or your wife's posts. I would never do that in an argument I was personally in.
The amazing thing is that we almost completely agree. Of course it's well known that the most vitriol is saved for the people with a slight variation in doctrine.
I actually tossed the IP in to show that even in a libertarian group many of them where committed to some form of IP protection -- you chose to consider it a dig and we were off to the races.
I think there are also examples of independent and contemporaneous (if not simultaneous) inventions. There can be plenty of argument over who flew the first airplane for example. Some have argued quite well that it wasn't the Wright brothers (I forget the name of the guy that might have flown but I believe he was in CT). Or who invented the radio? Marconi who filed the patent in 1897 or Popov who had a similar device a couple years before?
I completely disagree that contemporaneous invention cannot happen.
If you invented calculus today why would it be less patentable than business processes that obtain patents.
For that matter, neither does computer code.
Your examples disprove your thesis.
A more reasonable copyright regime, in my view, would have a copyright owner's complete control of all uses of his work end in about 3-5 years, to be followed by a longer period (maybe even 100 years) where he is entitled to a standard fee (similar to the existing "mechanical licensing" on recorded music) but cannot veto any use of the work. This would be more faithful to the purpose of IP as stated in the Constitution, and would be better balanced with freedom of expression. For patents we don't need much change in existing law, except to shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff unless and until the PTO becomes competent at discovering prior art before it issues a patent.
Religious and anti-philosophical libertarians contradict Objectivism both in policies promoted and in the intellectual basis for the promotions. They took Ayn Rand's principle of non-initiation of force as a primary and a floating abstraction, misusing it from anarchism to abdication of foreign policy to anti-abortion.
This is what happens when the defense of capitalism is divorced from its philosophical base. That some libertarians say they like Ayn Rand or use her terminology does not make the hodge podge compatible with Objectivism. Libertarianism is not "part of the Objectivist politics" and Objectivism is not "a libertarian philosophy" as Will Thomas' mangled account put it.
Here is some of what Ayn Rand said about libertarianism at the time:
Libertarian Party "leadership consists of men of every persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas..." [Ford Hall Forum 1974]
"I've read nothing by Libertarians (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn't my ideas badly mishandled -- that is, the teeth pulled out of them -- with no credit given. I didn't know whether to be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable." [Leonard Peikoff's "Objective Communication", Lecture 1 question period, 1980]
"... [T]hey plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. They're lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program." [Ford Hall Forum 1981]
"Please don't tell me they're pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That's how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout history: by means of people who understand ideas and teach them to others..." [Ford Hall Forum 1981]
For the questions and the full answers for these and more questions on libertarianism see Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, ed by Robert Mayhew.
Discussing the merits of the case is what I did in my essay being discussed here.
The question is: are most libertarians wedded to irrational, self-sacrificial ideals that undermine or render meaningless their professed commitment to liberty?
I don't think so. I think that most libertarians argue from facts and hold, in effect, that the pursuit of happiness is a moral good.
That said, does liberty require a particular philosophic basis? Yes, it does. Are there tendencies toward value relativism (i.e. subjectivism) and rationalism in the a lot of libertarian thought? Yes, there is.
Is Objectivism vitally needed? Again, I say yes.
One wouldn't call Objectivism a 'Conservative philosophy', even though it may share isolated agreement on various Conservative political issues. The same should be true for the isolated political agreements with libertarians.
Yes, Objectivists have isolated points of political agreement with other groups. However, it seems there is enough misunderstanding of Objectivist philosophy in the world without adding to the confusion via an unnecessary association.
Very good. I believe in some ways, on some issues, Conservatives and Libertarians are Objectivists closest political allies, but they are not Objectivists philosophic equals.
Respectfully,
O.A.
The libertarian movement is crawling with religious conservatives and subjectivists who do hold a hodge podge of inconsistent "irrational, self-sacrificial ideals that undermine" the Objectivist meaning of liberty.
In this case A would be objectivists. B would be those who politically hold to the definition of libertarians who are also not objectivists. And C would be the complete set of libertarians.
But not all humans are Objectivists.
Damn it! I'll have none of that human stuff. Those humans are evil. Don't identify me with them.
For the price of a PC and a compiler you could start a software company and the growing millions of computers needed software applications. Many many companies were started and grew.
These were people who could not check with an attorney every time they write a routine -- and a software engineer 'invents' new routines every single day they work.
As some of these companies grew into the large multi-billion dollar giants and the industry grew the idea of software patents grew, not so that they could justify the investment in software -- everyone needs a new version every years. This was so that they could block other companies from developing things and NOT have to innovate.
The vast majority of the patents are owned by large corporations in legal battles to maintain in the court what they cannot maintain in the marketplace.
You may never have seen a ladder logic diagram for those type of systems, but I've worked with some that were up to 500 pages and I've seen some that were larger.
The thing that really generated the growth of programming was the growth in I/O availability and application, and small business and professionals desire to get away from the huge business and institutional computer companies and their monster machines and costs. Once you could transition a computer to keyboard entry and TV display, everybody started writing their own programs to fit their own applications, and again those that were unique and were possibly usable by other people or usages were patented. It had nothing to do with blocking others. Once you have the patent, it's published and everyone can see it. The honest will contract with you for it's use, royalty or buy--the dishonest will steal and use anyway. Bill Gates with DOS and Steve Jobs with Xerox's selectable Icon and mouse, (though I guess payed some nominal fee).
As more PC's, (we first called them mini-computers - 258K as compared to micro) moved into small business and then into personal use and RAM and ROM grew to affordable prices, it then became feasible and more productive to buy an app from someone instead of having to do your own programming and upgrading and maintenance. That's when pure programming became profitable and expanded. And everyone expected what they bought to be patented and it was.
And for a number of years, it was semi Wild West. It was only patent laws that stopped a lot of that and we all benefited. Usually, the patent holder, or company that bought the patent, worked hard to continue to debug and improve and upgrade their product. If you hated the app and couldn't find another, you did your own, or waited patiently for a number of years till the patent expired and another app came out that fit your needs better or had a better track record or wasn't as over priced.
But you're conflating programming with a compiler and a certain number of languages to develop an app, with programming done at the machine language level. Those aren't the same thing. What you're primarily involved with is using an already patented language, with already patented instructions, with an already patented compiler--so now I see why you compare what you're doing to writing a novel. You're not actually doing anything that wasn't already conceptualized by the patented language and instructions, and the patented compiler. I can see why you wouldn't think that was patentable. Not sure I agree, but I can see why you might think that way.
(Mini-computers were computers and peripherals smaller than mainframes, but still much larger than PCs, such as the DEC PDP-11 and VAX used in labs and by small engineering companies who no longer had to rely on time-sharing services on mainframes. By the 1970s and 80s general purpose computers were all solid state; previously they used vacuum tubes, not relays.)
Once the electronics could be built small enough for affordable PCs, then anyone could do it. I think that is what he meant by the explosion in software companies (which mostly did not try to patent their code). Before that there were software companies for engineering analysis and financial applications, but far fewer of them. The programs had not been "conceptualized" by the compilers and the languages they implemented, but did have to follow the specified procedures and syntax required for coding the new algorithms and functions in the applications.
You're very right that the programs weren't conceptualized by the compiler and language, but the programmer is writing, as you say, in the specified procedures and syntax of the language, from which the compiler designed for that language can then convert into the acceptable language of the machine. I think I was luckier than a lot of my later brethren in that I got my start on the actual machines themselves doing the step by step programming and compiling from algorithm through binary to octal, then to punched tape, and switch setting. Analog was considerably different. But then moving on to IC's and finally into DECs and PC's was a short curve, Remember that my Senior year for my bachelors was 75. The HP25 had just come out, but we weren't allowed to use them on campus. Had to use the trusty old slide rule.
The usage of mini vs micro was finally settled about 80 when machines started showing up that were about the size of some of the desktop printers of today and considerably smaller than the DEC's of the 70's. The first 'main frame' I worked with used hand threaded magnetic donut frames. 1K was about 14"x14". Those Korean ladies doing all that threading by hand, each donut about 3/16"diam, three wires per donut hole must have gone home with some really sore fingers.
My first computer course started with machine language programming for an instruction set, then assembly language, but it was to show in detail and become familiar with how it worked, not to develop expertise with that kind of programming. That began with Fortran for numerical methods. A very interesting graduate course I took as an undergraduate was "Theory of Digital Machines", which delved into the mathematics and logic of how they actually function and are integrated with logic circuits and the devices to implement them. But mostly I remained interested in mathematics combined with algorithms for software analysis in engineering physics, and have stayed with that theme ever since, along with the necessary systems programming and configuration.
While in the commercial environment I gravitated toward systems programming and helped maintain the OS. I've done a lot of assembler programming.
I just bought a core memory plane board from an HP2100 on ebay for an office display. It's the same machine I used in college. I'd never actually seen the cores before because they were always deep in the machine and generally never needed replacing. My Univac 1106 definitely also used core.
I've followed some of your conflicts with the hallings. To be truthful, I don't know why you're so hung on this issue of software patents. Property rights (patent) for a first objective creator and copyrights for a subjective creator are essentials for nearly every part of AR's theory of rights and further, provide the inventor protection to publish his invention instead of holding onto it as a trade secret. That publishing vs trade secret then leads to increased and accelerated subsequent improvement invention and even other inventions. Of course, it also provides incentive to the pure researcher/inventor to struggle through when he get's a new idea. I can see where a small programming company or individual in the business of providing specific product on customer spec would face the barrier of hassle and cost to get their stuff patented, but what happens should you, after all of your experience, suddenly come up with an idea that you've never seen another programmer come up with at any of the levels of programming. But to make it happen, you have to spend several months of your own time to develop to a working model. How do you get paid for all that work without a patent.
Copyrighting might seem easier and cheaper to accomplish, but the ability to monitor everything that's going on in the industry and then sue for enforcement of the copyright would be a nightmare, even compared to the same issue for patent protection. Copyrights for some material is now essentially for life plus years for the heirs, compared to a patent that has a relatively short duration.
I honestly feel that you're barking up the wrong tree. If your concern is some 'patent troll' firms that are abusing the system, there's as bad or worse going on in the copyright field except there methods include the Shug Nights of this world as well as courts. I would think that it would make more sense to advocate for some corrective action against the abusive troll firms, understanding that some patent buying firms are honest, expecting to make their money from licensing or selling in an up market for the patent, or someone wanting to manufacture are proper and right.
It's free market capitalism. One man's idea, the work of his mind, objectively realized, then capitalized.
A patent, on the other hand, you can innocently infringe on by coming up with the same idea yourself. Since the patent office has been handing out patents for relatively obvious algorithms, this is actually pretty easy to do and you have no way of knowing you did it until you are sued. Even a patent that would later be ruled invalid would still be devastating to a small company like mine.
The industry is moving very fast -- and we want it to continue to do so. If I come up with a unique idea, and I have (as far as I know), the time it takes to implement it, test it, and get it into the field gives me sufficient time to profit from my idea without trying to stop someone else from starting down that path. I tell everyone that I'd love to compete with someone who is looking at my product and starting to write their own version . They will be two or three years behind me.
Here is a nice paper on the subject. I don't agree with everything they say but I do agree with much of it.
https://www.eff.org/files/2015/02/24/...
An excerpt:
“But when do you have a patent eligible invention? It irritates many computer programmers to no end to learn that the law doesn’t require a single line of code to be written before you can patent software. This irritates many programmers because they feel that the computer code is the end-all-be-all of the software program. That is simply not true either in reality or in the eyes of the law. Computer code is a language just like any other language, and the computer code is a set of instructions that will ultimately explain to the computer what needs to be done, how to accomplish the tasks and what to do with the information, both from a storage, manipulation and output standpoint. Thus, computer code is a set of directions.
The core of a computer program is not the code, but the design of the system. The computer code merely implements the vision, the requirements of the desired design in language that a computer can understand. The mental conception, which is what the patent law considers invention and what ultimately leads to a protected invention, relates to the design of the system, the system architecture and the road map set forth for the various processes, computations and manipulations of information that is acted upon. While it may be helpful to have some code written, and while the writing of the code will likely cause the system engineer tor reevaluate, add on and work around various things, it is the system design that is the invention, not the code. Thus, when you protect a software related invention you are not tying the protection to ask for or ultimately receive to any particular implementation in code.Written properly the software patent will cover the myriad of different ways a computer coder will seek to accomplish the same task. Thus, software patents are far more valuable than copyrights. Copyrights protect computer code and are limited to offering protection against copy of the exact code written. If all you have is a copyright and someone writes different code to accomplish the same functionality you have no recourse. That is why software patents are critical for those that need to protect their proprietary efforts.”
So copyright only protects your word by word programming, but does not protect the idea that leads to an 'invention'.
Patents are only used to stop people from development or slow them down. It never makes anyone able to develop faster.
Things like the 1 click patent are clearly in this category. It was used to block B&N from developing. No one believes that Amazon would not have invented it if they couldn't protect it. Of course they would because it would give them an advantage -- at least for a while.
When were copyright laws historically first seriously applied to software? Before the 1976 Copyright Act or the 1980 amendment including software?
By 1970 there were already major companies making money selling engineering analysis and financial software to run on a variety of mainframes without explicit copyright or otherwise reliable protection. Application software independent of hardware vendors for profit had already taken off, but not in the sense of the PC revolution mass market of the 1980s when "anyone could do it". It was expensive software sold to a relatively few companies using expensive mainframes, and there was a legitimate concern to protect it. Without such protection it would have been much more difficult for the later PC software revolution. Protective means would have been much more difficult or impossible in comparison with the earlier arrangements between a relatively few companies. There should have been unequivocally accepted property rights protection from the beginning, but it took years of controversy to begin to make a reliable dent.
And while we do keep our source code confidential, I'm not sure anyone would really be able to do anything with 12,500 pages of computer code. Recoding the algorithms would be a heartbreaking multi-year effort.
We have a vibrant library of accessible code and routines, frankly more than anyone can effectively use. We don't need everyone's source code to be published to disseminate tech throughout the world. In fact it probably wouldn't help. The routine libraries that are published are far more accessible examples of tech.
Perot and Perot Data systems were one of the first to make a business selling software separate from hardware.
However the industry was still limited by two factors. First computers were very expensive which meant that there were very few markets for your software and thus the development cost could not be spread over many customers.
Second each manufacturer used a different, incompatible, architecture which further fragmented the market.
The advent of personal computers produced a vast increase in the number of potential customers and consolidated the market into standardized platforms. CP/M and then MSDOS or the apple products provided many markets and lowered the developers cost.
You are correct that copyright laws have always been critical to the industry. The battle to convince people that software should be payed for continues to today.
There were a handful of patents, a few of them like the LZW patent do represent code that is not obvious to a normal practitioner. But unlike in manufacturing the industry did not, for the most part, respond to that by paying the patent holder but by considering that something that was blocked from use and finding other algorithms. This wasn't particularly hard since it is a complex routine that you are unlikely to invent on your own. It's when more obvious things like "one-click" purchasing get patented that patents go from encouraging invention to discouraging it.
And we both want to encourage invention and assure that inventors get paid.
The minimum number of steps possible to implement a purchase is one. Amazon would probably like to implement 0 step purchasing and just sell you stuff without you doing anything but you'd probably object.
Having the idea that you want to get the order down to one click and actually designing the infrastructure to do it are two separate things. That could account for a delay in implementation.
And your comment on shareholder's reaction is also relevant since even if you think your opinion on a patent is correct, you simply have to cave because of the cost of justice.
And, yes, I understand you are frustrated because you can't convince me with your arguments. Does this imply that the idea that you might be convinced by mine hasn't crossed your mind? Is it not you who has the irrational belief? Note I do not make that claim, just that I am trying to convince you just as hard as you are trying to convince me. (And I appreciate the effort as opposed to name calling).
Computer languages have not been either patented or copyrighted, anyone can write a compiler that implements one of the major language or, God help us, design yet another one. I have done a lot of coding at the machine language (assembler) level and the process is not inherently different than programming with a compiled language -- just a lot more tedious and error prone (Now what's in register BX at this point?)
My problem with patenting this is that copyrights prevent you from copying someone else's work, patents prevent you from thinking of it on your own. I think you own the right to your own creativity.
You are DISHONEST
If you're going to use the same fallacies the religious leaders do to try to sell AR's philosophy, people are going to lump you with them as just another religion.
And I've reported the messages where he called people scum.
No you ignore all the evidence. You are like socialists who complain about sweat shops in capitalism and ignore gulags and mass starvation in socialist countries
Failure to acknowledge these basic facts means that you are just being dishonest.
Try using evidence and logic. Try using understanding the source of property rights.
This is one of the places I think Rand was wrong when she said one cannot be an Objectivist and a Libertarian. For example, one can be a godist and a Libertarian, but one cannot be an Objectivist and a godist. I suppose, technically, one could be a Libertarian and a communist so long as the form of communism advocated did not involve the initiation of the use of force. But, a person cannot be a communist and an Objectivist. I see that as the difference between a philosophical system and people uniting around a single principle.
Sorry, Mr. Thomas, it is not. The term Libertarian is not well defined, and can include pretty much whatever a speaker wants to put into it. I have known libertarian Objectivists, libertarian Marxists and libertarian thugs.
Anyone who wants to can proclaim himself a libertarian. Only those who agree fundamentally with the philosophy of Ayn Rand can be considered Objectivists.
During her lifetime Rand indicated (or suggested?) that there was ONE Objectivist. No, I don't have a reference for that, but I do know that we went out of our way to be known as "Students of Objectivism" rather than Objectivists.
Libertarianism can be construed as containing parts of the philosophy of Objectivism, even though libertarians usually take whatever pieces they want and ignore others. Objectivism is certainly NOT part of Libertarianism!
But Objectivism is a living philosophy. It derives essentially from Ayn Rand's essential philosophic ideas, but it must go on from there. It requires new work on new issues and refection, too, on the consistency of Rand's own arguments.
As khalling explained, I defined in my essay what political principle I thought Objectivists and libertarians had in common. Anyone with a rational understanding of that principle and in integrated agreement with it is a libertarian. Some others may call themselves "libertarians" who in fact aren't, but I can't control that, except to deplore them.
Libertarianism is not "part of the Objectivist politics" and Objectivism is not "a libertarian philosophy", as explained previously. http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
You did not answer that question, you simply went off on a tangent unrelated to the question or your comment. This is to commit the fallacy of diversion.
I give up with your thinking ability. To say one will not initiate force is not the same as saying one will not defend against force initiated by another. Slef defense is far different from attacking.
There was a lot of crazy stuff going on then among those on the fringe of Objectivism. Drugs. Loyalty oaths. Redefining Rand to match one's whims. No wonder Rand distanced herself from her "heepies".
Some of us thought Rand was paranoid in defending herself. But she could plainly see enemies whom we took to be our friends and hers. "I'll sue you!" she told one of our hippy friends.
Thank you for posting this excellent brief essay.
One for my archives. :)
O.A.
I think most people are some variety of less-gov't-advocates, but they don't know it. The liberal vs conservative thing gets attention, like bright red packaging or sexual images. It doesn't mean people want that. I am hopeful that someone like Rand Paul will be able to sell of slowing reducing the cost and intrusiveness of gov't.
I was stating the situation as I understand it.
They then think that if they will abjure the initiation of force, all interactions should do so. And, in general, this is right. And to be square with this commitment, they embrace anarchism. It doesn't matter, then, if anarchy will work: it is a clear, simple implication of justice. For similar reasons, they tend to oppose intellectual property.
But I think of political principles in terms of industrial capitalism. I think of them as pertaining to the individual, to be sure, but also as pertaining to Walmart and PayPal. If our free society doesn't enable the best aspects of industrial capitalism (think: Silicon Valley), it isn't going to be worth having.
And in that context, anarchism is a non-starter. The one thing industrial capitalism needs is clear, uniform law. And applying rights principles in property and contract is far from simple: it often involves subtle and complex issues. So there is much, much more to law than the basic principle of non-initiation of force. And the implications of that principle are not obvious or transparent.
That underlies many of our disagreements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
Jan
Were I dropped on a desert island, it might be possible for me to invent something to solve a problem that is also found elsewhere already invented.
And those examples are great except when both inventors are not in the US and feel no need to file for US patents. Like Popov and Marconi.
It's frankly an incredulous statement to state that two people could not independently and contemporaneously solve a similar or same problem in the same way.
In this thread I didn't actually mean to bring it up. I don't want to deliberately antagonize you two because I think that other than a single point of (white hot) disagreement we probably agree with most things.
The thread was on libertarians and Objectivists and in response to statements that libertarians don't believe in IP rights I said some do and some don't. I said I did. Somehow you thought this was a challenge and responded strongly.
It is a weakness of mine that I can't let a challenge go by.
I debated Objectivism-influenced anarchist Stephan Kinsella at PorcFest, June 2015. See the debate here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Fey... .
I have a paper "Objectivism Against Anarchy" where I explain the issues. http://www.atlassociety.org/sites/def...
I observe this too. I think there are many "moderate libertarians" for lack of a better word who do not get the details of Objectivist philosophy but know they want less gov't. I consider myself in this group. We're going the wrong way on gov't spending and intrusiveness, and just stopping right here and not getting any worse would be a huge win.
Peter Schwartz wrote an essay several years ago that was in two parts that appeared in the Ojectivist Forum explaining why.
I believe if we must label ourselves and our opponents it should be "liberty vs oppression'. No other labels are needed. Labels get in our way of accomplishing even simple conversation...too many meanings to too many words. Everybody should recognize the words liberty and oppression. I am either in charge of my life or someone else is. IF someone else is, then it isn't MY life. That means I am oppressed. How much more simple can it be to know who to vote for, assuming everyone isn't lying?
I despise all the labels people make up, including the ones being discussed here. Can we not survive without all the foolishness and waste of time spent on labels and just consider freedom vs oppression? I will vote for ANYONE who is for freedom, and i will vote for NO ONE who is for oppression. Makes life so very simple.
Actually the labels liberty vs oppression is unlikely to work for a variety of reasons. For instance, plenty of people believe that state funded health care increases their liberty and other people think taking away people's rights to their inventions or their artistic creations increases freedom.
Unfortunately, there is no short cut to the hard work of winning the war of ideas.
I could say that basket balls and foot balls are both balls used in sports, therefore they are the same A is A, but that's only for a limited definition. In reality they are not the same and Tom Brady is never going to take the field with a basketball, even a deflated one.
I have, in the last three years, discovered that I can write fiction. I wrote a handful of short stories in the 1970's when I was 20, but then nothing more until now. The realization that the same mental processes that I have used for forty years as a programmer are directly applicable to writing fiction has given me confidence in the writing. It feels like doing the same thing.
It is true that the goal is different, but the process is similar.
That's going too far for me, I do want to accomplish something.
The reason I keep going back to this analogy -- and it is an analogy -- is that both processes involve mixing design elements to achieve the desired goal. The elements are not things in and of themselves like components in a radio but ways of thinking. Just like no one should patent the laws of the universe, they should not patent ways of thinking either.
Since I never implemented a pay system in software I haven't independently implemented one click, but if I did have a pay system it would have at least been on my wish list.
I thing the broader rights granted by patents are damaging the development of the industry without significantly improving productivity. I think the chance for punishing the innocent is high. And I think that copyrights strike the right balance for protecting our IP.
I really understand. I just disagree. And a lot of other people feel the same way. DB just posted an article arguing with them.
As to submarines, there is an example of a flaw in the Patent system that isn't software related. Once someone came to Professor Richard Feynman and asked him about atomic rockets. He said that he didn't know anything about atomic rockets and they told him he had the patent on it. This surprised him.
He thought back and remembered that at the end of the Manhattan project someone had stuck their head in the door of his office and said that they were filing patents for the applications of nuclear fission. Feynman tossed off a number of ideas off the top of his head and 'voila' he has a patent on an entire endeavor.
Lib. foreign policy is based on the wrong concept of force; i.e. on the initiation of force as an axiom. It does not base it on Obj. morality which allows for the use of force to protect us from outside enemies.
Linked to that is the fact that they don't hold an objective morality at all, where right and wrong can be objectively argued.
As Rand noted, they rely on the fallacy of "concept-stealing": using a concept while ignoring/denying more fundamental ideas on which that concept logically depends. Thus, they steal "wrong", "right", "liberty", etc.
They improperly define property rights; e.g. they hold that property requires possession, thus eliminating patent & other rights. And they hold that such rights gives an owner the right to do whatever he wants with his property.
No, they are not compatible. No Lib. can be an Objectivist, and vice versa.
However, some libertarians hearing this talk, yet who don't agree with it, characterize the libertarian antipathy to an interventionist military as practical in character. They say they are not isolationists, just prudent--intervention isn't working, they say. That's not an irrational view.
As for me I claim the Constitution as the center of political discourse and thought and action.
The right for 200 years has been the home of divine right or power to rule. Only the occupant has fled and it's now populated by the only valid source of power the citizens over government as temporary employees.
note to above full title of the Democratic Party. In Minnesota i't's farm-labor.) But then Minni sovieta is also the home of the American Communist Party...(and that's a true fact Jack.)
But as for me both are part and parcel of the anti-left movement. Unless someone can prove otherwise I'm going to back both and say thank you for serving your country.
Once more in to the fray! I'm just loving this retirement all of a sudden. Caught myself keeping regular office hours on the various projects.
In between wifi outages and fishing.
Then too their is this new waitress at the local.....
(New does not mean young!)
Although to be honest I think I just phrased it better here than in my original question. :)
The founding fathers had deep and vehement disagreements themselves, despite being more or less on the same premises. It devolved quickly into personal and party hatred.
I expect an Objectivist society would be just as passionate about differences at the margin. (Or perhaps a bit better, valuing reason as they would.) But the consensus would encompass so many positive aspects, the bickering would simply be the gears of politics turning, while great things were done and people were set free to flourish.
As always apply values and check premises and conclusions and do so light of reality. Associate with people with whom I don't agree on everything? Most of the time. With those where there is no agreement? What for?
Keeping tabs on their latest efforts to invade my sacred ground is one good reason. Especially those who insist on doing so. Invitation is one thing. Invasion is quite another.
I've worked with people I despise when the job called for it. I they were professional and competent. When the job is done I walk away.
Can't do that with those incompetent. If they don't get you killed or injured there is still the mess to clean up. That's part of accepting rights and responsibilities and reality.
Sums it up quite well.
My problem, as I've said, is with them telling someone who didn't copy them but independently invented the thing themselves that they cannot use the fruits of their labor.
By defining the rules of what can and cannot be protected we influence how often this can happen.
Like - you're innocent until proven guilty. Well, no. Actually you are already either innocent or guilty. Regardless of the findings of a jury. And you might be innocent but found guilty or you might be guilty but found innocent.
Likewise there might legally in the US be a single inventor of a device A protected by patent. That doesn't mean that somebody in Japan or Russia did not invent the same or very similar device in reality at basically the same time.
I'm not sure how all of this grew out of WilliamShipley's pointing out the very real situation in which there are libertarians that support IP and there are libertarians that do not. That's just a fact. Met some of them at porcfest.
For me to be correct in what I'm saying there only has to be one example, ever, in history. For your argument to be correct, you have to have been right about every invention ever done by anyone.
Plus, I've independently thought of ideas and then googled it and found out somebody else already did it. And I had no idea they had done it.
Independent human minds are bound to come up with similar or the same solutions for similar or the same problems. It doesn't have to be simultaneous or even contemporaneous - but independent. That's what Shipley was saying.
Who made their legal claim first is a different question but it doesn't change the fact that, in reality (even if not in the eyes of the law), the two would have both invented the same thing.
Actually Shipley never said that we shouldn't have property rights in inventions either. In fact, he specifically stated that he agreed with the pro-IP libertarians. He only stated that within the libertarian camp there were both pro-IP and anti-IP libertarians. O's would fall in the first category. Of course so would others.
Yes Mr. Shipley has consistently said that we should not have property rights for inventions, but you may have not been in on those conversations.
To prove independent invention, you would have to show that there was no knowledge by the second inventor of the invention, not even a general understanding in the community or reports of the results. It is much easier to build something once someone else proves it is possible. That would not be independent invention and would provide no moral claim to the second inventor. Even true independent invention, which is highly unlikely, provides any moral claim as Mr. Shipley suggests. Being second means you lost, just like in a race. But ultimate Shipley and libertarians arguments are based on zero sum thinking. Somehow the second (independent) builder is foreclosed from a lifetime of returns. This is nonsense. There is no limit to the number of inventions to be created. Any inventor that deserves the name will create many inventions in their lifetime. The real problem in todays' world is the theft of inventions by large companies. Mr. Shipley shows his true colors by focusing on a nonexistent problem and perhaps his underlying motivations.
I question whether software algorithms count as inventions and whether the current practices doesn't allow someone to claim ownership of the obvious. But software patents are a subset of inventions.
It's like saying switching a light switch is a way of changing your house wiring, but no one really believes their house has been rewired because they switched on the lights.
The computer is unchanged by the software running on it just as the televisions circuits are turned on and off by the television program. But we've been down this road. My contention is that 40 years of software design has given me a deep understanding of the process which may be more relevant than 20 years of legal training. We disagree, that does not make me religious any more than you are. I am unconvinced.
Switching circuits with physical switches (relays) haven't been used since before WWII.
Patch cords were for configuration, not the step by step program operation, which relied on vacuum tubes to change the state for each clock cycle. The wiring does not change in that process and the state is set by voltage thresholds, not requiring that literally all current stop. The "switching" in a switching circuit refers to switching binary states represented by the voltage configurations, not mechanical switching.
A software program can be implemented in a microprocessor/controller but also can be implemented in a FPGA. One type of FPGA is "programmed" by using a laser to sever the wires between two components. In a microprocessor the same thing is done by opening a switch. Rewiring.
Most programs run on a computer, they don't burn new circuits into hardware. But all of them are inherently related to the operation of hardware, without which the computer hardware would be meaningless -- which is all you need for your IP arguments.
The mechanism of creating a DVD, or of creating an FPGA are hardware inventions. The data stored using them is not.
I actually remember manual patch panels, although I've never programmed them I've taken one out and put another one in to run a different program.
Modern software is so far removed from patch panels as to make the comparison ludicrous. There is nothing in common about the way programs are built and tested with the patch panels.
(BTW, I have no knowledge of the legal issues. I'm just reading the commenets.)
If someone were to develop a similar program that performed the same function, compile it, debug it and install it, it would not be a copy of the first one.
Thanks.
I acknowledge those basic facts. :)
Your arguments seem to be based on emotion rather than reason. Clearly being disagreed with by experts in the software industry makes you angry.
You are DISHONEST
I do not understand this IP / patent law debate, but it really seems to me that today's world holds way more value in IP than the world 200 years ago.
Load more comments...