65 replies to this topic

[AaronCW]

This was posted on the Scientific American website, and the ensuing comments it has generated has gotten interesting. I was wondering what the response would be here.

http://blog.sciam.co...1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Make sure you read the article before you read all the comments.

[Lazarus Long]

Then they should read this first

http://www.sciam.com...9F183414B7F0000

[Infernity]

What's wrong with Capitalism?

-Infernity

[attis]

Welfare has problems galore. It seems right at its face value, to help other people, but does it really help other people to give them everything without incentive to grow and advance themselves? Clearly it doesn't follow that welfare as currently implimented will be the state of affairs in the future centuries to come.

We're going to have to accept some people are not willing to work and demand the world of us for nothing in exchange. Such people should not be given leeway[sp?] over our lives. I think capitalism is the best system, if we take out the corporate personhood and intellectual property rackets that corrupt the basic idea behind it, which is the freedom of capital flow. The freedom for Joe Nobody to be able to work and compete with John Businessleader. That takes guts to impliment, because it's the type of system where welfare as we see it today would not be welcomed, nor would corporate welfare be welcomed either. But, it would allow for capital flow and wealth creation to follow a more natural curve closer to real productivity rather than based on media hyped expectations. It would also allow for the develop of new technologies without threat of force or unneeded regulation.

[AaronCW]

Then they should read this first

http://www.sciam.com...9F183414B7F0000

I agree Lazarus, this article is equally as offensive as the one I submitted .

To be honest, I am Aaron W. in that exchange. I was feeling guilty that it was getting out of hand and crowding out people who were making comments directly relevant to the article. I also felt that I might get some more thoughtful, intelligent debate here.

Feel free to comment on anything I might have posted there.

[siberia]

How do you suggest to take out intellectual property and still keep a society entirely capitalistic ?

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just wondering.

[attis]

How do you suggest to take out intellectual property and still keep a society entirely capitalistic ?

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just wondering.

Simple, ideas cannot be owned since they are not tangible. Property is soley that which is tangible.

[attis]

Then they should read this first

http://www.sciam.com...9F183414B7F0000

Very flawed assessment by the writer. In fact, if the writer would look at Germany, France, and the UK, as the largest welfare states, we see these nations faultering. Every possible regulation on getting an education, using that education as businessperson, and even getting into a company to be part of the business basically choke these nations from having independent developments. Lets take website development in the UK. If you want to say develop some small company's website, first you got to get your company 'listed.' Yes, listed as part of some big list of companies that can be 'used' to develop websites. Silly isn't it? But that doesn't end there, you got to pay for this 'list' and that money goes to 'offset the competition' that comes with so many companies developing websites. How do I know about this? Simple, I got a good friend in Scotland that got out of the website development business after it became impossible for him to even get started. Each stage, he basically found it was economically impossible for him to get started, because it always levied less capital than what was needed for the regulation fees.

Now, lets look at Germany and France, just on the employment front. Both these nations have strict employment laws that would make California's regulations look slipshod by comparison. But here's the catch, you can't fire anyone for even a good reason like the employee jipping out on work, or not doing their job at all. You have to go through legal commissions to get approval for that, and then you still have to pay the to be fired employee some consolation money so they can find another job. That sounds all well and good, but tell that to the folks that amount to the 10% UNEMPLOYED in both these nations. When you get absurd regulations that prevent even the firing of unproductive employees you might as well throw in the towel.

Now, lets talk about those Nordic countries. There's something fishy in the man's numbers, so I'll explain. First, he's ignoring the fact that each of these nations have niche economies, which are heavily protected by import taxes and subsidies. Essentially, the citizens of these countries have to pay for the development of these businesses. CCP and FunCom are both from such nations, and they basically get paid to make their products, which are MMORPGs. Yes folks, the norse are living on NetHack with 3D. How dynamic is that? :-P Also, this chap seems to forget that certain populations like those in the nordic countries don't grow very much and are not yet experiencing a greying of the population. When that sets in, forget it, they'll be in the poor house in a matter of years. Furthermore, the cost [aka externalities] are not even referenced in the said blog article, so I can't assess the true cost of all this without them. So, in that context I cannot say they are paying more than any other country for these perks, but I can guess that it does accrue a marginally larger cost than say Hong Kong or South Korea by comparison, as examples of more capitalistic nations.

[advancedatheist]

The Arizona Republic ran an article on Sunday, October 22, about Americans' spendthrift ways. The side article had the following.

http://www.azcentral...avings1022.html

Americans earn more money than people in most other nations but also feel shorter on cash.

Among more than 21,000 consumers polled in 40 nations, here are the percentages in nations where residents felt most cash-strapped after meeting basic living expenses:


• 1. Portugal, 23 percent.

• 2. United States, 22 percent.

• 3. Netherlands, Britain, 17 percent (tie).

• 5. Canada, France, Turkey, 16 percent (tie).

• 8. Hungary, South Korea, Germany, 15 percent (tie).

Source: AC Nielsen Online Consumer Confidence Survey

Funny how people in social-democratic countries with allegedly crushing tax burdens somehow feel they have more money at the end of the month than Americans.

[siberia]

Ok, if property is solely things that are tangible, does that mean that for example a blueprint of an invention not should be protected by property laws. I guess it should, because it's perceptible. But if you copy it don't you thinkit's the same thing as stealing it (the work behind it)? An example. Someone develops some kind of physical invention (like an engine): He takes a loan to build a factory to massproduce it to make money. What then hinders anyone rich to make an identical factory and dump the price to make the inventor, he who made the important work go bankrupt?

Not a new question, I know. But I've not been really satisfied with the answers provided to them.

I believe that you think that the abolishment of intellectual property is a way to prevent anyone to gain too muchpower, and I think it's a great idea for development and effectivization, and would like to see it tried. But still think of intellectual property as something to be respected in the system of what people today refers to as capitalism.


Also, Rasputin

I'm not convinced of any fundamental human rights, I can't se what grants them, I used to view them as truth but recently i've found myself to have lost this certitude. Im asking you since when I read your posts in the magazines discussion you seemed to be extremely confident in your beliefs, Why do you own and have full right to yourself? And where's the rightiousness to grant you these rights, what stops anyone from doing something against your will, except good will? I am refering to your reply below


""Your perception of ownership fails to recognize that without a government and the institutions created to keep
it in control-all supported by taxes-nothing would stop me from using or destroying anything you consider yours."

You fail to recognize that the only proper function of government is to protect individual rights, the most important of which (the one that without which no other rights are possible) is property rights."

Why is the state obligated to protect what you consider yours, what stops the state (which consists of indiviuals, indeed) to take control of those with less power ? Or rather, one highly influential individual to create a new state which doesn't care for those without power?

[siberia]

advacedatheist said:
Funny how people in social-democratic countries with allegedly crushing tax burdens somehow feel they have more money at the end of the month than Americans.

I think it's because they (we, for me actually) have more of a governmental security net then Americans and therefore more "collective responsability" and instead feel more insecure about the function of these. We also have wages far more even here, making the experience of "shortage of supply" compared to others less present, for all groups.

[attis]

Ok, if property is solely things that are tangible, does that mean that for example a blueprint of an invention not should be protected by property laws.

If you steal it, yes. But if you copy it, no. There's a distinction that is often missed in the idea of intellectual property, in that it requires force to ensure its existence, where as tangible property inherentally is secured insomuch it's accountable. If it's lost or stolen, you know it has been. Sometimes you have a bill of sale or deed that says only you own it. So, if anyone else is caught with it, a police officer can promptly retrieve the goods and snag the thief. But in things like ideas, trying to give a monopoly to one person or set of persons to that idea is a bit of a farce in that if I own my tangible property outright, then I could do what I wish with it so long as I am not hurting or stealing from anyone else with it. But in IP law, you can't. Like if you wanted to reproduce the notes of a famous song on your musical instrument. You can't by law, it's called IP 'theft' or copyright infringement. Yet, all you did was play the notes that are similar or same as the famous song, but on a different instrument. How can you steal a song? It's inexhaustible. So, that can't be it. What often is the claim is that the idea is some how a reflection of the person who 'created' it. Thus, it a disparagement of the person if you mimic the idea. But that doesn't stick for long, because then every inspiration, every past invention becomes eternally protected as part of someone else's 'soul' as it were. And that any innovation is a disparagement of every creator and innovator that has ever existed.

But still think of intellectual property as something to be respected in the system of what people today refers to as capitalism.

What people call capitalism today is really a mixture of socialism and facism of old. The old Adam Smith capitalism has been defeated, not because it was a bad idea, but because people are often lazy and want a hand out, whether they're a poor fellow down on his luck or a rich businessman that thinks the world owes him something. Jefferson was once quoted as saying a taper lit by his lights that taper but never diminishes his. The tapers represent the human minds exchanging ideas, the lighting is the exchange of the ideas, and the taper now alight with new ideas has not diminished the other taper who still shines with the same ideas. Free exchange of ideas is what made capitalism possible. Today, we live in a darkening age, where even life extension research may become impossible not because of mere biological hurdles, but because of legal tape and pinstripes. Imagine that, death via lawsuit. LOL!

[siberia]

I agree that it's not hurting someone directly, I think it helps everyone in the long run. But my fear with this is that I suspect that the incitament of making creative work is elimited, at least greatly reduced when you can't benfit from directly from your (creative) work. I see some parallels with communism where you is expected to share all your efforts with the rest, that you should make (and here, to create) things
because you find it to be fun and the satisfaction from developing your own, and perhaps humanitys, potential.

And it's probably therefore I asked whether it could implemented within capitalism. I've only been learned about capitalism in school, and there I was told that intellectual property is a fundamental part of (revisited, indeed modern) capitalistic theories

It's, as said, a great theory and I find it likely to work better then the existing system(s) in terms of development, which is the most important thing for me right now as I want to achieve an unnatural long life. But I suspect that many people will still be lazy and maybe even more when you can't gain much wealth from your work. When I now talk about wealth, I mean wealth in comparison with others. Some people can feel bad from having a neighbour with a nicer car than his, for example, even though he got everything a chinese farmer can dream of and more.


It'll take time to change peoples view on this. Perhaps not if the development of intellectual property rights proceeds as it has done in America, which I can't defend at all. I just think it's fair that if someone develops something he should get some kind of recognition for this, including a small economincal fee if someone makes money from it. Not the same as to have a monopoly.

[AaronCW]

How do you suggest to take out intellectual property and still keep a society entirely capitalistic? I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just wondering.

Simple, ideas cannot be owned since they are not tangible. Property is soley that which is tangible.

This is a terrible proposition because it is a negation of the role of the mind in creative productive efforts. Patent and copyright laws are essential to preserve an individuals right to the ideas that he originates. If patent laws did not exist then the pace of technological progress in this nation would grind to a halt as their would be no incentive to create. It is true that an idea cannot be patented until it exists in a tangible form, but the purpose of the patent is to guarantee to the creator the right to use or dispose of his idea as he chooses.

I'm not convinced of any fundamental human rights, I can't se what grants them, I used to view them as truth but recently i've found myself to have lost this certitude. Im asking you since when I read your posts in the magazines discussion you seemed to be extremely confident in your beliefs, Why do you own and have full right to yourself? And where's the rightiousness to grant you these rights, what stops anyone from doing something against your will, except good will? I am refering to your reply below

Your perception of ownership fails to recognize that without a government and the institutions created to keep it in control-all supported by taxes-nothing would stop me from using or destroying anything you consider yours.

Aaron W. (Rasputin):
You fail to recognize that the only proper function of government is to protect individual rights, the most important of which (the one that without which no other rights are possible) is property rights.

Siberia:
Why is the state obligated to protect what you consider yours, what stops the state (which consists of indiviuals, indeed) to take control of those with less power ? Or rather, one highly influential individual to create a new state which doesn't care for those without power?

The answer to where fundamental individual rights are derived is to be found in identifying what you accept as being a moral standard and the subsequent philosophical ideology to which you subscribe. The dominant philosophy today, on both sides of the political spectrum, is that of collectivism, which holds altruism, or sacrifice of the individual to the collective, as it's moral standard. In this context individual rights do not exist; the individual is owned by the state for whatever means it holds as being good for the 'public'.

If you consider a philosophy which regards an individual's right to their own life as the moral standard (this is logical if you consider that the human means of survival requires that each individual be free to think, to create, and be free to use and dispose of that which they produce) you will find that respect for individual rights is the necessary and primary requirement of civilized, free society. In order for a free society to function it requires the creation of a constitutional government whose purpose is to protect individual rights in accordance with an objective code of laws. This government is granted a monopoly on the use of physical force (as arbitrary use of physical force by individuals is not compatible with civilized society and must be banned). The government should not have any powers that are not derived from the rights of individual citizens (for example, the right of the government to use retaliatory force in order to enforce the law is derived from the individuals right of self-defense). The government may never assume the power to violate the rights of the individual.

Edited by bgwowk, 24 October 2006 - 06:49 PM.

[AaronCW]

Could someone point out for me why my quotes don't show up as they should? My post is a bit difficult to sort out otherwise.

Thanks.

[attis]

This is a terrible proposition because it is a negation of the role of the mind in creative productive efforts. Patent and copyright laws are essential to preserve an individuals right to the ideas that he originates. If patent laws did not exist then the pace of technological progress in this nation would grind to a halt as their would be no incentive to create. It is true that an idea cannot be patented until it exists in a tangible form, but the purpose of the patent is to guarantee to the creator the right to use or dispose of his idea as he chooses.

Patent laws didn't exist in the time of the Italian Rebirth, so no one invented anything or invented very slowly? Come on, be realistic. Patent laws only protect intellectual squatters, who do not want to continue to invent. They get one patent and then they just sit on it for the 11 or so years they are given. Why moral right do they have to stop anyone from coming up with a similar innovation? None, pure and simple. Moreover, IP has been developed by lawyers, not inventors or creators, and as such reflect the legalistic belief of ownership of an idea, to which is not epistemologically nor metaphysically true. And rejects the moral right of any human being to do what they wish with their tangible property if it harms no one. Copying an idea does not harm anyone. Nor does it follow automatically that it makes anyone stop innovating. By that logic, any period of human history where IP did not exist, then there should not been inventions. Yet, our own language is an invention itself, and I never heard of any historical reference to which its inventor demanded eternal tribute for its use. You cannot have progress and then put up fences around parts of it and claim it as your own when it cannot be owned [epistemologically or metaphysically]. That is as simple as it gets. And it is an impediment to the progress of the free market to do so. Ultimately, IP is ANTI-CAPITALISTIC and ANTI-PROGRESS.

[bgwowk]

Could someone point out for me why my quotes don't show up as they should? My post is a bit difficult to sort out otherwise.

Thanks.

Insert a carriage return just before the endquote to move it down to a new line, as I did with your previous post to fix it. I don't know why the forum software wants endquotes on new lines, but apparently it does.

[AaronCW]

Patent laws didn't exist in the time of the Italian Rebirth, so no one invented anything or invented very slowly? Come on, be realistic. Patent laws only protect intellectual squatters, who do not want to continue to invent. They get one patent and then they just sit on it for the 11 or so years they are given. Why moral right do they have to stop anyone from coming up with a similar innovation? None, pure and simple.

By modern standards invention happened at a painfully slow rate during the Renaissance (and even worse compared to the level of invention which took place during the height of capitalism in America (ie. the Industrial Revolution). The surge in invention during the Renaissance can be attributed primarily to the shift towards an Aristotlian philosophy. You make very clear the purpose and value of patent laws; they secure the monetary value of inventions. What would the value of an invention be if a horde of parasites were waiting at your doorstep ready to steal your intellectual efforts, and what right do those parasites have to the product of your intellect? If you were to invent something (say, perhaps, a remarkable new anti-aging drug) and then refuse to share it with the world, would you be committing a crime? If an invention/idea is really worth so much to the world that the ownership of it for a relatively short period of time (a decade or so) seems to be crime, than the owner/inventor should be lauded as a benefactor of mankind rather than a criminal or an 'intellectual squatter'.

Moreover, IP has been developed by lawyers, not inventors or creators, and as such reflect the legalistic belief of ownership of an idea, to which is not epistemologically nor metaphysically true. And rejects the moral right of any human being to do what they wish with their tangible property if it harms no one. Copying an idea does not harm anyone. Nor does it follow automatically that it makes anyone stop innovating. By that logic, any period of human history where IP did not exist, then there should not been inventions. Yet, our own language is an invention itself, and I never heard of any historical reference to which its inventor demanded eternal tribute for its use. You cannot have progress and then put up fences around parts of it and claim it as your own when it cannot be owned (epistemologically or metaphysically). That is as simple as it gets. And it is an impediment to the progress of the free market to do so. Ultimately, IP is ANTI-CAPITALISTIC and ANTI-PROGRESS.

The 'belief' of ownership of an idea is not a legalistic concept, it is a moral concept and is no different that the moral concept of any other property rights. The concept of individual rights is only morally defensible in the context of the proper philosophy (as I stated earlier in a different post). You will have to do me the courtesy of explaining your own epistemology and metaphysics if you would like to argue otherwise. You cannot negate the role of the human intellect in human existence and survival (production) by claiming that a person has no right to the ownership of their creative efforts and then still defend the private ownership of physical property on moral grounds. Copying a patented idea does do direct harm to the creator of that idea by abrogating their right to use and dispose of their property as they wish. A free market cannot operate under the belief that an individual or corporation has no right to the exclusive ownership and use of their inventions (even if they may have invested an enormous amount of time and money on it) for at least a reasonable amount of time. There would be virtually no incentive for companies to invest in research. Why do the research if you can just sit back and wait for someone else to invent something that you can steal?

[attis]

The 'belief' of ownership of an idea is not a legalistic concept, it is a moral concept and is no different that the moral concept of any other property rights.

How is my idea of a good time or any idea in my head a property? Can you prove is a property? If not, then why call it a property?

A property is anything that can be exclusive, exhaustible, and moreover, tangible. If it does not fulfill these parameters then it is not a property. The atmosphere is not a property, because it's not exhaustible currently, that's also why you can't charge people to breathe it on your land and what not.

Ideas cannot be owned for the same reason, being inexhaustible, and intangible. Your product from your idea, is a property because it can be tangible and exhaustible, thus you own it.

The concept of individual rights is only morally defensible in the context of the proper philosophy (as I stated earlier in a different post). You will have to do me the courtesy of explaining your own epistemology and metaphysics if you would like to argue otherwise.

Simple, metaphysically an idea is not the same as a tangible property, it cannot fulfill the parameters of a property. If it could fulfill the parameters of a property then there would be no argument against their ownership.

Here are the parameters of a property:

1) Exclusive: It can be localized, locked down, secured...

2) Exhaustible: It can be deprived, it can be lost, it can be stolen.

3) Tangible: It has temporal and spatial coordinates and/or material composition.

Here are the attributes of an idea:

1) Exclusive only if the originater does not transmit it through communication.

2) Inexhaustible, it can be replicated an infinite number of times.

3) It has no tangibility nor material composition.

Conclusion: An idea cannot be owned. Q.E.D. And it is that simple.

You cannot negate the role of the human intellect in human existence and survival (production) by claiming that a person has no right to the ownership of their creative efforts and then still defend the private ownership of physical property on moral grounds.

They don't, duh, but they do own their tangible fruit of their labor. The labor itself is represented by the tangible property. By your logic, every story idea that pops into my head is somehow some magical property, yet if that were so, why can't I say the people who did the screenplay Deep Blue Sea stole my idea since I do have witnesses that remember I came up with the same idea plot device and story arc as the writers two years prior? Did I really do labor because I have an overactive imagination? No. Did I really make a product just by thinking alone and never acting upon the idea? No.

There would be virtually no incentive for companies to invest in research.

Because there will always be a first originater then the second?

Why do the research if you can just sit back and wait for someone else to invent something that you can steal?

Because it is not stealing, duh. I explained that earlier. Next, you'll say some how by copying your words I have some how stolen your memory. Do you remember this post after I copy it? Yes, then I never stole a thing. Again, It's that simple.

By modern standards invention happened at a painfully slow rate during the Renaissance (and even worse compared to the level of invention which took place during the height of capitalism in America (ie. the Industrial Revolution).

Because knowledge was protected by threat of force until the latter half of the Rebirth. When knowledge became free, as in liberty, then inventions started to flourish in development. Prior, there was nothing but slow momentum based development, the momentum of work five centuries prior.

Essentially, you feel, rather than proved, that ideas are property. You assume to be property, when in reality because they cannot fulfill the parameters of a property, they will never ever be one. It's really simple and I don't understand how you came to believe your thoughts can be stolen. If you are never deprived of your ideas, never deprived from the ability to put those ideas into action. And if you are never forced to not use your ideas, then you have not been infringed in the rights of life, liberty, and property. You can again, believe otherwise, but beliefs without proof are not the basis of any valid argument.

[attis]

Btw, Rapst, I'm guessing you're a fellow Oist by the quotation in your signature line, but I would like you to show me by Oist Epistemology how you own an idea like you can own a house. Remember, I got a copy of ITOE too and I've debated many fellow Oists on the idea of IP. Most tend to yield to my logic. ^_^

[AaronCW]

Really, I don't think we have any real philosophical conflict here, there are just a few points that you seem to have confused;

How is my idea of a good time or any idea in my head a property? Can you prove is a property? If not, then why call it a property?

If your idea of a good time is good enough to write down and have published than it is your right to own the copyright to it. This does not prevent people from agreeing with you or from acting accordingly, it merely guarantees that nobody else can claim ownership of your ideas.

A property is anything that can be exclusive, exhaustible, and moreover, tangible. If it does not fulfill these parameters then it is not a property.

This is exactly what IP laws protect. Ideas must be put into a tangible form (ie. a blueprint, text, a model, etc.) before a patent or copyright is applicable.

Simple, metaphysically an idea is not the same as a tangible property, it cannot fulfill the parameters of a property. If it could fulfill the parameters of a property then there would be no argument against their ownership.

Ok, lets see;

Here are the parameters of a property:

1) Exclusive: It can be localized, locked down, secured...

2) Exhaustible: It can be deprived, it can be lost, it can be stolen.

3) Tangible: It has temporal and spatial coordinates and/or material composition.

Here are the attributes of an idea:

1) Exclusive only if the originater does not transmit it through communication.

2) Inexhaustible, it can be replicated an infinite number of times.

3) It has no tangibility nor material composition.

1) Exclusive: Although you might imagine that the same valuable ideas pop suddenly into random peoples heads everyday, this is simply not the case. I am not suggesting that the average person is not capable of creative thinking and invention, but the more valuable idea an is, the more considerable the intellectual effort required to acheive it, and the less likely that two people would arrive at the same conclusion.

IP laws do not apply to natural laws; the fact that Darwin is given credit for his 'discovery' of evolution by natural selection, rather than Wallace, is not due to any ownership of those ideas. Darwin received recognition because he was first, and because he was a brilliant and appealing writer.

In the event that one researcher/inventor successfully completes their invention before a competitor than the full reward of that acheivement should go to the winner. The loser in that case cannot lay claim to ownership of the winners invention by claiming that they would have acheived the same success given the time. They do, however, as does everyone else, have the right to build upon that research and to patent any further invention resulting from that research.

2) Inexhaustible: The closest thing that comes to being exhaustible is the product of an individual's intellect. The writer of a novel must protect ownership of their ideas by obtaining a copyright, but they may rest assured that no one could ever exactly repeat them without copying their ideas.

It is true that the human intellect and potential for invention is inexhaustible, but I see no reason why this must represent a criterion for private property. Material resources are potentially inexhaustible as well (this is true even on earth, provided we don't spell our own destruction and barring any catastrophes, but even than the earth is a small speck in a vast universe), and if a man is capable of spending his life making straw baskets into infinity, I see no reason why a straw basket should no longer qualify as property.

3) Tangible: Ideas must be put into a tangible form (ie. a blueprint, text, a model, etc.) before a patent or copyright is applicable.

The rest of your post seems to be a repetition of points made earlier and the word 'duh', so I'll stop here. If you would like to review what the Objectivist position is on this particular topic read the article "Patents and Copyrights" in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal.

[drus]

The ability to control and manipulate matter at the subatomic level will revolutionize economic philosophy, not just that, it will change humanity in every respect. Socialism is ultimately where we have to go as a species, but it can never be fully realized in a world with limited resources. I've always maintained that wealth is wasted on the rich. Matter replication will change everything. I am generally opposed to capitalism, I like to consider myself a Libertarian-Socialist. Capitalism, while it sounds good in theory, usually ends up a tool for the corrupt and selfishly ambitious to gain economic control. I believe in fundamental liberty, life and freedom for all people. Don't get me wrong though, a person should carry their own water, but at the same time no person is an island unto themselves. I am vehemently opposed to corporate merchantilism in any form, which is what capitalism usually ends up becoming sadly enough.

Edited by drus, 02 November 2006 - 12:05 AM.

[AaronCW]

The ability to control and manipulate matter at the subatomic level will revolutionize economic philosophy, not just that, it will change humanity in every respect. Socialism is ultimately where we have to go as a species, but it can never be fully realized in a world with limited resources. I've always maintained that wealth is wasted on the rich. Matter replication will change everything. I am generally opposed to capitalism, I like to consider myself a Libertarian-Socialist. Capitalism, while it sounds good in theory, usually ends up a tool for the corrupt and selfishly ambitious to gain economic control. I believe in fundamental liberty, life and freedom for all people. Don't get me wrong though, a person should carry their own water, but at the same time no person is an island unto themselves. I am vehemently opposed to corporate merchantilism in any form, which is what capitalism usually ends up becoming sadly enough.

I don't agree with a single sentence of this.

Socialism, in every form, is immoral as it regards human beings as sacrificial animals to the collective. This is true in both the theory and practice of Socialism. Collectivism is incompatible with individual rights, therefore the term "Libertarian-Socialist" is an oxymoron. Capitalism is the only political-economic system which respects the individuals right to exist for themselves, and provides them with the freedom to relate with others, both socially and in trade, voluntarily.

I've always maintained that wealth is wasted on the rich.

Wealth is created, it does not exist before a capable person puts forth the effort to produce something of value. The person that creates a product of value, whether the product is physical or intellectual, earns the wealth that they receive as a result of their efforts. No one else is entitled to it. Someone that is able and willing to earn wealth should be applauded for their contribution to society, someone that lays claim to that wealth for either themselves or for the 'public welfare' is a thief and a parasite.

I am vehemently opposed to corporate merchantilism in any form, which is what capitalism usually ends up becoming sadly enough.

'Corporate Merchantilism', which you so vehemently oppose, is responsible for the average persons ability to own a computer, a car, and every other convenience and luxury that comes to mind, through their own effort. The CEO's and COO's of Big Business should be regarded as our modern American heroes.

[siberia]

How do you think about public schools? Is it right that underpriveliged groups of people perhaps won't be able to let ther children go to a school, since they can't afford it.
Is it really plausible that if these kids only play their cards right will have the same possibilities as those who had a school attendance?

And some kind of public helthcare as well. Would people care enough for one another to sponsor such activities if it wasn't tax financed?
Some people would die, one would say that they would have to blame themselves if it was an adult, but what if it would be the child to a poor or non-caring adult ?

[siberia]

One more thing. Economists says that a certain grade of unemployment is good for the economy, since it lets the most skilled people have control of the resources and make it necessary to invent new technologies, as I get it.
To support those who don't make their own living, the society must give them a small economical sacrifice. Do think it's morally wrong to do this, or that it is possible to circumvent somehow?

[drus]

Rasputin,

I used to think like you, I used to be a BIG capitalist so I understand where you are coming from. I have since changed my views and will not argue with you on this topic. I have picked apart every question a million times on this subject and taken every avenue with regards to capitalism/corporate merchantilism and at the end of the day I have found that these systems are doomed to failure. Not because they don't work, because they do...for a while. But eventually humanity has to grow up. Libertarian-Socialism however is not an oxymoron, it is the next logical step in our evolution. On the contrary, throw a little egalitarian philosophy in there and you have the ultimate system and hopefully the future of our world. As far as the collective mentality of socialism goes I can only say, "one people, one world, one system", let's face it, insects have it all over mammals. You talk about sacrifice as if it's evil, I can't help but disagree completely. I'll close by reiterating this, the ability to control and manipulate matter at the sub-atomic level with render capitalism obsolete, it's just a matter of time and social/technological maturity. I'm getting that you see the end of capitalism as the end to freedom, or you are equating the two as inseperable? Nothing could be farther from the truth, then again I don't expect you'll understand. And corporations as heroes is uterly absurd, I don't even know where to begin on that one!

Edited by drus, 02 November 2006 - 08:17 PM.

[AaronCW]

How do you think about public schools? Is it right that underpriveliged groups of people perhaps won't be able to let ther children go to a school, since they can't afford it. Is it really plausible that if these kids only play their cards right will have the same possibilities as those who had a school attendance?

I believe that we need to move progressively closer to the privitazation of all education. There are many arguments for and against this, but none more powerful to me that it is neither the place of the Govt. to force parents to send their children to educational institutions which teach ideas that they may disagree with, or to tax them for it. Both of these practies I consider to be immoral. As far as the funding of education goes, it is the parents responsibility to consider whether they can afford to raise and to educate children before they have them.

The quality and cost of education, as with any service in the private sector open to unregulated competition, would increase dramatically over time. We may end up with some children being sent to religious institions in place of real education, as we do now, but the level of average education would be much higher, and the upper levels of education would be unprecedented and unacheivable through public education.

And some kind of public helthcare as well. Would people care enough for one another to sponsor such activities if it wasn't tax financed?
Some people would die, one would say that they would have to blame themselves if it was an adult, but what if it would be the child to a poor or non-caring adult ?

Healthcare is equally the responsibility of the individual, and I am increasingly concerned over debate about Universal Healthcare. Nothing could be more detrimental to the quality of healthcare in the US than this, and any steps in that direction are proportionally bad. The factors which currently prevent healthcare, which is still largely on the free market, from being available to most people, are overregulation by the FDA, and the recklessness of judges who award massive undeserved sums of money to anyone who feels wronged by a doctor, thus making insurance outrageously expensive for doctors and hospitals.

The solution, scrap the FDA and start over with a new agency whose powers are strictly limited to determining the safety of foods and drugs, and to the proper labeling of both. Also, doctors and hospitals need to cover themselves by requiring all patients to sign extensive paperwork defining exactly what risks are inherent in the administration of any medical procedure or drug. This should effectively eliminate the majority of lawsuits against doctors/hospitals.

One more thing. Economists says that a certain grade of unemployment is good for the economy, since it lets the most skilled people have control of the resources and make it necessary to invent new technologies, as I get it.
To support those who don't make their own living, the society must give them a small economical sacrifice. Do think it's morally wrong to do this, or that it is possible to circumvent somehow?

I believe this theory to be patently false, therefore a remedy to the problem of ‘planned unemployment’ is not necessary.

I used to think like you, I used to be a BIG capitalist so I understand where you are coming from. I have since changed my views and will not argue with you on this topic. I have picked apart every question a million times on this subject and taken every avenue with regards to capitalism/corporate merchantilism and at the end of the day I have found that these systems are doomed to failure. Not because they don't work, because they do...for a while. But eventually humanity has to grow up. Libertarian-Socialism however is not an oxymoron, it is the next logical step in our evolution. On the contrary, throw a little egalitarian philosophy in there and you have the ultimate system and hopefully the future of our world. As far as the collective mentality of socialism goes I can only say, "one people, one world, one system", let's face it, insects have it all over mammals. You talk about sacrifice as if it's evil, I can't help but disagree completely. I'll close by reiterating this, the ability to control and manipulate matter at the sub-atomic level with render capitalism obsolete, it's just a matter of time and social/technological maturity. I'm getting that you see the end of capitalism as the end to freedom, or you are equating the two as inseperable? Nothing could be farther from the truth, then again I don't expect you'll understand. And corporations as heroes is uterly absurd, I don't even know where to begin on that one!

I can only say that your thinking is either remarkable atavistic, or you have just given up hope that Laissez-faire Capitalism, the only moral politico-economic system in either theory or practice, will ever be acheived (assuming you ever understood the principles of it). The end of Capitalism is the absolute end of freedom. If you don't expect me to understand what you say, than I'm sure that you won't be offended if I say that your ideas and philosophy are both primitive and transparent. As far as your finding the notion that the business leaders of this nation are heroes to be absurd, I'll have to suppose that your inability to begin to refute that statement is just that.

[drus]

Ras, you are as constant as the northern star, I respect you for that. Capitalism is moral? Tell that to the other 80% of the world who starve so we can enjoy our nikes. Do I understand the principles of capitalism? Simply put, I do, it's not hard. Theory and practice are two different things however. And the end to capitalism isn't the end of freedom. This is rich person paranoia talk for 'don't take my power away, I like being on top'. The end of capitalism simply means the playing field will be more even. Capitalism is a breeding ground for thugs, theives, opportunists and users. I'm not offended at all that you think I'm primitive and transparent, on the contrary I think I'm going to enjoy debating with you from time to time on many subjects, just not this one, as any reasonable person can see the ills of capitalism and would find your equating of the corporate mentality to that of a hero as pure tomfoolery not even worthy of debate. I love very much the ideals of liberty, freedom, life and democracy, but I also acknowledge that social responsibility must come first in any reasonably civilized society. I do however find it disturbing that you see my philosophy as atavistic. The thing that seperates us from animals is our ability to empathize with others and our compassion for our fellow human, capitalism does not address this very well, and corporate merchantilism doesn't even consider it relevant. So your calling me atavistic is misplaced. So, selfless in philosophy I may be yes, but not even close to atavistic, it was in fact my conscious concern for others that made me see the wrongs of capitalism. Self determination has it's place, yes, but not at the expense of the life and liberty of others. It might surprise you to know that even the founding fathers would've agreed with my point and I can assure you that none of them would have supported corporate merchantilism. I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who warned against that very thing, saying that he believed it would destroy the true principles on which America was founded. But hey, good luck to you on your capitalist quest to accumulate as much personal wealth for yourself as you can or probably even need or could use, while some very good people don't even know where their next meal is coming from. 90% of the wealth controlled by 5% of the people is what capitalism is all about. Also, your refering to socialism as a 'welfare state' is a cheap shot play on words.

And Ras, just so we don't lose sight of the base of my point. I am arguing for socialism in a world that has reached a tech level where the complete control and manipulation of matter at the subatomic level is possible and thusly where the acquisition and control of natural resources would be more or less irrelevant. Capitalism in such a society would be nonsensical, unnecessary and pointless.

Edited by drus, 03 November 2006 - 12:25 AM.

[siberia]

rasputin:
"Also, doctors and hospitals need to cover themselves by requiring all patients to sign extensive paperwork defining exactly what risks are inherent in the administration of any medical procedure or drug. This should effectively eliminate the majority of lawsuits against doctors/hospitals."

Shouldn't people get compensation for a mistreatment? I agree it could be necessery to people who're going to make a risky medical procedure, but if it is a normal medical procedure and the doctor makes a mistake, isn't he (or the company) responsible for that? And if, do you have statistics that show that it mostly is particulary risky treatments that people sues hospitals for?

The kind of public schools and healthcare I was talking about would be for those who are incapable of taking care of themselves, eg kids, mentally handicapped. What if a kid got a terminal disease and it's parents wouldn't care for it. Some parents doesn't. Shouldn't the government protect this person(s) right to live? Or are those who are capable to help such helpless persons obligated to help them?

[AaronCW]

Ras, you are as constant as the northern star, I respect you for that. Capitalism is moral? Tell that to the other 80% of the world who starve so we can enjoy our nikes. Do I understand the principles of capitalism? Simply put, I do, it's not hard. Theory and practice are two different things however. And the end to capitalism isn't the end of freedom. This is rich person paranoia talk for 'don't take my power away, I like being on top'. The end of capitalism simply means the playing field will be more even. Capitalism is a breeding ground for thugs, theives, opportunists and users. I'm not offended at all that you think I'm primitive and transparent, on the contrary I think I'm going to enjoy debating with you from time to time on many subjects, just not this one, as any reasonable person can see the ills of capitalism and would find your equating of the corporate mentality to that of a hero as pure tomfoolery not even worthy of debate. I love very much the ideals of liberty, freedom, life and democracy, but I also acknowledge that social responsibility must come first in any reasonably civilized society. I do however find it disturbing that you see my philosophy as atavistic. The thing that seperates us from animals is our ability to empathize with others and our compassion for our fellow human, capitalism does not address this very well, and corporate merchantilism doesn't even consider it relevant. So your calling me atavistic is misplaced. So, selfless in philosophy I may be yes, but not even close to atavistic, it was in fact my conscious concern for others that made me see the wrongs of capitalism. Self determination has it's place, yes, but not at the expense of the life and liberty of others. It might surprise you to know that even the founding fathers would've agreed with my point and I can assure you that none of them would have supported corporate merchantilism. I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who warned against that very thing, saying that he believed it would destroy the true principles on which America was founded. But hey, good luck to you on your capitalist quest to accumulate as much personal wealth for yourself as you can or probably even need or could use, while some very good people don't even know where their next meal is coming from. 90% of the wealth controlled by 5% of the people is what capitalism is all about.

Is Capitalism moral? No, not according to the altruist/collectivist morality which holds the individual life as a means to the end of 'higher good'. This is the standard of morality which I fully reject. This concept of morality has it's roots in the mystical doctrines of Christianity, and many other religions. Once religion began to lose hold of it's grip on society (ie. the Renaissance) this doctrine was saved by the efforts of Emmanuel Kant, who dedicated his life to redefining reason so that altruism would once again be compatible with a 'rational' life. In reality, altruism is both irrational and impossible. Does this mean that I reject compassion and charity? Absolutely not. Am I in a position to provide charity to others (considering I cannot afford health insurance or my own car)? Am I forced by the government to provide charity in the form of welfare programs to those that I may or may not regard as worthy of charity? Yes.

Capitalism can only operate on the principle that each individual is responsible for themselves; their only responsibility being to abstain from violating the rights of others. The rights I refer to are primary rights of the individual, derived from the right to life, and stated explicitly in the US Constitution. This does not include various, modern, invented ‘rights’ that are talked about today, such as the ‘right’ to a job, the ‘right’ to inflated wages, or the ‘right’ to healthcare. These are not rights, in fact they clearly violate the actual, fundamental individual rights guaranteed to all under the Constitution (you have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not a right to happiness). Your “conscious concern for others”, which you believe has led you to “see the wrongs of capitalism”, has in fact led you to find acceptable the sacrifice of the basic principles of the US Constitution. Anyone that is genuinely concerned with the welfare of others should be interested in understanding what the causes of poverty are today, and what factors perpetuate this condition. They should be interested to know that Laissez-faire Capitalism is the only politico-economic system that is capable of consistently and dramatically increasing the standard of living for all levels of society.

Also, your refering to socialism as a 'welfare state' is a cheap shot play on words.

I can’t find where I said this specifically, but I will say that any form of collectivism is evil; it is only a matter of degree. The current US economy can be considered a welfare state, i.e. a mixture of Capitalism and statism. The US is not socialist, but many of the policies it has adopted during the 20th century, such as; socialized healthcare services (Medicaid), socialized retirements funds (social security), etc. are blatantly socialistic.

And Ras, just so we don't lose sight of the base of my point. I am arguing for socialism in a world that has reached a tech level where the complete control and manipulation of matter at the subatomic level is possible and thusly where the acquisition and control of natural resources would be more or less irrelevant. Capitalism in such a society would be nonsensical, unnecessary and pointless.

This argument, unfortunately, sound eerily familiar to that ‘argument’ that has been used by Socialists everywhere, since the logical and necessary consequences of Socialism have been revealed to the world in the form of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany; that it would have worked if done differently, that it has to work somehow.

Technological progress does not occur naturally under Socialism; therefore Capitalism is required to take us there, which you seem to admit. The point to consider here is that Socialism would still not work, and would still be immoral, even if technological progress allowed for all production to happen instantly and without any significant manual labor. Imagine a civilization in which an elite group of government scientists, creating food and supplies using incredibly advanced technology, distributing the wonderful bounty to the masses who accept the governments offerings graciously and unquestioningly. Where is motivation for such a government to provide anything more that just the bare necessities for living? Where is the motivation for such a government to provide even that? You may argue that property rights could be preserved and that you could retain government accountability through democracy. The mistake made here is that property rights does not represent an individuals right to own any given material object, it represents the right of the individual to take whatever legal actions are required to produce material objects and of their ownership of those products; hence to engage in production. When the means of production are taken away from the individual, property rights become meaningless.

The most interesting part of this whole debate is that it is entirely unnecessary. If such technologies were developed privately (as they only could be), than the result would be exactly the same as it has been with every other previously developed technology; the cost of production would reduce dramatically and hence the cost of products would also drop. In this case, everything would be ridiculously cheap and people would barely have to work. The laws of competition and supply and demand guarantee this. The only force that could prevent or alter this from happening is government intervention.

I would dedicate my life to the development of such technology, and I would fight to the death to prevent the collapse of Capitalism and freedom in the US.

rasputin:
"Also, doctors and hospitals need to cover themselves by requiring all patients to sign extensive paperwork defining exactly what risks are inherent in the administration of any medical procedure or drug. This should effectively eliminate the majority of lawsuits against doctors/hospitals."

Shouldn't people get compensation for a mistreatment? I agree it could be necessery to people who're going to make a risky medical procedure, but if it is a normal medical procedure and the doctor makes a mistake, isn't he (or the company) responsible for that? And if, do you have statistics that show that it mostly is particulary risky treatments that people sues hospitals for?

It is the right of any individual who has been the victim of theft or fraud to seek legal recourse. If a doctor violates the terms of a contract than they should be subject to the appropriate punishment. I don't have statistics to show that the majority of lawsuits occur due to risky treatments, but it should be obvious to anyone who pays attentions to the healthcare crisis that doctors are routinely sued out of existence for performing procedures in which the patient was not required to sign paperwork documenting the risks involved.

The kind of public schools and healthcare I was talking about would be for those who are incapable of taking care of themselves, eg kids, mentally handicapped. What if a kid got a terminal disease and it's parents wouldn't care for it. Some parents doesn't. Shouldn't the government protect this person(s) right to live? Or are those who are capable to help such helpless persons obligated to help them?

The fact that private institutions, besides churches, do not currently exist in great enough capacity to help disabled or mentally challenged persons does not mean, or even suggest, that they wouldn't once the government steps out of the way. Such persons that are incapable of caring for themselves are not the responsibility of the government or society. If there is enough good will and charity to be found in private donation and contribution, than the problem will solve itself. If not, than it is still not the place of the government to force it onto people.