Governator cutting education funds!!

[Beckwin]

not to mention it'd be more than just big corporations losing out without IP laws. while in some instances they are too protecting (pharmaceuticals), a lot of smaller businesses rely on them as well- in fact they'd be hurt the most arguably, as they lack the means to win in competitive production versus larger companies that could snatch up their designs/etc and crank out more for cheaper.

I'll comment on the rest tomorrow, need to crash.

[aurik]

I mean, what exactly is intellectual property? Somebody can "own" an idea? a concept?

Noone owns an idea, they own it's expression. Ideas aren't protected by law, only manifestations of them. The removal of protections for intellectual property rights will significantly stifle advances in technology. The market won't provide incentive to write new software if it can immediately be ripped off without consequence.

Time to open the can of worms! From the first sentence I'm assuming that you are talking about copyright (as opposed to patent law in which, yes, you effectively own an idea for a short time. But only certain kinds of ideas are covered.)

Current copyright terms: http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/
Don't you think 95 years is a bit excessive to promote the arts?

[archibaldcrane]

I mean, what exactly is intellectual property? Somebody can "own" an idea? a concept?

Noone owns an idea, they own it's expression. Ideas aren't protected by law, only manifestations of them. The removal of protections for intellectual property rights will significantly stifle advances in technology. The market won't provide incentive to write new software if it can immediately be ripped off without consequence.

Time to open the can of worms! From the first sentence I'm assuming that you are talking about copyright (as opposed to patent law in which, yes, you effectively own an idea for a short time. But only certain kinds of ideas are covered.)

Current copyright terms: http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/
Don't you think 95 years is a bit excessive to promote the arts?

I think a different balance could be struck, but if it's even, say, 10 years it would effectively protect computer software just fine, given the obsolete nature of 10 year old software. I'd rather have it be 95 years than the 0 years that Guartz is advocating (I'm sure he didn't think that through particularly well).

[guartz]

You can have it for 1,000 years. Doesn't mean it will stick in a completely free market without the state enforcing it.

Look at the example with the internet.


Also I can't exactly agree it will stifle technology, because just the opposite could easily happen. But more likely a equilibrium would be reached.

[Beckwin]

Beckwin, to be fair, I don't like condescending tone either. So if we are in agreement, I won't do it again if you stop as well.

As far as AC with regards to monopoly, just look at it through a historical perspective, if you don't want to believe the economists. Governments have always had influence on the markets, either total like mercantilism with government actively protecting monopolies, as per your example of Robber barons or simple regulation with state-capitalism where it still has monopoly on violence, law and currency etc.

And I still can't see violence, law, and currency as 'things' you can really have a monopoly on. They are parameters for a system in which a society can function, not things people can own- they aren't concrete (I'm talking about the power to define/regulate currency, not ability to physically possess paper).

But to fully understand it, you have to understand the underlying and subtle theme of anarchy, that is, instead of trying to dominate man with force and violence in order to have a stable society, anarchy attempts to use man's own nature and create an environment where a system of rewards, incentives and punishments are naturally occurring. Ultimately leading to a free and stable society through rigorous use of knowledge about human nature, sound logic and reasoning. The market ( a representation of human wants and needs) is the perfect tool. Therefore, AC opposes any unnatural interference to the market.

It's the abandonment of violence in favor of reason and adaptation of preferred behavior with natural incentives. The idea is close to 100 years old, but this philosophy still in it's infancy. There are a lot of complications, but almost all human problems can be solved without commanding force.

mhmm, but in that wiki article and even as you have mentioned, you talk about how for example if you don't have a protection agency, you'd be subject to "thugs and sharks" without protection. All along it's been implied that a-c would work without these utopian conditions you're talking about. We've seen for thousands of years now what human nature is capable of, so talking about natural law governing some kind of utopian a-c society is simply laughable unless can change human nature....

Nothing like that will ever come about in my lifetime, or even my children's children lifetime. So it's not like i'm gonna stop paying taxes. But you can still incorporate these ideas in your personal life. Like for example, good parents don't bully their children to get preferred behavior.

And now let's get to a big flaw in your political philosophy here, as I see it: how are you being bullied by a government that you elect? I'm not going to deny abuse entirely; of course not. But in essence, government is a creation of the people and ideally they have a say in how it is run. Cooperation is necessary for society to exist; it's all give and take. Even in a-c you have to give and take in order to survive as an individual whether you like it or not. In that sense it's not so different. If you simply must define things in terms of bullies, then like I've said before: do you want to be bullied by something you have a say in making or something that you don't? This is going to sound very out of character and authoritarian I suppose, but honestly I believe that to some extent, government is our means of necessary protection from ourselves (and collectively). Only rejection of materialism, or more loftily and unlikely- rejection of all the 'bad' human emotions and desires, can really start to break that down, but we're a looooooooong way from that.

However, at least some political theories describe some way to get there, as opposed to simply defining a problem free utopia and basing an ideology around it.

[Beckwin]

You can have it for 1,000 years. Doesn't mean it will stick in a completely free market without the state enforcing it.

Look at the example with the internet.


Also I can't exactly agree it will stifle technology, because just the opposite could easily happen. But more likely a equilibrium would be reached.

Without patents or copyright, idea-making (or innovation) is less profitable. Production/replication would yield better returns. There's much less incentive for spending on research and development if you don't get to reap all the benefits from it.

Interesting what you say about lacking a state to enforce it. Couldn't defense agencies enforce it? Also the internet is kinda "common property", something that a-c seems to have trouble dealing with.

[guartz]

Let's try this: a-c theory says you own your person; it's an inalienable right. correct? ownership implies property. a-c theory says you have the right to contract your property. correct? but a-c also says you can't contract your person, even though its your property. that's a contradiction in a-c terms, for which they must make a special case, but in a logical sense it simply means that human beings are not property in the way that inanimate objects or currency are.

Ah I see. It's not that you can't contract your person, it's that nobody can enforce it legally, since enforcing it means the other party is violating your natural inalienable right.
Until we get total mind control or dire charm spell, there will be no actual way to sell yourself irrevocably, so until then that right just remains inalienable.

If being forced into labor is so natural for a society to perpetuate, then why is a-c so against every other possibility to be forced in order for a society to perpetuate? If you have to work anyway no matter what the system of government (or lack thereof), why is it so bad to pay a democratically elected and accountable government to render defense, health, education, infrastructure services rather than "choosing to" (re: absolutely must) pay private entities whose overarching goal is to make the most money they can off of you? If you're gonna go on about government robbery, I'll gladly go on about corporate greed and robbery.

Simply put, because working for survival is universal and natural, therefore it's ethical and moral. Animals do it, bacteria does it. However, being forced to pay taxes is not. And don't compare corporations in a-c with corporations as they are now, they will be vastly different. As it stands now they are immortal entities with human rights whose owners are not entirely responsible for. and for crying out loud, corporations are legally required to be greedy.
Remember when Ford tried to pay his employees more for some reason? he got shot down in supreme court. remember what he said afterwards?

I'm sure you'll respond with "government is robbery, and uh, read up on market forces" but really, explain what would cause a capitalist entity to NOT try and make the most money possible? We'll both have examples and counterexamples about the failings of private industry and government alike, but that does not help your original assertion back on page 2 or w/e that a-c is better than anything we have right now.

Because it's ethical, consistent, efficient and it avoids violence and coercion isn't that enough?

There will always be people in poverty in a capitalist system. Do you really want to argue that?

What I said was that you assumed that majority people won't be in poverty. >.>

Explain how wealth distribution would significantly improve if the US gov't immediate both ended taxation and took its hands off economic matters.

Bwahaha, would never, ever happen. But if I had a good reason to speculate, I'd say it would be rather chaotic, mass deaths, and rise of a new tyranny unlike this planet has ever seen.

Ah, but don't get your panties in a knot. There have been very good theories on how these changes can come about peacefully.. yea, read up on it. :D Nozick, anarchy, state, utopia.

Explain how the poor afford lawyers, or how defendant's rights are represented in these private courts and legal systems. You explained it basically as some hybrid insurance claim/bounty hunter situation.

That's really for the agencies to decide.. I mean, I can't do it. I'd assume it would be different across the board, depending on what the needs were.

I mean, one example of how a poor person can have legal protection is kinda like how group insurance works with employers... right??

[Maxxthepenguin]

Simply put, because working for survival is universal and natural, therefore it's ethical and moral. Animals do it, bacteria does it. However, being forced to pay taxes is not.

Ethics and morals are things we use to counteract our natural impulses, not enhance them. Disobeying natural instincts is part of what makes us human and allows us to actually think. Taxes are necessary as the most efficient way to pay for our infrastructure and general things our government does to benefit us.

In any case, 'working for survival' for uncivilized beings (aka natural beings) isn't working at a job, it's getting your own food and getting your own shelter and getting your own everything. We aren't hunter-gatherers.

[guartz]

ah right, the christian dogma inevitable comes to play in any moral discussion.

Maxx we are talking about natural ethics and morals, not theology.

[archibaldcrane]

guartz - do you think that a majority of Americans would be happier, healthier, or smarter under the system you propose, as compared to the current situation?

Honest question.

[Beckwin]

Because it's ethical, consistent, efficient and it avoids violence and coercion isn't that enough?

Since when has sticking strictly to the former and avoiding the latter entirely been natural to humans?

Simply put, because working for survival is universal and natural, therefore it's ethical and moral. Animals do it, bacteria does it. However, being forced to pay taxes is not.

Do you realize that animals living collectively are forced to make certain concessions? Alpha male, queen bee, leader of the pack, etc. Also, how do you feel about the naturalness of humans forming societies? You're speaking as if it's unnatural for humans to congregate, when history and basic understanding of human nature shows us otherwise.

I'm calling the "natural" argument for a-c a weak and poor one. There's some kind of innate desire/instinct for social order- if you want to argue that economy alone can create that order then fine, but that also prevents you from categorically denying the legitimacy for government based on nature. Ever since more than one mating couple decided to live and work together, your argument had already been defeated.

[Kuya]

There is no such thing as natural ethics or morals.

[Saphirea]

Heaven forbid I want to teach my kids about abstinence and God's Creation, it should be my choice correct? it should be my choice to teach them to love the sinner but hate the sin. You have your views, I have mine.

Which is fine.

Until your kids reach college and have to take science tests and are surrounded by drunk and horny members of the opposite sex.

I have no problems with religious upbringings. The idea that they should trump an education backed by rigorous scientific scholarship leaves a bad taste in my mouth, however. I do pray that you're the kind of parent who draws intelligent lines around religion for a child and allows roles for both that and science in their lives.

I went to public school all my life, and then joined the Marine Corps. I understand that kids will do things that may be against their parents wishes. I mean God knows I haven't always been the best example to others. My parents supported me in all my faults and mistakes and things that I've done. I turned out just fine. I'll do the same for them. I just want them to know their religion and hope they don't make some of the same mistakes that I did. I have no problem with public schooling, as long as I can have the decision if I want them to "learn" what secular schools teach is in their best interest. I feel that some of the uber homeschooled kids are missing out on some of the social interaction things and sometimes are socially inept at dealing with issues. I work with a ton of highschool kids on the weekend and I see some of them. Not saying I will homeschool, but I want that option if that makes any sense.

More or less, I agree with you to a point, sorry for that, been sick all day since I got back from Mexico yesterday.

[Maxxthepenguin]

ah right, the christian dogma inevitable comes to play in any moral discussion.

Maxx we are talking about natural ethics and morals, not theology.

Wow. You think this shit has to do with religion? Seriously?

[Vistani]

I just read the entire fucking anarcho-capitalism page on wikipedia...do you have some sort of mental problem Guartz?

[Beckwin]

I just want them to know their religion and hope they don't make some of the same mistakes that I did.

Their religion or your religion?

I suppose this might turn into yet another epic derail, but ingraining a particular religion from a very young age is an... interesting topic of discussion. I'm not an expert on Catholic practice, but isn't there some thing where you have to affirm your acceptance of Christ as lord and savior? From an outside perspective, that affirmation would seem to be a lot more powerful if it was independently motivated with the knowledge of what else is out there, if that makes any sense. Could you make the argument that by allowing your children to learn of the secular schools of thought, and even learn about Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, etc and <then or still> choosing Catholicism's Christ would be much more profound and meaningful?

[Saphirea]

You make very valid points. I'd do like my parents aloud me to do. Experience life and let them learn of other religions when I feel they're of age to learn. And if they feel wanting to be confirmed then of course support them. I don't know, for being Catholic, my parents let me feel my own roots out and I made the decision on my own. I guess I'd let my kids do the same.

[Beckwin]

ah, confirmation, that's what I was thinking of.

Anyways it seems like public school would be pretty instrumental for a child to gain some kind of wordly consciousness that they can apply toward whatever beliefs they choose.

[Saphirea]

I just want the ability to homeschool if I feel that's what's best for my children is really all I'm getting at. If this sets precedence then the government will be in complete charge of educating my children on whatever they feel too.

[archibaldcrane]

I just want the ability to homeschool if I feel that's what's best for my children is really all I'm getting at. If this sets precedence then the government will be in complete charge of educating my children on whatever they feel too.

To help alleviate your fears Saphirea: http://californiahomeschool.net/howTo/oconnell.pdf