There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
The DMCA is no mistake. It does exactly what it was designed to do: increase the power and scope of government, while decreasing the element of individual liberty.
Logically, the bigger the government, the bigger the potential profit for those in power. (Of course, "profit" doesn't necessarily refer to raw salary.)
Offtopic perhaps, but you can hardly blame Wal-Mart for taking advantage of government power. The "right" to invoke force as a means to an end belongs to government, not Wal-Mart. Government holds the key.
The problem is that power exists, not that power can be abused. It is inevitable that power will be abused, and here we are looking at a textbook example.
It's a bit like prohibition basically -- everyone at the time thought it was a good idea, but no one lived up to it, and it turned out to be mind bogglingly stupid. We were best rid of it.
Is this a joke? Prohibition today is more destructive, more wasteful, and more immoral than ever before. For christ sakes, the US has the highest inmate/population ratio in the world, and over half of those "criminals" were convicted on non-violent drug offenses.
Alcohol prohibition was certainly destructive to society, driving up the murder rate and transforming a legitimate, peaceful market into a free-for-all for violent criminals. How exactly is modern prohibition any different?
I agree. Furthermore, when government involves itself in these issues (where there is no initiation of force), they are forcing the rest of us to take responsibility for the bad decisions of certain individuals. In effect, we (the taxpayers) are being penalized because government doesn't want to let certain individuals take responsibility for themselves.
Of course, the underlying reason for the nanny laws is that they increase the scope of government. Logically, the bigger the government, the higher the profit for those in power.
That would be a great question to ask the politicians who just murdered upwards of 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians.Do they really, truly beleive that their actions are moral and justified?
Unless you don't want federal money... for open source
Certainly not. Open source is supposed to be about choice. If government is used to fund open source, the element of choice is eliminated. In the free market, individuals choose for themselves whether to support open source. Under a socialist program, those decisions would be made by an elite few and forced upon everyone else. That's not individual choice; that's forced participation.
Open source is not successful because people are forced to contribute -- it is successful because people are able to choose for themselves whether to contribute, what projects to contribute to, and how much time and money to invest. Open source was concieved, developed, and popularized without the element of force, and it will continue to survive without the element of force. In fact, at this point, force is the only thing that could possibly destroy open source.
When the victims and aggressors are dead. That is the only logical conclusion, if we are to respect the concept of individual soverignty.
your views of liberty and property rights are well-suited to someone who's already got property and liberty, as a result of your forefather's actions
How so? My views require that both the "have's" and the "have nots" hold equal, identical rights. Economic "equality" is not my goal. The only way that economic equality could be achieved is through force, and even then it requires that those in control of government be superior in power (they hold "right" to initiate force, while everyone else does not).
Economic inequality is not a problem, but a natural reality. Without the existence of economic inequality, there would be no wealth at all, because there would be no business to generate wealth through voluntary trade. Government cannot create wealth (except for themselves), becuase wealth can only be created through voluntary trade . A "trade" by force requires that one participant in the interaction sustain a loss. Government can only confiscate wealth.
The problem is not economic inequality, but inequality of power. Inequality of power always leads to economic inequality anyway, and then you're right back where you started!
saying how you're opposed to violence, is the easiest cop-out to make
The only way I can really answer that is to state that I have put more effort into developing and refining my political philosophy than most people I know. If I'm a cop out, than almost everyone I know is too.
Aha! I agree with you, but the problem is caused by government, not free trade or liberty in general. In a purely free market, the use of force as a means to an end would not be tolerated. But as you pointed out, that happens on a regular basis. The root of the problem is not the corporations who are only playing the hand they've been dealt. The problem is the overly complex, ambiguous, exploitable, corrput system of law -- and guess who makes the laws? It wasn't the corporations. It wasn't the citizens. Those groups my influence the law, but in the end, government holds the key. When a private citizen or corporation bribes government to enact injust laws, government is entirely at fault for accepting the bribe.
how can you hold them accountable? In the marketplace?
Yes, absolutely. But that isn't possible unless every individual and corporation abides by the same rules of voluntary association, and holds the same rights as the next. As you pointed out, that's not the case.
In those ways, government is accountable, corporations are not.
Remember Enron? The US government's history of untruthful accounting makes Enron look like Little Red Riding Hood. I suggest you rearrange your priorities, or at least open your eyes to the scandals that happen every day with your tax dollars. It's a whole lot easier to manipulate your numbers when you hold the "right" to initiate force.
If property and ownership of property is all just an illusion, then government is an illusion as well. After all, government is founded on the premise that somebody, or some group, assumes ownership of the country thus holds the right to make rules regarding the use of that country.
If you're such a big believer in property rights, does that mean you think we should give America back to the Indians?
It's too late. These crimes were committed centuries ago. The aggressors are no longer alive, and the victims are no longer alive. How exactly do you propose we prosecute the criminals, or grant restitution to the victims? They don't exist. I am white, but I sure as hell didn't play a part in stealing this land from the native Americans.
From what I can see, you're saying that if I have big enough guns to kick everyone off of some land
Wrong. Why do people insist on muddying the waters? This is a clear-cut initiation of force, and I have already stated that I am against using force as a means to an end.
But don't wave the banner of "freedom" when our private ownership of American soil was won by force
Again, I didn't play a part in those crimes, and therefore I cannot be held responsible for those crimes. I didn't even exist when those crimes were committed. Were you expecting me to say "yup, I'm a hypocrite" and throw away my entire philosophy? That's silly.
Private (corporate) power, however, is unaccountable to the people. They can and will do as they please regardless of what the people think.
Wrong. Corporations have no more or less power than the individual: they may interact and trade with other groups and individuals SO LONG AS they interact on a voluntary basis. The moment they cross that line, they become criminals. How exactly did you conclude that corporations are unaccountable to "the people"?
The agressor (thief, whatever) isn't necessarily initiating force against the defender.
Don't muddy the waters. If you engage in voluntary interaction, there is no initiation of force. If you engage in involuntary interaction, there is an initiation of force. It's a simple and unambiguous concept.
Theoretically possible, but not likely to work. Property, and the difference between rightful and wrongful acquisition of property, is a concept that has been inherent in human beings since the beginning of time. Even animals understand and act on this most fundamental concept. It is impossible to "erase" from the human brain the necessity to own and control posessions.
Moreover, such a system would be incredibly inefficient and ambiguous with regard to distribution of scarce resources. What happens when I claim that you've had more of your fair share of community-owned food, and you assert that you've not? The resolution would require an initiation of force. Property rights solve that problem before it ever occurs.
My original statement was, "Do you not realize that in order to "enforce" property rights, you must do so by force?" and your comment does not address this
Sure it does. Enforcement of property rights is force used in self-defense, not initiation of force. Again, the difference according to Rand is the difference between moral interaction (voluntary association) and immoral interaction (involuntary association). There is no ambiguity here.
Force in defense of property rights is not the same as force in self defense.
You seem to be implying that force in defense of property is somehow different than force in defense of one's own body. Quite the contrary, your own body is the first and most important property you will ever own.
If you own a house, and I buy all the land around your house, then I can tell you you're not allowed to enter my property, and by your description of morality I've not only not committed any offense
This would have to be considered entrapment. The property may have been acquired through voluntary means, but the act of entrapping is a clear initiation of force.
I have enough food for two, and you have none. You must steal it from me if you are to survive
Yes, stealing is clearly an initiation of force. However, I can't imagine this scenario occuring in all but the most unlikely of situations, like being stranded on a deserted island. But you are correct.
communal rights, or floating rights
Rand would assert that unless the "communal" or "floating" rights were engaged involuntarily (through force), there is no problem.
Starts to fall apart at the edges, eh?
Not at all.
She does not discriminate between moral defense and immoral defense
Baloney. The difference between moral use of force and immoral use of force is the entire core of Rand's philosophy.
First, government does not "create" property, nor does it create the moral right to own property. Property is a concept that has been inherent in human society since the beginning of time. Even animals understand, to a certain degree, the concept and importance of property. Government can only enforce the concept of property which already exists.
Second, you don't seem to understand the difference between "initiation of force" and "force in self-defense". They are opposites. The first is immoral; the second is not. Rand's philosphy forbids the first, and approves the second.
In other words, property rights depend on greed and selfishness to exist.
There is nothing wrong with "greed" and "selfishness" (I prefer to call it the "profit incentive") as long as one abides by the rules of voluntary association. It is, after all, a natural thing for human beings to strive for personal achievement. Let go of your jealousy and concentrate on increasing your own happiness through voluntary association, not force. I did, and I'm a better person because of it. I'm not wealthy by any measure, but I'm perfectly content with what I have.
As for the "monopoly" argument, remember that in a purely capitalist society, no one individual or group holds the power to prevent other individuals or groups from acquiring wealth, or engaging in trade with others. All it takes is the motivation to achieve. Realize that it is much easier to obtain monopoly under a complex, ambiguous, exploitable system of law -- like the one we've got today in the US -- than it would be under a purely capitalist society.
You are confused as to the definition of "initiation of force" vs. "force in defense of force". If I catch a fish for dinner, I have aquired property through voluntary means. No initiation of force takes place, unless you intend to argue on behalf of the fish. Now that I posess that property, I can trade it -- voluntarily -- for other things of value. Still no initiation of force takes place. If the neighborhood bully appears and takes my fish without my permission, THEN we have an initiation of force. I may defend my fish through force, but that is not an initiation of force.
If you're interested, here is a good intro to the philosophy of voluntary association. You are certainly not the only one who doesn't "get it" right off the bat. I didn't either.
People who want to abolish personal property rights don't really think it through to it's logical conclusion.
Agreed. The logical conclusion is slavery.
I think the problem is that people automatically assume that government always works on the behalf of the people. (And that's no surprise: living under big government, we are taught from an early age to run to government at the slightest hint of a problem.) What these people don't realize is that government is nothing but collection of unique individuals, each motivated by self-interest like every other human being that has ever existed.
The truth is that government is no more interested in the individual's opinion than any other business. The difference between government and private business is, of course, that government holds the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, while private business does not.
I never claimed the founders' political history was a perfect model of liberty. Indeed, slavery could have never existed without the initiation of force.
Now, you can repeat the phrase "we the people" until the end of time, but that won't change the fact that government exists only when certain individuals hold power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end) over other individuals. Government is force. You (the people) may get to choose who obtains that "right" to initiate force, but that doesn't change the fact that force will be used as a means to an end.
Realize that "the people", or "society", is not an actual living, thinking being, with values, beliefs, needs and wants. Society is a collection of unique, thinking individuals, each of whom hold unique values, beliefs, needs and wants. Likewise, government is nothing but a collection of unique individuals. The one true, logical difference is that individuals in government hold the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, while the rest do not.
Are you seriously attempting to claim that free trade, or voluntary association, is non-existant, like some crazy delusion or figment of our imagination?
The owner of property may defend that property by force. But this is NOT an initiation of force! The initiator of force is the individual or group (government) who tries to steal that property, not the rightful owner who tries to defend it!
I can't imagine why most people don't realize this, but the fundamental premise of liberty is that force may be invoked ONLY in defense of force.
I cannot believe what you are saying. Private ownership of property and freedom go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other. If you are against property rights, you are against freedom. Do you not realize that in order to "eliminate" property rights, you must do so by force? Do you not realize that property is one of the most basic human values?
Incidentally, if you actually understood Ayn Rand, you would realize that slavery is absolutely unacceptable in the purely capitalist society, because slavery requires an initiation of force.
Slashdot Mirror
-- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
The DMCA is no mistake. It does exactly what it was designed to do: increase the power and scope of government, while decreasing the element of individual liberty.
Logically, the bigger the government, the bigger the potential profit for those in power. (Of course, "profit" doesn't necessarily refer to raw salary.)
Good sig. In either case, force will be used as a means to an end.
Offtopic perhaps, but you can hardly blame Wal-Mart for taking advantage of government power. The "right" to invoke force as a means to an end belongs to government, not Wal-Mart. Government holds the key.
The problem is that power exists, not that power can be abused. It is inevitable that power will be abused, and here we are looking at a textbook example.
Is this a joke? Prohibition today is more destructive, more wasteful, and more immoral than ever before. For christ sakes, the US has the highest inmate/population ratio in the world, and over half of those "criminals" were convicted on non-violent drug offenses.
Alcohol prohibition was certainly destructive to society, driving up the murder rate and transforming a legitimate, peaceful market into a free-for-all for violent criminals. How exactly is modern prohibition any different?
I agree. Furthermore, when government involves itself in these issues (where there is no initiation of force), they are forcing the rest of us to take responsibility for the bad decisions of certain individuals. In effect, we (the taxpayers) are being penalized because government doesn't want to let certain individuals take responsibility for themselves.
Of course, the underlying reason for the nanny laws is that they increase the scope of government. Logically, the bigger the government, the higher the profit for those in power.
That would be a great question to ask the politicians who just murdered upwards of 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians.Do they really, truly beleive that their actions are moral and justified?
Certainly not. Open source is supposed to be about choice. If government is used to fund open source, the element of choice is eliminated. In the free market, individuals choose for themselves whether to support open source. Under a socialist program, those decisions would be made by an elite few and forced upon everyone else. That's not individual choice; that's forced participation.
Open source is not successful because people are forced to contribute -- it is successful because people are able to choose for themselves whether to contribute, what projects to contribute to, and how much time and money to invest. Open source was concieved, developed, and popularized without the element of force, and it will continue to survive without the element of force. In fact, at this point, force is the only thing that could possibly destroy open source.
When the victims and aggressors are dead. That is the only logical conclusion, if we are to respect the concept of individual soverignty.
your views of liberty and property rights are well-suited to someone who's already got property and liberty, as a result of your forefather's actions
How so? My views require that both the "have's" and the "have nots" hold equal, identical rights. Economic "equality" is not my goal. The only way that economic equality could be achieved is through force, and even then it requires that those in control of government be superior in power (they hold "right" to initiate force, while everyone else does not).
Economic inequality is not a problem, but a natural reality. Without the existence of economic inequality, there would be no wealth at all, because there would be no business to generate wealth through voluntary trade. Government cannot create wealth (except for themselves), becuase wealth can only be created through voluntary trade . A "trade" by force requires that one participant in the interaction sustain a loss. Government can only confiscate wealth.
The problem is not economic inequality, but inequality of power. Inequality of power always leads to economic inequality anyway, and then you're right back where you started!
saying how you're opposed to violence, is the easiest cop-out to make
The only way I can really answer that is to state that I have put more effort into developing and refining my political philosophy than most people I know. If I'm a cop out, than almost everyone I know is too.
Aha! I agree with you, but the problem is caused by government, not free trade or liberty in general. In a purely free market, the use of force as a means to an end would not be tolerated. But as you pointed out, that happens on a regular basis. The root of the problem is not the corporations who are only playing the hand they've been dealt. The problem is the overly complex, ambiguous, exploitable, corrput system of law -- and guess who makes the laws? It wasn't the corporations. It wasn't the citizens. Those groups my influence the law, but in the end, government holds the key. When a private citizen or corporation bribes government to enact injust laws, government is entirely at fault for accepting the bribe.
how can you hold them accountable? In the marketplace?
Yes, absolutely. But that isn't possible unless every individual and corporation abides by the same rules of voluntary association, and holds the same rights as the next. As you pointed out, that's not the case.
In those ways, government is accountable, corporations are not.
Remember Enron? The US government's history of untruthful accounting makes Enron look like Little Red Riding Hood. I suggest you rearrange your priorities, or at least open your eyes to the scandals that happen every day with your tax dollars. It's a whole lot easier to manipulate your numbers when you hold the "right" to initiate force.
If property and ownership of property is all just an illusion, then government is an illusion as well. After all, government is founded on the premise that somebody, or some group, assumes ownership of the country thus holds the right to make rules regarding the use of that country.
It's too late. These crimes were committed centuries ago. The aggressors are no longer alive, and the victims are no longer alive. How exactly do you propose we prosecute the criminals, or grant restitution to the victims? They don't exist. I am white, but I sure as hell didn't play a part in stealing this land from the native Americans.
From what I can see, you're saying that if I have big enough guns to kick everyone off of some land
Wrong. Why do people insist on muddying the waters? This is a clear-cut initiation of force, and I have already stated that I am against using force as a means to an end.
But don't wave the banner of "freedom" when our private ownership of American soil was won by force
Again, I didn't play a part in those crimes, and therefore I cannot be held responsible for those crimes. I didn't even exist when those crimes were committed. Were you expecting me to say "yup, I'm a hypocrite" and throw away my entire philosophy? That's silly.
Wrong. Corporations have no more or less power than the individual: they may interact and trade with other groups and individuals SO LONG AS they interact on a voluntary basis. The moment they cross that line, they become criminals. How exactly did you conclude that corporations are unaccountable to "the people"?
Don't muddy the waters. If you engage in voluntary interaction, there is no initiation of force. If you engage in involuntary interaction, there is an initiation of force. It's a simple and unambiguous concept.
Theoretically possible, but not likely to work. Property, and the difference between rightful and wrongful acquisition of property, is a concept that has been inherent in human beings since the beginning of time. Even animals understand and act on this most fundamental concept. It is impossible to "erase" from the human brain the necessity to own and control posessions.
Moreover, such a system would be incredibly inefficient and ambiguous with regard to distribution of scarce resources. What happens when I claim that you've had more of your fair share of community-owned food, and you assert that you've not? The resolution would require an initiation of force. Property rights solve that problem before it ever occurs.
Meaning you steal what I've obtained through voluntary trade? How is this not an initiation of force?
i dont recognise your claim to it
And there lies the problem: You failed to observe my rightful ownership of property.
Sure it does. Enforcement of property rights is force used in self-defense, not initiation of force. Again, the difference according to Rand is the difference between moral interaction (voluntary association) and immoral interaction (involuntary association). There is no ambiguity here.
Force in defense of property rights is not the same as force in self defense.
You seem to be implying that force in defense of property is somehow different than force in defense of one's own body. Quite the contrary, your own body is the first and most important property you will ever own.
If you own a house, and I buy all the land around your house, then I can tell you you're not allowed to enter my property, and by your description of morality I've not only not committed any offense
This would have to be considered entrapment. The property may have been acquired through voluntary means, but the act of entrapping is a clear initiation of force.
I have enough food for two, and you have none. You must steal it from me if you are to survive
Yes, stealing is clearly an initiation of force. However, I can't imagine this scenario occuring in all but the most unlikely of situations, like being stranded on a deserted island. But you are correct.
communal rights, or floating rights
Rand would assert that unless the "communal" or "floating" rights were engaged involuntarily (through force), there is no problem.
Starts to fall apart at the edges, eh?
Not at all.
She does not discriminate between moral defense and immoral defense
Baloney. The difference between moral use of force and immoral use of force is the entire core of Rand's philosophy.
First, government does not "create" property, nor does it create the moral right to own property. Property is a concept that has been inherent in human society since the beginning of time. Even animals understand, to a certain degree, the concept and importance of property. Government can only enforce the concept of property which already exists.
Second, you don't seem to understand the difference between "initiation of force" and "force in self-defense". They are opposites. The first is immoral; the second is not. Rand's philosphy forbids the first, and approves the second.
There is nothing wrong with "greed" and "selfishness" (I prefer to call it the "profit incentive") as long as one abides by the rules of voluntary association. It is, after all, a natural thing for human beings to strive for personal achievement. Let go of your jealousy and concentrate on increasing your own happiness through voluntary association, not force. I did, and I'm a better person because of it. I'm not wealthy by any measure, but I'm perfectly content with what I have.
As for the "monopoly" argument, remember that in a purely capitalist society, no one individual or group holds the power to prevent other individuals or groups from acquiring wealth, or engaging in trade with others. All it takes is the motivation to achieve. Realize that it is much easier to obtain monopoly under a complex, ambiguous, exploitable system of law -- like the one we've got today in the US -- than it would be under a purely capitalist society.
If you're interested, here is a good intro to the philosophy of voluntary association. You are certainly not the only one who doesn't "get it" right off the bat. I didn't either.
Agreed. The logical conclusion is slavery.
I think the problem is that people automatically assume that government always works on the behalf of the people. (And that's no surprise: living under big government, we are taught from an early age to run to government at the slightest hint of a problem.) What these people don't realize is that government is nothing but collection of unique individuals, each motivated by self-interest like every other human being that has ever existed.
The truth is that government is no more interested in the individual's opinion than any other business. The difference between government and private business is, of course, that government holds the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, while private business does not.
I never claimed the founders' political history was a perfect model of liberty. Indeed, slavery could have never existed without the initiation of force.
Now, you can repeat the phrase "we the people" until the end of time, but that won't change the fact that government exists only when certain individuals hold power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end) over other individuals. Government is force. You (the people) may get to choose who obtains that "right" to initiate force, but that doesn't change the fact that force will be used as a means to an end.
Realize that "the people", or "society", is not an actual living, thinking being, with values, beliefs, needs and wants. Society is a collection of unique, thinking individuals, each of whom hold unique values, beliefs, needs and wants. Likewise, government is nothing but a collection of unique individuals. The one true, logical difference is that individuals in government hold the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, while the rest do not.
Are you seriously attempting to claim that free trade, or voluntary association, is non-existant, like some crazy delusion or figment of our imagination?
The owner of property may defend that property by force. But this is NOT an initiation of force! The initiator of force is the individual or group (government) who tries to steal that property, not the rightful owner who tries to defend it!
I can't imagine why most people don't realize this, but the fundamental premise of liberty is that force may be invoked ONLY in defense of force.
I cannot believe what you are saying. Private ownership of property and freedom go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other. If you are against property rights, you are against freedom. Do you not realize that in order to "eliminate" property rights, you must do so by force? Do you not realize that property is one of the most basic human values?
Incidentally, if you actually understood Ayn Rand, you would realize that slavery is absolutely unacceptable in the purely capitalist society, because slavery requires an initiation of force.