[ExI] intellectual property again

BillK pharos at gmail.com
Sat Mar 6 10:01:54 UTC 2010


On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Emlyn  wrote:
<snip>
>
> In fact some would agree entirely with this. I think there is nuance
> here though; there is some range where relative powers are close
> enough to treat as equal. We can proceed on the assumption that actors
> are more or less in this range, leave it as the responsibility of
> individuals that they don't fall into terribly asymmetric situations,
> and try to rectify egregious examples of power imbalance where they
> are being obviously abused. But it's always going to be messy and
> imperfect.
>

Emlyn
You are pointing at the fundamental flaw in libertarian theology.
(So you've got no chance of reaching agreement).  :)

All their contracts, fair markets, fair dealing, etc. only works
between absolutely equal, mostly honest parties.

And, as you say, with the inherent power differences in the world,
this system is a non-starter.
If I convince a native Indian to sell me Manhattan for a handle of
beads of his own free will, that's not a fair contract. It is someone
powerful taking advantage of someone weaker. The weakness can be in
intelligence, education, general knowledge, physical or mental
disability, wealth (being poor and desperate), or even more honest
(not accustomed to dealing with a con-man), and so on.

Joshua's system assumes a world of identical Joshua's. But that
wouldn't work because they would all want to be on the same side of
the deal. Catch-22.

BillK



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list