[ExI] intellectual property again

[JOSHUA JOB]

On Mar 9, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 3:29 PM, JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com> wrote:
>  Isn't this assuming too much? Of course, values come first,
> efficiency in this context and in the first approximation is just a
> measure of the degree to which available resources are used to realize
> values of members of the in-group. But equally obviously, many people
> do not care much about property, in most extreme situations to the
> point of not even caring about their own bodies except as means to an
> end (suicide bombers, religious fanatics and others come to mind). A
> lot of people do not care about most types of property - yet they are
> alive and have other values, which means that strongly valuing
> property is not a necessary component for human life.

I apologize, I was imprecise. I meant rational values, not just "values" in general. You can value an overdose of heroine, because it might feel amazing, and so you want to do that. But that isn't a "rational" i.e. life-affirming value. So the religious fanatics and suicide bombers obviously don't care about property, as they don't care about life, ultimately. And many people are irrational, and aren't really trying to live the best life they can, but rather aiming to avoid pain, or uphold tradition, or try to be popular, or.... whatever. 

>  If your egoist morality totally discounts my values and the values
> of everybody else, then of course global efficiency is not important
> for you. But, then if you don't care about what I want, or what
> everybody else might want, why should anybody care about what you
> want, except as a strictly tactical issue?

You shouldn't, though this is more a tangent than anything else. The idea is that rights are a necessity for living life as rational being (that is, a human). Basically, it is based on the fact that as a human you must control your actions and be able to think independently (so no coercion), and must produce things in order to survive (and have to be able to control them in order to be able to control whether he survives or not, i.e. must own them). So, if you initiate force against someone, then you have, necessarily, rejected the basis upon which your life is based, and so cannot claim any rights for yourself. So that is why you shouldn't harm me or take my justly acquired property, because then anyone can do the same to you without doing anything wrong themselves. If that is what you mean by a "tactical" issue, then perhaps that is all there is. Though I think it is a pretty big one.

> Throwing around the term "collectivist" doesn't help here either...

If you define efficiency as you do, the degree to which resources are used to support values of the people in society, you have already missed the point so to speak. Property is necessary for any values to exist, and so, regardless of any empirical concern, it must be respected fully in order for a just society to exist.

And I agree with the whole "trade secret" thing, most if not all patents currently in existence are in existence precisely because without them other companies would quickly be able to reverse engineer the innovation from the final product, and thereby "rob" the companies of profit.

However, I am willing to debate the merits of intellectual property even given some notion of "efficiency", as I think it will likely turn out to be more efficient than some other system. Even if not (or at least, if it cannot be demonstrated to be the case), it won't effect my position, as it is ultimately based on principle (so there is no downside to me in doing so).


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com