[ExI] intellectual property again

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 6:31 PM, JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

### So upholding tradition, or taking heroin, or wanting to be
popular, are all "irrational" by your usage of the word, therefore it
is OK to dismiss them and to remove them from moral calculation.

Hmmm. I think I heard that one before.

----------------------------

> 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).

### No, not really. You don't need to produce to survive, you only
need water, air, food, etc. And you don't need to control anything as
long as those in control want you to survive. Rights and laws
protecting them are not needed for the individual human, instead they
are social constructs needed for the functioning of a society.

-------------------------------

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.

### Who decides what is right and wrong, and how? Who defines "justly
acquired", "harm", "initiate force"? You?

----------------------

>
>> 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.

### We already established that values can exist without the notion of
property, although you call such values "irrational". Since you
personally define what is and what isn't "rational", you also lay
claim to defining what is "just". No?

I see it differently: Values are not subject to classification as
"rational" or not - only beliefs about methods of realizing them can
be called irrational, if such methods in fact do not realize the
values to implemented. If a stupid loser of an alcoholic values his
state of inebriation, and drinks to get drunk, it is rational (even if
by my standards stupid) - but if an American who wants prosperity
thinks that restricting trade with China will make Americans
materially better off, it's irrational. Thus, I don't get to dismiss
other people's desires by calling them "irrational" if I happen to
disagree with them, I can only suggest more efficient ways of
integrating all values in social decision-making.

Rafal