[ExI] intellectual property again

[JOSHUA JOB]

On Mar 9, 2010, at 8:49 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> ### 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.

You need to produce food, clothing, shelter, get water, etc. in order to survive. If you are incapable of doing such things (or doing something which you can trade with others to acquire, as is generally the case in a society), then you are at the mercy of others. Your life is not in your control, even a little bit, at that point. So you cannot be said to be living your life, rather, you are living at other's mercy. Rights and laws are not needed an individual alone, sure. But rights are immediately required in any group of two or more people, so as to mediate their interactions in a way which ensures that each has the capacity to live before, during, and after the interaction, i.e. isn't interfering with the things required for each to control their lives and live independently.

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

It is based on principles that can be derived, in principle, by anyone, as it is simply philosophy. As for who decides in general, that would be a government, in any big society. Property rights are codified for all to see in law (so there is no ambiguity on the guiding principles), harm and force are mediated by police and courts, etc.

> 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?

Irrational in that they do not support your life. You only have one real choice, which is to live or not. If you choose to live, then there are all sorts of things required for that to happen, and in fact the decision will guide all your actions and is the root of morality, rights, etc. If you choose something else, then it really doesn't matter what as you cannot claim rights or anything else. After all, you don't want to live (and so must necessarily be working towards death, even if unbeknownst to you), and so anything that happens really can't change what happens to you (as you're going to die and in fact are working toward that end). So if you violate rights of someone, you cannot claim rights for yourself, as you have acted in a way which necessarily forsakes all claims to rights (from a logical view). And a society which punishes people who initiate force against others is a just one, as it follows justice, i.e. obeys morality.

> 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.

I don't dismiss others values as irrational if I disagree with them. We are all different and have different interests. But a heroine addict is not working for his life, nor is the town drunk, etc. They are clearly acting in contradiction to that. What they want, then, has no bearing on those who choose to live, and so has no bearing on rights in any way shape or form. Property is necessary for people to live in a society and live independently, which is the only way in which any conception of individual rights makes any sense at all (and the only way in which your life can be secure). Which brings me back to the main argument, of IP.