http://www.iphalloffame.com/korekiyo_takahashi/
You need to reward innovators or you won't have innovation.
I'm not trying to agree or disagree with anything else you wrote, just clarifying what I think is a point you left ambiguous.
I rather disagree that patents don't reward innovation; that is exactly what they do. As Lincoln said, The patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius. Lincoln was among many many things, a patent attorney.
for I knew that a country without a patent office
and good patent laws was just a crab,
and couldn't travel any way but sideways or backwaysWhat you're doing is called Chronological Snobbery, acting as if an idea or concept has no value simply because of age.
> I'm not trying to agree or disagree with anything else you wrote, just clarifying what I think is a point you left ambiguous.
That's a ridiculous oversimplification.
It's unfortunate that the "reward" needs to come in the form of a monopoly over an idea. The fact that ideas themselves are valuable is such a capitalistic thing.
I don't believe copyright or patents are justified enough; the idea that someone can force you not to implement a particular algorithm or not to share some data with your neighbor, I find it ridiculous.
I have no respect for "IP", and no respect for private property. Down with the monopolies over what we can say and make and share, and down with the state that protects it.
I appreciate your concern, but I don't think an unjust law has weight; the only reason why I follow the ones that I do is so that I'm not put in prison. Not because I believe they are right. And the laws I break I do so when there is a smaller risk of being caught.
Being a citizen is by no means being a house guest, as I am forced to be a house guest of some state anyway. I regard the state is illegitimate.
Ok, so you are aware of disincentives. Well, patents are incentives.
There are, perhaps, over 200 sovereign nations, but far fewer that allow at-will immigration such that you are simply free to unilaterally choose to love in them.
I hear this a lot, but I disagree with it. Of course I do not expect the state to just vanish, but my point is that I do not want to 'settle' for a state, because I disagree with the fundamental concept of the modern state, because it is neither anarchistic, nor implementing direct democracy, nor supporting the abolishment of private property.
I don't want states to change. I want them to be destroyed.
But I would like to ask: upon what authority does the state, the private property owner and the landlord declare their dominion? Remember that if the defence of the state is something like "it has been democratically elected" it would follow that any other institution elected via democracy to replace the state would be in legitimate competition with the state, and be just as valid. Furthermore that the officers of the state are not subject to instant recall, and many parts are not democratic at all.
That's strange, I don't remember consenting.
I agree that people don’t “consent” to being governed just by virtue of being born, but I don’t think it’s possible to have a world where people consent to being a part of every power structure they’re forced to participate in, nor to have a world without such power structures.
If you find a copyrighted work valuable enough to use or share with your neighbor but you don't think you should have to pay to support its creation, you're a freeloader. If everyone acted in this way, no one would be funding the development of such works and they wouldn't exist for you to share. I know most of us skirt the rules in various circumstances but at the end of the day, someone has to be paying for these works or they wouldn't get created in the first place.
So, now that we know that, why are you calling basically everyone on the planet a freeloader? e.g. why am I freeloading if I read articles in the 'free' newspaper (advertising supported, of course.)
In this case, I can't see the problem with being a freeloader. Information is a non-scarce resource, and the arguments against freeloading don't apply to sharing information, other than the continuance/incentive aspect. This aspect is present in capitalism, though not necessarily in other economic systems. I personally do not care if future material is no longer produced. I'll find something else to do. What other people do is not my business.
Also, most businesses rely on employing people for wages, which I believe is exploitation, so in the case of information I don't really have a problem with these capitalists failing.
>someone has to be paying for these works or they wouldn't get created in the first place.
And if someone wants to pay, they surely can. I won't though.
I regard the following as illegitimate: (i) private property used in order to create profit via exploitation of labour in exchange for wages, and (ii) private property which is neither used (i.e occupied) nor laboured upon.
My aim is not to have property shared amongst people, but rather to abolish the concept altogether, along with all concepts of morality and justice.