Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > Sounds like the anarcho-socialist argument against property. I'm having
> > fun with those bozos right now on alt.anarchy. They don't understand
> > that I've painted them into a paradox. They either have to acknowledge
> > property rights or admit that they beleive that individuals are slaves
> > to the group.
> The idea that anti-patent arguments are anti-property has been
> debunked here so many times that using it is dishonest.
> As I have pointed out here before, it is the patent concept that is
> a socialist one--it derives from the labor theory of value--the
> discredited idea that work is valuable in itself. Just because an
> inventor does work, that's no reason to assume it is valuable, any
> more than a craftsman making artifacts no one wants. Value is
> created by demand; if an inventor creates something to meet the
> demands of the market, he will make money. If others also fulfill
> demands by using his invention, they make money too. None of that
> justifies the inventor using state guns to prevent others from also
> profiting from his invention. The state should protect your
> property, because when others use it, you can't. The state has no
> business protecting your ideas. If others can use them to profit
> more than you do, it is because they fulfill needs better than you
> and deserve to profit more--after all, you have more intimate
> knowledge of your ideas than they do--if you can't profit from
> that, you're doing something wrong.
The problem is that it is so easy to counterfeit information, while it
takes a much greater investment to counterfeit material goods.
Especially in an age where integrity, honesty, honor, and loyalty all
have lost their meanings, I would prefer the rule of law in such
situations rather than giving in to the barbarians. I would be John
Galt, rather than to aid others without recompense.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:14 MDT