libertarianism
About us
An open, user owned community for the general disscussion of the libertarian philosophy.
- Libertarianism is the belief that each person has the right to live his life as he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others.
- Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property.
- In the libertarian view, voluntary agreement is the gold standard of human relationships.
- If there is no good reason to forbid something (a good reason being that it violates the rights of others), it should be allowed.
- Force should be reserved for prohibiting or punishing those who themselves use force.
Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business.
Source: https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/what-is-libertarianism
Rules
1. Stay on topic
We are a libertarian community. There are no restrictions regarding different stances on the political spectrum, but all posts should be related to the philosophy of libertarianism.
2. Be polite to others and respects each others opinions.
Be polite to others and respects each others opinions. We don't want any form of gatekeeping or circlejerk culture here.
3. Stay constructive and informational
In general, all types of contributions are allowed, but the relevance to this community must always be evident and presented openly by the contributor. Posts that do not meet these requirements will be removed after a public warning. Also remember to cite you sources!
4. Use self-moderation measures first before reporting.
This community is fundamentally built upon freedom of speech. Since everyone understands libertarianism differently and we do not want to exclude any kind of content a priori, we appeal to the individual users to block/mute posts or users who do not meet their requirements. Please bear this in mind when filing a report
view the rest of the comments
By what right do you claim the fruits of somebody else's labor?
The rights of capitalism?
Fundamental to capitalism is the right to profit from others' labor when it uses something you own
If you own farmland it's your right to profit from what's grown on the land.
If you own a factory, it's your right to right to profit to what's produced by labor in that factory.
And yes, if you own an idea, it's your right to profit indefinitely from labor that uses that idea
Either you own the computers of authors and instruments of composers and brushes of painters, or that's irrelevant at best.
You're not wrong;
Authors and composers are some of the few places where labor largely correlates with ownership in our current system, and I'd definitely argue that this is a genuinely positive thing.
However, even in these fields, this is not true most of the time.
Most writing is not done under a self-ownership model. Ignoring LLMs, most writings: news articles, critic writing, advertising, etc. is done under contract (or employment) with a larger company that owns the IP of the writing, and the actual authors are directly paid only for the labor.
Music is more complicated, but my understanding is that while composers do often hold some ownership for commercial works, the more general "Music industry" publishing doesn't happen without giving up much of the ownership of the artist's works.
My point, frankly, is that framing capitalism as a system where there is no "right [to] claim the fruits of somebody else’s labor" is fundamentally, objectively, incorrect.
I said nothing at all about capitalism. I merely asked OP by what right they claim the fruits of somebody else's labor.
To that end, I'd note that the right by which those cited in your examples do so is by entering into contracts with the creators under which the creators explicitly and (more or less) voluntarily grant them that right.
And therefore, I'd say that this:
is mostly wrong.
Any right that one might invoke in order to claim the fruits of someone else's labor is a right that has been explicitly granted by the person providing the labor, and that does not exist unless and until granted.
It sounds like I need to apologize then. I jumped to the conclusion based on the name of the community and (to some extent) the sidebar, that the assumed framing was that of a capitalist system (i.e. an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.). If that's not a valid assumption, then I fully withdraw my complaints.
I'm with you 100% on the ideas that peoples' labor and the fruits thereof is theirs and theirs alone to sell.
I'd still argue that coerced consent is no consent, and that under the current system, most permissions granted by people providing labor has effectively been coerced.
"rights" exists in sets of rules which humanity created for a better society. Expropriation is used often to build common infrastructure - - the same (expropriation) should be used for intellectual property : when it makes societies better - - adequate monetary compensation should be given to creators.
That would be a potentially sound argument in favor of situationally (and with compensation) overriding a creator's claim to the fruits of their labors.
But that's not the issue at hand on this thread. The OP has asserted that "intellectual property should be abolished." That necessarily means that there is no presupposed right a creator might have to the fruits of their own labor, and that by extension, any and all who might be so inclined do have an unfettered right to them, with no need or even basis at any point for a determination of societal value or any form of compensation.
You're right that OP said that : "intellectual property should be abolished" and that my comment doesn't take this statement head on. Yet he also writes: "change my mind" and if you want to do this, you have to acknowledge their energy (their convictions) and try to see where that energy can go.
No - I really don't have to do that. I might have chosen to, but I didn't.
If that's what you wish to do, you're certainly free to do so.
I didn't say : "you have to change people's mind".
What I said is : "if you want to change people's mind then..."
I know - I was just being prickly.
I simply have zero patience for the NoIP position. I think it's asinine on its face - the philosophical equivalent of flat earth. And I just have no interest in taking someone who espouses it by the hand and walking them through to an idea that actually makes sense (and more to the point and as opposed to NoIP, an idea that actually lines up with the rest of the things that they already believe). I just want to tear their gibbering nincompoopery down to the ludicrous shreds in which it deserves to die and be buried and forgotten. Whether or not they can blunder their way to a better position (they couldn't hardly find a worse one) is their problem - not mine.
Ungenerous I know, but I think it's particularly important at the libertarian/minarchist/anarchist end of the spectrum that people learn to actually think instead of just mindlessly regurgitating whatever impressed them when someone else said it.
if all bad things in the universe where destroyed, other would arise. I wish you peace.
And I you.
What a fantastic end. Proof that people aren't fundamentally bad? ;)
Clearly no one is forcing you to do this. But I have politely asked for it. I just want to better understand your points of view and present mine to you. I have never claimed to be right. But I think that your hardened attitude of defiance looks like an inner blockade to me. Something that perhaps builds on the fear that all work would be pointless if you can't expect a reward for it. What is the whole point of doing all thisthen? Would we as a society simply give in and stop developing? Or would we discover a different meaning behind innovation than just money?
The idea that "intellectual property should be abolished" isn't even coherent.
"Intellectual property" exists. It can't be "abolished" any more than gravity or oxygen can.
When, for instance, an author writes a novel, they have created a thing. And before you even go there - no, I'm not talking about the physical books that might later be printed. I'm talking about the composition - the specific ordering of specific words that serve to tell a specific story. That composition is a discernible thing, and it exists. It can't be "abolished."
So what you're presumably really talking about is abolishing the concept that the person who labored to bring that thing into existence had the right to claim ownership of it. And that, not to put too fine a point on it, is asinine
That thing did not come into existence spontaneously. Words didn't just magically combine themselves in such a way as to tell a coherent story. They were arranged in that particular order by someone. Someone labored to bring that thing into being.
And thus what you're explicitly arguing is that the person who labored to bring the thing into being should not be seen to have the right to claim ownership of it. By doing so, you are in fact arguing that your presumed right to determine the proper ownership of the thing is superior even to the right of the person who created it in the first place - that they don't get to decide who owns it and you do.
And so I ask, yet again, because this has been the key all along, by what right do you claim the fruits of somebody else's labor?
The term "intellectual property" is something completely man made and does not exists independent of our perception unlike mathematics or gravity. The "ideas" themselves are. But IP suggests that they are a kind of property, which I cannot agree with at all.
Oh FFS...
Of course the term is man made.
But the things it describes exist, and in fact you presuppose the fact that they exist when you take a position regarding the rights that should pertain to them.
And it's not only the case that they can be considered property, but that they ARE considered property.
So whether you can and will face the fact or not, what this whole thing comes down to is that you are asserting that you - whether acting for yourself or as a self-appointed representative of humanity - have a claim to that property that supersedes the creator's claim such that you, and not the creator, can rightly decide what concept of property can be rightly assigned to it.
So I ask, very precisely and for the last rime, by what right do you claim the fruits of somebody else's labor?
Dude what are you talking about? The fundamental "something" you call intellectual property is simply the idea or construct of your intellect, that is, what the poet imagines when he strings words together. Now you can say that this is his own property and no one can take it away from him, which no one disputes, not even me. Nobody takes anything away from anybody! But someone else can make exactly the same idea, the same string of words, so both have the same idea, the same thought construct. Now both possess the same idea and both have full control over it. One "possession" has become two identical "possessions", so to speak. IP is therefore only a possible designation for the condition of the control of an idea.
And now someone comes along and says that all these properties belong to him and wants to take them away from the others? With what right can he claim this? Where does he draw the line from when something is claimable at all? Otherwise everyone could run to the patent office and claim everything for himself because no one else has done it before him.
Do you mean the right of the pen and paper manufacturer or the writer of the book? Because the writer does not let the manufacturer write whatever he wants on his paper.
Though NoIP advocates generally conflate them, the nominal ownership of an original composition and the nominal ownership of a printed copy of that composition are two entirely different topics.
I think there is more than just that. In my opinion it's not theft if something is openly accessible and is not in itself affected by copying or modifying the copy. Either you protect you property well or it may get shared.
If you develop a new medication for example you still have the advantage that only you know how to produce it. It's your right to keep this a secret and binding all your workers to keep this secret. But if somebody leaks this info why shouldn't anybody be able to copy it freely? Of course the comapny could still sue the leaker for breaking their agreement but not the people using or redistributing it.
It was a very simple question.
By what right do you claim the fruits of somebody else's labor?
Let me clarify a bit:
When you say that intellectual property should be abolished, you're saying that the creator of a product of intellect should be afforded no claim to control over that product - that you should be free to use it as you please. Since it's demonstrably the case that the creators of products of intellect generally believe themselves entitled to the fruits of their labors, when you assert that they should have no such right, you're effectively asserting that your claim to the fruits of their labors trumps even their own.
So again, by what right do you make that claim?
That's exactly the point: I believe that you cannot exclusively own the ideas or the fruits of your intellect. You can't own them because you have no ultimate control over them. And if you have no ultimate control over them you can't restrict them getting used by somebody else. More precisely: You still have control over your idea as the fruit of your labor and it is under your control exactly what you do with it. But you cannot control someone else's idea, even if it is exaclty the same. Any information that is open in any way can and probably will also be used openly.
Some examples that illustrate this:
I think the core aspect is to realize that work does not necessarily have to be followed by a reward. Just as a tinkerer can spend days working on a device only to discover later that someone else has already solved the same problem, one cannot say that an idea, no matter how innovative or fundamental it may ultimately be, can necessarily be rewarded monetarily. Or in short: work does not necessarily create wages. Is it not rather the decision of the customers whether they entrust their money to whom? Whether they prefer to give it to the original inventor or to a soulless copycat?
I think that in a world that is becoming more and more automated and where machines are slowly taking over the discovery of new formulas and processes, the story behind the products is becoming more and more important.
Yes - it is certainly the case that once a thing that exists only conceptually - an idea or composition - is loosed into the world, control of it is difficult at best.
So let's narrow the scope.
TO THE DEGREE THAT the thing might be controlled after being loosed into the world, who has the more reasonable claim to exercise that control? The person who created it or someone else?
nobody/everybody has the right to claim it. Why should anybody be able to restrict the freedom of somebody else if its own freedom isn't diminished by any degree?