Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 03:02:00 PM
If somebody doesn't understand the principle philosophy behind your idea, you don't accuse them of supporting slavery or insisting that they are engaging in loaded questions:
You explain yourself better. If you believe that your conversational partner is not engaging on good faith, make it known to them or stop the conversation.

A flipped version of that aimed at dismantling capitalism might be something akin to 'if you support capitalism you support indentured servitude and slavery'.

Regardless of your other beliefs its a shitty debate tactic.

Okay, I'm going to answer this even though I think you've been behaving badly.

I explained, in a fair amount of detail over several posts, the foundation for my beliefs. Ghostmaker replied with a throwaway sentence or two, that were basically accusations. Despite that, I replied honestly, and tried to explain my position further in the specific areas that were addressed. In exchange, I was accused of being dishonest or evading the question, even though I answered it thoroughly, several times. I didn't answer in a simple yes/no, but I pointed out why I couldn't. The question included a number of fundamental assumptions I don't agree with. Quite a few, actually. It would take me multiple lengthy posts to address all the assumptions baked into that short question. Instead, I pointed out the nature of the question.

And then Ghostmaker went nuclear. That's on him, nobody else.

I do agree that there's a conceptual gulf here. This whole thread feels like talking into the void. I've explained my position, and I've tried to ferret out the positions of those who disagree by asking them salient questions. But it hasn't worked. Nobody has really addressed any of the key points I've made, like the differences between physical property and intellectual creations. Most of the replies I've gotten seem out of left field, claiming I believe things I never said. I've gotten the impression that the reaction against what I've said isn't based on logic, but on gut feelings. A sense of moral outage. That would explain the pages and pages of GeekyBugle calling everyone communists while demanding redistribution. You seem to share this, though you're less demonstrative.

You do seem to have some interest in continuing the conversation, but to do so we need to break through that barrier. At this point, I'm stymied. I've tried explaining it in various ways, and replying to challenges. So I think it's up to you. Either you need to explain your position in a way that's logically comprehensible to me, or you need to point where you disagree with me. I think the key is property rights, or the concepts of rights themselves, or the use of the term privilege. We seem to be using them in very different ways.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 04:07:48 PM
Your answering a question about logic constructs with another logic construct. Adverse possession is a logic construct.
I understand about the nature of the development of ideas. Im not actually for eternal copyright.

Adverse possession is a shorthand description of what happens somebody takes an object from you without permission and without allowing you to ever use it again. Or prevent you from using a piece of land that you used in the past and have a right to continue using in the future without your permission.  It is not a theoretical concept in of itself.

Likewise you can not steal or take an idea from a person and deprive them of it use through the act of using the idea yourself. You sing a song. I hear it, and sing it myself. You still have the song.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 04:07:48 PM
I am just saying that its not that clear cut because everything 'started' free before somebody invented the idea of property and created privaleges for its enforcement.

I never said it was clear cut. Instead of debating my overall thesis, you are trying to debates parts of it that are clear cut. But just parts of my ideas are clear cut doesn't mean I expect people to agree with the connection I make. Or that my overall thesis is clear cut.

My "IDEA" is also a limited resource, since two people writing on the same genre will not come with the exact same ideas almost never.

So my "IDEA" of a pulp game, is mine and the other 7 billion + people in the planet didn't come up with it.

It's even more of a limited resource than land, since each "IDEA" is as unique es the person writting it.

But me wanting to get paid for what I wrote "INFRINGES" on Estar's "rights" to fire his scanner/printers/photocopy machines and profit from MY work without a voluntary exchange of money for goods between him and me.

Because somehow me profiting from my work is a privilege if said work is creative.

Because socialists think my ideas belong to "society" "for the greater good".

Yet, the one for the free exchange of money for goods/services is the one in favor of theft and slavery and the ones in favor of profiting from other people's work for free are the ones for the free market and freedom.

In clown world.

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 04:30:21 PMI've gotten the impression that the reaction against what I've said isn't based on logic, but on gut feelings. A sense of moral outage.

My argument is that all things have some level of 'gut' instinct because reality isn't rational, and neither is our relation too it. I feel just as frustrated with you at times as you with me. And I do not believe that you personally argue in bad faith like I find oddend doing.

Quote from: estar on October 12, 2021, 04:30:58 PM
Adverse possession is a shorthand description of what happens somebody takes an object from you without permission and without allowing you to ever use it again. Or prevent you from using a piece of land that you used in the past and have a right to continue using in the future without your permission.  It is not a theoretical concept in of itself.

It is. Permission is a logic construct. Rights are logic constructs. They are only thoeretical. So what if you "used" something in the past. What grants you permission too it forever? Reverse engineered this is the 'oxygen and water' thing all over again.

A service is not a tangible physical good. It is a set of changes, yet you can claim a service.

Just because you say something is clear cut also doesn't make it so.

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 04:30:21 PMI think the key is property rights, or the concepts of rights themselves, or the use of the term privilege. We seem to be using them in very different ways.

Alright Il make a comprehensive list:
I know what a positive right vs a negative right is. One demands compulsion and one theoreticlaly doesn't. Free speech vs healthcare.

But free speech, without an assumed level of protection and a demand of compulsion is largely worthless. Or moreso then compulsion, an agreement of ethics about it.
Human beings are not rational, and at a level in society we don't build around rationality. Because life isn't rational. We build around 'holy' elements functionally. Things that are important by themselves regardless of context.

If you are not obligated by society a level of protection for your speech, then the right itself is worthless. This is how free speech is ultimatly compulsive. It demands a certain behaviour in others (legally or culturally) or else its just words in somebodies mind.

So far am I making sense?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 04:41:36 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 04:30:21 PMI've gotten the impression that the reaction against what I've said isn't based on logic, but on gut feelings. A sense of moral outage.

My argument is that all things have some level of 'gut' instinct because reality isn't rational, and neither is our relation too it. I feel just as frustrated with you at times as you with me. And I do not believe that you personally argue in bad faith like I find oddend doing.

Quote from: estar on October 12, 2021, 04:30:58 PM
Adverse possession is a shorthand description of what happens somebody takes an object from you without permission and without allowing you to ever use it again. Or prevent you from using a piece of land that you used in the past and have a right to continue using in the future without your permission.  It is not a theoretical concept in of itself.

It is. Permission is a logic construct. Rights are logic constructs. They are only thoeretical. So what if you "used" something in the past. What grants you permission too it forever? Reverse engineered this is the 'oxygen and water' thing all over again.

I'll have a thorough response to today's posts later, but it's very ironic that you accuse others of arguing in bad faith. Every time someone has tried to engage with you, you've come back with "Well, that definition of [every other word in your post] is just, like, your opinion, man".

Disputing the reality of every other word in their post isn't getting you (or them) anywhere. Why should anyone want to respond to any of your "yeah but that's just, like, a concept, man" if you're just going to hurl the same accusation at the next set of dictionary words that they use to respond?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 04:41:36 PM
A service is not a tangible physical good. It is a set of changes, yet you can claim a service.

Just because you say something is clear cut also doesn't make it so.

This is much better, though I don't agree that it hurts Estar's argument.

Services can't be stolen from you the same way a hat or a pencil can. In order to steal a haircut, for example, you'd have to actually be stealing something like a prepaid reservation in the form of a paper ticket (a "title to a haircut"). The haircut itself isn't something that can be grabbed out of your hand. It can't even be in your hand.

Edit: fixed a typo. Also, what I was trying to say is that, yes, services are intangible, but that doesn't contradict that only tangible things can be property in the sense that's at the center of this thread.

Quote from: Oddend on October 12, 2021, 05:11:52 PM
It can't even be in your hand.

Yes it can you just need big hands to fit the barber (i cant resist bad puns).

Also one thing i think people might be talking past each other about is thenidea that if someone pirates something and they were never going to buy it its not a lost sale. I think part of thenobjection is the idea that because they arent willing to support the product they are entitled to enjoy it.

This is an emotional response, and i admit logically i cant argue against it, but i agree it feels wrong.

Quote from: Oddend on October 12, 2021, 05:11:52 PM
I'll have a thorough response to today's posts later, but it's very ironic that you accuse others of arguing in bad faith. Every time someone has tried to engage with you, you've come back with "Well, that definition of [every other word in your post] is just, like, your opinion, man".

I am not a moral/physical relativist and I get the sense we are largely a bunch of libertarians debating on abstract concepts. But I want to be on the same page that we are debating abstractions. Using an abstraction as a point against another abstraction I do not find is a satisfactory argument.

QuoteEdit: fixed a typo. Also, what I was trying to say is that, yes, services are intangible, but that doesn't contradict that only tangible things can be property in the sense that's at the center of this thread.

Il give you this: Using the idea of scarcity as a integral factor of property, sure, ideas are not an cannot be property. Im willing to 100% cecede that point, and move on from that use of verbiage at all in regards to intelectual products.

So we can be on the same page: if I ask for payment after a service (haircut), the recipient recieves the haiurcut, but then refuses to pay me afterwards. What is that action. It is not theft, but what is it so I can call that action the proper thing.

Quote from: Slambo on October 12, 2021, 05:23:24 PM
Also one thing i think people might be talking past each other about is thenidea that if someone pirates something and they were never going to buy it its not a lost sale.

I know all about piracy studies and at times piracy can be a great promotional tool, and in fact Im pretty sure a EU study about videogames comissioned by game sellers was buried after they comissioned it because it told that information.

Im not debating wether or not piracy can be good. Im debating its ethics.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 04:03:53 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 03:46:12 PMI've tried to explain my position clearly and without insulting anyone, and I've been repeatedly attacked in a very nasty way for it.

True, some people threw shit your way. But you kinda have to power through it when debating over an incredibly complex topic like the idea of rights (natural vs unnatural) and property (on a public forum).
Like I could also discuss the historical reality of the concept of slavery and how not all of it is the same, and some people would call me a slavery supporter over it.

When somebody questions how stealing their ideas or replicating them without permission and you answer with the idea of effort=/=value, thats kind of a non-answer unless you directly link the concept to the ethics. True not all effort=value, but the question was about the ethics, not about the idea of value creation. And its a complex position (not one I think that makes you a bad person), but needs elaboration without calling people entitled.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 04:03:53 PM
When somebody questions how stealing their ideas or replicating them without permission and you answer with the idea of effort=/=value, thats kind of a non-answer unless you directly link the concept to the ethics. True not all effort=value, but the question was about the ethics, not about the idea of value creation. And its a complex position (not one I think that makes you a bad person), but needs elaboration without calling people entitled.

Fuck you again. You're continuing to behave badly. I only starting calling people entitled after many many pages of being called a communist or a thief or an ideologue or I don't even remember all the insults at this point. If I had to power through that, then why doesn't anyone else have to power through one or two references to entitlement?

...
As I've said several times, I think morality and ethics are rooted in pragmatism. Nearly all humans have an aversion to incest, because prior to birth control it led to serious genetic problems. The aversion itself isn't rational, but it has a rational origin. But circumstances have radically changed since we first developed those moral or ethical codes. And that's important, because while we need to apply our innate sense of morality and ethics to new situations, we can do so in different ways.

Not all translations work. That's why I detailed in an earlier post how I think the evolution of our beliefs about theft started with personal possessions. I think it's safe to say that in prehistory, it was probably considered wrong for one member of a tribe to take the spear of another member, without permission. But if they were nomads, they probably didn't have a sense of personal ownership of land. It might belong to the tribe, or everyone, or whatever. But certain ethical standards, like not leaving campsites a complete mess or letting your dogs foul a well, might have emerged. That didn't mean they considered land personal property, but they still developed a set of standards around it.

Once we developed civilization, title to land and resources became a thing. That's an extension of the sense of morality regarding personal possessions to locations or larger and more distant resources, like a house or a storehouse full of grain. That was a useful extension of the sense of morality, because the economy works better when someone owns everything. If someone owns it, they're more likely to treat it better, because it's theirs. And since they're entitled to any long-term benefits, they have every reason to maximize their use of the land. That means owners are spurred to figure out the most efficient way to meet the needs of all the other individuals they exchange with, which collectively means all the resources in society are allocated in the way that most benefits the collective needs of society. It's a more efficient way to organize society, because it incentives useful behavior.

But there was little or no concept of ownership of abstract concepts or ideas. That's new, in the last few hundred years. It's worth remembering how new this all is. Prior to the 80s, the terms and restrictions and what was covered by intellectual "property" was much more limited. But as it grew, more people transferred their sense of morality about the theft of personal possessions to ideas. But just calling it property, and transferring over that sense of morality, doesn't work.

The transfer is bad, because ideas aren't like physical objects. They aren't scarce, and can be replicated endlessly. They're also cumulative. What you do on one piece of land may impact another piece of land, but they're not highly dependent on each other. Ideas are. To communicate, we need languages. To make a bridge, it helps to have some understanding of physics. But if those ideas are owned and must be licensed, then the owners can extract rent from everyone who utilizes those concepts. Except the rent seekers are providing no real value, because they're not maximizing the use of finite resources. Everyone can use the gravitational constant or Mandarin at once, and it doesn't impede anyone else's use. There's no scarcity, so there's no need to allocate its use only to the most vital areas, unlike with finite resources like oil or beachfront property. Transferring the morality we have about personal possessions, and which we've extended to more abstractly connected possessions, isn't needed.

More than that, it's destructive. Because it creates a set of owners who can tithe everything everyone does, without providing any value to society. This is the locking up of all our cultural heritage thing I've referred to many times, and what Disney is doing. On top of that, by locking up our cultural heritage, they can lock out new creations. Because all new creations are dependent on some idea in the past, so we're creating an almost infinite number of points where someone can kill any future idea. This incentivizes stasis. That's why we want ideas to be free, so we can develop new ones on top of the old ones.

Which is the whole point. From a pragmatic standpoint, we want new ideas, and new works. That churn is extremely valuable, so we should try to develop a system and a supporting morality and ethics that incentivizes it. But since we've established we want most ideas to be free, how do we balance those two conflicting ends, and develop the best set of incentives? That leads us to limited monopolies. Monopolies, because it's one (of many) way to help people monetize their works. This creates a positive incentive, encouraging more new works. Limited, because the more ideas and works that are unrestricted, the greater the base of cultural knowledge and art all the new inventors and artists have to work with. That's the balance we need. Make the scope and duration broad enough to provide a financial incentive, but restricted enough that other people are able to build on those works as soon as possible.

Note that while I've expanded on a few things, I've essentially said all this before, in this thread. And I fully expect it to be ignored this time as well.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 05:26:54 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 12, 2021, 05:11:52 PM
I'll have a thorough response to today's posts later, but it's very ironic that you accuse others of arguing in bad faith. Every time someone has tried to engage with you, you've come back with "Well, that definition of [every other word in your post] is just, like, your opinion, man".

I am not a moral/physical relativist and I get the sense we are largely a bunch of libertarians debating on abstract concepts. But I want to be on the same page that we are debating abstractions. Using an abstraction as a point against another abstraction I do not find is a satisfactory argument.

QuoteEdit: fixed a typo. Also, what I was trying to say is that, yes, services are intangible, but that doesn't contradict that only tangible things can be property in the sense that's at the center of this thread.

Il give you this: Using the idea of scarcity as a integral factor of property, sure, ideas are not an cannot be property. Im willing to 100% cecede that point, and move on from that use of verbiage at all in regards to intelectual products.

So we can be on the same page: if I ask for payment after a service (haircut), the recipient recieves the haiurcut, but then refuses to pay me afterwards. What is that action. It is not theft, but what is it so I can call that action the proper thing.

Quote from: Slambo on October 12, 2021, 05:23:24 PM
Also one thing i think people might be talking past each other about is thenidea that if someone pirates something and they were never going to buy it its not a lost sale.

I know all about piracy studies and at times piracy can be a great promotional tool, and in fact Im pretty sure a EU study about videogames comissioned by game sellers was buried after they comissioned it because it told that information.

Im not debating wether or not piracy can be good. Im debating its ethics.

Yeah but this is something thats been brought up a few times i think and was never addressed usually someone would say "why should they get x for free" then the reply would be "well you're not losing sales" or something similar. I think that deep feeling of unfairness actually does tie into the ideas on ethics though because a lot of people will just follow their gut and for a lot of people it feels wrong that someone is enjoying for free something they had to pay to make or even just something they payed to play/read

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 12, 2021, 04:41:23 PM
My "IDEA" is also a limited resource, since two people writing on the same genre will not come with the exact same ideas almost never.

So my "IDEA" of a pulp game, is mine and the other 7 billion + people in the planet didn't come up with it.

But a million people can use your idea, or a trillion, or a googplex. But if you have a cob of corn, and have to share it with more people than there are stars in the sky, you might find it... scarce.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 12, 2021, 04:41:23 PM
In clown world.

That bright red nose looks good on you.

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 05:28:15 PMAs I've said several times, I think morality and ethics are rooted in pragmatism.

And pragmatism is rooted in survival instinct which is irrational (it is a incidental occurence at best). Existence is ultimatly irrational. I ultimatly dispute that point and I believe the mistake people make is thinking that there is something that is ultimately not the product of gut instinct.

If mind controlling all of humanity garaunteed its longterm survival, would that be better then a shorter term existence but with freedom? If yes, why.

Edit: To refine the idea further: I think discussions should be about how we want to exist as a species moreso that about purely survival.

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 05:34:23 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 12, 2021, 04:41:23 PM
My "IDEA" is also a limited resource, since two people writing on the same genre will not come with the exact same ideas almost never.

So my "IDEA" of a pulp game, is mine and the other 7 billion + people in the planet didn't come up with it.

But a million people can use your idea, or a trillion, or a googplex. But if you have a cob of corn, and have to share it with more people than there are stars in the sky, you might find it... scarce.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 12, 2021, 04:41:23 PM
In clown world.

That bright red nose looks good on you.

Without paying me, because you're not a socialist nor want to profit from my work without me getting money because somehow that's not theft and slavery.

Yeah, I'm the clown... Keep telling yourselves that.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 12, 2021, 04:41:23 PM
Because somehow me profiting from my work is a privilege if said work is creative.

Except you can by printing the pulp game and selling it. Oh wait somebody else can print it and sell it as well right? Fine that is an issue. But it still doesn't stop you from printing and selling your pub game. Doesn't stop you from being first in the market. Nor does it you from be recognized as the creator of your particular take.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 12, 2021, 04:41:23 PM
Because socialists think my ideas belong to "society" "for the greater good".

Because your ideas as a whole are not unique, they rest on the knowledge of others. The concept of tabletop roleplaying, the consider of packaging a game in a box. The use of dice as game mechanics. A thousand ideas from other folks are embedded in your pulp game some of them quite recent on the human scale of time. Are you going to pay them? Cut them in on a slice of your pulp game. What about all the authors who pioneered the genre decades ago or their heir. What about Speilberg, Lucas who refreshed the genre for a new generation? You want to take credit for the whole muffin when the only original bits are a few scattered raisins.

You feel to plunder to the work of others but god forbid that you allow other to benefit from your work. All because you can't see the muffin only the raisins you created yourself.

Quote from: estar on October 12, 2021, 06:12:11 PMExcept you can by printing the pulp game and selling it.

Question, if part of my permission for you viewing my work is a contract not to reproduce it, are you still ethical if you break said contract.