As Ties With China Unravel, U.S. Companies Head to Mexico

The only beneficial "regulations" are those preventing fraud and the initiation of force. All other regulations turn out to be disasters sooner or later.

Bob

Copyright and patent law are protection from theft. What if you work for years writing a novel or developing some new device? Would you like it if someone stole it? The inventor of the MRI made a mistake on his patent application. GE, a huge company, took advantage and went into the MRI business. They made a fortune. He didn't. Was that fair?

Bob

Recognizing the right of ownership is the first step in protecting people from theft. This is what legitimizes the law enforcement.



How are these "new classes of property"?



Plagiarism is theft.

" to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

to commit literary theft "

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize




Stealing creates nothing. All it does is rearrange what all ready exists.



Not the issue. We are not discussing the effectiveness of IP legislation. We are discussing the legitimacy of the legislation. Theft of intellectual property is still theft.



Wrong. Individuals have sued large corporations for patent violations and have won. For example Gordon Gould, inventor of the laser, sued several large corporations and won.

"Gould is best known for his thirty-year fight with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to obtain patents for the laser and related technologies. He also fought with laser manufacturers in court battles to enforce the patents he subsequently did obtain....The thirty year patent war that it took for Gould to win the rights to his inventions became known as one of the most important patent battles in history. In the end, Gould was issued forty-eight patents, with the optical pumping, collisional pumping, and applications patents being the most important.[30] Between them, these technologies covered most lasers used at the time. For example, the first operating laser, a ruby laser, was optically pumped; the helium–neon laser is pumped by gas discharge.

The delay—and the subsequent spread of lasers into many areas of technology—meant that the patents were much more valuable than if Gould had won initially. Even though Gould had signed away eighty percent of the proceeds in order to finance his court costs, he made several million dollars.[31]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gould



Only because the inventor made a mistake in his filing.


Well it certainly worked for Gordon Gould, didn't it!

Bob

Yes. So therefore...? How does that make copyrights and patents a bad thing? Without legal recognition, freedom of speech and press don't exist either. Would you get rid of them?



How is that a reason for eliminating patents and copyrights? 250 years ago, freedom of speech, press, and religion didn't exist either. By following your argument, these too must be done away with! Is that what you are advocating? 250 years ago, there was no such thing as environmentalism. Are you now declaring that the environmental movement should be eliminated?



And this is a problem because...? Singing a song is only a violation of the copyright law if the performance is given for a fee.



Oh the manufacture of goods is real enough. Pretending that these knock-offs are quality material, though, is fraud. And that is exactly what the knock-off manufacturers are doing. By saying that their goods are made by companies that have a reputation for quality, they are falsely claiming that their goods are something they are not.




Yes. And there can be no violation of freedom of speech or press without these freedoms existing as a legal category. In a similar fashion, there can be no crimes against the environment. Would you argue against these "legal categories" too? If not, then why not?

Bob

That's what you seem to be claiming.

 

Yes. And that includes the property protested by patents and copyrights.


All government regulations of economic activity (with the exceptions of preventing fraud and the initiation of force) are inherently bad for the simple reason that politicians and bureaucrats are never satisfied with a little bit of power. Regulations will tend to increase year after year until the economy is eventually strangled. This is happening right now here in America. France is nearing the tipping point.

Bob

Yes. But it's the first step.



Of course not. "Property" is a social fact, not a brute fact. Social facts are constructed by people, but once constructed they have an objective existence. During the World Cup, we see people kick a ball into a net. That is a physical brute fact. Saying that this constitutes a "point" however is a social fact.



It would be a slippery slope argument if this hadn't happened so many times throughout history. Indeed, it is still happening.



That statement is true by definition, not by fact.


It was thought in Nazi Germany that the Nuremberg Laws were beneficial. Legislative branches can also be tyrannical if their power is not limited.

Bob 

Yes. But why should it have to be? And what exactly is that supposed to prove? Obtaining food is a precondition for eating it. Would you then argue that obtaining food is not important for avoiding starvation? It sounds like you are.



Non Sequetur.



It is true. It has happened historically and it is happening now.



Yes, that is a big danger. As Thomas Jefferson said "The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance." But with voter vigilance limited government can be maintained. If they don't, then the economy declines until the voters wise up and re-elect a limited government party.



You did not contest that your previous comment was true by definition, not by fact, so I assume you agree with me here. Your present comment is a Non Sequetur. IP laws do protect against theft of property. They protect against someone stealing your property and passing it off as their own. That's fraud.




Yes. I agree.


No, not a Red Herring. It is an Apples and Oranges comparison on your part. The events you talk about happened in different centuries. During the early 19th century, racism was rampant. A few years ago, I posted about the antisemitism of Karl Marx. You responded that during the middle of the 19th century, that this was not surprising and we shouldn't judge people in different centuries by our standards.

 By the 20th century, slavery had been outlawed in the West. The Nazis brought it back with their slave labor camps. As for genocide, that word didn't even exist until the war crime trials after WWII. The Nazi government didn't just "support" genocide. They organized it.

As you say, ALL governments have the potential to become tyrannical. That is why they have to be limited. Increasing government power only increases the chance of tyranny.

Bob

But that is not what we are talking about here. I don't know why that is so difficult to comprehend.



France, Italy, Greece, Argentina, Venezuela, India before the reforms 25 years ago. In the USA, there are the states of New York, Michigan, Illinois, and California. Businesses and people are leaving these states and going to states where there is less regulation and lower taxes. And these are just the examples that occurred to me immediately.



Yes. That is the tendency.



That is like saying that any attempt to extend one's life is always futile and self-defeating because we are all going to die anyway. And any talk of taking care of your health would be delusional. We maintain our health as long as we can and we maintain limited government as long as we can as well.

And there is one area where your claim totally breaks down. Tyranny, unlike death, is also unstable and ultimately leads to collapse. The Soviet Union is a good example of this. This opens the door once again to limited government.

Bob

But I never said that there was no means to reverse that tendency.Once again, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. As long as the people care about maintaining their rights, a limited government will stand.

Bob