A blog on objective thought in today's irrational, subjective world tackling some of the hardest questions of existence using reason and logic.
Published on March 22, 2006 By John Galt In International
On his blog Paul Thurrott just suggested that the rest of the world needs to do what France is doing and steal the Intellectual property of Apple "for the greater good". Otherwise known as communism.

http://www.internet-nexus.com/2006/03/france-pushes-for-free-choice-on-song.htm

My response to him:

Little tip. Communism failed horribly, starved millions to death and is generally evil. France itself is an excellent example of socialism in action. I.e. the riots specifically for actions enslaving their people to "the greater good" and eliminating freedom "for their own good".

Your "Good stuff. If only the rest of the world had this much common sense." isn't common sense, it is the height of evil. It is the enslavement of Apple/Microsoft/whom ever else uses their minds to build something and the theft of their ideas and hard work.

This is not about "what's good for the consumer". This is about property rights. The very foundation of a good society. If you don't like Apple's closed door, then don't buy Apple. Simple as that. They have the right to produce anything they wish, on any terms they wish and sell to whomever they wish to sell to or not. You similarly have the right to buy whatever you want to buy, AND NOT buy whatever you want.

Your problem is that you see a problem, and you like Apple stuff, but you want the problem solved, so you have no problem with enslaving others to get what you want. Do as I have done, and go buy someone else's product that doesn't lock you into Apple's system. It might not be as good, but if you value your freedom to choose, then you'll accept something that is less good. Or, you might give up your right to choose, because the Apple IPOD really is that good compared to everything else (it isn't). That is your choice, but when you make your choice (6+ IPODs now?) you can't bitch about the company that you voluntarily bought from or their policies. You're fuelling those policies not Apple.

When someone takes your house because they think that they can make better use of your property than you can and thus make a town more tax dollars, or someone says "Hey, what a great idea you've come up with! The world can't live without that, thus you must make them and give it to everyone else!" just remember that you thought this was a good idea, because this is exactly what you're supporting. Government sanctioned theft.

Be glad that you've never created anything worthy of such desire. Once you've experienced such a rape of your very mind by those that do not deserve anything at all, you'll fully understand the evil of socialism.

There's a book you should read: Atlas Shrugged. It's about this very topic; the enslavement of the individual and the consequences of such actions. If you Educated yourself on the history (The Capitalist Manifesto, The History of Modern Economics, any number of other books on the subject) of the policy you're supporting, and the direct correlation between socialism and poverty and free market capitalism throughout history and the incredible wealth created for EVERYONE, you'd see that you're suggestion is evil and self-destructive. (as more than a few cars in Paris have found out in the last year)

"God" help any of us that have to live in the world that you would create. Oh right, 50 million people died in the Soviet Union in a world exactly like what you're suggesting....

A Free Man.

Comments
on Mar 22, 2006
This is not about "what's good for the consumer". This is about property rights. The very foundation of a good society. If you don't like Apple's closed door, then don't buy Apple. Simple as that. They have the right to produce anything they wish, on any terms they wish and sell to whomever they wish to sell to or not. You similarly have the right to buy whatever you want to buy, AND NOT buy whatever you want.


Why should a sovereign nation tolerate cultural invasion and economic subjugation by a foreign power? What benefit does that give them? I say good for France as well. It's about time someone stood up to the big multinationals and reminded them that nationstates are much larger and stronger than any company. If anything I don't think France is going far enough.

By the way, it's not communism unless you're under the delusion that there is such a thing as the world state. Democracy is all about the will of the people, and in the current clime is exclusively state-based, not international. So if a duly elected government chooses to indulge in protectionism or deny foreign copyrights that is entirely within their power, and possibly good business sense as well. After all, why strengthen foreigners when you can just steal their ideas?
on Mar 22, 2006

Little tip. Communism failed horribly, starved millions to death and is generally evil.


I do hope you didn't actually send the response above. He might think you are some kind of right-wing idiot spouting non-sequiturs at people.

For example, making copies of materials was even more illegal in the Soviet-Union than under any of the current legal and physical control meachanisms in place in free countries. Communism failed horribly BECAUSE of such restrictions, not in spite of them or because people there thought that countermeasures must be taken against restrictions.

"Intellectual property" is not a natural right, it is not even "property" in the sense that personal property is. That is why the American constitution does not recognise it but merely allows congress to pass copyright and patent laws; but not because of a moral right to intellectual property, but to promote innovation.

A patent is not a government's recognition of a property right, it is a government's monopoly grant to a private person or a corporation. Under US law the granted monopoly of a limited time is meant to reward inventors for making public their inventions. It is the most socialist deal proposed and allowed in the American constitution.

To see a self-proclaimed "John Galt" argue in favour of government-granted monopolies and happily compare opposition to such mechanisms to "communism" just goes to confirm my very low opinion of Ayn Rand's philosophy, I'm afraid.

SOMETIMES what she said makes sense. But how it is commonly understood, and most likely meant, is a mere confirmation that anything done to promote egoism is good, even if it requires government interventions in the economy if only such interventions can be called "property".

There is nothing wrong with making laws for the greater good. That is why "intellectual property" laws exist. But to believe that such laws are the basis and everything else is an unnatural and communist attempt to change reality is stupidity.

on Aug 20, 2006
Intellectual property is the most important form of property rights. If you don't get to own your own mind then you're a slave.

Intellectual property rights have nothing to do with "the greater good". Where in god's name did you come up with that? They exist to protect the individual from the masses taking the mind of the person for their own use. (socialism) They exist to ensure that you can possess your own mind and make a living from your own innovations. It is specifically the individualist concept of intellectual property rights that ended slavery and took us out of the dark ages.

As for government granted monopolies, I didn't argue in favour of them. I argued in farvour of the government not having a say in business at all except in the case of physical harm against another. But then that rule applies to everyone else too (see my post about John Stewart Mill). The government doesn't have the right to interfere in anyone's life and "For the greater good" doesn't exist. Because "for the greater good" sacrifices the very people in society that actually make society, not the leaches that it perports to help and thus destroys society in the process because those people stop working. That's what communism is so very evil. There is no society without individualism. And since property rights and indeed the right to own one's own mind is the pre-condition for freedom then intellectual property is most definately a natural right, because without it you're a slave and the NATURAL state of man is with an upright posture working for the benefit of himself while not physically harming others. Not bent over in servitude of others, regardless of if it's for society as a whole (majority mob rule) or for the benefit of a slave master on a plantation.

I choose to live with an upright posture and allow everyone else to do the same. I refuse to put a yoke on anyone and I demand with every fibre of my being that no one puts one on me. I will fight to the death if needbe to ensure my freedom of mind and body as everyone else should do. And if they don't, then they deserve exactly what they get.

What Thurrott is endorsing is government intervention and theft. Nothing more and the end result is slavery.
on Aug 20, 2006
"Why should a sovereign nation tolerate cultural invasion and economic subjugation by a foreign power? "


Is economic success "subjugation"? Hardly. If France had a comparable product and a decent economy that wasn't throttled by their malfeasance and phony idealism they MIGHT be able to compete with Apple, no?

"By the way, it's not communism unless you're under the delusion that there is such a thing as the world state."


Communism is the ownership of the means of production and property by the "people", i.e. whatever thug is in charge of the government at a given time. You can most certainly say that the nationalization of privately owned intellectual property assets is a communist act. The means of production and property aren't just factories, oil fields and farms.

""Intellectual property" is not a natural right, it is not even "property" in the sense that personal property is."


There are no such thing as "rights" in terms of nature at all if you want to go that route. If you want to be sensible and look at history, you'll find that the birth of intellectual property rights was a key factor in the modernization of economics. People didn't have more access to knowledge, art, and science before, they had less. People will not innovate unless it is in their best interest to.

Thus the sorry lack of innovation by the Soviets unless guns were pointed at their heads or they were threatened to be sent to the gulag. If that's the kind of world you want, great. I don't think you'd like it if you had to live in it.

"There is nothing wrong with making laws for the greater good. That is why "intellectual property" laws exist. But to believe that such laws are the basis and everything else is an unnatural and communist attempt to change reality is stupidity."


The bullshit inherent in this argument is that scary "multinational" corporations aren't for the greater good. Of course they are. You don't see one-room mom-and-pop enterprises turning out the drugs that keep you alive or the technology we use to advance our civilization. Try to get a job at one that will feed your family. In reality those scary corporations employ millions, are owned by millions of investors, and benefit the "greater good" more than any hack-job collective that ever existed.
on Aug 20, 2006
p.s. don't get me wrong, I'm all for the public domain, and I think a lot of businesses are throttling our culture by their constant push to extend their IP rights to infinity. Disney built their business on public domain fairy tales and liturature, but they refuse to give back. That's not right either.

It's asinine to say, though, that a music company that creates an innovative property can't profit from it because the people of a nation are too stupid, lazy, and spoiled is insipid. The French have made a name for themselves for fighting anything that would require them to be something for themselves. When businesses take a step to purge their ranks of slackers and do-nothings, the people protest and the idiot government there passes a law saying the businesses have to tolerate it.

You can't look at France in the scope of one small philosophical argument. Apple isn't the microsoft of the music business, not by a long shot. There are innumerable other music players and file formats out there, and if they are competitive they'll survive. If they suck, which most do, they won't. It serves no one to reward people who make crappy products with the right to steal the products of successful innovators.

When people discuss this, though, they refuse to look at the French economy and social philosophy as a whole. They want to spout platonic ideals of the rights of man. What France is doing isn't about rights, it's about leveraging what little useful economy they have left with other people's innovation. Just like they spent the last few decades making their oil business by thwarting international law and further enriching Hussein illegally, now they want to further flaunt their treaties and steal from American companies.

on Aug 20, 2006
If they do this, then we need to allow California wineries to start labeling what they produce as Champagne, and not sparkling white wine. We need to let Wisconson cheese producers start using the name of French cheeses. How do you think it will benefit the world when our tasteless pasturized cheese and wine starts hijacking the real thing?

The French have no right to whine about intellectual property. They have imposed their protection of their "brands" for a long, long time. If they do this, then all French protectionism should be ignored as well. I wonder if they'd be happy to exchange Champagne for the IPod. I bet not.