dhouwn wrote:Intellectual property is so much more different from tangible property that I don't see being for its enforcement of such rights as a particular classically-liberal (US: libertarian) position.
I knew I should have locked this thread.
I go to my garage, take some wood and nails, and build a workbench or picnic table. It's mine.
I go to my keyboard and write a(n original) book. It's mine.
If fact, I get quite the opposite sense when looking at some of the arguments for strict enforcement of it, e.g. to encourage enrichment of society (the "collective"
).
"Someone who disagrees with you is not nearly so annoying as someone who agrees with you for the wrong reasons."
(old saying; author unknown)
"An idea is not responsible for who believes in it" -- Barry Goldwater
I'm not responsible for "some of the arguments". I have my own, and they're sufficient for me.
The worst part about subtly accepting the collectivist mentality is that then, every principle must be defended as being good for the collective.
This is the opposite of believing in individual rights per se.
Come to think of it, if you have two well-functioning kidneys, and someone is facing dialysis or death, and you're a match, wouldn't the "
total good" be enhanced by *forcing* you to donate, since you can function very well on one healthy kidney (small harm), but you save a human life (large good)?
Why don't I get a real life, instead of participating in these endless, fruitless arguments?
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." -- Isaac Asimov (?)
Not that you all are pigs; from your POV, I am a pig (metaphorically). The point is that once it's established that there is no common ground due to fundamentally opposing core values, we're all wasting our time. Not going to lock the thread, but I have nothing more to say or to gain by remaining.
Cheers all.