Re: Historical comparisons

On 12 Mar 2006 01:47:16 -0800, "William Mook"
<william.mook@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Society cannot be run by a theory.

All societies are run by theories.

It must be run by practical results
of the rules people must live by. By what works.

Some theories work better than others. I understand why following
your theory has destroyed many great civilizations, while you do not.
Does that mean your theory "works"?

Patent rights are just a human construct you say. And human rights are
not?

Unlike genuine human rights, patent privileges are not only a "human
construct"; they are a sheer government fabrication that never existed
anywhere in the world until a few hundred years ago.

They're all theories! Constructed around thoughts and feelings people
have.

That perhaps describes _your_ theory. Mine is constructed around
self-evident and indiputable facts and logic.

Human rights stem from a natural impulse toward human-kindness
and cooperativeness when things are going well.

No, they stem from an understanding that true principles do not become
untrue just because our feelings change.

Property rights stem
from selfish human impulses to keep a thing you have invested your life
in.

No, property rights stem from an understanding that securing the
producer's right to own his product benefits all, not just the
producer, by establishing an incentive for additional production:
ownership of the product.

They are all just theories, one isn't any better than the rest.

Wrong. Theories such as mine, which are based on fact, logic and
accurate insight, are objectively superior to theories such as yours,
which are based on "thoughts and feelings," "a natural impulse toward
human-kindness and cooperativeness," and "selfish human impulses."

And all are subject to change as our understanding of ourselves
improves, and as the result of our theories come home to roost and be
know by us in different ways. That is by the practical results of
those rules on society.

Except that when the practical effect of your theories is to destroy
many great civilizations, you decline to revise it merely on that
account.

Patent rights cause people to create huge amounts of wealth.

No, they do not. That claim is nothing but a post hoc fallacy. In
reality, they cause people to _waste_ huge amounts of wealth.

So do
property rights, when it doesn't involve taking the rights of others
like slavery or thievery.

Or patent privileges or private ownership of natural resources.

You have not proven your point wrt property rights and you have not
usefully addressed why patent rights (a form of property) are so
productive in creating innovation!.

They aren't, and you have provided no reason to think they have any
such effect.

In fact the more you talk the less convinced I am of your apparent
point.

That is a symptom of your refusal to know any facts that disprove your
false beliefs.

I threw you a big bone and you didn't take it! I pointed out that
patent rights have a limited duration and then they become public
domain. The reason that idea was adopted was because those who crafted
patent law wanted a continuous stream of innovation, not just a single
wave of innovation, and this provided it.

Wrong. It was adopted because those who crafted patent law were fully
aware that they were trying to cobble together an effective incentive
system, not secure a human right. Government-issued and -enforced
"patent" privileges were a simple, well-known method that had been
used for centuries as a way of privileging certain individuals,
principally to reward them for their services to the king without
having to dip into his treasury (as by the royal patents on land, or
on the trade in salt, silk, cinnamon, or whatever).

I can imagine that limited property rights would acheive the same
effect. With something starting out in private domain early in its
development, and then passing to public domain.

As with patents, it would be better to just respect everyone's rights
from the outset.

I can imagine that a whole social climate could evolve around it. Sort
of the way the Greeks used to vie against one another giving larger and
larger gifts to their cities. One would have bragging rights turning
over the biggest resource to the community! lol.

As you obviously know very little about this subject, you are probably
unaware that time-limited land titles were in fact prescribed to the
ancient Israelites by their God (the "jubilee" described in the Book
of Leviticus).

Your contention that gold no one knows about on property no one owns
belongs to everyone is stupid.

And your contention that I said any such thing is false and dishonest.

As a practical matter if no one
benefits from a resource, it doesn't exist economically.

Like most of your claims in this thread, that is flat false. Even
entirely unused, a resource that is privately owned can still be an
asset, be used as loan collateral, etc.

That's why you have to really stretch and backpedal and call names and
do all sorts of verbal tricks before you trot that one out without
puking!

Absence of fact and logic noted.

Fact is, if no one knows about a resource, or even suspects it, and no
one is motivated to go out and develop a new resource, then that
resource is not benefitting society.

Correct. For a change.

This is the situation wrt to
planetary development today. Off-world resources is merely a phrase
one might hear in a sci-fi movie! In part this is because ownership of
those resources is illegal.

Wrong. It's because no one has legal jurisdiction (or the practical
power) to administer their possession and use, or to secure users'
tenure.

This situation suits the US and others because the development of
off-world colonies that have nuclear and missile capabilties surpassing
those of the home-world isn't something they want to deal with
particularly.

Actually, it's something they want to prevent at all costs.

Plainly people will develop a resource if there exists a clear benefit
to them.

The owner gets to benefit from development, without having to actually
_do_ any development. That is very much the point.

The papers I cited on private enterprise and private property
are germaine here.

You either did not read them, or did not understand them.

State owned enterprises, and public good are not as
efficient in marshalling needed resources to do economically useful
stuff - like develop property - as privately owned enterprises
operating on privately owned property are. This isn't some pretty
theory derived from some definition of rights.

Right. It's an outright false claim, as Singapore and HK (and other
historical examples) prove.

This is based on real
world experience comparing the economic efficiencies of the same people
before the fall of communism and after.

?? Garbage. Surely you are aware that when Russia's natural
resources were privatized (over the explicit, public protests of
dozens of eminent Western economists, including four -- count 'em,
_four_ -- Nobel laureates), the economy collapsed and they were poorer
than before. Please make some minimal effort to inform yourself of
the facts about the fall of communism before you make any more false
and absurd claims about it.

It is time we abandon the needless restrictions on ownership of
celestial bodies and open the worlds of our solar system to human
ownership, and human development.

It is not a restriction at all. No one has the power to administer
possession and use of such bodies. Nobody is stopping anybody from
going out and developing them. They just admit they do not have the
power to enforce any ownership privileges there.

It is time we abandon our neeful
restrictions on classified technologies - both nuclear and missile -
and make them available, under regulations, to qualified users to use
in approved ways to develop a space faring capacity for our species. It
is time we grow up as nations and accept the risk of off-world colonies
and development, and get on with the continued progress of the human
race.

?? Have you read a newspaper recently? Do you think the same people
who failed so miserably to protect New Orleans against a totally
predictable hazard are ready to colonize other worlds? Give your head
a shake.

To do otherwise is to guarantee our death as we fight ever more
difficult wars over an ever diminishing resource base.

Privatization of celestial bodies and resources will _guarantee_ that
wars will be fought over _those_ resources in the future: _civil_
wars, between the privileged owners and their effective slaves, the
non-owners who live and work there. Take it to the bank.

-- Roy L
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 52 year-old Republican woman for Obama
    ... business does not lead to liberty. ... "All public lands and resources, as well as claims thereto, except as ... shall be returned to private ... Resource rights shall be defined as property rights, ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Historical comparisons
    ... Your 'wrongful violation of others' rights' so-called derives ... lol. ... Government's don't generally own natural resources, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Historical comparisons
    ... Private ownership of privately created capital equipment is a very ... But private ownership of natural resources is a very bad ... Communism has any bearing on private market based ownership of capital? ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: OT Gas Prices and the Blame Game
    ... Freedom is Good - Mandates are Bad. ... But, if you don't like Freedom, then pick a slave master. ... insults damage and deplete our collective natural resources, ... oil and gas rights, and water rights). ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Historical comparisons
    ... In some theoretical sense if a developer develops a resource that is ... an inventor of a new product or process for a limited period of time. ... created each year, without a system of intellectual property rights, ... A developer brings resources to market. ...
    (sci.space.policy)