The idea that rights are inalienable is a fundamental moral principle of every modern free society. People can violate your rights. That doesn't mean that your rights go away. If someone steals your laptop, you do not lose your right to that property. If the people around you form a mob and burn down your house, they haven't revoked your rights, they have committed a moral crime against you — they've violated your rights.
I wonder if your question is facetious or ignorant, but I will answer you as though it is earnest: I get it from great thinkers such as John Locke, George Mason, and Thomas Jefferson. To the extent that you support any kind of civilizational progress, you have these thinkers and their ideas to thank.
Physical property rights and intellectual property rights have the same root: That someone did work to produce a value, and by right, has ownership of it. This is even how homesteading laws worked when there was widespread wilderness. A person could go to empty land, cultivate it, and after a set time of productive use, gain a legal claim over it.
In the modern context, this is pretty easy to project.
Surely you agree that you have a property right to your computer. How did you get it? You purchased it from the manufacturer (or a retailer, who purchased it from them). The laptop itself was their property from the moment it was made.
What about the factory that made it? Surely, the factory is their property, too. It would be theft for you to get a gang to go and take it over, just as it would be theft for you to loot its machinery and supplies. A factory, though, isn't just a building. It's a set of processes, designs, and techniques that a company uses to build products. For the same reasons and in the same way, those ideas — that intellectual property — belong to the company.
Similarly, a book on your shelf is yours. The store bought it from the printer, who was contracted by a publisher, who paid the author to write it. The fact that _you don't like these middlemen_ doesn't give you the right to steal from all of them.
To those of you who rationalize your thieving behavior: It makes you an entitled child.
The ideas in the book are the author's intellectual property, and only because that exists, you can claim any right to own your copy of the book as physical property.
So, no, you cannot have strong property rights for physical goods while simultaneously having no intellectual property rights. That is a complete contradiction.
One case is more complex than the other, but that does not change the fundamental.
Two cases:
1) Two parties agree to a trade under certain terms, one party decides he does not like the terms, and decides he wants to take the benefit without complying with the agreement.
2) One party decides he does not like the offered terms, does not accept the agreement, but takes the benefit anyway.
With that said, I think you have a point that the current way EULAs work are questionable under contract law. They're specifically designed to be unreadable and to encourage people not to read them, not to keep up with updates, and generally to be unaware of terms they've agreed to. I'd be interested in some smart legislative reform here and I'm hoping you can point me to some people doing good work in this area.
There's a live issue here, but the fact that contract law has flaws does not give anyone the right to defraud or steal.
You can easily transfer a right of ownership. You can bake a cake and I can buy it from you; once that happens, it is theft for you to take the cake and eat it.
Both of these are expressions of an inalienable right to property.
They purchased the right to distribute the books on their terms.
You don’t like the terms, so you call them predatory. You want the product, so you just take it on your own terms.
Morally, that’s no different than your employer just deciding to pay you less than your contract states, because he decides he doesn’t like the terms of the agreement anymore.
You don’t gain a right to take things just because you want them or need them.
That's exactly the point. Top schools are looking for outlier intellectual talent, but the egalitarian approach (high school grade inflation plus weakening of standardized testing) smooths the differences and makes it harder for them to admit the right people.
The visible result has been the weakening of these institutions. Do also observe that this is recursive — as these institutions have lowered their standards over decades, the people who go through them and end up leading them are weaker, too.
What's the climate like around TN visas nowadays? Specifically, from Canada to the US. (Thinking of Waterloo grad-types but also humanities types coming to join in non-eng roles)
You're exactly right and the economics of it are pretty well studied. I know quite a few people in real estate, they're always eager to upgrade their property (read: make it more valuable) because then they can make more money. If their price is capped, though, they just don't make the investment. Rightly so, but at the end of the day, the renter is the one getting ripped off by the politician he voted for because the rent was too damn high.
Just let people create value and trade.
PS: Sad that you're getting downvotes for a thoughtful, polite comment, too. Downvotes are for hiding idiocy and meanness, not viewpoints that you disagree with.
The moral argument for a modern, rights-based society is cleanly on Israel’s side. I’m glad they’ve developed this technology, so they can continue defending themselves at a lower cost to their citizens. The engineers involved have done a very good thing.
Your snide tone can’t obscure that the moral issue is straightforward, if you’re aiming at a world where people can be free to live, grow, and flourish. If you want a society that enables builders and engineers to express themselves by creating new things, i.e., on in which people are permitted to think, then you are aligned with Israel’s basic cause.
The central difference is that Israel’s government is essentially secular and free, whereas its enemies — especially Hamas — are essentially theocratic and totalitarian. In Israel, the general trend is that people of all types, including Arab Muslims, have rights and live happy, free lives. If Hamas was to conquer Israel, as is their stated aim, those same Arab Muslims would have no rights - those individuals would be oppressed by exactly the type of vicious theocrats you falsely suggest Israel is composed of.
Last, to clarify the kernel of truth that your point relies on through distortion: while it is true that Israel contains a set of backwards theocratic tribesmen, their importance is marginal. Tel Aviv’s builders and entrepreneurs are the dominant cultural force in Israel, and they are proponents and practitioners of secular modernity.
Do not falsely conflate a marginal group with Hamas’ explicit cause, which is to destroy Israel’s free society and replace it with religious tyranny.
Unless, perhaps, that is what you really regard as moral?
A man who built what he loves and produced so much surplus value for the rest of us to enjoy (read: profit) is _exactly_ a hero. I’m sure I could find ways critique him, but not in the context of celebrating his career.
Before he smoked that reefer, his space company was catching the largest booster ever made with metal chopsticks, all paid for by global satellite internet revenue.
His electric crossover/SUV was the best selling car in America.
Now that he’s gotten distracted by politics I dislike, he’s not doing any of that. Definitely no longer the world’s greatest builder.
I agree, your point is compatible with my view. My sense is that this essentially an optimization question within how a government ought to structures its contracts with builders of weapons. The current system is definitely suboptimal (put mildly) and corrupt.
The integrity of a free society's government is the central issue here, not the creation of tools which could be militarily useful to a free society.
A narrow and cynical take, my friend. With all technologies, "safety" doesn't equate to plushie harmlessness. There is, for example, a valid notion of "gun safety."
Long-term safety for free people entails military use of new technologies. Imagine if people advocating airplane safety groused about the use of bomber and fighter planes being built and mobilized in the Second World War.
Now, I share your concern about governments who unjustly wield force (either in war or covert operations). That is an issue to be solved by articulating a good political philosophy and implementing it via policy, though. Sadly, too many of the people who oppose the American government's use of such technology have deeply authoritarian views themselves — they would just prefer to see a different set of values forced upon people.
Last: Is there any evidence that we're getting some crappy lobotomized models while the companies keep the best for themselves? It seems fairly obvious that they're tripping over each other in a race to give the market the highest intelligence at the lowest price. To anyone reading this who's involved in that, thank you!
I wonder if your question is facetious or ignorant, but I will answer you as though it is earnest: I get it from great thinkers such as John Locke, George Mason, and Thomas Jefferson. To the extent that you support any kind of civilizational progress, you have these thinkers and their ideas to thank.