“false, but you are in good company.“

If it is false, then I am not in good company.

What you are saying is in contradiction with everyone I have ever spoken with or read concerning this topic.

But putting aside what I’ve read or who I’ve communicated with (after all, we want to approach this with a clean slate, no?), my own reason and common sense tells me that thought is non-rivalrous as compared to, say, a bag of grain.

You keep stating that rivalry exists but then refer to the rivalry in terms of economic “value”. The terms rivalrous and non-rivalrous simply refer to the state of the actual object being referred to…not its market value.

I am not an economist, but this is my understanding of the terms. Could you please refer me to a source that states that these terms refer to an object’s market value rather than the object itself?

“knowledge, when it provides competitive advantage, is inherently rivalrous.“

Sir/madam, are you aware that you are stating a precondition and then claiming inherency? This should be enough of a clue that there exists a bias in urgent need of honest self-reflection.

false, but you are in good company. thomas jefferson was wrong about this too. consider what he wrote:

“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possessions of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”

what mr. jefferson was referring to was exhaustion. ideas are inexhaustible, but the are most definitely rivalrous.

then, as now, if there is any one thing more susceptible than all others of exclusive property it is knowledge. knowledge is not a non-rivalous asset; if the candle in Mr. Jefferson’s possession enables him to occupy a share of the market for production of light, lighting another’s candle creates a competitor and diminishes the value of his candle. even worse, if the recipient of his flame of knowledge has a less expensive source of candles, Mr. Jefferson might very well find himself quickly darkened by the market.

knowledge, when it provides competitive advantage, is inherently rivalrous.

“your question is at the heart of copyright law. you are asking if copyright is even a valid concept.“

My question has nothing to do with copyright law. One’s answer may lead to a discussion on copyright law, but the question I have posed does not require a discussion on what the law states.

X has a copy of a work authored and distributed by Z. Y asks for a copy of that work from X. Who should decide if X makes a copy and gives it to Y?

I have not stated nor asked anything regarding “copyright law”. Nor have I asked if copyright is “even a valid concept”.

You have said that Z should decide. You have implied that X should not be allowed to make the decision. On top of this, you have said that if X makes the decision to do so anyway, then X and Y will suffer “eternal damnation in the fires of hell” for making “unauthorized copies” according to your belief in the judeo-christian culture you pattern your logic upon.

As well, you have equated an ox and other physical objects with the non-rivalrous nature of thought. Furthermore, you have claimed that by Y getting a copy of Z’s work from X, Y has “stolen money from person Z” without acknowledging that Y may not have otherwise bought a copy. As well, you have ignored the possibility that Y may spread more awareness of Zs work by having a copy rather than not having a copy – therefore actually increasing Zs potential for livelihood via the network effect.

And the icing on the cake – you have claimed we must establish first principles to engage in a dialog. But then you fail to tell me straight out what those principles are that you adhere to. You have implied that your first principles are rooted in a cultural/religious background. You have also implied that you belief human nature to be essentially self-interested. But you have not made those claims directly so I am not sure. So what are some of the first principles you would like to propose?

How is this for a first principle…

Thought and its various expression is non-rivalrous.

Do you agree? If so, we can start from there. Otherwise, I’d like to hear how you would find such a claim to be false and therefore baseless to begin an argument upon.

obviously you are unfamilar with stephen pinker’s work. his premise is that humans at birth are imbued with biases that limit what conditioning, education, and culture can achieve. it is a controversial and unpopular thesis.

his book, the blank slate, is a powerhouse. from the harvard review…

“He shows how many intellectuals have denied the existence of human nature by embracing three linked dogmas: The Blank Slate (the mind has no innate traits), The Noble Savage (people are born good and corrupted by society), and The Ghost in the Machine (each of us has a soul that makes choices free from biology). Each dogma carries a moral burden, so their defenders have engaged in the desperate tactics to discredit the scientists who are now challenging them.”

your question is at the heart of copyright law. you are asking if copyright is even a valid concept. you are, in effect, questioning the ethos of self-interest. this is a bit too philosophical for us rodents.

you cannot even begin to answer your question about persons X, Y, and Z without assuming some basic some nature of the participants.

we take for granted that basic human nature – including the economic self-interest that forms the basis of copyright law – is an unchangeable fact of human nature. no amount of conditioning, or re-education, or “struggling against” – Mao’s approach – is going to change this.

“if there are no first principles, there are no truths.“

Of course. But belief has nothing whatsoever to do with fact.

“as stephen pinker explained there is no blank slate:“

Of course. But we are talking about a clean slate, not a blank one. We are talking about conditioning…our beliefs, our culture…not a particular state at birth.

Regardless, it is moot to discuss if we are not willing to delve into this scenario by insisting on judeo-christian cultural norms (or any other cultural norms for that matter) to guide our reasoning. If our thinking is biased from the get-go, surely we will fail to find out what is true.

if there are no first principles, there are no truths. if there are no truths than anything is possible, but the problem is that the world is populated by human beings who cannot be programmed to operate in any way. as stephen pinker explained there is no blank slate: it is a myth of wishful thinking (and political bias.)

“an interesting premise, but we believe…“

Yes. Unfortunately, what is true has no room for belief. Perhaps another day then.

“ok peter rock, but how does one create a logical argument without first principles?“

One does not.

So the slate is clean. Imagine a population of human beings. There is currently no law governing the manifestation of intellectual work – let’s call that ‘authorship’.

So a clean slate means we are not conditioned to think as judeo-christians, muslims, buddhists, capitalists, communists, republicans, or democrats. That is, no left or right – not even a center for now. Not only is there no law, but there is no cultural baggage telling us how to think and act. We are simply human beings that can see facts for what they are, then base our decision upon what is best for human beings as a whole. Surely it is dubious for us to base our decision upon what is best for us, our country, our family, our religion, or our culture. In a sense, we have lost our identity but retained fully our capacity to ferret out the facts and then base our decisions upon them.

Ultimately, we want what is best for the human population as a whole. If this is not agreed upon, I am afraid we cannot continue.

If you are okay with this scenario, then perhaps we – together – can discover a principle upon which to build an argument regarding authorship. Have I made this clear?

*wipes slate clean*

ok peter rock, but how does one create a logical argument without first principles?