Comments on: Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged, Part II: Confused on Copyright and Patent http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/10/21/ayn-rand-and-atlas-shrugged-part-ii-confused-on-copyright-and-patent/ Property - Prosperity - Peace Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:20:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1 By: Anonymous http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/10/21/ayn-rand-and-atlas-shrugged-part-ii-confused-on-copyright-and-patent/#comment-3515 Sun, 23 Mar 2014 11:45:46 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=11844#comment-3515 Ad hominem, much?

]]>
By: Stephan Kinsella http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/10/21/ayn-rand-and-atlas-shrugged-part-ii-confused-on-copyright-and-patent/#comment-3129 Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:54:25 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=11844#comment-3129 Arguments like this display profound ignorance on what IP actually is. You can tell the commenter is fumbling around to articulate his views and has no serious idea of how to argue for IP or even what he is really arguing for–e.g. “Although, an idea can’t be patented by its own, rather, it has to be applied to the physical world to be embodied in a physical form,” — as a practicing patent lawyer, it’s clera when people are talking out their arses. Sad. Why you would be so fervently in favor of something you really are clueless about is beyond me.

]]>
By: Frisco http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/10/21/ayn-rand-and-atlas-shrugged-part-ii-confused-on-copyright-and-patent/#comment-3128 Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:49:41 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=11844#comment-3128 I know I should have but I just didn’t read everything. It’s madness. It seems rather stupid but I happened: the author of this article is actually judging Atlas Shrugged’s —a dystopian, alternate timeline novel— events and institutions based on real-life United States! This guy is crazy. Now I’m sorry if I’m coming off mean but I can’t understand how this kind of childishs mistakes occur.

Ayn Rand’s views, Objectivism’s views, on intellectual property aren’t that hard to understand: man has the right to the product of his mind. Although, an idea can’t be patented by its own, rather, it has to be applied to the physical world to be embodied in a physical form, but what the patent and copyrights acknowledge is the mental effort it requires to produce something of value which, without that mind, It would have never come to existence.

]]>
By: JD http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/10/21/ayn-rand-and-atlas-shrugged-part-ii-confused-on-copyright-and-patent/#comment-3040 Sun, 03 Mar 2013 12:48:33 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=11844#comment-3040 Anyone who has read the book would recognize they took an awful lot of “poetic license” to cram it all into short segments, same example as done in LOTR to avoid it running uncomfortably long and in my opinion not serving either of the actual stories despite how well filmed they may be. This article is presented in the same manner the “rationale” of the looters was presented in AS. By the time we get to this portion of the book the Federal Government no longer exists under the Constitution in fact, “emergency directives” supersede Constitutional law and rights and it can easily be accepted because it has been well explained that the people running the government at this point make arbitrary and even conflicting decisions and no relation to the rational workings of the Constitutional U.S. exist as a reality at this point though the de facto dictatorship in power does not admit to it and wishes all to maintain the illusion they still have their rights and a working legal system. Pointing out supposed errors and inconsistency with the reality you wish basically exposes the author as being closer to the second rater/looter characterizations of AS than that of the rational strikers. Being an Objectivist and not a “Randian” , the use of which is always meant to be derisive or show an ignorance of Rands own view on Objectivism, the idea Libertarians sympathize more with the moralist looters is not the least surprising.

]]>
By: Pete McAlpine http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/10/21/ayn-rand-and-atlas-shrugged-part-ii-confused-on-copyright-and-patent/#comment-2889 Sun, 02 Dec 2012 22:57:31 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=11844#comment-2889 In Rand’s view, patents are not a privilege granted by the State, but reognition by the State and enforcement by the State of a valid property right. . . I not convinced, but let us state the obvious about her position.

Hey, Hannity is not that bad either. . . he actually has some libertarian leanings lacking in other conservatives.

]]>
By: Tim C. http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/10/21/ayn-rand-and-atlas-shrugged-part-ii-confused-on-copyright-and-patent/#comment-2865 Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:43:59 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=11844#comment-2865 If I understand the argument , because Rearden’s patents rely on threat of force in defense they are invalid. The only logical inference then is that you also believe that the threat of force in defense of one’s life is just as invalid.

]]>
By: Chris B http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/10/21/ayn-rand-and-atlas-shrugged-part-ii-confused-on-copyright-and-patent/#comment-2864 Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:12:44 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=11844#comment-2864 True. I don’t know why so many people identify Rand with Libertarian and thus hold her to the candle. There is much a principled libertarian would disagree with so far as Rand goes. Remember I said principled, not CATO Staff or Reason Magazine lol.

]]>
By: Chris B http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/10/21/ayn-rand-and-atlas-shrugged-part-ii-confused-on-copyright-and-patent/#comment-2863 Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:11:04 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=11844#comment-2863 They gave Hannity a cameo… I didn’t see the movie on those grounds. It’s a shame I really wanted to.

]]>
By: name tag http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/10/21/ayn-rand-and-atlas-shrugged-part-ii-confused-on-copyright-and-patent/#comment-2854 Thu, 25 Oct 2012 07:11:25 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=11844#comment-2854 The whole premise of Rand’s scenario involving patents and Rearden’s metal and Points 3 and 4 of Mouch’s “Directive” makes no sense.

]]>