One has to look at Libertarianism as how it is presented by most Lib.s. It is not a philosophy by itself as is Objectivism - one of its problems.

Lib. foreign policy is based on the wrong concept of force; i.e. on the initiation of force as an axiom. It does not base it on Obj. morality which allows for the use of force to protect us from outside enemies.

Linked to that is the fact that they don't hold an objective morality at all, where right and wrong can be objectively argued.

As Rand noted, they rely on the fallacy of "concept-stealing": using a concept while ignoring/denying more fundamental ideas on which that concept logically depends. Thus, they steal "wrong", "right", "liberty", etc.

They improperly define property rights; e.g. they hold that property requires possession, thus eliminating patent & other rights. And they hold that such rights gives an owner the right to do whatever he wants with his property.

No, they are not compatible. No Lib. can be an Objectivist, and vice versa.

Hi Michael, Of course libertarians are not a philosophically coherent group, but many revere Hayek for example. And he is definitely anti-individual rights. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkwIL...

Anarchy, or self-government? To me, those are two very-different principles. Anarchy denotes an everyone for himself attitude with a conflicting panoply of virtues and vices. Self-government denotes an everyone-in-charge-of-himself attitude but based on common, universal values. Ultimately, self-government would obviate the need for formal government in many cases, encouraging true liberty. Unfortunately, it also requires a motivated and self-driven people willing to take responsibility for themselves.

I am not taking your comments out of context, but I can understand why you might think so. Mr. Shipley is arguing about patents and he never sticks to an issue and no amount of evidence will change his mind.

Yes Mr. Shipley has consistently said that we should not have property rights for inventions, but you may have not been in on those conversations.

To prove independent invention, you would have to show that there was no knowledge by the second inventor of the invention, not even a general understanding in the community or reports of the results. It is much easier to build something once someone else proves it is possible. That would not be independent invention and would provide no moral claim to the second inventor. Even true independent invention, which is highly unlikely, provides any moral claim as Mr. Shipley suggests. Being second means you lost, just like in a race. But ultimate Shipley and libertarians arguments are based on zero sum thinking. Somehow the second (independent) builder is foreclosed from a lifetime of returns. This is nonsense. There is no limit to the number of inventions to be created. Any inventor that deserves the name will create many inventions in their lifetime. The real problem in todays' world is the theft of inventions by large companies. Mr. Shipley shows his true colors by focusing on a nonexistent problem and perhaps his underlying motivations.

Another misconception from the media. First of all there is no coherent definition of a "business method patent." The first patent issued in the US is for a method of making potash. It is certain that the inventor intended it to be used in a business, thus it is a business method patent. A patent is issued for a process that has an objective result, such as producing potash or allowing you to order a product over the internet with one click. In both cases the process does something. Calculus when applied ends up with a number or some letters and signs - these are descriptive, they do not do anything.

Business processes do not do anything until you apply them either.

For that matter, neither does computer code.

But if you actually read the article, Thomas supplies the definition as used by Cato. And according to that definition, Objectivists are clearly Libertarians.

Well you're taking my points way out of context. I never said that we should not have property rights in inventions. All I said is that two human beings could solve the same problem independently of each other in a way that involves inventing substantially the same thing. Without either knowing about the other.

Who made their legal claim first is a different question but it doesn't change the fact that, in reality (even if not in the eyes of the law), the two would have both invented the same thing.

Actually Shipley never said that we shouldn't have property rights in inventions either. In fact, he specifically stated that he agreed with the pro-IP libertarians. He only stated that within the libertarian camp there were both pro-IP and anti-IP libertarians. O's would fall in the first category. Of course so would others.

And Shipley did not say simultaneous but independent.

Actually, many libertarian thinkers, See Hayek, Von Mises, Milton Friedman, are not pro-individual rights. They are utilitarians, which means they do not believe in Natural Rights or an objective set of ethics. That makes them incompatible with objectivism. In addition, they all base their argument for freedom on the limits of reason, which makes them incompatible with objectivism and the founding of USA.

It is not an invention, because it does not do anything. An invention is a human creation that has an objective result. Calculus was described, but it does not do anything until it is applied. Once it is applied to a problem then the device, process that uses it is patentable.

No you have to show that it is economically relevant that it means that we should not have property rights in inventions. Two people simultaneous decide to farm the same area and mine the same area, both have put in effort that does not mean we get rid of property rights. We have a system for determining who has the first legal claim.

In this thread, this discussion is about intellectual property. No one disputes the development of human beings and technology. Let's see-it exploded 200 years ago. Why?

Every invention has theoretical components dating back further in history.

If you invented calculus today why would it be less patentable than business processes that obtain patents.

it is impossible to be simultaneous. The point was never that things can't be close or it never happens. The point was it is so infrequent so inconsequential (macro) that one does not develop policy around it. Inventor has a definition

Calculus was a theoretical development with a historical development and evolution back to Archimedes and was not patentable by anyone.

Shipley didn't say simultaneously. He said independently. The bow and arrow was developed independently on different continents.

For me to be correct in what I'm saying there only has to be one example, ever, in history. For your argument to be correct, you have to have been right about every invention ever done by anyone.

Plus, I've independently thought of ideas and then googled it and found out somebody else already did it. And I had no idea they had done it.

Independent human minds are bound to come up with similar or the same solutions for similar or the same problems. It doesn't have to be simultaneous or even contemporaneous - but independent. That's what Shipley was saying.

An individual who patents his patentable idea does not claim to "own your labor". He owns the rights to his own success, which has nothing to do with your labor.

All I need is one. Ever. In the entire history of humanity. To disprove your thesis.

The Wright brothers did not invent the first heavier than air machine - no one who knows anything about inventions would make that argument. The Wright brothers invented the control systems for airplanes. Thus, like many of these arguments, they are based on ignorance.

Your examples disprove your thesis.

a couple of sites re-post. I can find rebuttals but not the original. Here is his quick response earlier this year: http://peterschwartz.com/libertariani...

Tonight I'll see the issues it appears in and let you know. Is the forums published on the internet?

link please!