Do You Own Your Thoughts? Prominent, Self-Proclaimed Libertarians Say &quot;No.&quot;

endplunder (45) · 7 years ago

You own your thoughts, until they leave your mouth.

$14.81

5 votes

mehdibca (64) · 7 years ago

Ideas can almost never be equal, although they could be equivalent. Two people could therefore end up with equivalent thoughts and transmit them to the world in any shape or form which will carry minor differences certainly. We could then say that you can own your thoughts as they are original in the smallest of details, at least.

$0.30

kafkanarchy84 (74) · 7 years ago

You got it!

$0.00

geckothailand (51) · 7 years ago

Damn, nice grammar, I want your grammar skills in English.

$0.00

david-michael (15) · 7 years ago

If somebody else, a government, law enforcement or authority is making the decision as to whether we own our thoughts or not, then we certainly do not own out thoughts, the deciding power does.

$0.13

3 votes

endplunder (45) · 7 years ago

Great point!

$0.00

geneticmemory (37) · 7 years ago

If you allow a/the government to make your decision then you are right otherwise the statement is incorrect.
As far as I know, they do not have a way to pull the idea out of your head.

$0.00

dullhawk (66) · 7 years ago

"Legally recognized" has nothing to do with it.

$0.12

leggy23 (65) · 7 years ago

Thoughts are happening, but you have to be able to resonate with something to bring it to life as an idea, so its yours.

leggy23 (65) · 7 years ago

i don't get why you cant say you own a banana and the fruit inside it too. They are both true. so i should be able to say i own my idea if it is now already out there.

clumsysilverdad (64) · 7 years ago

haha, this sounds like the next step for corporate america... they will patent thought so we can't even think without paying a royalty to the oligarchs !!! makes total business sense, economic sense, authoritarian sense

endplunder (45) · 7 years ago

Thata how the state department shut down Cody Wilson's site. They claimed that him sharing 3d gun plans online violated their arms IP. Like they can control who talks about guns?

$0.00

droucil (62) · 7 years ago

Usually your thoughts own you, but I do believe it to be possible to reverse the process. Will probably require lots of meditation and a certain mindset to accomplish this though.

kouba01 (81) · 7 years ago

I have to admit that non-violent views from both camps are compatible with an Anarcho-Capitalist social order, and that personally I am a little on the fence, with a copyleft leaning regarding DRM.
Death to violent patents, licences, copyrights and other state favoritism though.

$0.07

4 votes

geckothailand (51) · 7 years ago

I think it depends on the situation, because I can control what I wanna think at times, but also have thoughts pop up. I'll give it a 50/50, I own my thoughts, but not all.

$0.02

alidervash (44) · 7 years ago

Nice post i like thank you for sharing

$0.00

odinthelibrarian (54) · 7 years ago

Ownership should never be a right given by law. Laws can be changed, and therefore property taken away.

$0.00

geneticmemory (37) · 7 years ago (edited)

The matrix has you!
NO! Ownership is always a right and there is no law now or ever that can say otherwise. First you need to know the difference between a law and a code or regulation. The state might make regulation and code and they can be changed. But law are different they are things that you naturally have, like you have a right to live. The state can make a code that states otherwise but it's not a law. And believe it, it's up to you and you alone to stand up for yourself. What people have forgotten is the law. The law for humans is "Do No Harm!" That covers it all. This is why is it said that ignorance is no excuse for the law. Of cause you can't help but be ignorant of at least some code or regulation not only because there so many but because (as you say) they can be changed.

"The Eyes" When you rearrange the letters "They See"

$0.13

odinthelibrarian (54) · 7 years ago

I think we're arguing the same point with different semantics.

I don't like calling it a right because, in application, rights are given to you, and can therefore be taken away. While I love the idea of rights given to you by birth, that isn't very practical. The rights that are inaliable from birth can be argued in different political contexts, and the very existence of these rights can be argued as well.

The "Do No Harm" rule is nice but also impractical.

$0.00

geneticmemory (37) · 7 years ago

I believe you are confusing a right with a privilege.. Privileges are given to you via legislation. A right exists beyond legislation, for example, the right to life, the right to liberty. Now that's not saying that you can't be killed or you can't be enslaved. But when those things are done by governments, they are done by legislation, it is done by force. And not because the legislature had any right to do it. One of the biggest problems in our society today is that people don't know their rights. Therefore their rights get converted into privileges. According to the maxims of the law, if you don't know your rights, you don't have any. To give another example, your right to drive is encased in your right to travel, but when you get a license you have contracted and you have now agreed that it is a privilege.

The "Do No Harm" rule is nice but also impractical.

Why?

$0.00

lomidze (10) · 7 years ago

Nice post

$0.00

shiqder (8) · 7 years ago

awesome post friend.please follow me and vote my post.all time I with you. @kafkanarchy84

$0.00

fproductions (66) · 7 years ago

Thanks for sharing this post.

$0.00

daydreams4rock (63) · 7 years ago

sometimes this stuff is borderline

$0.00

endplunder (45) · 7 years ago

Borderline awesome

$0.00

sixthgalaxy (25) · 7 years ago

Thoughts are just someone's point of view based on one's education, social, cultural views etc. If you make a point on something based on your views then you are just interpreting it based on your knowledge. One acquire knowledge from various sources.So, thoughts do not belong to you.

$0.00

baah (61) · 7 years ago

If you work the land with tools and in a certain way then you don't own the land because it was all acquired from various tools, and techniques, so the fruits of your labor don't belong to you.

So did anyone Own any thought, was there any Creative Singular Spark, or was it all "Interpretations that you do not own, because they are on things that are from your specific views and other things".

Thoughts are Just (honest, righteous, decent, honorable) someone's point of view based on one's education social, cultural views.

In short Thoughts are Someone's Point of view, and that doesn't mean that they are their own point of view or that they own that point of view, they are wholly owned by "education", so whatever you learn you don't OWN, you don't own your knowledge because it's all "borrowed", but in actuality it's no more borrowed then any tool which you own is "borrowed" because it uses the same universal design, the same principles as the tools before it. You posses both the Ideas, and the Things, they are yours and you can do with them as you wish, as long as you don't use your tools to harm anyone or use ideas to deceive or mislead or confuse or any such dishonorable things.

All Ideas are but Abstract Tools. Ideas are owned the moment someone Sees, Hears or otherwise Knows about the idea and if someone understands the use for it they can improve on it freely, and in a real sense of Posses, That is what Owning means, people think it's exclusivity or a condition of "stealing" or some call it "borrowing" but neither are you, I, or anyone forced to give tribute to ANYONE for ANYTHING, especially ideas, as you wouldn't pay tribute to anyone for using a cup, or a spoon, or any other implement, and neither are you bound to abstain from using something simply because someone else claims exclusivity over such Abstractions, as claiming such is the recent exact exemplary equivalent of those seeking exclusivity over Mathematical Functions by Patenting them, which in a Legal way is fine, but in a lawful way what jury of your own would find you guilty of "stealing/borrowing" ideas?

There is no greater absurdity than to make and enforce such tyrannical demands which contradict free will, which is essentially threatening people for encroaching over some monopolized, exclusive ownership over Abstractions, something that Harms nobody as it is wholly without Existence, but could be endlessly detrimental to everybody should the monopolized exclusive ownership for example be over the exclusivity of interplanetary travel, zero-point/free-energy, zero-g/anti-g, and in the realm of actual thuggery over ownership of ideas, as there is no tighter lid than the control over the future of the industrial military complex who with the Counter Operations (cia.nsa.nro.THEPRIVATESECTOR) and NASA are complicit in the biggest crime against humanity in the context of the LOST-POTENTIAL.

We are not going to be free until we are allowed to pursue such ends freely and those that do can freely exchange their ideas, until then there are those that have the means, and those that aren't even allowed to talk about the means all because exclusivity is tightly gripped in the blood soaked hands of psychopaths, and from my point of view, the talk about "you don't own your ideas" is an attempt to demoralize people from using anything that they didn't create in some complete novelty in any and all aspects, unprecedented idea. It's a cake of absurdities, layered generously and stacked in many tiers, a demoralizing mind virus to cause people to stupor and contemplate the malignant banality of "it's equivocation that ownership of your body doesn't mean you own your body" which rests in a conclusive contradiction that can neither define up nor down regardless of it's unfounded, baseless claims of equivocation, and which if it would hold some consistency could actually pass for the sense of a 6 year old, or realizing what ownership is. The conversation about copyright is equally one about Enforcement and nothing else. Until you realize that copyrights rest at the tip of extortion and threats you will resort to those methods to enact your visions and be very much part of the problem. Hence Open Source, hence steem, and hence owning Steem.

Some might argue that it's contradictory but it really isn't, dan, the creator has wrote on copyright and patents and many here hold the same view, so people are free to copyright their work, but ultimately it's a matter of how and what can you do to enforce it, which is essentially a battle on philosophical and logical grounds upon which copyright has neither a sliver for footing nor a hair to clasp onto, because force is abdication of free will, the oldest of laws, and exclusivity is abdication of golden rule/love thy neighbor as thyself, which is why a lot of people don't agree with copyright and why freeware and open source widely is justly filled with.

$0.12

gniksivart (67) · 7 years ago

How is this thought process considered libertarian. I'm not a "strong" libertarian, but if you come up with an idea anyone can steal it? What's the point of trying to invent something when the moment I put it on the market some company can come in, reverse engineer my invention, and make it faster and cheaper than me.

Maybe I'm missing the point, but there has to be some protection on ideas. Otherwise we'll become a world of thiefs who are nothing more than a flock of sheep following the masses.

$0.00

vieira (63) · 7 years ago

Well, under the current of libertarian thinking, the defense of intellectual property is not possible, since you can appropriate the fact of inventing something, but if you make it known, other people have the freedom to make a similiar product, which in sum ends up being the best thing for society, because the practices of the free market demands that it be manufactured to the best quality and lowest price. However, the issue of the initiative is somewhat different, as it may reduce the ability to innovate, but the issue is more of a principle than a result.

$0.05

kafkanarchy84 (74) · 7 years ago (edited)

If you watch the video, though, you will see that it is not really this cut and dry. The current, statist paradigm, in which copyright law, etc, is enforced against individuals not party to any sort of contract, is of course illegitimate. However, I can sell you my song lyrics and if you voluntarily agree to enter into contract with me to buy them, and not release them until X date, then there is nothing unlibertarian about this transaction. It remains totally legitimate in view of Voluntaryist property ethic.

$0.04

3 votes