Options

Ron Paul, The Conspiracy '08

1535456585962

Posts

  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    2. Parents have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children.

    What annoys me the most about this is that one of the primary purposes (and benefits) of the public education system is to limit the role that parents have in deciding the method of schooling that their children receive, by imposing a minimum standard that must be met.

    For the good of their children and of society, parents must never have that right unconditionally.

    The state taking a primary role in education and making same compulsory was actually hugely controversial back in the early twentieth century here

    when the literacy rate was like 20%

    'mah kids don need no fancified book-larnin', they can work on the farm like their paw'

    yeah, I see any jurisdiction making education non-compulsory doing real well. Expansion of class divides what what?

    Well, we do need a source of labor which will work like the commodity it should be.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2007
    That's what androids and AFL fans are for.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    jothki wrote: »
    You know, these days when I hear someone say "but that's unconstitutional", I read it as "see, I really don't like this policy, but if I oppose it, I'll look like the prick I am, so I'll push the blame on the Constitution."

    It kind of works both ways. For example, I don't really believe that the right to abortion is guaranteed by the Constitution, but since legislators can't be trusted to protect it I'm willing to pretend that it is.

    Yeah, but the difference is that one of those examples has been upheld by the supreme court, and one of those examples hasn't. And in neither case do Ron Paul and the SCOTUS happen to agree.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    jothki wrote: »
    You know, these days when I hear someone say "but that's unconstitutional", I read it as "see, I really don't like this policy, but if I oppose it, I'll look like the prick I am, so I'll push the blame on the Constitution."

    It kind of works both ways. For example, I don't really believe that the right to abortion is guaranteed by the Constitution, but since legislators can't be trusted to protect it I'm willing to pretend that it is.

    Yeah, but the difference is that one of those examples has been upheld by the supreme court, and one of those examples hasn't. And in neither case do Ron Paul and the SCOTUS happen to agree.

    Ron Paul could still oppose it as being unconstitutional while being consistant with his beliefs if he was Jacksonian. However, that would require him to be completely insane.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    You know, these days when I hear someone say "but that's unconstitutional", I read it as "see, I really don't like this policy, but if I oppose it, I'll look like the prick I am, so I'll push the blame on the Constitution."

    It kind of works both ways. For example, I don't really believe that the right to abortion is guaranteed by the Constitution, but since legislators can't be trusted to protect it I'm willing to pretend that it is.

    Yeah, but the difference is that one of those examples has been upheld by the supreme court, and one of those examples hasn't. And in neither case do Ron Paul and the SCOTUS happen to agree.

    Ron Paul could still oppose it as being unconstitutional while being consistant with his beliefs if he was Jacksonian. However, that would require him to be completely insane.

    So, in other words, we're already there?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    jothki wrote: »
    You know, these days when I hear someone say "but that's unconstitutional", I read it as "see, I really don't like this policy, but if I oppose it, I'll look like the prick I am, so I'll push the blame on the Constitution."

    It kind of works both ways. For example, I don't really believe that the right to abortion is guaranteed by the Constitution, but since legislators can't be trusted to protect it I'm willing to pretend that it is.
    I believe the American Constitution is the worst document ever written since it had repeatedly encouraged generations to dis-engage their brains when it comes to considerations of society and law-making.

    Well, the problem is that people have lionized the Founding Fathers to the point where they're basically demigods in our national mythos. So the people with weakly defined ideologies seize upon them as a way to bolster their own indefensible arguments. What they don't get is that it's nothing more than the old appeal to authority. (I'm suddenly reminded of the open source thread I started several months prior, where someone quoted Jefferson to defend their anti-IP stance, and when called on it tried to say that the people calling im on it didn't understand what an appeal to authority was.)

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    RaethRaeth Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Well, the problem is that people have lionized the Founding Fathers to the point where they're basically demigods in our national mythos. So the people with weakly defined ideologies seize upon them as a way to bolster their own indefensible arguments. What they don't get is that it's nothing more than the old appeal to authority. (I'm suddenly reminded of the open source thread I started several months prior, where someone quoted Jefferson to defend their anti-IP stance, and when called on it tried to say that the people calling im on it didn't understand what an appeal to authority was.)

    From the Wikipedia article on Appeal to authority:
    "Keep in mind that the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority doesn't make its conclusion untrue, nor does it make it unreasonable to believe the argument. An appeal to authority cannot guarantee the truth of the conclusion because the fact that an authority says something does not make it so. Ideally, propositions being true (or having arguments supporting them) is what makes authorities believe them to be true, not the other way around. An appeal to authority, thus, confuses cause and effect. Furthermore, notice that a rigorous concept of truth is a complex subject."

    In short, while something cannot be automatically assumed true because the Founders wrote it, it can certainly be said that something is more likely to be true because the Founders wrote it.

    edit: I also detect a hint of Straw Man here with the implication that because some people with weak arguments quote the Founders, all people who quote the Founders must necessarily have weak arguments.

    Raeth on
  • Options
    Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Raeth wrote: »
    In short, while something cannot be automatically assumed true because the Founders wrote it, it can certainly be said that something is more likely to be true because the Founders wrote it.

    Woah!

    That isn't what the caveat to Appeal to Authority is saying at all.

    Professor Phobos on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Raeth wrote: »
    In short, while something cannot be automatically assumed true because the Founders wrote it, it can certainly be said that something is more likely to be true because the Founders wrote it.

    Woah!

    That isn't what the caveat to Appeal to Authority is saying at all.

    Saying something is more likely to be true because a founding father wrote it is certainly an appeal to authority.

    The Founders were not a monolithic entity. Just because Jefferson wrote something doesn't mean the other founding fathers agreed with him.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    SmasherSmasher Starting to get dizzy Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    An appeal to authority is only effective if the authority is an expert or otherwise more qualified than most people concerning the issue. In order for an appeal to the Founding Fathers to be effective they must have been well versed in the issue, and additionally the most significant parts of the issue must not have changed enough to invalidate their expertise. Those qualifications, along with the facts that they didn't all agree on everything and made poor judgments on things they should have known better about (slavery being the most obvious example), severely limit the utility of an appeal to the Founders.

    Smasher on
  • Options
    RaethRaeth Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Raeth wrote: »
    In short, while something cannot be automatically assumed true because the Founders wrote it, it can certainly be said that something is more likely to be true because the Founders wrote it.

    Woah!

    That isn't what the caveat to Appeal to Authority is saying at all.

    Saying something is more likely to be true because a founding father wrote it is certainly an appeal to authority.

    The Founders were not a monolithic entity. Just because Jefferson wrote something doesn't mean the other founding fathers agreed with him.

    It most definitely is not. The Wikipedia article explicitly states "The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument." The fallacy comes from assuming the Authority cannot be wrong (either in general or within his area of expertise), not from assuming the Authority is more likely to be right than someone who is not an Authority (which is perfectly reasonable).

    Raeth on
  • Options
    Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Raeth wrote: »
    In short, while something cannot be automatically assumed true because the Founders wrote it, it can certainly be said that something is more likely to be true because the Founders wrote it.

    Woah!

    That isn't what the caveat to Appeal to Authority is saying at all.

    Saying something is more likely to be true because a founding father wrote it is certainly an appeal to authority.


    And not just an appeal to authority, a fallacious appeal to authority...

    Professor Phobos on
  • Options
    SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Smasher wrote: »
    An appeal to authority is only effective if the authority is an expert or otherwise more qualified than most people concerning the issue. In order for an appeal to the Founding Fathers to be effective they must have been well versed in the issue, and additionally the most significant parts of the issue must not have changed enough to invalidate their expertise. Those qualifications, along with the facts that they didn't all agree on everything and made poor judgments on things they should have known better about (slavery being the most obvious example), severely limit the utility of an appeal to the Founders.
    Being 200+ years behind the times really oughtn't help their case either.

    SithDrummer on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Jefferson is not an authority on intellectual property. He is irrelevant to intellectual property. The term wasn't even used until after Jefferson was dead and buried.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    RaethRaeth Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Raeth wrote: »
    In short, while something cannot be automatically assumed true because the Founders wrote it, it can certainly be said that something is more likely to be true because the Founders wrote it.

    Woah!

    That isn't what the caveat to Appeal to Authority is saying at all.

    Saying something is more likely to be true because a founding father wrote it is certainly an appeal to authority.


    And not just an appeal to authority, a fallacious appeal to authority...

    I guess someone should go tell all our courts to stop using expert witnesses. They are clearly no more credible than random people off the street.

    Bam! Reductio ad absurdum right in the kisser!

    Raeth on
  • Options
    Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Raeth wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    Raeth wrote: »
    In short, while something cannot be automatically assumed true because the Founders wrote it, it can certainly be said that something is more likely to be true because the Founders wrote it.

    Woah!

    That isn't what the caveat to Appeal to Authority is saying at all.

    Saying something is more likely to be true because a founding father wrote it is certainly an appeal to authority.


    And not just an appeal to authority, a fallacious appeal to authority...

    I guess someone should go tell all our courts to stop using expert witnesses. They are clearly no more credible than random people off the street.

    That is the exact opposite of what I am trying to explain to you!

    You do not understand this conversation so well in the future I will contact you whenever I need to appeal to an expert on misunderstanding.

    Professor Phobos on
  • Options
    RaethRaeth Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Jefferson is not an authority on intellectual property. He is irrelevant to intellectual property. The term wasn't even used until after Jefferson was dead and buried.

    You've managed to find something resembling a legitimate criticism! Grats. Of course, Thomas Jefferson was involved in the establishment of the US Patent Office so I'm not sure how well that argument would go, but I must digress since this is not a thread about Jefferson and IP...

    Raeth on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Raeth wrote: »
    I guess someone should go tell all our courts to stop using expert witnesses. They are clearly no more credible than random people off the street.

    Bam! Reductio ad absurdum right in the kisser!

    No, you're just continuing to reveal your toolishness.

    The whole point of the appeal to authority fallacy is that you're appealing to some "authority" without first delineating why they should be considered authoritative. In the case of Jefferson and IP, the problem with citing him as an authority on IP is that there's no grounds to do so. So when you cite his writings, you're basically saying "see, Jefferson agrees with me, so there." (Now, if you were to cite, say, Paul Revere, you'd have a better case, since he made his living on IP (specifically, his silver designs.))

    In comparison, expert witnesses have to be established as authoritative. Their credentials are given, and can be grounds to attack their argument. They are authoritative within the scope of their established authority, and no further.

    The reason that appeals to the Founding Fathers many times are fallacious is because the conditions have changed. For instance, any serious scholar of American history is going to point out that the Northern victory in the Civil War firmly established the primacy of the Federal government over the states. This was still a viable argument in the time of the Founding Fathers. So those claiming that we should listen to them are saying that we should ignore the fact that we fought a VERY bloody war to settle that issue.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
    3.There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
    If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.

    There are many fields in which there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute. Economics is a good example of such a disputed field. Anyone who is familiar with economics knows that there are many plausible theories that are incompatible with one another. Because of this, one expert economist could sincerely claim that the deficit is the key factor while another equally qualified individual could assert the exact opposite. Another area where dispute is very common (and well known) is in the area of psychology and psychiatry. As has been demonstrated in various trials, it is possible to find one expert that will assert that an individual is insane and not competent to stand trial and to find another equally qualified expert who will testify, under oath, that the same individual is both sane and competent to stand trial. Obviously, one cannot rely on an Appeal to Authority in such a situation without making a fallacious argument. Such an argument would be fallacious since the evidence would not warrant accepting the conclusion.

    It is important to keep in mind that no field has complete agreement, so some degree of dispute is acceptable. How much is acceptable is, of course, a matter of serious debate. It is also important to keep in mind that even a field with a great deal of internal dispute might contain areas of significant agreement. In such cases, an Appeal to Authority could be legitimate.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    Tim JamesTim James Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Suck on this, pragmatists!

    http://ronpaulchocolate.com/

    :D

    Tim James on
    sig.gif
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Tim James wrote: »
    Suck on this, pragmatists!

    http://ronpaulchocolate.com/

    :D

    So, where's the batshit-o-meter pegging on the Rondroids? I'm hoping it's at "Swimming In Guano".

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Tim James wrote: »
    Suck on this, pragmatists!

    http://ronpaulchocolate.com/

    :D
    As in, the chocolate Liberty dollars are less practical than the real ones? That's a laugh.

    SithDrummer on
  • Options
    Cignul9Cignul9 Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    The whole point of the appeal to authority fallacy is that you're appealing to some "authority" without first delineating why they should be considered authoritative. In the case of Jefferson and IP, the problem with citing him as an authority on IP is that there's no grounds to do so. So when you cite his writings, you're basically saying "see, Jefferson agrees with me, so there." (Now, if you were to cite, say, Paul Revere, you'd have a better case, since he made his living on IP (specifically, his silver designs.))
    Jefferson not an authority on intellectual property? Well.

    I can't find where in this thread Jefferson was quoted and so I don't know what was said (I don't have time to read 89 pages and the search feature didn't turn anything up).

    Schrodinger's link makes a good point about no field having complete agreement, and let's also keep in mind that IP isn't field of science so much as socio-political issue. Since that's the case then really any of us with a knowledge of the facts and persuasive arguements can be authoritative. And on many issues of this kind I find Thomas Jefferson's writings to be informed, thoughtful and sometimes even persuasive.

    As previously stated, Jefferson helped develop a patent system in America that we still use today. While he didn't make a living selling silver designs, he did come up with some inventions of his own. His attitude about innovation has been regarded by historians as balanced. So, on the subject of intellectual property in my book he was an authority, but my point is that because we're talking about political ideas the only authorities are the ones you pick for yourself.

    Cignul9 on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Schrodinger's link makes a good point about no field having complete agreement, and let's also keep in mind that IP isn't field of science so much as socio-political issue. Since that's the case then really any of us with a knowledge of the facts and persuasive arguements can be authoritative. And on many issues of this kind I find Thomas Jefferson's writings to be informed, thoughtful and sometimes even persuasive.
    He can't be informed. He died before the term was even invented. It is like using an 18th century politician as an authority figure who believed in the right to bear arms to claim that people should be able to own nukes. That person can not be an expert on the issue because the issue has changed completely.
    So, on the subject of intellectual property in my book he was an authority, but my point is that because we're talking about political ideas the only authorities are the ones you pick for yourself.
    An authority is generally expected to be an expert on a subject. It is completely possible to be an expert on a political subject. For example, a person who has extensively studied tax laws is much more of an expert on tax laws than a batshit insane politician.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Schrodinger's link makes a good point about no field having complete agreement, and let's also keep in mind that IP isn't field of science so much as socio-political issue. Since that's the case then really any of us with a knowledge of the facts and persuasive arguements can be authoritative. And on many issues of this kind I find Thomas Jefferson's writings to be informed, thoughtful and sometimes even persuasive.
    He can't be informed. He died before the term was even invented. It is like using an 18th century politician as an authority figure who believed in the right to bear arms to claim that people should be able to own nukes. That person can not be an expert on the issue because the issue has changed completely.
    Lucille: I'm putting Buster in charge [of the company]. ... He’s had business classes.
    Buster: Wait, wait, wait - 18th-century agrarian business! But I guess it’s all the same principles. Let me ask you, are you at all concerned about an uprising?

    SithDrummer on
  • Options
    RaethRaeth Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    /facepalm

    Yes, because people simply didn't have ideas until after the internet was invented. Jesus.

    Raeth on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    I got a direct mail brochure from Ron Paul today. Or my wife's grandparents did. I didn't look at the tag.

    Pretty hard edge against immigration. I bet you didn't know that The Constitution was being trampled underfoot by corrupt politicians while millions of lawbreakers roamed our lands leeching off the welfare state. This was illustrated by a photo of a construction boot sitting on top of The Constitution.

    I found the hard edge interesting, since Paul's schtick is a softer, less threatening libertarianism.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Schrodinger's link makes a good point about no field having complete agreement, and let's also keep in mind that IP isn't field of science so much as socio-political issue. Since that's the case then really any of us with a knowledge of the facts and persuasive arguements can be authoritative. And on many issues of this kind I find Thomas Jefferson's writings to be informed, thoughtful and sometimes even persuasive.
    He can't be informed. He died before the term was even invented. It is like using an 18th century politician as an authority figure who believed in the right to bear arms to claim that people should be able to own nukes. That person can not be an expert on the issue because the issue has changed completely.
    Lucille: I'm putting Buster in charge [of the company]. ... He’s had business classes.
    Buster: Wait, wait, wait - 18th-century agrarian business! But I guess it’s all the same principles. Let me ask you, are you at all concerned about an uprising?

    Okay, now I'm pissed at you, because I find that clip hilarious and I can't remember the episode it was from.

    Oh, and the point I was trying to make is that an appeal to authority usually only works if the experts in the field generally agree on the subject in question. The founding fathers had huge disagreements among them.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    SmasherSmasher Starting to get dizzy Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Okay, now I'm pissed at you, because I find that clip hilarious and I can't remember the episode it was from.

    I believe it's from one of the first few episodes of the first season. No guarantees, but I've been watching through the series for the first time with a friend who's a huge fan and that's my impression.

    Smasher on
  • Options
    gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Raeth wrote: »
    edit: I also detect a hint of Straw Man here with the implication that because some people with weak arguments quote the Founders, all people who quote the Founders must necessarily have weak arguments.
    Quoting a particular member of the Founders, or a document written or signed by one or more Founders, and then claiming the quote to be representative of "the Founding Fathers" as a whole is completely disingenuous - they weren't a monolithic collective, and they disagreed over numerous fundamental issues. Likewise, claiming that any particular philosophy or course of action is in line with the beliefs or intentions of "the Founding Fathers" is ridiculous.

    gtrmp on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    gtrmp wrote: »
    Raeth wrote: »
    edit: I also detect a hint of Straw Man here with the implication that because some people with weak arguments quote the Founders, all people who quote the Founders must necessarily have weak arguments.
    Quoting a particular member of the Founders, or a document written or signed by one or more Founders, and then claiming the quote to be representative of "the Founding Fathers" as a whole is completely disingenuous - they weren't a monolithic collective, and they disagreed over numerous fundamental issues. Likewise, claiming that any particular philosophy or course of action is in line with the beliefs or intentions of "the Founding Fathers" is ridiculous.
    Also, and this may be a radical idea: maybe the founding fathers are actually wrong on some or many issues?

    It's like people who say Tesla's ideas while he was slowly going mad in his last days must be completely valid because he also designed AC power transmission.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Here I go clicking on this thread and I see the Thomas Jefferson thing brought up. It was an argument over software patents (though I don't think copyright), and I was the one who quoted him.

    The most quoted excerpt is from this letter here concerning some patents:
    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 possession of everyone, 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. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

    Now the charge of appeal to authority is a funny thing, because I seem to remember arguing that his position holds up on its own merits, and that you or some others were ignoring him offhand simply because he was from way back when and what the hell did he know. Being an authority on a subject lends weight to ones argument, although it is fallacious to assume it is correct ignoring the merits of the argument. Thomas Jefferson was at least somewhat involved in shaping early patent law, which was definitely of impact on current patent law in the US's common law system. So the charge he is irrelevant and the following offhand dismissal that I recall was of more dubious logic than a purported appeal to authority.

    If you read the whole letter you can see he has more pertinent discussion about the nature of patents (and specific patents), such as the principle of prior art.

    PS. funny thing about that quote is in the previous section he declares that property ownership is not a natural law and is only a recent gift from social law.

    Savant on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Schrodinger's link makes a good point about no field having complete agreement, and let's also keep in mind that IP isn't field of science so much as socio-political issue. Since that's the case then really any of us with a knowledge of the facts and persuasive arguements can be authoritative. And on many issues of this kind I find Thomas Jefferson's writings to be informed, thoughtful and sometimes even persuasive.
    He can't be informed. He died before the term was even invented. It is like using an 18th century politician as an authority figure who believed in the right to bear arms to claim that people should be able to own nukes. That person can not be an expert on the issue because the issue has changed completely.
    So, on the subject of intellectual property in my book he was an authority, but my point is that because we're talking about political ideas the only authorities are the ones you pick for yourself.
    An authority is generally expected to be an expert on a subject. It is completely possible to be an expert on a political subject. For example, a person who has extensively studied tax laws is much more of an expert on tax laws than a batshit insane politician.

    Jeez, you are the master of saying things which are technically true and drawing either totally idiotic or completely irrelevant conclusions from it. Just because the phrase "Intellectual property" may not have existed at the time (or could have been considered anathema), does not mean that he was uninformed about the subjects that compose intellectual property: patents and copyright. Those concepts existed and were being developed into law at that time, and many of such developments form (or at least formed) the basis of such laws.

    I'd say their system of more limited patents and shorter copyright terms were a far cry better than the shit we have today. At least the DMCA isn't as bad as some of the alternatives rammed through other western nations.

    And for circuitously linking to the topic, it is insufficient to discount Ron Paul or associated true believers just because they hold the Constitution or some of the founding fathers on a pedestal. Because although appealing to authority is fallacious reasoning, that doesn't automatically make their weakly founded conclusions wrong. It just makes their reasoning irrelevant.

    Savant on
  • Options
    SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Schrodinger's link makes a good point about no field having complete agreement, and let's also keep in mind that IP isn't field of science so much as socio-political issue. Since that's the case then really any of us with a knowledge of the facts and persuasive arguements can be authoritative. And on many issues of this kind I find Thomas Jefferson's writings to be informed, thoughtful and sometimes even persuasive.
    He can't be informed. He died before the term was even invented. It is like using an 18th century politician as an authority figure who believed in the right to bear arms to claim that people should be able to own nukes. That person can not be an expert on the issue because the issue has changed completely.
    Lucille: I'm putting Buster in charge [of the company]. ... He’s had business classes.
    Buster: Wait, wait, wait - 18th-century agrarian business! But I guess it’s all the same principles. Let me ask you, are you at all concerned about an uprising?

    Okay, now I'm pissed at you, because I find that clip hilarious and I can't remember the episode it was from.
    The pilot.

    SithDrummer on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Damn you, now I have to start all over.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    Cignul9Cignul9 Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Schrodinger's link makes a good point about no field having complete agreement, and let's also keep in mind that IP isn't field of science so much as socio-political issue. Since that's the case then really any of us with a knowledge of the facts and persuasive arguements can be authoritative. And on many issues of this kind I find Thomas Jefferson's writings to be informed, thoughtful and sometimes even persuasive.
    He can't be informed. He died before the term was even invented. It is like using an 18th century politician as an authority figure who believed in the right to bear arms to claim that people should be able to own nukes. That person can not be an expert on the issue because the issue has changed completely.
    So, on the subject of intellectual property in my book he was an authority, but my point is that because we're talking about political ideas the only authorities are the ones you pick for yourself.
    An authority is generally expected to be an expert on a subject. It is completely possible to be an expert on a political subject. For example, a person who has extensively studied tax laws is much more of an expert on tax laws than a batshit insane politician.

    Obviously only a fool would ignore the fact that Thomas Jefferson lived quite a long time ago. It's a mitigating factor, the sort of thing you take into account when you consider an historical figure's words.

    But Jefferson and his contemporaries often attempted to speak about human conditions that are timeless. Can we agree on that? Can you look at the quote provided by Savant and point to a bit that isn't relevant anymore, because this is now and that was then?

    Now, let me restate what I was trying to say about how we pick who's an authority on this or that. In the fields of science we observe, measure, record, hypothesize and test. The reiteration of these actions leads us to a greater understanding of things around us. But there are fields of study about which we know relatively little. When we discuss subjects such as these, matters are long on opinion and speculation and pretty short on tangibles. The reasons for this vary. In studying these fields, men and women muddle through. Hypotheses and claims put forth by people willing to enter into a discussion are adopted by others who like what they hear. It's human nature.

    Again, speaking about subjects that are perhaps not scientific in nature or subjects about which we know little, and assuming that everyone under consideration is informed about whatever facts are available, no one is an authority because:
    • we most likely cannot agree on what criteria should make someone an authority, or
    • the nature of the subject is such that authorities are irrelevant (shall we discuss which of the primary colors of light is best?), or
    • no one really knows anything about it anyway.
    I suspect that my disagreement with AngelHedgie lies in the first case; that is, we have different standards for selecting whom we should consider to be an authority. If you feel like you should reject Jefferson as an authority on subjects covered by IP such as copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, etc., subjects about which Jefferson was familiar and gave us insight into their moral and ethical aspects just because he lived a long time ago, that's fine. Why not quote an authority of your choosing and see if anyone is persuaded? Because that's really what this is about isn't it? Helping people see your point of view?

    For my part, if someone correctly quoted a Founding Father, I usually give considerable weight to their words, even though as you say, they were often quite at odds with each other concerning matters of government. I reject AngelHedgie's direct statement that advice from these men can be safely disregarded because times have changed. However, AngelHedgie is right insofar as someone quoted Jefferson and perhaps implied that Jefferson would have agreed with him. But that's not case for "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.

    A better argument might be to point out that Jefferson's opinion about IP evolved over time, starting with the position that no one should own an idea and gradually being persuaded that patents and other IP concepts can stimulate invention.

    By the way, thanks for the quote, Savant.

    Since the thread went about 90 pages with about 5 percent of it having anything to do with Ron Paul (I acknowledge my own part in this), I'll say that as a libertarian, I wish Mr. Paul best of luck in his efforts. He knows he won't win, but I think if he re-awakens the Goldwater wing of the Republican party the nation will be better for it.

    Cignul9 on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Jeez, you are the master of saying things which are technically true and drawing either totally idiotic or completely irrelevant conclusions from it. Just because the phrase "Intellectual property" may not have existed at the time (or could have been considered anathema), does not mean that he was uninformed about the subjects that compose intellectual property: patents and copyright. Those concepts existed and were being developed into law at that time, and many of such developments form (or at least formed) the basis of such laws.
    The basis of the law/=the modern law as it is. It is the same as using Madison as an authority on whether internal improvements should be funded by the government. I mean, sure the costs of those internal improvements and even what falls under internal improvements have changed along with a change in the interpretation of the constitutions, but I'm sure he was informed about the subjects that compose the issue of internal improvements: the constitution and finance.
    Lucille: I'm putting Buster in charge [of the company]. ... He’s had business classes.
    Buster: Wait, wait, wait - 18th-century agrarian business! But I guess it’s all the same principles. Let me ask you, are you at all concerned about an uprising?
    I mean, 18th-century agrarian business formed the basis for modern business, right?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    jotatejotate Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    So, swapping the direction of this thread. Ron Paul's ideals/crazy have been pretty hashed out for the last 90 pages. Let's move to talking about the conspiracy against him. I submit the most recent (to hit the Digg front page):

    Romney Supporters Stuffing the Straw Poll Ballot

    Interesting stuff. Anyone have a favorite Ron Paul conspiracy they'd like to share with the class?

    jotate on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    jotate wrote: »
    So, swapping the direction of this thread. Ron Paul's ideals/crazy have been pretty hashed out for the last 90 pages. Let's move to talking about the conspiracy against him. I submit the most recent (to hit the Digg front page):

    Romney Supporters Stuffing the Straw Poll Ballot

    Interesting stuff. Anyone have a favorite Ron Paul conspiracy they'd like to share with the class?

    The problem with funny Ron Paul conspiracies is that Rondroids don't find them funny and everyone else doesn't find them conspiracies.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    jotate wrote: »
    So, swapping the direction of this thread. Ron Paul's ideals/crazy have been pretty hashed out for the last 90 pages. Let's move to talking about the conspiracy against him. I submit the most recent (to hit the Digg front page):

    Romney Supporters Stuffing the Straw Poll Ballot

    Interesting stuff. Anyone have a favorite Ron Paul conspiracy they'd like to share with the class?
    It's a fucking Straw Poll. It's about as meaningful as an internet poll.

    What I'm saying is that that was probably actually a Ron Paul supporter.

    Thanatos on
This discussion has been closed.