From: tallpaul@pipeline.com (tallpaul)
To: Alan Horowitz <alanh@infi.net>
Message Hash: 7c9b0aba33e667712d81cc848bbfd55f34e10928d1bdee2f3299b75611906c18
Message ID: <199602200354.WAA04032@pipe9.nyc.pipeline.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-20 06:03:37 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 14:03:37 +0800
From: tallpaul@pipeline.com (tallpaul)
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 14:03:37 +0800
To: Alan Horowitz <alanh@infi.net>
Subject: Re: Piracy Bests ITAR
Message-ID: <199602200354.WAA04032@pipe9.nyc.pipeline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Feb 19, 1996 01:29:14, 'Alan Horowitz <alanh@infi.net>' wrote:
>
>> From: Anonymous <nobody@REPLAY.COM>
>> Some economists have made a good case that slack
>> enforcement of such rules may sometimes do little harm.
>> Local firms benefit by acquiring pirated technology more
>> cheaply than the real thing; consumers acquire affordable
>> high-tech products and close copies of branded goods.
>
>Yes, when Mr Anon travels to a beach in Jamaica or in Mombasa, he
>shouldn't complain when the taxi driver takes him, not to his requested
>destination, buit some dark alley where Mr Anon gets clunked over the
>head and his wallet removed. The locals need the money more than Mr
>rich-tourist-on-vacation Anon.
I haven't accepted the original argument that A. Horowitz critiques.
However, there appears to be at least two errors in his counter argument.
1) Mr Anon is a real human being; the corporation is a legal fiction. Mr
Anon has a real head; the corporation does not. Mr. Anon has suffered a
real assault; the corporation has not.
2) Mr Anon has a real use for his money. The original argument was, I
believe, that the tech etc. was appropriated in an area of the world where
no one could afford it, etc. As in: I write a book. I get money for it in
NYC where people buy it. I get mugged in NYC and my money is stolen. VERSUS
Soneone in an area of the world where my book is not sold makes a xerox
copy of the book.
The crimes if crimes they be are not the same.
>
> They're only doing socialist justice,
>after all.
>
Naturally, I expect all the members of the Libertarian Party and the non-LP
libertarians who sent me e-mail and who posted to the list will post
similar things about this fallacy in logic, won't you. (Note to T.C. May:
This is not really sarcasm and not rhetorical hyperbole. It is more
"wishful thinking" on my part.
>
>Property is property. Theft is theft.
>
I believe the original quote from Proudhoun was "property is theft" but who
is counting. On the other hand, "2 + 2 = 4" and if my aunt had wheels and
ran down 5th Avenue she'd be a trolley. So what?
Return to February 1996
Return to “tallpaul@pipeline.com (tallpaul)”
1996-02-20 (Tue, 20 Feb 1996 14:03:37 +0800) - Re: Piracy Bests ITAR - tallpaul@pipeline.com (tallpaul)