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?