linuxaudio.org

--14dae9340e11b3237304d5a840d8

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I see this reasoning all the time, when in copyright debates or libertarian

vs statism

debates: utilitarian arguments, basically saying this:
P1. Law X gives Y benefit Z.

P2. If we have no X, Y will have no Z.

P3. I want Y to have Z.

C. Therefore, we should keep X.
The problem is in premise 3.

Sure, you want Y to have Z. So what? I want to live forever. What next?
As soon as you say that copyright should be there, because it will give

someone a benefit,

you have to explain why not pass some other law that will give other people

benefits.

And, from my experience, all those explanations are arbitrary, because

copyright is an

arbitrary regulation, which was initially a censorship mechanism.
But I would also question premise 2. How do you know that without benefit

Z, Y will not

go out and find benefit Z+Z?
L.V.
--14dae9340e11b3237304d5a840d8

Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I see this reasoning all the time, when in copyright debates or libertarian=

 vs statismdebates: utilitarian arguments, basically saying this:P1. Law X gives Y benefit Z.P2. If we have no X, Y will have no Z.

P3. I want Y to have Z.C. Therefore, we should keep X.The probl=

em is in premise 3.Sure, you want Y to have Z. So what? I want to live =

forever. What next?As soon as you say that copyright should be ther=

e, because it will give someone a benefit,

you have to explain why not pass some other law that will give other people=

 benefits.And, from my experience, all those explanations are arbitrary=

, because copyright is anarbitrary regulation, which was initially a ce=

nsorship mechanism.

But I would also question premise 2. How do you know that without benef=

it Z, Y will notgo out and find benefit Z+Z?L.V.
--14dae9340e11b3237304d5a840d8--