Free and Open-Source extremism is on the rise!

[dalto]

This discussion is hilarious.

It just goes into circular nothingness because @Kresimir has constructed a definition of property that is logically unassailable if you accept the definition.

@Kresimir

labour itself has no value.

Of course it does. Labor is a limited resource that is subject to supply and demand as any limited resource is.

[Kresimir]

@dalto

Labor is a limited resource that is subject to supply and demand as any limited resource is.

Labour has only the value of the goods it produces. By itself, it is worthless. Nobody is going to pay you to dig a hole and fill it back up 50 times, even though it takes labour to do it.

Or think about it this way: if you could produce the same good with less labour, would you? If so, then you do not value labour. Your employer does not pay you to work, he pays for the results. The labour is what you spend.

Labour is only a cost to the person expending it. It has no value on its own.

[keybreak]

@dalto

because @Kresimir has constructed a definition of property that is logically unassailable if you accept the definition.

To be fair he is standing on a shoulders of a giants, not really constructed nor stole those giants property…

[fbodymechanic]

@Kresimir

Labour has only the value of the goods it produces. By itself, it is worthless. Nobody is going to pay you to dig a hole and fill it back up 50 times, even though it takes labour to do it.

Or a book or to write code either apparently.

[dalto]

@Kresimir

Labour has only the value of the goods it produces.

That is absurd. People are paid on a regular basis to perform labor which produces no goods at all.

[ricklinux]

@Kresimir
What are you talking about? You have dug a hole 50 times already and filled it back up with the same arguments.

[TomDoe]

[Kresimir]

@dalto

That is absurd. People are paid on a regular basis to perform labor which produces no goods at all.

We have strayed far away from the original proposition (because I am talking to 5 people at once, it’s getting a bit difficult).

The notion of value here is a red herring. How we value something has nothing to do with whether something is or isn’t property. You can value memories, you can value friendship, your spouse, but none of those are property.

Let’s not talk about value, but whether there is property in information or not.

[ricklinux]

There is property in information and it can be protected under copyright. coding for example!

[Kresimir]

If there is property in information that means that the “owner” of information has property rights in information. Specifically, he has the right to prevent others from having that information.

This in itself is a violation of property rights in tangible goods, because this information is stored on a medium and that medium is somebody’s property.

[keybreak]

Heard those honks?
They are my property!

Pay up!!!
I’m waiting…

[dalto]

@Kresimir

We have strayed far away from the original preposition

@Kresimir

Let’s not talk about value, but whether there is property in information or not.

To be fair, that isn’t the original point of this topic either…

As a side note, I don’t think “preposition” means what you think it means.

[Kresimir]

Proposition. It’s a typo.

Everyone makes typos:

@fbodymechanic

plaugerizing

[ricklinux]

Coding when stored on a medium is tangible.

[Kresimir]

The medium is tangible, the code is not.

[dalto]

@Kresimir

This in itself is a violation of property rights in tangible goods, because this information is stored on a medium and that medium is somebody’s property.

Only if you believe that possession of an intangible good defines ownership.

[khaneliman]

I think there’s just a semantic argument going on with colloquial definitions of things vs original dictionary definitions going on… lol

[ricklinux]

You know what i mean.

[Stagger_Lee]

@Kresimir

I define information as a series of answers to yes-or-no questions, or a sequence of zeroes and ones (called bits, which are the unit of information), separated from the actual tangible medium which records it.

Passwords, for example, would not be property under this definition. They would be information.

@Kresimir

In order for dispute to arise, the item in question has to be scarce – that is, one person possessing and using it excludes everyone else from possessing and using it. If it were not scarce, then all people who wanted to possess or use it could do so in pursuit of their goals, without depriving anyone else of the same thing…

This is exactly the situation with information. There can be no dispute over mutually exclusive uses of information, because everyone can possess and use it for whatever purpose, without the physical need to deprive anyone else of the same.

If someone else possesses your passwords, there is no issue, as you still possess them.

@Kresimir

There can be no conflict over the use of code: you [and] I can use the same code at the same time without getting in each other’s way. Therefore, there is no property in code.

So, why not share your passwords freely with all of us? It won’t deprive you of having them. And once I have them, I can do whatever I want with them, right?

I mean, I suppose by your definition there could possibly be a problem if we both tried to use a password at the same site simultaneously, as we might get in each other’s way, but as long as that doesn’t happen, there’s no problem?

[ricklinux]

I like this! If i have all the passwords because there is no value in them.