| Page 1 of 1 |
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
 Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 13:23 Post subject: John Locke on Self Ownership |
|
 |
Locke stated that since it is a fact that we individually own ourselves. everytime we mix our actions with any other part of reality, we legitimately own the result of our labor.
Locke's work is still greatly use in property and ownership laws.
Does this mean everytime a cracker works on a game, he legitimately own the result of is labor? 
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14331
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 13:31 Post subject: |
|
|
It depends on which part of reality he works on.
He took a part out of the game to work on and crack. The result is a crack which makes the game run. Doesn't mean he owns the game.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 13:34 Post subject: |
|
|
more importantly, if i save someones life, do i own them?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 13:35 Post subject: |
|
|
>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ♪ Viva La Vida ♪ <<<<<< <<<<< <<<<<< <<< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 13:35 Post subject: |
|
|
| couleur wrote: | It depends on which part of reality he works on.
He took a part out of the game to work on and crack. The result is a crack which makes the game run. Doesn't mean he owns the game. |
Locke stated that if you do labor on someone else's property, you legitimately own the result of your labor, under Locke's premise, cracking a game would make you own the result of your labor, (the modified cracked game) 
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ClaudeFTW
Posts: 5074
Location: Bucharest, Romania
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 13:41 Post subject: |
|
|
| chiv wrote: | | more importantly, if i save someones life, do i own them? |
No, self ownership is the most fundamental aspect of Locke's philosophy, meaning that any living entity that is in command of their actions can never cease to be responsible of his self ownership, even if you want someone to control you and own you, it is a fundamental contradiction of the aspect that while alive and conscious only the individual is absolutely in ownership of himself, and never a third party.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14331
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 13:44 Post subject: |
|
|
Ronhrin.. you have so many grammar mistakes in that first post of yours. it is practically unreadable. 
>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ♪ Viva La Vida ♪ <<<<<< <<<<< <<<<<< <<<
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 13:47 Post subject: |
|
|
| couleur wrote: | | Ronhrin wrote: | | couleur wrote: | It depends on which part of reality he works on.
He took a part out of the game to work on and crack. The result is a crack which makes the game run. Doesn't mean he owns the game. |
Locke stated that if you do labor on someone else's property, you legitimately own the result of your labor, under Locke's premise, cracking a game would make you own the result of your labor, (the modified cracked game) |
So you are saying that by modifying an exe and/or adding some dlls is equal to working on the game as a whole. I can accept that. But does "labour" also mean "deconstruction" of someone else's work? I mean, would you, by that definition, gain ownership over a house just by destroying some of its parts?
Also: Private private property is the root of all evil!
 Spoiler: | |
|
If the original work made by others was in any way damaged or altered beyond recovery, you would indeed be violating the property of others, but since you can just copy it unlimited times and edit each copy at your own accord, the original being always intact is what defines that you are not violating any fundamentals of property.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14331
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 13:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ronhrin wrote: |
If the original work made by others was in any way damaged or altered beyond recovery, you would indeed be violating the property of others, but since you can just copy it unlimited times and edit each copy at your own accord, the original being always intact is what defines that you are not violating any fundamentals of property. |
Ok then according to Locke any modded/cracked game or any game where the savegames you use are specifically yours, would also be your property. So?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 14:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| couleur wrote: | | Ronhrin wrote: |
If the original work made by others was in any way damaged or altered beyond recovery, you would indeed be violating the property of others, but since you can just copy it unlimited times and edit each copy at your own accord, the original being always intact is what defines that you are not violating any fundamentals of property. |
Ok then according to Locke any modded/cracked game or any game where the savegames you use are specifically yours, would also be your property. So? |
Exactly
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 14:14 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ronhrin wrote: | | chiv wrote: | | more importantly, if i save someones life, do i own them? |
No, self ownership is the most fundamental aspect of Locke's philosophy, meaning that any living entity that is in command of their actions can never cease to be responsible of his self ownership, even if you want someone to control you and own you, it is a fundamental contradiction of the aspect that while alive and conscious only the individual is absolutely in ownership of himself, and never a third party. |
so what youre saying is that i would have to seize control of the worlds oxygen supply, thus forcing someone to WILLFULLY submit to my control for threat of me denying them air...
would this be acceptable according to locke's law? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 14:26 Post subject: |
|
|
| chiv wrote: | | Ronhrin wrote: | | chiv wrote: | | more importantly, if i save someones life, do i own them? |
No, self ownership is the most fundamental aspect of Locke's philosophy, meaning that any living entity that is in command of their actions can never cease to be responsible of his self ownership, even if you want someone to control you and own you, it is a fundamental contradiction of the aspect that while alive and conscious only the individual is absolutely in ownership of himself, and never a third party. |
so what youre saying is that i would have to seize control of the worlds oxygen supply, thus forcing someone to WILLFULLY submit to my control for threat of me denying them air...
would this be acceptable according to locke's law? |
Ofc not, because for you to seize control of the world's oxigen supply, you would need to mix your labor with it, and alter it, and since other people have already claimed their ownership of a certain percentage of the oxigen supply due to the fact that we're all actively breathing it (mixing our labor with it), you would be violating the most fundamental aspects of property rights.
According to Locke, if you own a land, and someone comes over, plants a apple tree and an irrigation canal on your land, that someone would be the legitimate owner of the irrigation canal and the subsequent apples that the tree produces, the only way, according to Locke that you could legitimate gain ownership over that irrigation canal would be that the constructor of it willingly trade it with you, either by a financial transaction or as a gift, but without the constructor's consent, you could never legitimately own the irrigation canal and the apple tree.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 14:40 Post subject: |
|
|
fucks sake, FINE. WHAT ABOUT THE SUN THEN. IF I TAKE OVER THE SUN AND THREATEN TO BLOCK IT OUT AND KILL OFF ALL LIFE ON EARTH UNLESS THEY ALL WILLINGLY SUBMIT TO MY RULE - would THAT be acceptable, goddammit?!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 14:44 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 14:48 Post subject: |
|
|
pfft soon as i get me some of those gamma ray superpowers, just you watch me go, dammit.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 14:52 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 15:08 Post subject: |
|
|
gonna be even harder to see when i block out its light and make you all KNEEL before chiv.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34200
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 17:48 Post subject: |
|
|
snip
Last edited by garus on Tue, 27th Aug 2024 21:52; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 17:59 Post subject: |
|
|
| garus wrote: | | So if I steal a bicycle and paint it to a different color, it's mine? |
No because the bicycle is already the labor of other, the bicycle is not naturally emergent in nature, neither you can paint it without depriving it's original laborer of his work, if you could duplicate the bicycle it would not be theft.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
helvete
Posts: 2727
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 18:00 Post subject: |
|
|
Did Locke mention intellectual property?
REPOST
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 18:09 Post subject: |
|
|
| helvete wrote: | | Did Locke mention intellectual property? |
As far as I'm aware no, in Locke's phillosophy, property was something unique that couldn't be duplicated other than by the labor of the self, since ideas and intellectual creativity can be duplicated, rectified or changed altogether without ever losing the sight of the original idea, I believe that in Locke's eyes property had to be something inherent tangible, finite and accessible in the physical reality.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th May 2011 18:22 Post subject: |
|
|
so locke would find corporate espionage acceptable?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th May 2011 01:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ronhrin wrote: | | garus wrote: | | So if I steal a bicycle and paint it to a different color, it's mine? |
No because the bicycle is already the labor of other, the bicycle is not naturally emergent in nature, neither you can paint it without depriving it's original laborer of his work, if you could duplicate the bicycle it would not be theft. |
but by this concept, you canal and apple tree example is also flawed..
as digging the canal denies the original man that graded, leveled, and seeded the grass of that land his labor.
and your first question of if cracking a game you own it..by that aspect your denying the original coder of his work put into the file.
in the bike, the land, and the game..your reversing the work of others..so using your above statement you own none of them
also, by me posting on the forums, does that mean that Ive added to the original work of the admins and mods here, effectively making me owner of my post.because I never received payment or agreement to the fact that I'm willing giving over my labor typing and its ownership to the forum owners?
so Mods deleting my posts would be a violation of my property, as they never took ownership? much like me filling in that mans canal without taking ownership of it is also a violation?
or would it be that technically the full owner of the forums would be the last person to post at any given time..as he was the last to add his labor into the situation?
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
