TaN: Stupidity and laziness (slothfulness), if they are not, should be (the only) legitimate reasons for commerce and profiting from others. It is not right to prevent others – especially those who are willing and able – to improve themselves. At the present set up, people are being deprived of two of the most important opportunities – the opportunity to improve oneself and one’s wellbeing and the opportunity to be of service to others (i.e., to share one’s God-given talents in the service and to the benefit of others).
It has been written that it is better to give than to receive. It is in this act of selflessness that we grow and flourish. It has been (also) written that: our first duty is to God (Love God above all), then to others (Love others are yourself). It is in these commandments that is the embodiment of our reason or purpose for or of existing. And this is the basis for my statement that only stupidity and laziness must be profited from – i.e., we can rightfully profit from.
Stupidity, just to make it clear, is making the same mistake again – nothing was learned from the first time in error so no lesson was learned and no new knowledge or experience was gained (to make a different mistake). Laziness, I define, is when one does not do one’s duty or responsibility when it is needed.
Both stupidity and laziness are contrary to our being in existence. Stupidity renders us incapable of being useful – to God, to ourselves, and to others. Laziness prevents us from being useful even if we are capable. In both cases, we are being of no value nor service to neither God nor others. In order for the stupid and the lazy not to be a total waste, they should be made to “pay” for their being so.
It is wrong and an injustice to prevent willing and able people from exercising and benefiting from their talents and serving others – like in the case of intellectual property and of patents. If willing and able people can make use of others’ ideas, discoveries, inventions, and creations, they should be permitted to do so, otherwise it would impede their growth and flourishing.
It is these impediments – in the form of restrictive intellectual property, patents, etc – that is a major cause of much of the world’s problems and hindrance to true and meaningful progress of man. As in the case of open source, since the code is open to all to inspect and change, improvements can be done and there are many minds who can help speed the process of evolutionary improvement. Intellectual property, patents, and trade secrets only obstruct speedy and meaningful progress of and for the many and serves only the owners or rights holders.
It is true that the creators and originators should be “rewarded” for their creations but it should not be to the detriment of the consumers. To paraphrase from a video regarding the Red Cross and a cure for malaria: water does not belong to the creator but to the user. In other words, a thing belongs to whomever it will serve and not to the one who created it. This is or should be true for everything, including intellectual property, patents, trade secrets, etc. Stupid and lazy people cannot make use of anything…ergo they should not be entitled to anything and, should they desire to avail of anything, they have to “pay” for it..
TaN: If the theories of Rupert Sheldrake on morphic resonance is substantially and significantly true, they can and will put patents, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property in jeopardy. It is generally believed and accepted – probably due, in part, to the constant “reminders” from capitalism-consumerism regarding protecting our intellectual property so we can capitalize on them for our own benefit and also, in part, to our subconscious desire to be selfish with our discoveries and inventions so that we can “be among the elite” – that our thoughts and ideas are unique and our very own, ergo we can claim them as intellectual property. However (and if I understood its significance correctly), with the revelation of morphic resonance, it would seem that there is no such thing as intellectual property anymore.
The way I understand it, all living organisms have some sort of intellect with connects to and draws from a common consciousness for the specific species. This common consciousness, in turn, serves as a reservoir of all knowledge gathered by each organism of the same species. It also serves as a common pool where individual organisms can draw information from for its own purpose – like acting as a template for and during the reproductive process of the species. [How else, argues Rupert Sheldrake and, to use his example, does a cell – say a skin cell – of a giraffe knows where it should be situated and how to behave. Afterall, a skin cell is a skin cell – be it a skin of a giraffe or a skin cell of another organism. Further, how does cells in the developing fetus/embryo know how to form themselves into the likeness of the parent species and not that of a different species?]
Continuing on this argument and line of thought, man’s individual ideas and thoughts are elevated to our own common consciousness and we draw from it as we need. Sheldrake further argues that this would be the principal explanation why it used to take months and huge sums of money to sequence the genome but now it is easily done within days and at a fraction of the previous cost. It seems that other men are able to draw from the experience and expertise forwarded to the common collective consciousness to use for our own prurposes.
Now, granting that this argument is credible and sound, this would imply that one may have an original idea but one cannot claim intellectual property because it is not only possible but highly probable that someone, without ever having read or heard the same idea, will come to ideate exactly the same notion. It would be unjust to insinuate that there was intellectual property theft or violation, unless the accuser can prove – beyond reproach – the his idea was stolen, copied, or infringed upon.
[One of the problems today that has slipped by unnoticed by many is that the rule on innocence has been subverted. It would appear that it is the other way around these days, that the accused must prove his/her innocence instead of the accuser proving the guilt of the accused. In simple words, the burden of proof has shifted from the accuser to the accused. It is even worse with the Obama “kill list” – now called the “disposition matrix” – where one is put on the list without proper notification, one is not accorded the opportunity to face his/her accuser or even know the circumstances, and one is summarily “terminated with extreme prejudice” unceremoniously via a drone strike anytime and anywhere in the world – you have no place to hide and there is no place on this planet you cannot be reached, asylum or none.]