Benjamin B. Woodford <benjamin.b.woodford@sherwin.com> 
Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:13 AM 
To: Phil Elmore

No, Phil, nothing that exists only in the mind is property.

Ideas are not property, and never have been.

But, when ideas are hidden, they do seem somewhat like property… those are called “secrets”.

Anything that has been broadcast or unveiled is not property.  

If a man hides a lamp under a bushel, then yes he gets to keep all the light.  

If he takes the bushel away, then the light and any benefit derived from the light, belong to all who see the light.

“Property rights” — yes!  Thou shalt not steal.

“Intellectual property” — fiction.   

I wrote back, “Saying, ‘No it doesn’t!’ doesn’t constitute a persuasive argument.  For the reasons I cited in my column, intellectual property clear does exist, and must exist, or we consign ourselves to economic ruin while dismissing the talents, abilities, and labors of countless human beings.

Benjamin B. Woodford <benjamin.b.woodford@sherwin.com> 
Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:26 AM 
To: Phil Elmore

No, sir, saying that “we consign ourselves to economic ruin while dismissing the talents, abilities, and labors of countless human beings”, also does not constitute a persuasive argument.

There is no basis nor precedent, historical nor religious,  for the notion that people own ideas or music, or any such non-property things.

Instead, we are experiencing economic ruin because of government-created notions such as “intellectual property”, which is part and parcel of the same scam as “fractional reserve banks” and “limited liability corporations”.

All of those scams are designed and enforced by governments of recent centuries, in order to “juice” the economy… which only leads to economic ruin for the many (plus continuous warfare).

A people who live free and straight will prosper and grow, while know-how will diffuse gradually throughout the people.  (read the scriptures)

The scam of intellectual property exists to make one nation run ahead in military advancements (which will be copied anyway), the the ruin of us all.  (please see the last 250-400 years)

Benjamin Woodford
Sherwin Williams Co.
216-566-1834

I wrote back, “People who believe intellectual property is a “scam” are dismissing the talents and labors of countless Americans. They’re basically no different than the communists who would like to abolish property out of envy and avarice, in order to take what they have not earned.
 
“Sorry, Ben, but you fail to convince me by citing scriptures, which have nothing to do with this issue.  Also, I suggest you stop using your employer’s e-mail address to pester me.  I don’t think Sherwin Williams would appreciate how you’re using company resources.”

Benjamin B. Woodford <benjamin.b.woodford@sherwin.com> 
Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:37 AM 
To: Phil Elmore

Phil:

Pester you?  You are referring to a response to an article that you freely broadcast, and for which you solicited responses (see your WND web-page).

Secondly, nothing could be much more absurd that to suggest that the scriptures are not germane to the topic of property.  They define the topic… not some intellectual construct of ideas that men build up for their pleasure.

Lastly, you need not worry over my use of my company’s resources… I am a share-holder, you see… I’m the owner.

Benjamin Woodford
Sherwin Williams Co.
216-566-1834

I wrote back, “If you really are the owner of the company, Ben, you really ought to recognize the importance of intellectual property.  It worries me that you don’t.  It should worry any other shareholders as well.”

Benjamin B. Woodford <benjamin.b.woodford@sherwin.com> 
Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:44 AM 
To: Phil Elmore

By the way, Phil:

It is the Communists/socialists who believe that “the end justifies the means”… which is your whole argument about “intellectual property”  

By pointing out that you think we would end up ruining ourselves or dismissing people’s talents, you argue about the right or wrong of an issue, based on its consequences (which you imagine), rather than by looking at whether it is right or wrong.

Benjamin Woodford
Sherwin Williams Co.
216-566-1834

I wrote back, “That’s the problem, Ben — this isn’t an “end justifying the means” argument at all.  Rather, I’m pointing out the *logical contradiction* that occurs when we declare such labors to have no value, when clearly this is not the case in theory or practice.
 
“Truly logical arguments don’t reference religious dictates.  They fail automatically because of the subjective nature of religion.  If you want to persuade people of things, you’ve got to do so with logic using axiomatic premises.  That’s what my column does.”

Benjamin B. Woodford <benjamin.b.woodford@sherwin.com> 
Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:48 AM 
To: Phil Elmore

Au contraire, sir, I am the lead programmer and system architect  for our Lab Systems team.  

I am charged, at least as much as anyone else in the company, with maintaining “intellectual property”, since we house all of our secret formulae.

We do that by keeping them secret.  So does Coca-Cola.

Does that mean that the company does not leverage the government’s willing complicity, when secrets leak out?  Oh no, our legal department goes right to court.

But, that doesn’t make the litigation right.

Benjamin Woodford
Sherwin Williams Co.
216-566-1834

I wrote back, “So you’re charged with protecting something you don’t believe exists?  That sounds like a conflict of interest.  It also sounds immoral.”

Benjamin B. Woodford <benjamin.b.woodford@sherwin.com> 
Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:51 AM 
To: Phil Elmore

Mr Elmore:

All logical or deductive arguments begin with the following preface:  “Given …”

That is to say, they start with details that pre-exist the logical portion of the argument.  For the duration of the logical argument, those original conditions are un-questionable.

In issues of property, and all morality, those “givens” come from the commandments in the scripture.

Many men have taken it upon themselves to invent their own original conditions, for such discussions.  That behaviour leads to the very ruin that you have been preaching to me about.

Regards,

Benjamin Woodford 

Phil Elmore
Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:49 AM 
To: “Benjamin B. Woodford” <benjamin.b.woodford@sherwin.com> 

You’ve just told me that you’re responsible for protecting something you don’t believe exists, and that your company — a company you’ve said you own — pursues legal action to protect this same product you don’t believe exists.  Presumably this is done because it protects your profits (and rightly so) — yet you’ve indicated you don’t think intellectual property is morally right.
 
That makes you a hypocrite who is engaged in activities he believes are morally wrong because it profits him or the entity he owns.  That’s the very definition of the end justifying the means.

Benjamin B. Woodford <benjamin.b.woodford@sherwin.com> 
Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:54 AM 
To: Phil Elmore

Phil:

As I pointed out to you, what we actually do is keep things secret.  

People can say that we are protecting intellectual property, but we are not.  We could say that we are jumping up and down on one foot.  But we aren’t.  What we’re really doing is just keeping information secreted from others.

If we broadcast our formulae on the radio, like musicians do, then they will cease to be secret, and everyone will be able to use them.  Honest and serious men will not claim then that we have a “property” right to them.

Benjamin Woodford
Sherwin Williams Co.
216-566-1834 

I wrote back, “You’re rationalizing knowingly doing something you’ve said you believe to be morally wrong.”

Benjamin B. Woodford <benjamin.b.woodford@sherwin.com> 
Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:58 AM 
To: Phil Elmore

No sir, it doesn’t make me a hypocrite, but it might be argued to make me two-faced.

I am one of the owners of a corporation, and you’ll recall that I wrote that those fictions also should not exist.

I am also a real estate property-taxpayer… and those ought not to exist, too.

I also have a credit card from a fractional reserve banker, which ought not to exist.

However, in the real world, you must admit, it takes time to de-couple from these falsehoods.

Don’t worry, I am working on it.

I hope you will turn back from them, too.

Benjamin Woodford
Sherwin Williams Co.
216-566-1834 

I wrote back, “By definition, admitting that you do something you’ve also said you think is wrong is being a hypocrite.”  I did not bother to point out that “two-faced” and “hypocrite” bespeak the same thing.

Benjamin B. Woodford <benjamin.b.woodford@sherwin.com> 
Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:02 PM 
To: Phil Elmore

No, sir… “hypocrite” is a greek word that means “actor”, like Pearce Brosnan, for example.

If I intentionally pretended to be one thing, but in fact was another, that would be hypocrisy.

However, many folks forced into slavery probably think that enslavement is wrong.  That doesn’t make them hypocrites for slaving away.

If I tell you that I have no dealings with these evil governments and their institution, but was a simple peasant hermit in the catskills, that would be hypocrisy, since I am actually immersed in the matrix to this day.

Benjamin Woodford
Sherwin Williams Co.
216-566-1834 

I wrote back, finally, “Before you can live the morality you espouse to others, you’re going to have to come to terms with the fact that you’re knowingly doing something you believe to be morally wrong — because it profits you to do so.”

Mercifully, he stopped writing to me after that.