Sure, and that’s how the market is supposed to work. People who are willing to pay more to get free [sic] software, will pay more for an ISP that doesn’t restrict such. Personally, I think that it’s almost impossible to police warez at the network level. That business model is paying someone to have less customers. Totally doable in the market, but I think ultimately futile and unsustainable.
Since your question is hypothetical, we’re just goofing off trying to answer it, although I will say that if your selling price is 20 times your competitor, either he is leaving money on the table, or you are out to lunch with your pricing. The only person who cares about creative costs, is the creator. How you value your time, how much capital you consume to complete the project. That is your problem, just as it is the consumers problem to come up with enough money to buy your product.
Why would someone be completely unprotected? Do people do exchanges, warranties and refunds without a receipt?
They don’t have to give up their investments. They can keep them locked in a safe.
I think people are resistant to change. In the future, I think you will see more people using open source GPL, and using more public domain frameworks and scaffolds and the like. Development will be faster because we can reuse more code, and we have more people using and refining and securing that code. Decentralization is the future, not behemoths like Microsoft. Particularly in fields of science, technology and medicine. Co-operation via the division of labour is a lot more efficient than designing bespoke system after bespoke system.
I used to think about IP in exactly the same way you do, so I really do appreciate your point of view. I still think it’s in really bad taste to take someone’s work and sell it, but if the non-aggression principle is the litmus test, then I have to admit that there was no force used, only free choices made. But when I thought about the free market more, I realized that there are ways of essentially getting rid of what we’d call IP theft today. It won’t eliminate it, but I would argue that you’d have a tougher time pirating things in a free market than you would now. Obviously a lot of people disagree with that, but think of the limitless ways a free market can arrange contracts, which are enforceable. Especially consider something like the 3rd party contract I mentioned to liberty student or my nuclear weapon example. I’m not saying these are ideal approaches, but they do represent a mechanism by which the market can “regulate” itself. There are creative, non-violent, solutions out there.
Who owns air? Surely value cannot be the end-all-be-all method of determining property, as Rothbard points out. In fact, since value is entirely subjective as opposed to the fact of scarcity, how can you defend this?
Here is where LS and many other Austrians have an issue, since they argue that you can’t be forced to do anything there is in essence no valid contracts. Since enforcement of the contract might entail force it becomes invalid in their mind. So your example about the restrctions on property that you might sell are invalid because once you ahve sold it you no longer own it and they don’t have to abide by the contract.
The absence of enforceable contracts makes everything uncertain.
Whenever you mention contracts on this forum most of the folks run and hide.
That is what I’ve tried to point out through the course of my last few posts over the lasts couple of pages this morning. I think you are correct in your assertion that the free market will come up with incredible ways of preventing piracy that are more effective than current methods in light of state rule. I know that this assertion is difficult to argue, and I’ve yet to see it effectively argued in the course of this discussion.
Frustrating discussion, but certainly not offensive. No hard feelings here. Btw, if someone argued that IP was not property with me a year ago, my argument would have been similar to yours. And that’s not to imply I am more evolved in opinion, but that I can identify with where you are coming from.
As you said, there is a lot to digest, and a lot of premises to check.
Agreed. This has been a fascinating discussion to take part in as a recent anarchist-convert. I have learned an incredible amount, and this is thanks to you, Maxliberty, Jparker, Peter, Giles, and any others who have contributed. While I have certainly chosen sides for the time being, I owe many thanks to those who have opposed me and joined me for the time being.
Value is determined by scarcity. So it is not possible to have value without scarcity. So when air is scarce, it has value (like when you are under water), and when it is not scarce it has no value.
Scarcity is subjective as well since it is based on demand. I may have no interest in something you want so for me it has no value and is not scarce. You may want the same thing so from your perspective its scarce.
That is also irrelevant. No product fills every need. No product family, no single development process.
Not at all. I cannot say that “commercial software” would not exist without patent and copyright to prop it up, but I can assert with reasonable assurance that the reason that commercial software is so big is because of the artificial monopolies of copyright and patent.
Your condition that in order to be viable “OpenSource” has to make as much money as commercial software does is silly on its face. I am not a failed teacher because I do not make money at it.
Would commercial software make as much money as OpenSource companies would without those monopolies? I don’t know. I don’t think you do either. However, I would love to see it tried.
“as well”? I’m only against the artificial monopoly grants of copyright and patent. Don’t go putting words in my mouth, either.
This discussion encompasses copyright and patent, laws which specifically are designed to prevent competition. If that isn’t a “law that prevents”, I don’t know what is.
No need to throw a tantrum. I’ll leave you alone, now. Good boy.
Contracts relate to future actions. So without enforceable contracts any action which has a dependent future action is now uncertain. Contracts are designed to increase stability and certainty between parties. If all enforcement of contracts is by definition coercion then future actions become substantially less certain.
As usual LS whenever anyone presents the idea of contracts you always respond with that people do not have the right to make those contracts. So as you were previously asked why dont you answer and explain why the various contract scenarios outlined in this thread all violate your rights?
I have asked you a half dozen times for a definition. You waited until I provided one to say you agreed with it.
Then you proceeded to disagree with yourself.
So, I’m not bitching and moaning at all. This is what I expect from you. Never admit you’re wrong, always argue subjectively, and attribute straw man positions to your opponents in debate, so that you can avoid answer direct questions.
Again, I don’t know if you are ignorant or a liar. I was your biggest supporter on this forum, but your irrational arguments and loathsome behaviour make it hard to stand by your side. I’d like to believe I support people with an interest in learning and honesty.
I’m actually able to laugh at how deluded you are. You continue to create false attributions. Straw men. That is a tactic others here use. It’s way of arguing subjectively, and not objectively. It’s also dishonest.
I’m actually giving you a little of the benefit of the doubt that you might not be lying on purpose, but ignorant or confused.
Feel free to source where I say these things, if you’re not lying.
I think LS already addressed this a long time ago by stating that you cannot make contracts regarding something that cannot be owned by anybody. It does not make any sense. If you have a problem with his assertion, you should address it explicitly.