No, but you also cannot require that someone pay for it once you have thrown it away, and as extension, if the community were to pick it up and place it for public use, after voluntary release from you, the community does not have the requirement to acquiesce to the demand of another individual to purchase said chair.
If the monopoly it created by the free market, i.e. all competitors fail or there is no competition, is that wrong? How are laws that create monopolies any better than those that destroy them?
If I create art for my personal enjoyment, do I have a monopoly on said art? Where is the right to choose what I do with the product of my mind?
Even if said copy is an overall reduction of net gain?
To clarify, only individuals can own things. Otherwise, you have a conflict of interest. Now, individuals can agree to co-ownership. You could even have a whole neighborhood agree to build a park and pay for the upkeep of the park. This could be “public” property. But it is still owned by the individuals in the neighborhood. So, let’s say someone threw away a chair, put it out for the garbage company to pick up. And let’s say that someone got to it before the garbage company did and puts it in the park. Now anyone can use it. But, someone could come to the park association and ask to buy the chair. The association could sell the chair, and now an individual owns it again.
So, if there really is such a thing as “IP”, then one should be able to buy and sell it forever. And again, “intellectual property” is just the idea of owning ideas. Anything else is just arbitrary. The letter A is an idea, and as such, I should be able to own the letter A, and sue anyone that uses it without my permission, if IP really exists.
All monopolies are government created monopolies. There is no such thing as a free market monopoly. At least none that we have ever seen come into existence.
When I say a power company has a monopoly, I am saying that the government gave it a monopoly. That it was told by the government, “you can provide power to such and such an area, and we will not let anyone else provide power to that area.” A patent or copyright is the government telling someone, “you and only you can produce such and such an item, and we will not let anyone else produce it.”
If you paint a picture, and someone comes into your home and sees it, then they should be able to go home and recreate it. Again, copying is not a synonym of stealing. If you do not want it to become public, then by all means, create a private room with all your paintings, and do not show them to anyone.
I am not sure what you are getting at here. As I said, you can paint stuff, and stick it in your own little private room where only you can go to admire your works of art!
Do you think the government should grant monopolies to power companies, simply because they were the first one to build a power company in a region? Do you think it is fair for them to lose revenue if someone else builds a power plant to compete with them?
You are just talking about illegal copying. That is it.
I don’t understand this. If someone cannot back up their words with force, then it is just speech. Aggression is physical force.
No. Not everyone in the world is violent towards others. Are you implying that man cannot choose to interact peacefully?
Market exchange.
I didn’t understand this. Put simply, socialism cannot calculate. It cannot determine price, because there is no exchange process.
The most logical formula is non-aggression (voluntarism).
Value is subjective. It differs from person to person. Free willed people will value things differently, so constructing a social paradigm based on your values, only means it satisifies you, it does not mean it will or should satisfy anyone else.
The NAP is very simple. Force should only be used in self-defense, in other words, defensive force is not prohibited, only aggressive force. Simpler yet, consent is required when people interact.
There is no utopian trap. No one is proposing that everyone will agree. No one is proposing no one will aggress. That is completely irrelevant. The principle of non-aggression is fundamental to a peaceful society.
I don’t understand this. What is “equal”?
It’s not my opinion, it is a logical deduction. It is impossible for you to account for every circumstance. So when you begin to account for precise circumstances in your construction of a definition of liberty, you will necessarily be excluding the unknown unknowns. It is a knowledge problem.
The NAP is quite simple, and because it is simple, it can be applied broadly. If someone interacts with you without consent, that is aggression.
Ok, I get that. But you confuse liberty with living free as defined by you. You don’t allow for free will, where someone can choose to live unfree by your own definitions. You might think it is unfree to be punched in the face each day. But if you consent, then it is an act of free will, and a state of freedom.
The issue of freedom is always consent. And yes, we live in a world where people do not consent. The Constitution is based on implicit consent, not explicit consent, that is to say, you are assumed to be susceptible to it, you are never asked to voluntarily choose it. This is why it has no authority. To have authority, it must be accepted freely and universally.
I don’t know where you are quoting me from on this, but I don’t recall writing this within this discussion. One of my pet peeves is being quoted out of context.
No. Don’t understand.
Again, out of context. I have no idea where you are quoting this from.
There is no way to reduce net gain because it is not a zero sum game.
Ah the flaws of the Constitution. Perhaps most importantly it should be pointed out, the powers of the Constitution extend nowhere beyond the state apparatus. It is interpreted by the state and yet it is suppose to ‘limit’ the state. One can obviously see the absurdity in the premise that a document is suppose to restrain government yet vest all of its power within the halls of government.
They were actually my quotes. I am not sure how your name got stuck in them. I assume he is just trying to get used to the quoting system. I fixed them when I responded to them.
Actually, I think it does a surpisingly good job. Unfortunately, the founding fathers obviously believed the government needed to “get things done”. If they would have just restricted the power of the government even more (not giving it the right to coin money for example) and if they would have given legislators full veto power, and if they would have increased the number of legislators, I think things would be a lot better.
For clarification, I am an anarchist, but I believe the masses need some kind of government, so the best thing is to give them an ineffective one.
Well first we have to establish which ‘Founding Fathers’ you are talking about. Then please do establish by what right these ‘Founding Fathers’ had to establishing this Constitution or even the Articles of Confederation. It is not that the ‘plan’ of the ‘Founding Fathers’ had failed, but they established a revolutionary premise on a faulty paradaigm. No government in the history of humanity has ever retarded its own growth nor has it sustained low, unobtrusive measures.
I do not classify someone who believes in the necesscity of government as an Anarchist.
Several ‘Founding Fathers’ actually didn’t sign the Constitution.
So you are a professor of ‘might equals right’?
The growth of power in government didn’t suddenly present itself right after the ratification of the Constitution, it is a cumulative ordeal.
As a follower of Austrian economics, you cannot claim ignorance in at least knowing Gaelic Ireland which lasted for 1,000 years and was only stopped because the imperialism of a nation that would conquer 1/4 of the world
Call me a utopian/idealist for I honestly care not what title you give me but if pragatism means inconsistency and contradiction then a utopian/idealist I will happily remain.
Nope. I am just talking about reality vs. ideology. The reality was, and is, that they were not challenged. The only "rights’ that exist are those that you can defend. You only have a “right” to live, insomuch as you can defend yourself. Otherwise you get dead if someone is attacking you with the intent to kill and you are unable to defend yourself.
The main fallacy in the Constitution, IMO, as I pointed out, is the fact that they gave too much power to Congress. If each legislator had full veto power, and we had ten times as many legislators, nothing would ever be accomplished in government.
I sure can. But, doing a little research, “It was often ruled as an elective monarchy, with a High King (Ard Rí) nominated from among the rulers of the patchwork of Irish kingdoms. However, those who became High Kings often did so by force or other means.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaelic_Ireland). Maybe wikipedia is wrong?
How is an ineffective government inconsistent? What does it matter if 10,000 people get together and vote on stuff and everything is shot down because one person vetoes it? And what if the only “power” this government has is to vote? My dream of an ineffective government is probably just as much a pipe dream as yours of no government. But I am still an anarchist.
So you have no right to live if you are murdered? Then pray tell what is the point of criminal punishment?
So your plan in stopping the growth of government is to INCREASE the size of the governmental body?
I speak of course of the tuath which from my understanding elected a leader as a religious figure and a head of battles. A voluntary community which one can leave and enter at one’s will.
Who is this one person? And pray tell how you establish legislation in which one person has the power to completely destroy the legislation?
If the only power of this fictional government is just to vote then no one need listen to them and their existence is beign and will soon pass out of existence.
To punish someone for harming another without his or her consent.
And giving the legislators full veto power. That means that any one of them could veto any legislation brought to a vote.
Sorry, I could not find any information on these people or their society.
Like I have said, each and every legislator would have full veto power. That means that in order for a vote to pass, you would need 100% of the legislators saying yes, in essence giving each of them full veto power, because even if one says no, then the legislation would not pass.
Maybe. Maybe not. But given that it seems people want a government (67% of the people approve of Obama), I think we need one that is as ineffective as possible while at the same time satisfying the masses need to have one.
First of all, I am not a Constitutionalist. They usually like the Constitution as it now stands just fine.
Second of all, I did not feel it appropriate to go into all the details of each “Founding Father”. I think it is enough to say they signed the damn thing, regardless of their beliefs.
Fantastic, we can just degrade into a Sadien world. Murders can run free, rapists unpunished and thieves the new wealth holders. For if one has no right if they cannot defend themself then all is possible, legal and moral. Applying this concept to the State apparatus, why are you an Anarchist? For if one has no right unless it can be defended and the State is constantly stealing, murdering and psychologically raping its citizenry then the state has a ‘right’ to it.
Harming them in what manner? They had a right to it since citizen A cannot defend themself from citizen B.
Why would you need to increase the size of the legislative branch in order to do that?
Rothbard makes mention of it. I forget whither it is Ethics of Liberty or For New Liberty
And society will pay the salary of these individuals? I think not.
Its not ACTUALLY 67% of the country…they are survey’s based on 1000 takers. How would this government sustain itself? And what will force people to listen to it?