Why not?
How about faking trade marks (clothes, watches etc)?
I thought it was funny in what the newie said.[:D] I laughed especially with that adjective big. I don’t know where that leaves such scientific things as manslaughter, homicide, home invasion, etc…lol, all in good fun and letting humor clear the air as I really hope “big” could be clarified. It’s he’s so new, baiting, or in serious error. shrugs
A fake trademark is fraud. If I sell you a watch, and tell you it is a genuine rolex, when it is a knockoff, that is a misrepresentation, which means I have cheated (stolen from) you in trade.
He’s been a good sport so far, dare I say, better than some of the regulars here who have become quite trollish in the last several months. Thus far, I’ve seen no evidence of baiting.
You make me learn, I make you laugh. Good deal.
So? What you the right over other people’s lives?
Yes. What right do libertarians have to not allow a grocery stores to sell heoine?
No.
It would be fraudulent to sell a watch as a Rolex if it is not actually Rolex.
But you don’t oppose copying music, books etc, and distributing it on the internet?
What gives you the right over your child’s life?
None. I agree that it doesn’t make sense, but why are everyone laughing at me and calling me an stupid anarchist when I tell this to people? They just say “That’s the way we’re doing it in our society. Follow our rules. If you don’t like them, you’re free to move somewhere else”.
But it’s ok to sell a fake watch if you’re admitting it’s fake?
That’s the spirit! [Y]
To answer your question, “big problems” are best solved through voluntary, non-violent effort (rather than by a coercive government).
When you think about it, government initiatives can only be sustained by governmental force. That means theft, kidnapping, murder, etc. Not very creative. Very destructive.
An example of creative problem-solving would be something like this.
I don’t oppose copying. That is not the same as making a dishonest exchange.
IP is a very complicated topic and requires a deep understanding of property rights. You might want to dodge this one for a couple weeks.
Ironically, I am watching Stephan Kinsella’s incredibly dry presentation at ASC 2009 right now on my laptop. Kinsella is the resident expert on IP.
[Y][:D] I’m sure you have knowledge to offer in return seeing how you understand! Understanding is an art and those that paint such beauties from understanding offer something to the world in forms of truth that banish not only evils but help reach out to others a helping hand so we all may be able to enjoy such an honorable view! [:)]
At least you’re thinking now.
Who’s calling you a “stupid anarchist”?
No. Fake implies deceit.
The fact that a child is completely dependant upon his parents for survival.
The State is not the “parent” of its subjects. It subjects are fully capable of making their own decisions and running their own lives. The State, on the other hand, only survives by parasitically devouring the lives and wealth of its subjects.
The State is the ultimate disobedient child.
So you don’t think downloading music, book etc should be illegal? How about watching child porn?
many reasons for this… They have perceptions on what they think is happening, but without a curiosity for truth to rise above the flooding swamp of lies anybody will follow anybody even if it meant taking candy from a stranger and in some analogous sense any unnumbered people didn’t listen to this advice of their mothers. So whatever the handouts politicians provide some people each election year take such handouts thinking he’s such a nice man or woman, but do you really know them!
I think it is a victimless crime.
The creation of the porn, is probably the violation of someone’s rights, most likely the child’s, and so I oppose it. However, people looking at child porn are (in my opinion) sick, and sending them to jail, isn’t going to cure them of wanting to look at child porn. That, like the entire bit about raising children, is complicated ethically. In this case, it’s probably clear the child can’t give consent, and at the same time, this is an area where the consent of the parent may not be sufficient to represent the long term consequences for the child.
Nobody here. People I’m trying to convince. I live in a social democratic society where people are well off , trust one another (including the government) and pay heavy taxes happily believing that they get even more in return. Adopting libertarian views is unthinkable to most people here. “Why adopt a new experimental system when things are working out better than anywhere else?”
What is more, why should the state supercede the parents?
These are extreme social views. These views do not represent the mainstream anywhere. If you asked me about this stuff 10 years ago, I would have thought you were nuts. You are probably way ahead of the curve when it comes to ethics and rational thinking than a lot of people around you.
It is a real art, to learn where to pick your spots to discuss this. For most people, it is a major change in perspective that may seem evil, mean, vicious, dangerous. I’m 34 and I only have a handful of people in my life, after 2 years, who can listen to this stuff and not think I am slightly crazy.
I mean, I am against theft and violence in all of its forms. Totally wacko. [:D]
So you might want to keep this on the down low, at least until you are comfortable with the typical objections to make your own defense of the ideas that you feel strongly about. Whichever ones those are, I am not presuming you are taking any of this at face value, nor should you. You have to feel comfortable with these ideas (or not) in your own rational mind.
Well, there is nothing wrong with voluntarily paying “heavy taxes” to an organization that provides services to its payees. However, why should other people be forced to pay “heavy taxes” to that same organization for said services? If Warren Buffet shops at the local grocery, should everyone in his town be forced to shop there too?