That’s not what IP is. I suggest the following short book by Stephan Kinsella called Against Intellectual Property (pdf).
If the court and police are run on a voluntary basis, won’t this give a big advantage in a trial to those who give a lot?
-
What do you mean by “run on a voluntary basis”?
-
Prove that it would “give a big advantage in a trial to those who give a lot”.
That it’s not funded by plunder
.
I think it follows from common sense.
Common sense is subjective.
Ooops. I think I clicked on “post” too many times.
Sextuple posts are awesome.
Anyhow, aliment is just repeating a common objection to private security and trying to back it up with an argumentum ad populem. I seriously doubt that he is here to do anything other than waste people’s time. Don’t fall for it.
He’s not wasting anyone’s time. People are voluntarily responding to him. If you don’t like his questions, avoid his threads.
Actually, he is playing devil’s advocate and presenting arguments people are giving him. He’s trying to learn via the socratic method which is something I also like to do.
Bear in mind, there are hundreds of lurkers on here at any given time. They will also be reading these questions and answers. Our audience is enormous, our capacity to reach people is great.
They should be run for profit. Courts and police should have a fiscal incentive to reduce crime, and to adjudicate fairly. Bad cops and bad judges should go bankrupt. But to conceive of such a system, you have to imagine there is no positive legislator driving these people to create and manage artificial conflicts in society. Right now, cops and judges make more money if there are more crimes and more conflicts. The incentives are backwards.
Why would the other party, having less money, agree to a court where justice could be purchased? Also, why would the poorer party not negotiate directly for compensation then, rather than have the defendant pay the money to a court? Again, you have to unwind what you know, and start thinking from scratch, because we’re talking about a completely different system, not just tweaking the existing one.
I was waaaaaay too active in his campaign online. It almost took over my life.
No fake account. If I had better time management and showed more patience, we could have more convos like this. Anyone can do it. Just stay calm and don’t assume the other person is here to cause trouble.
If it is a voluntary contract, that is fine. But what if I walk by your house, and I hear a recording you are playing? It’s not possible for me to violate a contract I never agreed to. Are you in violation for playing the music so that others can hear it? In many cases, these situations surrounding IP are completely irrational.
There, cleaned that up for you. [:)]
So are rights.
My friend suggests that libertarians should not be forced to pay taxes, but at the same time those who wanted to should be allowed to pay taxes so that the government could build schools, roads etc. She suggests that non-tax payers should pay tickets to use the roads, while tax payers should drive for free. Is this unfair?
Spot on! Some people call it trolling. I call it it the best way of learning.
But how?
I like the socratic method too and perhaps my perception of you was wrong. That isn’t to say though that I am not still skeptical based on some of your earlier comments (not just in this thread). I balked at anarchy just a year or so ago, so I will try to forgive you if you do too.
I think you should put a bit more effort into critical thinking on your own, questioning if what you are saying is an obvious fallacy, and researching on your own though. “It’s common sense” is not a valid argument. At one time most everyone believed that the sun revolved around the Earth.
I gave you a good reference for your questions on private legal systems in a previous thread. One link was The Market for Liberty. No offense, but you aren’t breaking new ground here, just asking for information, and I am giving it to you.
PDF from ch. 7
No, they are not. Not even statists believe that. Ask a socialist if a the right to healthcare is subjective or objective.
This is exactly what libertarians call for. If people want to pool their money together to but plots of land to build schools and schools, they are free to do so as long as they don’t coerce anyone else to do so. But that is not how modern governments work.
If the contract said that the buyer should be imprisoned or fined if he broke the deal, would that be ok, or is it just a moral issue? And is a copyright a real contract? Wouldn’t you have to sign it?
I beleive all of your answers can be found in Walter Blocks book.
There is an audio version available for download also.
Defending the Undefendable
Walter Block