Initiating physical aggression to get my way in what? What are you talking about?
don’t play dumb and innocent, you know exactly what I am talking about. blood is on your hands by your positive/assertive support for your wants via initiating coercion.
Blood is on my hands? Really? Wilderness, what the hell are you talking about bro?
If someone steals from someone else then you’re damn right, I’m willing to use coercion to get them to give back what they’ve stolen. If someone harms someone else physically, damn right, I’ll use physical coercion to punish them for their actions.
Which still means there are those that do not consent. In other words, might make right.
I advocate letting people opt out of paying taxes or having to use state currency or being subject to state law. How is me not paying taxes, not using state currency, or not being subject to state law in any way using force? But I am sure the troll won’t be able to comprehend that statement.
As to real property, all real property is owned. The question comes down to, who has the best claim to the property. As to ideas, once they become public knowledge, everyone has them, and as such, no one can claim them. But you do not venture into the realm of logic, just might makes right.
Really? So when I copy a song, from your CD, it magically disappears? Or if I go to your concert and record it, you magically lose your ability to sing that song again? Oh wait, the troll doesn’t understand the difference between “copying” and “stealing”, because the troll doesn’t like to recognize reality.
And if I have a monopoly on providing electricity in an area and someone else builds a power plant, who gives a shit that I am now losing money to the new power plant? Cry me a river.
-
But what gives you the right to tell them what to do? What makes you think that your dissent gives you the special privilege to not play the game?
-
I advocate letting people opt out of paying taxes too. But the power to govern is the power to tax. As long as the government is going to be collecting the money, I’m going to advocate that it be spent in the ways that benefit me. But yeah I’ll back you on abolishing taxes.
-
But who has the right to collect on the royalties? The person who created the content or the people who’ve stolen it and used it? IP is the right of the producer to collect revenue on their product. Everyone knows about McDonald’s doesn’t mean they have the right to go make one without the owner’s consent.
-
Did I make the CD? No. Some artist did. And they have a label. And there were probably millions of dollars spend on development, editing, distribution, etc. They have to make that money back by selling their product, but apparently, once someone else has heard the product of their labor, they don’t own it anymore. Why make anything IP based if someone can just come steal it from me?
-
The thing is that they can’t just package your energy plant into a Mp3 file and then send it halfway across the world where it can be unzipped and rebuilt there. But, if they were to take your energy plant and then use it for themselves. Or deny you the profits you get from your customers, they’d be doing the same thing IP pirates do to music companies, video game publishers, and movie studios.
Wait, doesn’t the Mises Institute have rights to reproduce the material on this site?
In particular, the Mises books, the Rothbard books, etc?
You’re saying that IP is sound because government enforces it?
No, I’m saying the government enforces it because IP is sound.
That’s right, that’s how our government works. You’re not making any different claim than they are, just that you’re right and they’re not. You would use force against them to get your way.
You would steal people’s ideas and the fruits of their intellectual labor and deny them compensation for the time and energy they put into creating them. You’re no better than the people you claim to oppose.
But seriously though, doesn’t Mises Institute have the material they distribute protected by some kind of copyright or license?
And you are obviously a troll.
So that’s ok?
If we’re making the same claim, how can one be right and one be wrong?
Force against who? The government? Possibly. There are the ones who have to prove legitimacy to me. They are the ones who steal from me.
Where does the stealing happen?
As for the hard work… who cares? I don’t believe in the labor theory of value. The point isn’t to work hard, it’s to provide something that other people want.
Your logic is bankrupt and out of touch with reality. You don’t care about protecting the fruits of people’s labor.
I understand the people on this site aren’t for putting Jews in ovens, but unfortunately, Nazi Germany still plays the democracy game. So for better or worse, that’s the context in which these rules have to be considered.
Make sense?
There is no such thing as intellectual property. It is a non-concept. It can’t even be described coherently under any system of property rights I have heard. It is intellectual monopoly, and I wish people would refer to it that way, to make clear that IP [sic] is created by the state to award privilege to some individuals at the expense of the market at large.
-
It’s a damn sight better than what you’re proposing.
-
The point is that you don’t believe might doesn’t make right, just that your might is legitimate and theirs is not.
-
Why? What makes you so special? Why does the majority have to prove anything to you? You would treat them the same way. You’re not different.
-
When someone takes a intellectual product and makes money by distributing it even though they did nothing to create it. It’s just like how taxes involve taking away the value of a worker’s labor, so does stealing IP involve the theft of the producer’s labor. It’s the same thing. But you claim to protect one and not the other. Inconsistent.
-
This doesn’t follow. I’m talking about protecting people’s property, not killing people. But, since you’ve brought up a flaw with democracy, I will admit that democracies can fail. But this is not an instance of democratic failure. Just because democracies can fail doesn’t mean they always do.
-
So is private property. It gives individuals a monopoly over their own property at the expense of the market at large. It would be better for everyone who didn’t own the private property if the owner’s rights weren’t protected. But that would be taking away the fruits of the labor of the owner. In much the same way that the destruction of IP would take away from the labor of the producer.
-
Does the Mises Institute have copyrights on the material it spreads or not?
That’s just how you feel. It’s a non sequitur.
So they are different claims?
The majority does not have a claim on ownership of me. If they want a claim of ownership on me or my property, they have to prove it to me that they are deserving or in the right.
Just because someone creates an idea doesn’t mean they can profit from it.
Just because someone didn’t create an idea doesn’t mean that they can’t profit from it.
Indeed it does. You made an appeal to democracy and an appeal to “this is the context of the discussion, how it is”
I simply pointed out that in the 1940s, your argument would amount to, democracy puts Jews in ovens, so this is the context we have to look at it.
Your appeals were non-sensical.
It is a failure of any monopoly state, of which democracy is only one kind. Yes, it is a failure of democracy, but specifically, a failure of statism.
So is private property what?
No it doesn’t, because property can only have one owner at a time, as it is scarce. You and I can’t both claim 100% ownership over my car. But you and I can both claim 100% ownership over the idea of having fried eggs and bacon for breakfast, or rowing a boat without coming into conflict over control of the idea.
The rest of your point #2 is incoherent. Please make an argument, your use of sarcasm or irony isn’t well presented.
Why would that matter? The Mises Institute doesn’t speak for me. What they do isn’t indicative of the position of everyone in this forum, let alone everyone who is a member. Is this another failed attempt at arguing by assertion, and trying to use an authority as a proof?
FYI, LvMI has copyright only because the state forces it. Everything on Mises.org is Creative Commons and can be distributed freely. The fact that LvMI does not participate in intellectual monopoly, is why it is so successful in spreading ideas. Because society does not progress when ideas are restricted in ownership. That should be intuitive to anyone who spends more than 5 minutes considering how markets work, and understands competition, monopoly and coercion.
Nearly 100% of these circular discussions, all come down to a lack of economic education by people who insist upon arguing philosophy and politics. If one has a basic grasp of austrian ideas, and simple economic theory, the answers are somewhat self-evident.