This looks like a great conference! How could it not be with special guest Nina Paley?
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/11725/iona-college-on-ip/
Iona College on IP
Previous post: Huebert’s Libertarianism Today
Next post: The Anarcho-Capitalist Tie
{ 62 comments }
← Previous Comments
Scott continues this moral vacuum you all are in by saying:
Theft has a definite meaning, as does copying. Theft means removing property without consent. Copying means propogating a pattern through the use of some medium of communication. The two ARE NOT the same. They ARE NOT interchangeable.
If you download my ebook without paying me for it, you have stolen it.
Your claim of property rights in patterns is really a claim to prevent pattern propogation.
No, it is the ultimate claim that individual human beings have original thoughts, ideas and expression. Your argument, ‘patterns’, is the ultimate collectivist Gulag thinking that rests on obliterating the very notion of the individual, and posits, thus, the supposed omnipotence of the hive mind.
This is partly why the IPless argument is so evil, and the death of freedom (once you remove the individual from the centre of the world, notions such as freedom are irrelevant).
Until you can distinguish the vast differences between IP and real property, you will be stuck in a mental feedback loop.
Until you realise that copying my ebook without payment, forging, is no different, morally, to stealing my car, you continue to sanction theft and destroy the possibility of a free society.
I’m going to ask you one more time to leave your emotional baggage at the door.
My reason leads me to despise theft of property and be very emotional about it.
And you’re going to ask me ‘one more time’. Or what? You planning on initiating force or something?
I think I speak for most here when I say that I have no personal interest in acquiring stockpiles of the entertainment media
But you see nothing wrong with doing so. And by ‘acquiring’ lets be honest, you mean stealing.
Mossy said:
Hubbard’s Utopia would also imprison those who don’t recognize his fascist schemes. If you say, try to sell something that you have developed, only to find that someone else got to Hubbard’s Utopian government first and got a patent on it, and Hubbard’s thugs tell you to cease and desist, if you ignore them they will try to arrest you. And if you resist this “State that wields no force” [!] you will be killed.
Would be killed would they? Look at the Nanny States we have now, when was the last IP theft put to the electric chair then? This is way beyond even hyperbole.
You do your argument no good going to these absurd claims and ends.
A minarchist, limited government, by its very mandate, cannot initiate force, it is there solely to protect the freedom of the individual, including property rights, and to enforce the non initiation of force principle. It represents freedom as opposed to the rule of the gang with the biggest gun in anarchy land.
And look, so long as IP is recognised as the property it is, the products of mens minds, then you don’t even need the state policing it: Kinsella himself gives a solution this morning I’m quite happy with, with the minarchy not even needing to be registrar, that being a function of the private sector:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/011731.asp
Quote:
Fine. IP should be a matter for the courts, and of course the framework for the courts are one of the few, and primary functions of limited government protecting the freedoms of individuals. This is entirely consistent with a miniarchist state, indeed, is impossible without one.
“electric chair”
What an absolute imbecile! Can he not read? OK, I swear this is the last time, I really mean it: Assuming, as in my city, there is a smoking ban, go to your local bar, make it one where the ownership sympathizes with you (I’ve probably already lost Hubbard here), so that is not the issue. Start smoking until a cop comes to stop you. Don’t stop smoking, do not stop resisting their insanity in any way. It is possible that they may be able to get you in a padded cell for life, but if you never stop resisting their violations of all that is sensible, they will most probably kill you at some point. And Hubbard’s thugs would have to do the same to someone who “illegally” reads Hubbard’s idiotic ebook and refuses to give in to their insanity and violent force.
Now the response: “This has nothing to do with smoking bans”. I am completely against that. In my minarchy, blah, blah, blah, you just want to steal my property.” Wow, what a putz.
And I don’t smoke *or* read books (at any price) by people who would either flunk logic 101 or are inveterate liars.
There would be no banning of smoking in a minarchy. That’s no business of any government.
A limited government minarchy could not initiate force.
And you’re right, smoking bans have nothing to do with IP.
You’re starting to sound positively unhinged mossey. Get a grip.
And you answered to nothing I said in my post. Look at the last part of it. I agree with Kinsella’s post, IP doesn’t even need to be in the jurisdiction of a state, it’s the proper place for the courts. But you need a minarchy to provide the framework for such a justice system to handle these issues.
Yeah I sounded unhinged, I was imitating you! Then you almost exactly follow my prediction as if you didn’t just read it!
Yes, I didn’t have anything else to say, I read your moronic “electric chair” comment, was floored, as I’ve never encountered anyone so daft outside of Youtube and then I read nothing else. I *will* read nothing else. You are impossibly obtuse and I think I’m one of the last people here nutty enough to read anything you scribble. I don’t want to be the very last. Goodbye, yet again, and may god have mercy on your soul.
“If you download my ebook without paying me for it, you have stolen it.”
Evasion. You refuse to show a derivation or otherwise connect the concepts “theft” and “copy” in a meaningful way. The actus reus of every English-speaking criminal law I know spells the definition of theft out in no uncertain terms and in a way that is completely incompatible with your own personal definition.
“No, it is the ultimate claim that individual human beings have original thoughts, ideas and expression.”
What does forcibly preventing the creation of a copy have to do with acknowledging the originator of an idea?
“Your argument, ‘patterns’, is the ultimate collectivist Gulag thinking that rests on obliterating the very notion of the individual, and posits, thus, the supposed omnipotence of the hive mind.”
Well, that was a fun diversion into irrelevance. If patterns did not propogate, human beings could never learn and ideas really would never leave their creators (if people could even truly form what we would call ideas, absent language). Think about it, isn’t the uncontrolled propogation of ideas what IP law seeks to limit? If that description bothers you, feel free to come up with your own. The hive mind thing is kinda silly, so I’ll just ignore it for now.
“This is partly why the IPless argument is so evil, and the death of freedom (once you remove the individual from the centre of the world, notions such as freedom are irrelevant).”
And all because we don’t criminalize copying.
“And you’re going to ask me ‘one more time’. Or what? You planning on initiating force or something?”
Yeah, sure. I’m gonna fly to New Zealand and go all anti-life on you. More likely I’ll just go back to ignoring you.
You don’t have to fly to New Zealand, you’re initiating force just by copying his words in your reply! Prepare to be rendered down for soap.
To Mark Hubbard
IP stands against property rights on a fundamental level.
The owners of blank cds encoded with IP protected material instantly lose their full property rights of the cds themselves. Or if I print “threepeat” on my teeshirts my
right to sell or distribute them, for free even, are now controlled by Pat Riley. Now this doesn’t address whether you should think, believe, or know IP to be proper. I’m just saying don’t argue IP is synonomous or works in tandem with property rights. IP abrogates property rights. That’s IP’s point.
Dear Andras,
if unauthorised copying causes you to see things, lose conciousness or experience pain, maybe you should consult a medical specialist.
To Mark Hubbard:
“A minarchist state wields no force: it cannot do anything that restricts the freedom of the individuals within it. It exists to protect property rights, and to police the non initiation of force principle.”
You are simply wrong: A state is an organization that is per definition initiating force.
A state (minarchist one included!) is not compatible with the non-aggression principle.
Try to understand that.
To the ip-friends:
1) Imagine you had a car, that you built yourself. Your neighbor sees that car and builds a replica. Is that a violation of your “rights”?
2) Imagine you had a garden which you designed in a special way. Your neighbor sees that garden and changes his garden to match yours. Is that a violation of your “rights”?
3) Imagine you had a hairdo which you designed in a special way. Your neighbor sees that hairdo and changes his hairs to match yours. Is that a violation of your “rights”?
In all of the above cases: Why? How so?
Dear antiip,
allow me to intervene a bit. With regards to your questions, Kerem would probably say that you are choosing situations where it is it unclear if there is a contract and what its content is. To avoid this problem, you should rephrase the questions. Instead of “your neighbour sees” I recommend “your neighbour describes it to a third party”. That is a more accurate analogy of IP, as both only apply to situations that involve third parties.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.