These are not synonmyous. You can have corporations where there is unlimited shareholder liability, or non-corporations (e.g. limited liability partnerships) where there is limited liability. Ending state incorporation does not automatically impose liability on the investor.

You see, the argument isn’t really indirect benefits vs free markets, it’s statist interventionism vs true economic freedom. The problem is that many libertarians, such as yourself, are unwilling to accept that a true free market system would be much more localized, businesses would generally be much smaller, and globalist corporatism would ultimately fail. To a true market anarchist, this concept would be simple: the system has to be smashed before true freedom can exist. The freedom of privilege to sleep at the slave masters feet is no freedom at all.

And, as an aside, the body recognizes sugar as sugar and metabolizes only simple sugars, be it from vodka, cane, corn, all the body can utilize is simple sugar.(Not literally, chemically) This corn issue is getting ridculous. I hear actual warring commercials on the radio about sugars.

Nor am I giving you advice. I am explaining what libertarianism is. It’s your business whether you think such a philosophy is worth supporting or not. When did I ever tell you what you should do? I only told you that your arguments are not sound, usually by using their form on a different premise to reach an absurd conclusion (reductio ad absurdum).

“As you’ve ignored several times above, I’m not telling anyone what to do.”

I’m sure you don’t mean to be.

“My beef is with government skewing the market toward what I believe is an inferior product, causing me to have to pay not only for the subsides on those products but also the full cost of higher quality products.”

Well, what percentage of your tax money goes to farm subsidies? This is what the point is. As Walter Block says, I think you’re focusing on the mouse when there is an elephant in the room. If you are upset at having your money taken out of your pocket (quite reasonable) I just find it strange to focus so much on what a tiny sliver of that money is going to. But that assumes the problem is with food subsidies, not the fact that food providers purchase those subsidized goods. That is what I think we are clashing over. In fact, I still think it misses the point to claim “subsidies are evil” or that you are a victim of subsidies. As others have said here, getting some of your stolen loot back is not an injustice for anyone, including those who get no stolen loot back. The injustice is the taxation, not the selective relief from taxation, and it is absurd to claim that if one person is getting robbed everyone else has any obligation to be robbed themselves, or not try to avoid being robbed.

Besides, don’t you buy the same subsidized food yourself when you go to the grocery store? Are you upset that you have to pay to subsidize the food you yourself buy and prepare? Does this complaint against Taco Bell not apply equally to all food producers? Makes me wonder why it is always focused on fast food…

“Again, how does this differ from investing: you invest in AC, I invest in DC, we are making assumptions about the desires of consumers.”

I would be interested to know if any investors thought the fast food industry would grow or shrink in the absence of regulations. The point is, would they say “it would shrink, cause you know fast food is so bad for people it kills them…”?

“Pay attention sweater, I said smaller market share multiple times.”

Well what else could I have meant by “smaller”?

“No, that’s the thing: it isn’t like when you hear. That’s your problem.”

I see a connection between those ideas. I’m not assuming you believe those things as well, I just see the same basic argumentative forms used for all of those types of arguments. As far as I can tell, they are different instances of the same general concept which, forgive me for my bluntness, I think is snobbery. Maybe you should stop taking criticisms of your statements so personally.

“You came into this with the desire to paint me as a statist”

Number one, how in the world do you know what my desire was entering this thread? For the record, you are way off. I don’t care to paint anyone as anything, and you are taking this ridiculously personally.

Number two, when did I call you a statist? Seriously though, at most I claimed you were advocating or presenting a statist position, but I’m not even sure I did that. And if you are presenting a statist position, what’s wrong with me pointing that out?

I really think it is absurd for you to have guessed “why I came in here”.

“because rather than listen to my position you lump it with others that are “like when you hear…””

Just because you don’t like the fact that what you say is related to what others say does not mean such a relation does not exist. You have offered no reasoning to suggest that your arguments are unrelated to the others I mentioned.

“and tend to look past the rest toward a straw man.”

If I have misidentified your position, whose fault is that? I’m not suggesting that has a simple answer, but you seem to think the simple answer is it’s my fault. Forgive me but your arguments sounded like condemnations of the fact that so many people eat Taco Bell.

“My argument has been against the state the whole time, you just don’t see it.”

No, I honestly do not see it. I don’t see how anti-statism leads one to have even the slightest problem with Taco Bell. I can see how food snobbery leads to that though. Are you familiar with “libertarian socialists”? They believe that private property and capitalism are outgrowths of the state and the destruction of the state is tantamount to the destruction of private property and capitalism. So their “anti-statism” leads them to support what any Austro-libertarian would call statism. So no I don’t think it is a trivial matter what it is to be anti-statist. Anarcho-communists think they are anti-statists and they could not be more confused. Now if you turn that into “sweatervest called me a communist” then you’re straw manning me!

Being anti-statist means being relentlessly pro-capitalist. They are two sides to the same coin, and I just find it hard to see Taco Bell as the result of a state and not the result of the limited power of that state (i.e. the stunted capitalism that survives the state’s onslaught).

“We’re not talking about Halliburton.”

That’s fair. I just think if we were talking about them then everything you’ve said about Taco Bell would make sense. Halliburton poisons peoples’ drinking water and hides behind the EPA to get away with it. Now *that* is a corporation using the state to screw people, and they are completely guilty for it.

“You’re making moral judgments all the time”

How is a moral judgement related to an opinion?

“you’re whole argument appears to be based on your judgment that it isn’t “right” for someone who calls himself a libertarian to criticize anything business does.”

Yes, “right” as in “2 + 2 = 4″ is right and “2 + 2 = 5″ is wrong. I am not saying it is my personal preference to never criticize business. I’m saying your criticisms are invalid. To present them as anything more (which you may or may have not tried to do) would be a non-sequitur. There’s no morality there. And for the record, I am a moral objectivist that believes ethics is a science, not a matter of opinion. As I explained, what I think is right and wrong has nothing to do with my personal preferences. What’s right and wrong has everything to do with these problems. My personal preferences have nothing to do with them.

“You’re making moral judgments when you advocate against the state, even if they are backed by reason.”

Well wait a minute. I thought I saw you post something about moral relativism but I can’t find it now, but you seem to be expressing it here. A moral judgement is *not* a matter of opinion. If my case against the state is a moral objection and it is backed by reason, then you admit that morality is rational, not emotional. Ethics is a science, not a matter of opinion. Reason alone must be capable of reaching moral objections. What you seem to be trying to say is that my objection to the state is equivalent to “I don’t like the state”, which is totally wrong. My objection to the state is that their existence is unjustifiable.

My criticism is that your objection to Taco Bell is *not* a valid moral objection, but a mere personal preference. I of course do not suggest that your personal preferences are erroneous, but simply irrelevant to the topic at hand.

“And if you are unwilling to advocate against the state, as I do, then I’m sorry but you’re just a drain on libertarianism and part of the reason the state is so dominant.”

Wait, does that mean I’m not really a libertarian!? I thought you didn’t like labeling like that! Anyways, I feel like when people say “screw the state” and people ask why and they get something like “people eat too much fast food” they’ll look at you like you’re a despot and thank their gods their state keeps people like you from taking away their fast food. You may not actually want to do that, but your arguments sure do sound that way.

I think it is more worthwhile to convey the understanding that hating the state is not hating productive society, and dispelling the myth (however accurate it may describe self-proclaimed “anarchists”) that anarchy spells out some subsistence farm lifestyle for everyone that is devoid of all the “horrors” modern society has bestowed upon us like Lady Gaga and Taco Bell.

I also understand that probably the biggest reason why people hate capitalism is because it most urgently satisfies the needs of the many, which way not be the needs of you. I am not so much accusing you of doing this but pointing it out as an easy trap to fall in. I’ve done it far too many times myself (and no, I’m not giving you advice, just describing the situation).

“You’re preaching to the chior mi amigo, and I think we are just arguing semantics.”

You’re probably right.

“I suspect that when you do have kids and one of them starts climbing a shelf in a store”

Well, I might tell him “If you don’t get down from there I’m gonna have to take you down” and then do that. But well child or adult you deal with property trespasses like that by forcefully stopping the trespass (I suppose you can try and order first). But that’s not an issue of child-raising or giving people advice. That is how to deal with people when they trespass on property.

“or opening the car door while you roll down the highway you will find yourself doing something more akin to telling than suggesting.”

Well by that point I have totally failed as a parent, seeing that my kid is in a position to open a car door when he is too young to grasp the danger involved. I suppose in that case I can violate my child’s right and be rest assured he won’t seek justice for me doing so. But I would very much prefer to just keep the doors locked in a way where he cannot unlock them so I don’t have to rely on instructing him. Also, even if I did that to an adult (pulled them back from danger) I don’t think they would see it as a trespass or forcing advice on them.

“You may at that point even realize that some things are more nuanced than you think”

If nuanced means complicated and unable to be cleanly classified then no I don’t see the point. It may be very difficult to cleanly classify reality but giving up on that goal seems disastrous to me, and leads to muddled and unclear thinking. Perhaps I have failed so far but that would only encourage me to try again.

“and that talking past people to stand on your libertarian high horse only wastes time”

Yes it is a waste of time for you to reduce my arguments to me sitting on a “high horse” and talking “past” you. Frankly I don’t think you can handle being criticized, and sorry but the more you share your ideas the more that is gonna happen. You’re gonna have to man up sooner or later and stop interpreting people finding fault in your claims as ego-mania. I’m sorry but I just don’t buy that confidence in my arguments equals sitting on a high horse. How am I supposed to respond in order to be humble? Admit that I am wrong and you make an excellent point?

“you could be using to argue against actual statists”

Unfortunately even statists refuse to admit they are statists (not suggesting you are one, but it’s really not that simple. Only a few of the most insane ones actually come out and say they are statists. Doubletalk is a powerful political tool. And of course people can be confused…).

“or eat tacos or make things or sit on the beach.”

Hey now, I could be sitting on a beach, laptop in lap, taco in right hand, welding tools in left hand. Ooh, that sounds like a good idea…

You basically just said, “when the state coerces, they coerce”. Is this suppose to prove something about the fast food industry? No one has doubted that the state coerces people. We’re talking about Taco Bell, here.

“It may not be making you eat steak on Tuesday, but your choice was guided by coercion”

Then all of our choices are guided by coercion. That you choose to work at a particular job because some of your money is taxed is the product of coercion. What is the point? What is the purpose if making everyone “responsible” or “involved” with what the state does? What purpose is there in bringing this up.

I really think you are being stubborn missing Tucker’s point. He said when he praises the ubiquity of cheap jeans he gets lectures about cotton subsidies. What do you seek to accomplish by turning every possible success of whatever little market is left into another failure of the state? At most you will convince people that libertarians hate wealth and choice, if only because that wealth or those choices were somehow influenced by violence at some point. By this reasoning, even a free market cannot pretend to be justified because there will continue to be criminals and, in particular, the producer of home security systems are profiting off the existence of violence, those dirty rats!! Even if you don’t want to condemn the security provider, what purpose is there in pointing out that they only make the money they do because people commit acts of violence?

“Of course I didn’t claim TB forced anyone, that’s absurd and it is absurd to straw man my argument into saying that I did”

I’m sorry when someone says, in the middle of a debate concerning Taco Bell, that “people are forced to eat”, that I would draw from this that you are trying to say Taco Bell forces people to eat. Suffice to say if that’s not your position then I don’t know what your position is, and with the several “straw man” claims I suspect you have no position at all. You have no point to make, no conclusion to reach, you’re just sharing facts and what nerve we have to get upset about it! Forgive me if I thought these facts you cited were supposed to have some relevance to something (for example, that Taco Bell has done something wrong). Food subsidies are a problem, but they are not a relevant problem to every discussion, and I do not see how they play into a discussion about Taco Bell, unless you’re willing to admit it would be relevant to point out, every single time you post anything, that the internet was created by the government out of the pockets of taxpayers.

“I’m trying to conclude that we would be better off without the state, and you seem to be fighting me tooth and nail on it while calling yourself a libertarian…”

No that’s not what you are trying to conclude at all, and you’re not gonna surprise me with the fact that I actually don’t hate the state and everything they do. Taco Bell buys subsidized food, therefore Taco Bell would be smaller or nonexistent in a totally free market, does not contain the conclusion “we’d be better off without a state”. They have nothing to do with each other.

“You are certainly right this is a pointless endeavor. It seems the divisiveness of this blog post in general is rather pointless.”

Right, we divide our ideas for the sake of division, not because they are actually different ideas. How is it pointless to really try and tap into what libertarianism is?

“I was relying on the dictionary for my meaning…”

So you actually looked up the word “opinion” before you just used it there? That’s kinda weird, dude…

“Jeffrey Tucker was just stating an opinion, that Taco Bell is wonderful, in the original Facebook post, why not criticism him because this isn’t a site for the foodservice industry or business majors.”

Because his point is that, from the perspective of those people out there, they are satisfied with Taco Bell (that’s why they go there). It has nothing to do with what he thinks is wonderful, beyond I suppose the fact that he finds it wonderful so many people can satisfy their desires. You have not offered any reason why anything Taco Bell does hurts people from the perspective of those people (the health concerns are misplaced, people like smoking cigarettes no matter how bad they are for them). It has only been from the perspective of you.

“indicated that his opinion should be qualified by the fact that the industry is waist deep in government intervention in all sorts of ways, and that is part of a vast concatenation through which government action serves to make people unhealthy ”

Okay, the problem I have at least is that this is very poor argumentation. What basis do you have to claim that government action makes people unhealthy? How do you know they would eat healthier sans government? Tucker has not assumed anything as such on anybody, only the praxeological point that people act to satisfy their ends.

“Maybe you think that businesses can’t collude with the state to coerce: I think that is a very shallow view of coercion and of liberty that serves the cause of liberty poorly.”

I don’t know where you got that from. Again, you have yet to provide a single example of Taco Bell coercing. No, I do not doubt the existence of private crime, I just acknowledge that no such things have been identified here with respect to Taco Bell. They are not coercing, be it through the state or otherwise (as far as I know).

“Maybe you think that opinion doesn’t mix with politics: that seems to be an equally shallow view of both opinion and politics.”

No they don’t! Ethics is not a matter of opinion, nor is economics. If everyone agrees Obama should socialize healthcare, that doesn’t make it justifiable or a good idea.

“I spend 99% of my time criticizing the state, the Fed, the cops, policies, and the 1% of time I spend criticizing fast food, and you proceed to straw man me about it for five days.”

That may be true for your whole body of writings but for what you have offered here it is 99% criticism of Taco Bell, 1% the state if anything. That is not a straw man, at most you merely misrepresented yourself.

“I don’t see the point in pissing matches over who is more libertarian”

This is a pissing match over what libertarianism is, not who is what. If you call yourself a libertarian then you would care to know what libertarianism means.

“and I’ve mentioned many times that I’m not concerned with the label.”

Who is? Who said they care about the words people use? The issue is the concept attached to the label, not the label itself.

“If you want me to admit that fast food is great, well, I’m not going to. You think it’s great, I don’t.”

No, I think lots of people out there think it is great. The only thing I personally think is great is that lots of people out there get to buy what they like. You clearly still misunderstand the problem. This has nothing to do with whether I like Taco Bell because, as I have explained, I separate my opinions from my politics (that is, it doesn’t even matter that I think it is great that other people can satisfy their ends, what matters is that it is justified).

“Perhaps I’m overly forthcoming with my moral criticisms and overly broad in my moral outlook, but all the better than retracting to a rigid and shallow morality and silent complacency.”

Well I just don’t see myself as being silently complacent because I don’t raise hell about everything about everything and admit that some things about this world are pretty amazing (that is an opinion, but regardless who is being silently complacent?). And how is my morality rigid or shallow?

“I may one day write a treatise, but not here and not for you.”

Please do. No one is trying to shut you up by criticizing what you say.

“You can respond to this post with more claims that I’m a statist, emotivist, unlibertarian, blah, blah, straw man blah, but I’m done here.”

Well I don’t know if you’ll read this but hopefully after a little reflection you’ll understand that I was not just calling you names, but rigorously fighting for what I think true libertarianism is. You apparently do the same.

“This has been fun.”

It sure has. There is no doubt everyone who read these blogs will reconsider their own positions carefully about these matters. Even if I remain at my original conclusions that does not mean I have not considered them more fully as a result of these exchanges. That is, after all, what this is all for.

Oh, yay, we’re back to this. Look, if you don’t get it, then you don’t get it and I can’t explain it to you. If that’s not an admission of defeat, then I don’t know what is. And weren’t you just in the middle of accusing me of thinking only I have access to truth? Hehe…

So when you get smacked with real philosophy you throw in the towel? Fine with me. At least I know the history of the ideas I have and the criticisms made of them.

“So, did you mean to apply this label to me as a compliment? Or do you merely subscribe the modern usage, where something positive is used as a derogatory term; that Orwellian technique of making war peace, etc.?”

*Facepalm*. You didn’t actually read that wiki, did you? As it explained, the pejorative use of sophistry is not the modern usage, that is the ancient usage by Aristotle, Plato, etc. The modern usage is to put it in favorable light, which only shows what a dark intellectual time we are living in. Re-read that wiki more carefully, and maybe you will see that it describes sophists, correctly, as people who master the use of rhetoric to try and convince anyone of anything, no matter how illogical it may be. Aristotle and Plato criticized them relentlessly for using language as a tool deception, a by-then age-old practice, while the two aforementioned philosophers had the novel idea of using language as a tool of discovering the truth.

I am just thrilled you think being called a sophist is a compliment. Yes, you are an expert at rhetoric. In other words, you are a slimy politician that says whatever buzzwords he needs to say to get people cheering for him. The truth does not matter, just how good your words sound. Is it a compliment in your book that you can trick people with flowery language?

“You have no idea what you are talking about, which makes this lengthy post mostly a waste of time. I would love to see you embarrass yourself by trying to explain the ridiculous statement that “Copyright is currently the main motor to drive state censorship”. Gotta hear that one.”

What an excellent sophist you are! Why, it almost seems at first that you have defeated my argument, and your position comes out on top. Ohhh, wait, all you did was write a paragraph about how silly/embarrassing you think something is, and unfortunately that is not an argument. Rhetoric does not fool me. But it may fool some people, which is the only sensible reason you said it. Copyright *is* the main motor to state censorship, as has been explained especially in its origins, which was to allow royal courts to have final say in everything that is published.

“That is because you are lazy and ignorant of the subject upon which you confidently express so many uninformed opinions. You are a perfect Kinsella supporter; it is not necessary that you know much about IP as long as you oppose it.”

More deceptive empty claims that are designed to make it appear as though you have defeated me. It takes no insight to call someone lazy or uninformed. I could just as easily do the same to you.

For the last god damn time, I was anti-IP and *then* found Kinsella. You know that, because I have told you over and over, you dirty liar. If you don’t want to be called a liar, stop lying. You know damn well my arguments are my own, not Kinsella’s, because you pull this “you guys are in a court” BS every time and you just want to keep mentioning it because, as you seem to be proud of, you know how to use words to try and deceive. No wonder Peter is so nasty with you. I cannot believe how you smear the people you argue with and then get all whiny about how they smear you right back!

I came to my anti-IP conclusions through a decade of making music and being faced with the issue of not being able to complete the cover projects I want because it could potentially violate copyright for me to do so. How much creative stuff have you done, Wildberry? You’re such a f*cking expert in positive IP law which, because you are utterly devoid of morals and think “might is right”, you claim is relevant at all, so tell me what I, a creative person, should think of IP? I have only been personally restricted by it with my own creative work, but you’re right. Who am I to have an opinion on any of this? I am only one of the creative people it these things are designed to protect? Who are you but some deceptive sophist on the internet?

I’ll tell you what Wildberry. Compared to you, I am an expert in ethics. I have read much on the subject and spent years thinking through problem and arriving at carefully considered conclusions. You think I’m so uninformed because you reject the entire scientific study of ethics and define your sense of right and wrong by what politicians write down on pieces of paper. It truly disgusts me that you put so much time and effort into defending a relentless attack against the very idea of justice itself.

You are uninformed about the entire science of ethics. I am making this accusation loud and clear: you have not read, or at least comprehended, a single piece of literature on the subject because you are rejecting it entirely.

“How arrogant would you be to demand that someone explain AET to you if you had never opened a book on the subject?”

You’ve never opened a book on ethics in your life you hypocrite!! You’re the only one talking about positive law, and the fact you think positive law has anything to do with what is ethical and what is not only proves that you have never opened a book on ethics! This is just ridiculous. You’ve never read a damn thing about ethics, or at least understood it. Your ignorance on the subject is as complete as ignorance can get.

“Ah, yes you should avoid dividing the room, but an ideologue can never see it that way.”

Alright, so when someone else starts saying “actually socialism is quite libertarian”, then we’ll throw down the welcoming mat. And don’t worry, that won’t dilute the word “libertarian” to the point that it has no meaning.

Apparently being an ideologue means thinking problems through and basing your conclusion on that, instead of what you think is going to be popular.

“This is precisely the attitude that is being explored with the “one-drop libertarian” thread. Your brand of libertarianism will never be popular because you and others think you are doing a service to humanity by explaining to everyone who does and does not have a right to sit on the side of the table advocating liberty.”

Have fun winning popularity contests, you sophist. That was the original intention of sophistry: to be popular.

Yes, I am doing a service by clarifying what it means to advocate liberty and how that is different from calling the advocacy of despotism the advocacy of liberty. Apparently you don’t care what is actually being advocated, as long as the word “liberty” is attached to it.

“The arrogance is astounding, and is a reason why reasonable people resist identifying themselves as libertarians; the leaders here are doing their best to conflate the broad philosophy if libertarianism with the narrow and closed system of ancap ideology.”

Right! I am being arrogant as you go on to define who is reasonable and who is not. As I said before, it is standard textbook sophistry to accuse rationalists of being arrogant. It is so arrogant to think you know that if you add any two things to any two other things at any time or any place, you always get four things.

I believe, and argue as such, that ancap is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion. Stamp your feet all you want, you have yet to offer even the slightest counterargument to that claim. What you are basically saying is, “It doesn’t matter if you guys are right, it’s just mean”.

“I challenge if for the exercise, not because I think anyone here is about to launch themselves onto the national or world stage.”

And yet it matters so much to you whether or not we can become popular or not…

“Your approach to cooperation and belonging are antithetical to any form of populist political movement.”

GOOD!! Populist political movements are when masses of people rob smaller groups of people are cheer about it by sheer numbers. I want nothing to do with it. Have fun marching with an army, telling yourself it’s the right thing to do cause everyone else is doing it with you.

As I have said before, nothing that can ever be done on a blog is uncooperative.

“As an ideologue, of course, you have no idea what I’m talking about.”

Yes I do, I just have a different outlook on it. You express it every time someone presents a bunch of self-contradicting claptrap in support of IP and you back it up with “yay, bravo, good job, couldn’t have said it better myself. you really get this problem, don’t you?” Truth is consensus to you, or you just don’t care about what the truth is. And when you win an election, I’m sure that is all the proof you’ll need that you are doing what is right.

“You are merely expecting that someday, people will “wake up”, right?”

I don’t expect anything of “people” in general because it is a stupid waste of time. What I care about is articulating what I think is correct in the most sound way I can think, and seeing if anyone can defeat my arguments and lead me to a better position to hold. I am only concerned with myself finding the truth. I participate here in order to better articulate the anti-IP position so that pro-IP arguers have something substantial to go after and maybe *I* can learn something from their posts. I care about me knowing the truth. It is not my place or responsibility to show anyone else the truth, for I am constantly seeking it myself. I share my arguments because the alternative is to hide them and hiding them would be an expression of misplaced arrogance and confidence in my arguments, which I don’t have.

“This just demonstrates my point that you ignorantly presume I have never written here on the subject.”

Or perhaps you are so deeply confused about ethics you think you write about it when you really don’t. For example…

“Here is all you need to understand about my theory of property rights. Property is a human device. (Mises, look it up)”

Mises clearly claimed repeatedly he did not consider ethics to be a science and ignored dealing in it all together. That is not a theory of property rights, but a description of the things called property that have existed historically.

“Property law has a well defined system of property rights.”

Haha you just don’t get how circular this is do you? The only reason why it should matter at all what any law says is because those laws are supposed to be different from mere empty claims written on any piece of paper by anyone. They are supposed to be backed by some form of justifiability, which is exactly what makes them “laws” instead of just what someone wrote down. You have never started to describe a theory of property rights, but merely wowed us with the prophetic insight that existing systems of legislature recognize something called property.

“If you are interested read a book.”

No you go read a book you friggin hypocrite. Read “The Economics and Ethics of Private Property” by Hoppe or “The Ethics of Liberty” by Rothbard or “Ethics” by Aristotle. That you think pouring over law books makes you an expert in ethics is disgusting beyond belief. That you think being a lawyer makes you know any more about what is really right and wrong is truly disgusting.

“I am not obligated to spoon feed you out of your own self-imposed state of ignorance.”

Likewise. You don’t even know what the word ethics means and you refuse to listen to anyone try and explain it to you. Rather you shove law books in our faces and pretend like you have accomplished something in the process.

“That is the foundation of my positions.”

My point being that the foundation of your position is positive law, *not* a theory of property rights. Wow, you can read what positive law is and identify that it supports IP. Is that what you think analytical thinking is!? And if you are suggesting that your theory is “property rights are what positive law says they are” then have fun telling Jews they didn’t have their rights violated during the Holocaust, or that blacks didn’t have their rights violated in pre-Civil War United States. I suppose I gave you enough credit to assume that is not what you are suggesting.

“Natural rights theory has limited applicability to property rights and specifically IP”

Like you know a damn thing about natural rights theory, Mr. law professor.

“but in any case, I reject Rothbard’s theories derived from the Crusoe device, of homesteading physical resources as the only “natural” means of property rights, which leads to the rejection of intangible property rights, and the cul-de-sac concept of title transfer theory of contracts, for example.”

Good for you. You reject it and offer positive law in its place. Again, good luck explaining to people that the Third Reich was the state and its laws were sovereign so there ya go! Again here is another sophistical paragraph with claims and no insight or arguments.

“While human will is inalienable in certain contexts (slavery),”

How? Why? Where do you get this? There are plenty of systems of positive law that say this is not true. It is not my job to spoon-feed you what the said. You can go look them up yourself and prove to yourself that, by your own reasoning, human will may be inalienable here in this country, but not in other places at other times.

“I reject homesteading as the sole theory of how property rights arise, or what types of property can exist or are legitimate forms.”

Good for you. Do you also reject that 2 + 2 = 4?

“Property may arise by capture”

Oh my good lord. Might is right!! If you capture it, you did not violate anyones’ rights, because rights are defined by what people do!

“social/legal convention.”

Complete nonsense. That the property rights that actually exist (not the ones people go willy nilly forming at will) are recognized is a necessary pro-condition to any society existing at all. If your precious positive law makes murder legal or even worse so mandatory, then there will quickly be no society to speak of, and no number of people can get together and decide that things don’t work that way. Reality is not decided on by humans.

“Property law is economic as well as legal, (Hayek, look it up)”

You are so utterly confused about property you think people form society and then decide how to recognize property. You think people just decide what is property and what is not, rather than deciding whether or not to recognize the property rights that exist no matter what. Property comes before an economy, because an “economy” is the product of private property recognition.

“and therefore utility has its place as a justification for economic policies.”

Your density concerning utilitarianism astounds me. That you cannot wrap your head around the subjectivity of value and understand that what is “better for society” to you may very well be “worse for society” to other people is utterly perplexing. What is so hard to get about that? Apparently something that has no definition has its place as a justification for economic policies. If you think “better for society” means anything, then you are not an Austrian economist (because you deny the subjective theory of value). And I know what Mises said, and he understood perfectly that his claim that a free market is a better situation is no more than a personal opinion and can never be justified beyond that. Mises chose to avoid ethics entirely.

“Internalizing externalities is one of my favorite topics in this regard (Coates, Demsetz, look it up)”

And here we go with public goods arguments (Hoppe, look it up). Forcing everyone to build a fence around their houses would internalize externalities too (and with good cause, by your utilitarian reasoning. If I add a piece to my house, increase my property value, and thus increase the property value of my neighbors’ houses, then clearly I deserve to be compensated by my neighbors for raising the prices of their homes. They weren’t the ones that went through the trouble to add to my house, how dare they leech of my efforts?). Can’t wait for you to argue in favor of that.

Besides, you have completely ignored all my arguments explaining why IP is a disincentive for creative work, not an incentive. You must also believe that giving GM a monopoly in car production would lead to more cars because GM would make higher profits.

“IP is a form of legitimate, limited property rights which serve an important social and economic function in a division-of-labor, technical society.”

No it’s not. You can say that till your face turns red, but it is false, plain and simple. It is not legitimate because there are no property rights in non-rivalrous goods and all claims to rivalrous goods other than homesteading and trading amount to an act of violence on the homesteader/trader for he has his property rights confiscated solely by the actions of others over which he has no control. They serve no function but to interfere with the creative process, reduce the number of creative people in order to raise their per-unit wage exactly how minimum wage raises the wage of a few people by kicking a lot of people out of the job market. It interferes with division of labor by tying huge amounts of resources, people included, in the production of anti-piracy algorithms and drawn-out court cases and legal fees. It destroys technical innovation by limiting the very means by which technical innovation progresses (by taking the current idea and tweaking it).

That’s called an argument, Wildberry. Try it some time.

“Without it, producers of intellectual products would be producing for external economies (Mises, look it up).”

By your reasoning, because improving a house produces positive externalities no one would ever do it, because apparently everyone gets deeply offended when others profit from their efforts and they do not get compensated for it. Thus, no one will ever do anything to raise the value of their property because it will raise the value of the property of others and that’s just unacceptable.

Oh wait, they do all the time, because it also raises the value of *their* property! Likewise, when I make a new song, everyone else may get to enjoy a new song thanks to my effort, but so do I. It is such an incredible feeling to listen to a song you made yourself, and that alone is more than enough to keep me making music, whenever I find time to do it. Also, I gain the reputation of being a good composer (well, hopefully!) and serve to increase the likelihood that I get gigs or jobs as a musician, since while other people can play recordings of my songs, they cannot reproduce them themselves (and if they can, that is a useful talent that serves to be paid for).

Oh, and nevermind how the existence of copyright almost caused me to give up on what is by far the biggest (and, according to many of my friends, their favorite) musical project I have ever done (over four hours of music). Rather, I chose to share that project at the risk of being sued for it. Moreover, every time I write music I have no idea if I am inadvertently using a melody that has already been copyrighted, so that’s just a big reason for me to not make music at all.

Which, of course, you would know if you read Hoppe.

You are the one that is completely ignorant about this whole endeavor. You are so completely blinded that you think we are having a debate over what positive law says. You are so confused and uninformed about actual theories of ethics (including natural rights, which you simply dismiss with no reason) that you cannot understand why positive law is irrelevant to this debate.

I will always expose sophism when I see it. Every time I see you fill up a paragraph like, “You don’t understand the issue. You are too ignorant to get this. Your positions is wrong. I reject the position you hold. It is very embarrassing for you to say that. Your arrogance is astounding” I will call it out for being an empty shell posing as something meaningful. That is deception with language, and that is what sophistry is.

I sat on this post a couple of days thinking there is too much ignorance to tackle. As I think Karl said similarly on an earlier post, you are not paying me to teach you about IP, so you are going to have to figure out for yourself if you want to actually learn anything about it before you pontificate confidently from a position of complete ignorance, not only of IP itself, but what I’ve previously written on this blog. Just because you’ve asked doesnt’ mean I have to recap everything for you.

I think you are wrong about many things you have said here, including your frequent use of the word Sophistry. Here is a brief education that is available to everyone; although from Wikipedia, it’s all I have time for to make my point.

The Greek word sophos or sophia has had the meaning “wise” or “wisdom” since the time of the poet Homer and originally was used to describe anyone with expertise in a specific domain of knowledge or craft. For example, a charioteer, a sculptor or a warrior could be described as sophoi in their occupations. Gradually, however, the word also came to denote general wisdom and especially wisdom about human affairs (in, for example, politics, ethics, or household management). This was the meaning ascribed to the Greek Seven Sages of 7th and 6th Century BC (like Solon and Thales), and it was the meaning that appeared in the histories of Herodotus. Richard Martin refers to the seven sages as “performers of political poetry.”[1]

In the second half of the 5th century BC, particularly at Athens, “sophist” came to denote a class of mostly itinerant intellectuals who taught courses in various subjects, speculated about the nature of language and culture and employed rhetoric to achieve their purposes, generally to persuade or convince others: “Sophists did, however, have one important thing in common: whatever else they did or did not claim to know, they characteristically had a great understanding of what words would entertain or impress or persuade an audience.”[1] A few sophists claimed that they could find the answers to all questions. Most of these sophists are known today primarily through the writings of their opponents (specifically Plato and Aristotle), which makes it difficult to assemble an unbiased view of their practices and beliefs.

Many of them taught their skills for a price. Due to the importance of such skills in the litigious social life of Athens, practitioners often commanded very high fees. The sophists’ practice of questioning the existence and roles of traditional deities and investigating into the nature of the heavens and the earth prompted a popular reaction against them. The attacks of some of their followers against Socrates prompted a vigorous condemnation from his followers, including Plato and Xenophon, as there was a popular view of Socrates as a sophist.[2] Their attitude, coupled with the wealth garnered by many of the sophists, eventually led to popular resentment against sophist practitioners and the ideas and writings associated with sophism.

So, did you mean to apply this label to me as a compliment? Or do you merely subscribe the modern usage, where something positive is used as a derogatory term; that Orwellian technique of making war peace, etc.?

“IP is not the most important issue facing civilization.”

Well I don’t doubt you feel that way, but frankly I disagree. Copyright is currently the main motor to drive state censorship (you may cast that as abuse of copyright law, but it exists none-the-less). Piracy is the biggest “reason” the internet needs a kill-switch or some other type of state control. As some sort of libertarian you *must* be bothered a little by that!

You have no idea what you are talking about, which makes this lengthy post mostly a waste of time. I would love to see you embarrass yourself by trying to explain the ridiculous statement that “Copyright is currently the main motor to drive state censorship”. Gotta hear that one.

“ “What you cannot seem to understand or acknowledge, is that mercantilist conduct can be abhorred while holding the fundamental principle of a thing like IP as legitimate and useful.”

No, it is not that I cannot understand or acknowledge that, it is that you cannot explain it. I know that it is how you feel (are you being ideologically fanatical by holding onto this position despite my relentless attacks of it?), but I have yet to get any insight into why.

That is because you are lazy and ignorant of the subject upon which you confidently express so many uninformed opinions. You are a perfect Kinsella supporter; it is not necessary that you know much about IP as long as you oppose it.

You are not paying me to teach you about IP law, but if you are interested you can read something about it, or go back over what I and many others have already written here. How arrogant would you be to demand that someone explain AET to you if you had never opened a book on the subject? Bring something to the party if you want to participate in a rational discussion of this issue.

Okay, what happens when libertarianism gets a little more popular and (rest assured this will happen, it is already starting to) liberal statist apologists, communists and fascist “Tea Partiers” start calling themselves libertarians? Should we avoid dividing the room and just let them push their statism into libertarian principles because they showed up?

Ah, yes you should avoid dividing the room, but an ideologue can never see it that way. This is precisely the attitude that is being explored with the “one-drop libertarian” thread. Your brand of libertarianism will never be popular because you and others think you are doing a service to humanity by explaining to everyone who does and does not have a right to sit on the side of the table advocating liberty.

The arrogance is astounding, and is a reason why reasonable people resist identifying themselves as libertarians; the leaders here are doing their best to conflate the broad philosophy if libertarianism with the narrow and closed system of ancap ideology.

I challenge if for the exercise, not because I think anyone here is about to launch themselves onto the national or world stage. Your approach to cooperation and belonging are antithetical to any form of populist political movement. As an ideologue, of course, you have no idea what I’m talking about. You are merely expecting that someday, people will “wake up”, right?

“You might be verbose, but I am claiming loud and clear right here that you never presented a property rights theory of your own, not even close.

This just demonstrates my point that you ignorantly presume I have never written here on the subject. Here is all you need to understand about my theory of property rights. Property is a human device. (Mises, look it up) Property law has a well defined system of property rights. If you are interested read a book. I am not obligated to spoon feed you out of your own self-imposed state of ignorance. That is the foundation of my positions.

Natural rights theory has limited applicability to property rights and specifically IP, but in any case, I reject Rothbard’s theories derived from the Crusoe device, of homesteading physical resources as the only “natural” means of property rights, which leads to the rejection of intangible property rights, and the cul-de-sac concept of title transfer theory of contracts, for example.

While human will is inalienable in certain contexts (slavery), enforceable promises are not encompassed by that concept. I favor Kathleen Touchstone’s theory of natural rights derived from the Primary Social Unit (PSU) of mother and child, which presumes that cooperation is the foundation of all natural human rights.

I reject homesteading as the sole theory of how property rights arise, or what types of property can exist or are legitimate forms. Property may arise by capture, contract, creation, or by social/legal convention. Property law is economic as well as legal, (Hayek, look it up) and therefore utility has its place as a justification for economic policies. Internalizing externalities is one of my favorite topics in this regard (Coates, Demsetz, look it up)

IP is a form of legitimate, limited property rights which serve an important social and economic function in a division-of-labor, technical society. Without it, producers of intellectual products would be producing for external economies (Mises, look it up).

That is the best I can do for you. Good luck.

Getting any flak yet for bellying up to the “guys” bar? Fun!!

Please tell me whether or not this was indirectly addressed to me; I assumed it was because I’m am the one who raised the issue of limited liability – which I have a very good notion of – and you keep asserting to me that one has to “have a clear libertarian theory of causal responsibility” before one can oppose government interventions and argue that they are unprincipled and lead to disastrous consequences:

No time or interest to figure this out. I leave it to you.

“People are confused when they talk about limited liability because they have no clear understanding of what it even means, nor do they have a clear libertarian theory of causal responsibility. Yet they feel compelled to pontificate and pronounce on this topic.”

Was I wrong to take this as a reference to and attack on my position that you chose not to make directly?

I am always direct, since I am not a dishonest leftist. I was speaking generally, and cannot tell if it applies to you or not. If so, so, if not, not.

You: “This is dishonest. First, i have “directly addressed” others more than almost anyone. Second, I have never said state laws are wonderful. Third, I would never use the pretentious, horrid word “feckless.””

Stephan, get a grip and clean up your act; it is a disgrace and has no business here.

The feckless was a joke, but I might have guessed lefties would not discern this. The rest: no. I think you are being either stupid or dishonest, and since I don’t think you are stupid…

I might be mistaken – though you haven’t convinced me – but your attack on my honesty is completely unjustified and out of place, PARTICULARLY in someone of your seniority here.

You said I have not directly addressed your and others’ criticisms. This is nonsense. It is a lie.

Yes, to your credit you engage, but you denigrate, belittle and demean far too much. It is not merely below what YOU should be, but it is damaging to the LvMI community and to the very ideals of a libertarian community that you so loudly insist is your aim.

MOre deflection from substantive discussion; typical of emotive lefties.

While liability would certainly not be automatic if you lent your gun to someone who misused it, I think it would be fair to say that if your friend said “let me borrow your gun so I can rob a bank” you would be partly responsible (and liable) for the resulting robbery.

Yes, this is implied by my causality theory linked in the wergeld post. but the point is it’s not automatic: it’s not due to your ownership, it’s due to your collaboration with an aggressor.

If I interpreted your other writing on this issue correctly then I think you tentatively agree that negligence in lending out property can result in culpability (I think your example was lending a truck to a drunk person).

Yes, but the negligence is not always present.

The issue here then is whether giving money to a company that you know (or ought to know) is committing torts would make you partly liable to compensate any victims.

If it does why is being a shareholder special? First: not all shareholders “give monye” (some buy their shares from former shareholders). Second: employees, vendors, creditors, customers, all “give money to” the corporation in one form or the other. Are they all liable? Really?

Certainly this would have to be proven on an individual level, but I would say that if someone knowingly contributes material to aid in the commission of a crime in the hope of profiting from said crime then they would be liable for their contribution.

Is buying a $3 burger from McDonald’s, knowing that some of their drivers might occasionally have a negligent action, aiding and abetting a crime? Really? We should all stay indoors then and die.

This might not apply to someone who is merely a shareholder but perhaps it would apply to someone providing start-up money?

Why? What is the diff between a customer or a lender and this person? They all give money to the company.

Yes, very disturbing for an alleged attorney like Tokyo.