Against Owning Information ('intellectual property')

[ForABetterTomorrow]

So how would you protect intellectual property? And if you disagree that the government should protect intellectual property then what about (material) property? Shouldn't "entrepreneurs" refrain from calling for government force there as well?

[Nielsio]

@ForABetterTomorrow I don't want publicly displayed ideas to be protected (privately displayed ideas can still be protected under contract law). The consequence of this would be that the cost of innovation is greatly lowered because anyone could take any public innovation and improve upon it.

As far as protection of material property, see my video: 'How Could A Voluntary Society Function?' (it's displayed on the main page of my channel).

[ForABetterTomorrow]

@Nielsio Privately displayed ideas cannot be protected under contract law because a spying third party could still copy it (it is not bound by a contract). What you are basically saying is that the only protection against theft of intellectual property is private security (i.e. lock it up) by individual citizens, i.e. intellectual property should only be protected by the government de jure but not de facto (i.e. not protected at all).

[ForABetterTomorrow]

@Nielsio ... And citing "lowered cost of innovation" is a pragmatic approach incompatible with individualism/voluntarism. Or would you agree that the state in order to "lower the cost of innovation" takes away your home in order to make room for a road? Or why not make a huge database of all people, what they buy, what music they listen to etc. in order to "lower the cost of innovation"? I guess it would make marketing a lot easier!

[DoctorCapitalist]

I have a few problems with this argument. You're argument is that it is not theft to copy software as it is not an immediate loss, but rather a loss of future profits.

However, this argument could be used to justify some kind of mutualism (that is, collective ownership over means of production). By using someone else's capital against their consent (but paying the maintenance costs) to produce your own goods, you would be taking from the future profits from the business.

[DoctorCapitalist]

(continued) You would not be taking something from them immediately however since they are not currently using the capital and you're paying the maintenance costs. Just playing some Devil's Advocate.

[Nielsio]

@DoctorCapitalist Copying is not temporarily taking capital from people. People's capital remains wholly untouched.

Also, capitalist producers do not have capital laying around doing nothing. Any time you use them you are both damaging them and messing up his longer term plans with them.

There is a case for losing property rights in goods, but it's over much longer periods of non-use. See: Crusoe, Morality, and Axiomatic Libertarianism (by me) .

[VTaylo]

mises.org/daily/3798

[swu880]

I should point out to you that innovation is not the creation of 'new ideas'. Its impossible to create or destroy an "idea". u can only transform & iterate an idea. Ideas are infinitely iterable & infinitely reproducable. They are merely configurations of the mind- that is all.

its basic physics, nothing is ever created or destroyed.

[swu880]

@swu880

And certainly- merely 'thinkin' of somethin or pennin it down does not then create additional property rights as it never created anything which didn't already exist. The notion '2+2=4' is merely a transformation of the notion that '1+1=2' as well as all previously accumulated knowledge

[swu880]

See i dont have to ever really prove that so & so "owned' an idea- that aint my point at all. its up to u to show who exactly held such a 'first unique' idea since u are sayin that ideas are ownable- well then all REAL property is traceable back to the original homesteader. So go ahead & trace back who 'owned' the notion of 'fire' and '1+1=2'. lol

stephankinsella(DOT)com(SLASH)­publications(SLASH)#againstip

[swu880]

@swu880

see u r in a conundrum since u dont even understand the role of property rights & the characteristics which define what is or is not property

lewrockwell(DOT)com(SLASH)orig­(SLASH)kinsella2(DOT)html

[swu880]

@swu880

IP naturally conflicts with real propety- ie apples, cars, houses, your body, etc. since u dont even know what is the role & function of property rights

[swu880]

@samodoidi

lol

Sorry but your comments are totally devoid of any economic thought and really any logic for that matter.

What is property? What are the defining traits inherent in property? What is the purpose of property? Do u even know this stuff? u keep assumin that there is somethin called 'intellectual property' without first sustaining the basis whether there is even such a thing

Please go read "Against Intellectual Property" and "Against Intellectual Monopoly" first

[swu880]

@swu880

I doubt by your comments that you even know the origins of so called "intellectual property". Most proponents don't

[rebelq1]

@samodoidi

You're finished!

[rebelq1]

@samodoidi

Taking or copying is the same thing here! Copyrights need to be taken down and they will either the easy way or the hard way! Either way, I don't really care very much!

[rebelq1]

@samodoidi

Just because you were the first to make what you did doesn't mean that no one else should be allowed to make it too!

[swu880]

@rebelq1

I should point out that there are no such things as "new" ideas. Every idea is either old or very old. And it has been constructed by someone or somethin at least one point in the past

To illustrate this you just need to ask yourself, "Who invented the 'cotton gin'"? (hint: it wasn't eli whitney).

Or better yet, "Who invented the wheel?"

[Esoparagon]

@swu880 If that were true then where did the first ideas come from? I think novel ideas can be constructed and as you said 'all it has been constructed by someone at least one point in the past'. So you are admitting that the ideas were originally constructed because they didn't exist at some point which concedes the point that ideas can indeed be created. That's not to say that new ideas don't rely on old ideas to be constructed but they are no less new.

[swu880]

@Esoparagon

like i said its either old or very old. Its impossible to "create" a "new idea'. it doesn't even make logical sense to say so. Ideas are firstly ABSTRACT, INTANGIBLE & INFINITE in nature

u never ever 'make an idea'. all people do is TRANSFORM already existing ideas & already owned REAL property into other configurations. That is all. And THAT is what innovation is all about. Innovation is NOT creation. Innovation is transformation!

[swu880]

@swu880

There is nothing really definite about ideas. it is abstract- please go look up the word abstract'

Unlike REAL property, one cannot see the borders of ideas- cuz there really aren't any. There is no scarcity of ideas at all- its infinitely reproducable & transformable

If not, then ALL communication is impossible- since that is merely the iterating of pre-existing abstract concepts & ideas. lol

[swu880]

@swu880

moreover, if ideas were truly exclusive & scarce & had tangible finite boundaries,

u know what the implications of that would be? Basically if that were true, then NOBODY could think at all!

cuz, if u try to think about "1+1=2", then no one else can simultaneously hold such thought

[swu880]

@swu880

But the fact of the matter is, ideas are NOT real property like apples, oranges & cars! Thank god! Cars, apples & oranges are finite, tangible, well defined, independent & naturally exclusive & being finite, it is naturally economically scarce.

If u have an apple, i can not simultaneously have that apple. if u use that apple to make an apple pie, i can not simultaneously eat the apple

[swu880]

@swu880

Moreover, being tangible & finite, it has natural boundaries that are VISIBLE & defined (that is really the meaning of finite)

If u have an apple, if u own your apple, everyone else around can see that you own it. They can see the tangible visible boundaries of the apple & the connection of ownership

It only makes sense for people to have property in the real physical tangible, & NATURALLY excludable, scarce factors of production.

[swu880]

@swu880

It makes absolutely no sense to try to impose such conditions or notion of property on undefined, infinite, non economically scarce, non-naturally exclusive things - especially those with no visible tangible boundaries (aka ideas).

I should also point out, like i had said in the above posts numerous times, no idea is ever unique. and no idea is ever 'independent'. This is the mere fact of nature! no disputing it

This is cuz ideas are abstract -

[swu880]

@swu880

see the notion of "1+1=2" is abstractly related to the method of taking triple integrals which is abstractly related to the notion of how a car engine works, & thats abstractly related to the composition of a haiku which is abstractly related to a business design plan, etc etc AD INFINITUM!

Also, ideas being abstractly interrelated with one another actually GROW & TRANSFORM one another. This is the very process of learnin & livin. in order to live

[swu880]

@swu880

in order to live, one continuously acquires knowledge- knowledge is merely that pattern of bits & connections he forms in his own mind

Knowledge always builds ontop of itself. For example, u may learn one day how to do advanced matrix algebra. Then later u may take it one step further & transform that knowledge of matrix algebra & tweak in a little bit of rocket science. Both of them grow on one another

[swu880]

@swu880

Even if u "forget" the matrix algebra- even if u "forget" the notion of '1+1=2', it is an undeniable fact that the knowledge still remains lodged in your brain & effects & builds all future accumulated knowledge

This is part of human action. And i encourage u to actually go & read that book by mises. Mises has broken down the fundamental components of human action & done a thorough analysis of the role of knowledge, values & its relation with humans

[swu880]

@swu880

Like i said, if knowledge really was a REAL property, definite, finite, naturally exclusive, and with tangible boundaries, then who the hell "invented" & "owned" the notion of fire? or "1+1=2"? lol

any thoughts anyone may have, have either already been thought of or are merely tweaked a little- that is all. yes- the wheel was thought of long before any silly notion of "Intellectual Property" which is an oxymoron

[rebelq1]

@samodoidi

No one is going to sell or buy it very much because if it's free! So, yes! I do want it to be free!

[mortalisk]

This is the argument I got from a liberal party supporting copyright in Norway:

We define copyright as a standard contract on any information you see. It can be changed by agreement, but it defaults to what is in the law. Therefore we advocate the continuation of current copyright law.

They see this as analogous to the "contract" that you are not allowed to take property or kill until otherwise agreed upon.

This got me thinking about what law is, and now I am unsure what to think about copyright

[rebelq1]

@samodoidi

Actually no, it isn't!

[rebelq1]

@samodoidi

RETARD ALARM! Copyright laws need to be taken down!

[rebelq1]

@samodoidi

In the case of intellectual property there shouldn't be any not because it's easy to break but because it's oppressive!

[rebelq1]

@samodoidi

Media, yes! Because the Internet already makes copyright laws useless!

[truthadvocate]

People who don't value their own lives and or the lives of others. Their values & goals cannot be accomplished with this code of ethics. And since ethics requires a set of values on which it is based, my ethics does not define how they should behave if they want to achieve goals based on their values.

[Enign3]

What some advocates of libertarianism don't understand is the difference between IP laws and a moral justification of IP rights.

In any case, I find this IP thing an interesting debate.

[MaikUniversum]

that's great. Artwork is very nice too, man. Respect.

[ericfontainejazz]

Nielso, great video...nice clip art and easy to understand. And no one has a claim to "their" future revenue stream, since such a claim is making an ownership claim to future consumers' pocketbooks.

[Nielsio]

@ericfontainejazz Thanks Eric :)

[selfrealizedexile]

@ericfontainejazz

Well-said.

[Panpiper]

@SuperiorDeity What, are you stalking me? Just so as other readers know, this poster is an extreme statist who 'proudly' proclaims his willingness to kill anyone who disagrees with his desire to collectivize the planet under one rule.

[thien3011]

i agree with you. 

[shanedk]

Where would we be if Plato and Aristotle hadn't "stolen" the ideas of Socrates? Or if Shakespeare hadn't "stolen" Oedipus Rex and Pyramus And Thisbe to make Hamlet and Romeo And Juliet? Or if Galileo hadn't "stolen" the idea of the telescope?

[Panpiper]

Copyright violation is not a crime of theft, it is more analogous to a crime of trespass.

I create a video, which I sell access to online. If it is copied and freely distributed by anyone, I cannot sell access to it. Being unable to profit from it, I cannot continue to create videos. The end result is that I do 'not' create videos. An absolute abrogation of the concept of intellectual property will virtually destroy certain kinds of art.

[vspqbd]

@Panpiper

For your benefit: mises(DOT)org/daily/5025 ("The Fight against Intellectual Property" by Jacob H. Huebert)

[Panpiper]

@vspqbd Yes, I am familiar with those arguments, and I am not just unpersuaded; I believe a subsection of libertarianism is being led by the nose straight towards IP socialism with collectivist, utilitarian arguments. A film maker investing millions of their labor and capital into creating a work does not automatically have their work become the collective property of all man kind, simply because it was combined with bits instead of atoms. Socialism destroys that which it would steal.

[vspqbd]

@Panpiper

Just because someone doesn't have a government granted monopoly of something (IP) doesn't mean he can't sell it, or profit from it. Nor does it mean that innovation can't occur, as the fashion industry and the article linked show.

How about this: mises(DOT)org/daily/3631 ("The Fallacy of Intellectual Property" by Daniel Krawisz)

[Panpiper]

@vspqbd I cannot compete with free. If I make a video and try to sell it, while others are giving my work away for free, it is quite impossible to earn my investment back. You call it a government granted monopoly. I call it my property, which they simply protect as any, because it is the direct result of my own labor and capital. That others should have the 'right' to copy it, to distribute it, to sell it even, without compensating me for my own investment of labor and capital, is outrageous.

[truthadvocate]

@Panpiper,

You shouldn't compete with free nor would you have to.

If a consumer wants a video bad enough they will pay you to create it. If you know you won't make money selling it to others, then charge more to create the initial copy. If this does not allow you to make enough money to prosper, then the market is telling you something. You should provide some other product or service that people need more. You shouldn't force people to pay for a service they can easily do themselves (copying).

[Panpiper]

@truthadvocate So if I want to see Peter Jackson make "The Hobbit", I should just pay him the two hundred million dollars it would cost, and then I can watch it. And everyone else can then enjoy the movie too, at my expense? You are in fact asserting that people can easily make such movies themselves, simply by copying them. But of course in a world without copyright, such movies would NOT be made, and so no one would be able to copy them.

[truthadvocate]

@Panpiper,

Oh the humanity! What would the human race do without Hollywood propaganda with astronomical budgets and filthy rich celebrities? Who would fill the drug rehab centers & cosmetic surgery clinics?

I think we'd be just fine.

The main problem I see with copyright law is the same with every law this coercive government creates. It forces innocent bystanders to pay for it's enforcement, and therefore the ones who create & enforce the law have no incentive to weigh the costs & benefits.

[Panpiper]

@truthadvocate Leaving aside the artistic merit of the movie and television industry (of which Hollywood is just a part), at least you acknowledge that you would destroy that which you would steal (or rather, refuse to recognize as property, 'so that' you can simply take it at your whim). I understand that the idea of intellectual property is most inconvenient for pure anarchists. But that is not an argument against it. The fact remains that...

[Panpiper]

@Panpiper Cont. ...You require that I the artist work a day job at McDonalds and with whatever free time I have left, invest my own labor and capital according to my ability into creating work 'so that' you may consume it according to your need. My investment of labor and capital is not my property, it is the common property of all man kind.

And you have no problem with this.

[truthadvocate]

@Panpiper,

I'm an artist too. My clients pay high price for custom work, so I don't need to resell it to make a living.

I also create humanitarian art. To maximize exposure I encourage people to freely copy & distribute it. More exposure = more donations.

A McDonalds job is not your only alternative.

If a producer cannot make millions off a movie, then as you said, such movies would not be made. If they don't exist, they cannot be stolen or destroyed.

Nobody is requiring you to create art.

[selfrealizedexile]

@Panpiper

I get where you're coming from, but the problem with your argument is the market (really voluntary society) exists and has existed for a long time separate from gov't. When a problem is introduced into a market that market participants don't like, the market devises methods to fix the problem. A sufficient number of participants act on this solution and it becomes a part of the new paradigm. The truth is an absence of copyrights and patents is not hated by the market; you really

[selfrealizedexile]

@Panpiper

The market, when free, never destroys a valuable part of itself. Think about what you're saying. Most people who advocate for a free market understand natural law and the inherent beauty and self-order of the market. You're wanting the USPO, a bureaucratic nightmare of endless patents, many indistinguishable from each other, as a solution. A cursory look at how the USPO works and how it affects the market can sufficiently demonstrate that it is in no way an aspect of natural law.

[Panpiper]

@selfrealizedexile But without copyright, without such intellectual 'property', there is no market. Such things are simply free. There is no market for air, what happens to air is not something the market decides. Taking away copyright from art simply destroys any economic incentive to create it.

I want to point out that I am very specifically arguing 'for' IP in the case of copyright of artistic works. Patents are an entirely different issue in which I am in some agreement with you.

[selfrealizedexile]

@Panpiper

Rothbard once argued that copyright could be considered a breach of contract and that's about as far as it can go. If the originator of an idea wants to keep it secret, he should, as Nielsio said, make it a trade secret. BUT, this does not mean that if someone independently (and it cannot be shown that they signed the contract) came upon the idea that they cannot go on with their affairs. And if the information is freely spoken and it spreads throughout society, it is foolhardy

[selfrealizedexile]

@Panpiper

to try to extinguish all known instances of it. The absolute worst argument an Objectivist (and that's mostly the only sect left willing to defend IP) could try to justify is patents. Their distortive effect is so widely-known; it forces researchers to tip toe around each other, not assisting one another where it would otherwise make sense. I also think you're misunderstanding the position of being against IP. It does not mean their is an obligation to share information. It's

[selfrealizedexile]

@Panpiper

simply against police action against the flow of information.This isn't even getting into the Libertarian argument that you cannot homestead information.The position you're taking is relying on utilitarianism--about the most confused political and moral ideology that has ever existed."What would happen if these (coercively-imposed) incentives didn't exist?Why, we'd have no art, no music, no culture! If we didn't have the gov't running around coercing, the market would destroyitself!"

[Panpiper]

You would have some art, most of it amateur. But there would be virtually no movies or television series other than ultra cheap 'reality' programming paid for with advertising that most people would use technical means to ignore.

What I do not understand is how putative 'Libertarians' somehow utterly fail to see the fundamental illogic of this. My investment of my labor and capital is somehow the common property of all man kind, because it is easy to copy 'afterwards'. ???

[truthadvocate]

@Panpiper

I get what you're saying. Your art is an investment of your labor & capital. Copies of it are also the result of your labor & capital plus the labor of copying it which is not much additional labor. But here's the thing. The Libertarians who say you have a natural right to the fruits of your labor are wrong. Natural rights don't exist.

You don't own something unless you or a judge can enforce that ownership. Preventing billions of people from copying your work is impossible.

[selfrealizedexile]

@truthadvocate

If you think natural rights don't exist--a plausible theory which explains much of history, you must be prepared to abandon Libertarianism. You're essentially advocating might is right. I'd be interested to see how you attempt to reconcile the two ideologies.

[truthadvocate]

@selfrealizedexile,

I don't believe in natural rights cause of the is-ought dichotomy. What a person ought to do depends on his values. All people should not do the same thing, because each has unique values that differ from each other and over time. Some libertarians or objectivists claim there are values we all share, life for example. People commit suicide so that's bunk. I'm a libertarian because I believe individual liberty improves the lives of human beings & that is something I value.

[selfrealizedexile]

@truthadvocate

When discussing is-ought, you have to abstain from using should to avoid contradiction; "all people should not do the same thing" is a projected value.

To me, the concept of a value-less ideology is an ideology that still values something.

Natural rightists, deists, etc. believe one can utilize reason and metaphysical experience in ascertaining the hidden truth that the pursuit of freedom is virtuous in addition and, "conincidentally" (I personally look at it as God / Nature's

[selfrealizedexile]

@truthadvocate

fingerprint), is the most personally enriching possibility in the long-term. I don't think it is coincidence or merely self-enriching in a material sense that freedom teaches responsibility, develops character, and furthers self-actualization. These qualities are indisputably Good. Not indisputable in the sense of a priori truisms, but from a position of human sincerity. Human existence and perception supersedes basic empiricism. This isn't carte blanche for Irrationalism,

[selfrealizedexile]

@truthadvocate

but an appeal to your continuously living, perceiving, and learning mind. If all significance was found in scientism, we may as well all be inanimate objects.

We've all heard the same old self-contradictory, relativistic Sociology spiel at some point. Different cultures, different individuals, different values and, although that has some explanatory power up to a point, it treads upon contradiction--any kind of relativist statement masquerading as an absolute. There is a

[selfrealizedexile]

@truthadvocate

common thread that holds this necessarily coherent universe together. It not being immediately obvious to all participants does not refute its existence, would diminish its significance, and inhibit its functional purpose.

I agree with you, however, that the way this world works does involve physical constraints; if you're going to have freedom, you're going to have to earn it. It is not enough to simply exist to have freedom. This maturity curve is also functional.

What

[selfrealizedexile]

@truthadvocate

did you think of Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty"?

[truthadvocate]

@selfrealizedexile,

I read it. I liked it. But there were flaws. When I said "all people should not do the same thing." you're right, that does sound like a prescription for all human beings based on my own values. What I meant was each person has unique values. A man is more likely to achieve what he values if he does certain things. These are the activities I'm referring to when I discuss what he "should" do. I'm not projecting my values on him. I'm simply observing reality.

[selfrealizedexile]

@truthadvocate

So you completely abstain from the conversation that there is a universal truth or, more specifically, code of ethics or am I reading too much into what you said?

[truthadvocate]

@selfrealizedexile,

There is such a thing as truth, but so far nobody has presented a system of ethics to me that does not have exceptions. I do support Voluntaryism, honesty, the non-aggression principal, individual liberty and private property acquired through homesteading, trade, gift from a legitimate owner. These concepts define my code of ethics which I believe if adopted would improve the lives of most human beings. But because there are exceptions I cannot call these ethics universal.

[selfrealizedexile]

@truthadvocate

What exceptions?

[Panpiper]

@selfrealizedexile I would attest that it is more yourselves that are making the utilitarian argument. I invest my labor and capital into a thing. You are telling me that the thing is not my property. You tell me it is not mine because it is easy to copy, because defending my property likely requires a state. I see 'you' as making the utilitarian argument.

It is the product of my labor and capital. How can a libertarian NOT defend me? In truth I feel betrayed.

[ericfontainejazz]

@Panpiper, the thing is your property until you share it. But once you share it (with someone who hasn't entered into a binding contract to not further share it), then that person is free to do what he wants with his property. Intellectual Property is ultimately a form of theft, since you are claiming the ability to control what someone else can or cannot do with their body or property.

[Panpiper]

@ericfontainejazz I see, 'I' am the guilty party, 'I' am a thief, for not wanting my multi-million dollar investment of labor and capital to be a 'gift' to you and all your ilk? How selfish of me. Clearly you are such principled people. Property is theft, gotcha. I am to produce according to my ability so that you can consume according to your need, gotcha.

[selfrealizedexile]

@Panpiper

can't have the market create a position itself that it itself finds untenable--it's a logical impossibility.

I don't know where you stand as an anarchist or minarchist. But, for anarcho-capitalists, it's completely out of bounds and nonsensical to imagine a supposed problem created by the market that the market doesn't know how to handle and that we need this magical, and somehow separate and above the former's error, coercive force called the gov't that knows exactly how

[selfrealizedexile]

@Panpiper

to fix what the market couldn't begin to conceive of. I hope I can say we both know better than that. There is no logical justification for why a coercive entity should know better than a voluntary one--infact, we have reason to believe the opposite.

You will have so much invested in the production of music or movies because of the expected rate of return. If that expected rate of return inhibits production, you say a catastrophe will occur that society does not want. Well,

[selfrealizedexile]

@Panpiper

if society demanded a product, they're gonna pay for it. They're gonna pay as much as they feel is reasonable for the expected quality of service. Hell, they themselves don't have to be the ones personally investing. We both know the majority of consumers couldn't begin to think on that level. Entrepreneurs are going to forecast consumer demand and they will do the necessary investing. If "The Hobbit" can draw large audiences, it directly raises the investment potential. You

[selfrealizedexile]

@Panpiper

then say "well, if they can't make as much revenue off the sale of anti-piracy DVD's, etc. then it will directly inhibit investment into production." This also is true and it's not necessarily a problem.

I personally believe the art, music, movies, etc. industries have been distorted by this effect and it's why the income possibilities are all over the place--you're either living in poverty or a multi-millionaire. But, the market always pursues a perceived equilibrium.

[selfrealizedexile]

@Panpiper

Industries can be shaken up pretty well when undergoing corrections, but they don't necessarily go away. Demand for entertainment will always exist. You don't need the coercive hand of the State to make that industry work; voluntary producers and consumers can arrive upon agreeable conditions.

When you talk about destroying incentives, you are employing a utilitarian argument. I do it, too, sometimes when I want to make a specific point, but we should still be clear about it.

[selfrealizedexile]

@Panpiper I think you do destroy certain incentives, but if they're purely utilitarian incentives and not originated in Libertarian ethics, I won't be missing them.

No one said information is the common property of all mankind. What they're saying is information itself isn't property. You may expend some effort and time in arriving upon a solution to some problem. But, you do not own the information--you simply get the first mover advantage.

Well, the State can't be justified by

[selfrealizedexile]

@Panpiper

anything but a utilitarian argument. If an argument is against something specifically because it requires State action, that would be a Libertarian argument.

My bottomline statement to you is it's a bogeyman that the pure market could ever create something that would damage itself. If the absence of some kind of arbitrary legal protection destroys production that is demanded by consumers, as you conjecture, and consumers recognize this, you will have an amendment process whereby

[selfrealizedexile]

@Panpiper

consumers let the producers know they are willing to increase compensation to a level that sufficiently permits production. You're sweating an impossibility basically. Even more absurd and tragic, don't let this imaginary situation justify the State's existence in your mind.

[truthadvocate]

@Panpiper,

Ericfontainejazz interrupted our civil discourse. As I was saying, there is no such thing as natural rights. Private property is a concept that was invented by men to encourage cooperation, productivity, trade... basically to improve the quality of life for human beings. That is also why I support individual freedom. But stealing wealth by taxation to fund threats of force against millions of people for using an abundant resource (information) lowers the quality of life for everyone.

[Enign3]

@Panpiper I agree with everything you've said in this thread, about his issue.

I would like to add that I don't feel betrayed by the Libertarians' stand on IP. 'Disappointed' is more appropriate in my case.

[greenghost2008]

I still love the idea of a european libertarian. Its as cool as an atheist in the bible belt.