Kawlinz

yeah it depends on how it's used. I think there are genuinely creepy people out there, and in my experience they tend to be guys. If calling them creepy stops them from hitting on you inappropriately, I think it's a good use of the word.

Hey, I'm taller than most of the population, don't dare come for my shins!

the short answer - whoever wants to!

I was addressing what I do when the hypothetical people in the hypothetical situation that Rothbard proposed come to blame me for not voting, and why they do it. Of course it mirrors what people say in the real world with political voting. I wasn't addressing your response to the quote, only the quote. In the name of less confusion - If you want to vote, that's cool, but I don't think that getting voluntarists elected would do anything. Anything that goes "wrong" would be pointed out, saying "see? this is what happens when you try less government". Government relies on propaganda, and would have no reason not to scare everyone into being good little citizens.

Not you specifically, I was just referring to your example / quote. Please point out where I said you were blaming me.

When people come to me and blame for not voting "it's your fault we're getting tortured, if only you'd VOTED!" it's not my fault, it's the aggressors fault. Blaming the non-voter is a scapegoat to avoid the real and horrifying issue - there are monsters who aggress and many people cheer it on.

Why doesn't he hire everyone directly?

Yep - you got us all.

I can see legit reasons for excluding men like talking about feminine hygiene and all that. But they don't have feminine hygiene clubs as far as I'm aware.

I don't think any muscian has paid for the right to use a major scale, minor scale, or any of the other scales that sound pleasing to the ear. They don't pay to use a certain rhythm, a certain tempo, specific instruments. I don't see the need to protect specific notes under "IP" or what would even qualify.

I think even in a deterministic framework, causation can be probabalisitic. I don't think it dismisses the framework at all. Either way, saying "x caused me to Y"... well, what caused X? And before that? it always go back to the big bang (or before, if that makes sense) What does hurt the framework is that no one attempts to share concepts with a car in order for it to get better gas miliage.

That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's funny where people stop when they say X caused me to do it. I'm suggesting, that if you're a determinist, you should really be saying that "the big bang made me do it" or "all the previous forces that act upon my body." Anything else would be arbitrary, wouldn't it?

Professional Teabagger already nailed it outta the park so I don't know the conversation is continuing.

Lots of people do things to attempt and make a living and they don't pan out. That's the "so" part. You didn't present a rebuttal, you just said a bunch of stuff you don't like. I took 20 years to perfect being a rapper. If you want to get a copy of my music for free of charge, that's cool. If I want people to pay for it AND have people who don't pay for it not hear it, I've got to come up with a model to do that. You know what the worst model is for doing that? making decent music, putting it in a form that can be easily and anonymously copyied by anyone - that's a recipe for failure, yeah? So who will take 20 years to perfect something that can easily be COPIED (not stolen) by anyone? me. I did. And I don't work on a farm. Yeah I work a day job but that's on me if i want to make a living from music. I'm not demanding anyone do anything. I'm a fucking anarchist. you wanna charge people for your songs, be my guest. Shit, I've bought music that was made available for free by the artists themselves, I must be crazy? So where does the fraud occur in the chair example? Fraud is intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. So, do you have a different definition of fraud? I don't see the deception when you copy a chair, regardless of the state of permission from the original creator. maybe I'm missing something but I honestly don't think I am. The only reason i bring up the teleportation ideas taking over old technology, is that your rebuttal consists of "well, they guy want to make money from what he's put his life into learning, and denying him that opportunity is wrong / immoral" We'll make it simpler then, without the new technology. A guy owns a horse ranch. It's actually the first horse ranch ever. is it fraud for me to also open a horse ranch without his permission? Do you think the people who pay for stef's premium content would just stop because some guy posts it on some torrent site? maybe a few but i doubt it would be many... why? again, stef's work is valuable and they wanna pay the guy responsible for the concepts - even if they're freely copyable. All it comes down to - I think - is pointing out where the initiation of force or fraud (deception) occurs in copying something. If you can't do that, then you don't have a leg to stand on. I'll even define what I mean by the terms... Force is intentional violence threatened or committed against a person. Fraud is intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. Copy is to arrange property in a similar or identical fashion to another arrangement of property. Do those definitions work for you?

Shit, that was easy dawg!

"So, as a businessman, why does it matter if the person who takes your entire business, and gives it away to everyone for free on the internet admits they didn't write it?" Didn't take anything. You still have it. "You seem to be suggesting, "Well, he'll still have a copy though, so it's not theft". He didn't spend decades honing his craft, so that he could have a copy of his voice on cd. He did it to make a living. " So? "If you can copy and print custom chairs, on your 3 d printer, people will stop designing chairs for a living, because there will be no living to be had. I want people who have great ideas to become wealthy, that's a fundament of capitalism. The guy who comes up with a cure for cancer, shouldn't have to beg for donations afterwards." Yeah, but you didn't answer the question. You've stated some of the effects, but would I be committing fraud to the carpenter if I printed a chair that he designed? And how? where does the fraud occur? I also want people who have great ideas to be wealthy. You think no one will pay a guy or gal who made a cure for cancer? I personally think whoever does will never have to lift a finger again in their life, even under a "No IP" system. Writing some good songs doesn't compare. I don't expect to be paid much when I'm comfortable enough releasing a project or two, and I've spent almost 20 years in my craft. I didn't do it "to get paid". You know that people pay Stef, right? he's not going after anyone who copies or gives his stuff away, but people pay him, some 50 bucks a month! Why? Some people do want to get paid, but what's that got to do with anything? If I'm a horse trainer, I want to get paid for training horses. if suddenly someone comes up with something called a car, and horses are in much lower demand. If we find a way to simply copy a car, the demand for car factories will go down, but cars wont. Then teleportation is mastered and suddenly no one wants cars anymore. Do we even care that the horse trainer finds it very difficult to make a living training horses? I don't. Serve the market. "The people who design an app that lets your phone screen for cancer, will waste years staring at a computer screen arranging ohs and ones... Pay them! Trade value for value. I'm actually really shocked that Stef, and many anarcho capitalists disagree with this sentiment. It seems completely contrary to the basic fundament of capitalism, that great works are rare, and they should be rewarded." Write a great song that touch people at their core, and you'll get paid. if it's just another pretty good song, well, we've got millions of those, so you might make bit of dough.

Intellectual property is a contradiction in terms. Property is a thing. A concept (the intellectual part of "intellectual property") is not. Intellectual property is the equivalent of saying not property. So if I have a way to copy a chair to the cubic millimeter, I've committed fraud against the carpenter who built the original? I'm not arguing for pretending i'm you and uploading your music to websites to collect fees. that's fraud. We don't need something called "intellectual property" to deal with that. That's not the part of your argument that I disagree with, and I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that. I would say that if I say i'm me, and I'm selling your music, there's nothing wrong with that. FYI I'm a musician too. "how they gonna // claim or maintain that you gotta give em funds for arranging ohs and ones?" how do you claim that? If all a download is is re-arranging your hard drive to resemble someone else's, where is the theft?

if they put the on their website saying that they're you, sure, it's fraud. How can you call it theft when you still have all your physical property?

Because a song is a concept. A chair is a thing. If you want to sell your sheet paper / notepad / laptop / CD that you wrote the song with or your song is on, then you're talking about a thing, and not the song.

I didn't call them outside forces. I see how my sentence - which also included environment - was misleading. I included surroundings (external) with feelings (internal) and expected you to know what i was talking about somehow. The point I was making was that the feelings, emotions, memories etc are only there because of some outside environment that we have no control over. they're always directly proportional to the outside influences. saying 'my brain made me do x' kind of makes me wanna ask the question "well, why did the brain do that?" well, it must have been in reaction to something. saying we possess will when we act is like saying a ball has will when it gets kicked. I know we call it will, but it's just a bad definition. will includes control and deliberation, neither of which exist if everything is a casual reaction. does that make more sense as to why I was using "outside forces"?

Customers might be willing to pay extra if it keeps impaired drivers off the roads they want to use. Using such roads might also lower your insurance.

I used to when I was a determinist. "magic" was my favorite one. I think the flaw was that I was claiming "matter and energy is a causal chain that can't be broken by *magic*", all while I was appealing to concepts in my attempt to affect matter and energy.

meh, I'd beg to differ... she's about at a 3% connection

When a ball has inertia, where does the inertia come from?