Hannibal

I don't think there are any rules to govern what is or isn't funny. Reality is reality, and that abuse happened whether or not he makes a joke of it. I think that people who take offense to it are not being rational. If the joke was suggesting that abusing kids is a fun thing to do, or right to do, or ok to do, then that's different. But clearly that guy, if anything, is using a joke to tell the world that his dad beat him and that it sucked. When I was a Royal Marine just over a decade ago now, there were 2 jokes in particular that I remember. Both in training. 1) one of the guys had an epileptic fit in the bath. This was obviously sad because that was the end of his career, but while we were "fallen in" around and down the stairwell inside our accommodation block, a corporal from the training team emerged as usual, and started giving us a huge bollocking, as usual. To paraphrase him: "You fuckers! what were you doing while <recruit's surname> was fitting in the bath?! Why didn't you get your dhobi and dhobi dust in there with him?!" Dhobis being an indian caste that specialise in washing clothes, so Dhobi meant washing (as in laundry) and dhobi dust was washing powder. That was an incredibly funny joke at the time. 2) Another recruit was shot dead by accident on a training area where live ammunition got mixed in with blank ammunition. A popular guy, only 16 years old from Wales (different troop to me). I happened to be in sick-bay that morning getting a chit from the doc so that I could wear trainers instead of boots until my tendonitis cleared up. I saw the helicopter arriving, and police milling about. Later that afternoon the whole camp fell in inside the drill shed where the adjutant briefed us all on what had happened and what to do if any press questioned us, and so i realised what the fuss had been about that morning. That evening we were being briefed about the following day, which included an inspection because of some other indiscretion, and the troop Captain, in his toff voice, said "and for anyone who fails inspection, we'll take you up to the common and have you shot!". Again a very funny joke at the time. Humor can be a strange thing.

+1. It took a long time for that penny to drop for me.

Its not hard, for anyone not being deliberately obtuse, to understand. Any child afforded the full protection of non-aggression would very likely die shortly after they first decided that they wanted to freely leave their home and cross the street, or the first time they decided that they wanted to see what the bottle of bleach under the kitchen sink tasted like, etc. I won't assume that you need education of how extinction works.

While I don't think that it would ever be necessary to 'spank' a child, the NAP clearly does NOT apply to children. If it did human beings would be extinct in no time at all. As such, I think that a socially acceptable NAP-lite applies to children. I don't think it's a big deal because in a society of NAP advocates, defining such an NAP-lite would be fairly non contentious.

Don't those guys tend to differentiate between personal property, and "the means of production" as property? Not that it makes any sense to me, but it would make arguments about performative contradictions, etc, redundant.

It would be a state because there would be no competition permitted. While funding would be voluntary, private police/courts/etc would not be permitted. The state would be the only organisation allowed to use retaliatory force. I've not followed up on the links or vids, but Anarchism tends to refer to the old kind of anarchy that you see in London on May day, where smelly youths smash up macdonnalds and starbucks shop fronts. Hence the use of the terms Voluntarist, or Anarcho-Capitalist, to distinguish. **edit** i've just noticed that my response may be entirely redundant. Feel free to ignore it

If you can't see how it's complicity in fraud, then I have nothing else to talk about. It should be clear as day, and if its not clear to you then I can only assume that it;s because you don't want to see the truth. Perhaps it's inconvenient for you; I don't know.

I love Ayn Rand. I used to agree almost entirely with everything she said, with a few caveats, but since I've spent more time reading and understanding the subtleties of Objectivism, and their implications, I now agree virtually 100%. Yaron Brook does loads of really good talks on youtube about the virtue of selfishness, etc. He's a bit warmongery for me, but apart from that he does a really great job. She did appreciate laughter. She used to refer to her little gang of objectivists as "the collective" for a giggle. It's how you target that destructive element (humour) which is important: point 2) If you don't believe that a man's faculty of reason is his only guide through life, then what else do you think that there is? She did acknowledge that our emotions help to guide us, but reason is the final arbitrator. point 1) kindof follows on from point 2. point 3) I get what you're saying, but I think that the idea is that men must be free to act like men, being that reason is their only tool to do so, and that men are able to be their best only when they trade freely with other men. Have you ever met a genuinely happy thug? I haven't. If real happiness is the purpose of life, then it is irrational to sacrifice the achievement of real joy, by being a thug. Maybe there are exceptions, but it seems to me that the capacity to feel true joy is inextricably linked to the values that Rand outlines, as part of man's nature. Lottery winners don't feel the same joy that an entrepreneur does from making his first million, because as Rand states, Pride is the sum of all virtues, and pride is the source of human joy.

I'm a huge cheerleader for Ayn Rand. I mention her because I've found her analyses and explanations amazingly clear and hard to argue against. Check her out. You could start by searching for terms (such as "freedom", or whatever) at theaynrandlexicon.com which references the varying works of hers from which the quotes are taken. I should mention that she was very much against anarchy though But her vision of the state was an entirely voluntary one - the only issue being that she believed that the state, whether you paid for it or not, is the only legitimate institution that was allowed to initiate force when it came to enforcing NAP violations, e.g. carting someone off to prison, or extracting someone from their home in order to face justice. Her reasoning is sound though - it's just that she came to a slightly different conclusion, and the exact same reasoning would be used by an anarchist.

What do you mean by "But I feel like that wont help me when it comes to 'real' programming such as using C# or C++."? C# is almost identical to Java, and C++, in terms of programming, is not very different. Java is ubiquitous in all of the big investment banks, I've used it extensively in telephony integration (middleware layers which join up you topping up credit by talking to a computer over the phone/website/SMS/voucher with back end mobile account systems/banking interfaces/etc ), etc. If you've already done some Java then i'd suggest sticking with that to hone your development skills, while spending the time you would otherwise spend learning a new language, learning about computers/systems in general. I.e. if you don;t already know you could learn about how your Java is compiled to byte code, which is interpreted on a virtual machine, which in turn is compiled against a particular platform and hooks into services provided by the underlying operating system, etc. If you learned something like C then you'd have to get a slightly deeper feel for what's going on because you have to manage your own memory allocations, and can manipulate pointers, etc. But i think that might be a little frustrating to start with - you can be more productive with Java in those early days, and look deeper under the covers as and when you feel like it. If you really want to develop video games, then perhaps your choices would be different. The market for games is much smaller, and so I think it's tougher to get into, but that doesn't meant that I don't think that you should try. I'm just saying that there is alot of satisfaction to be had doing other things. I can only speak from a UK perspective, but I think that my Software Engineering degree was a bit of a waste. It does help you find your first 1 or 2 jobs, but all you really need is a steer in the right direction. Someone to say "read this book then this one". If you spend money learning for 3 years, you could instead learn in your own time, and then get a very low entry level job and work your way up - all the time you're being paid to learn, rather than the other way round. You can achieve alot in 3 years. What's especially useful these days when it comes to finding jobs, which you'll probably not learn at school, are things like TDD (test driven development) and other techniques. With some guidance you can build things like this into your learning process. I think with a little guidance you can find everything you need on the Web. I forgot to mention - I was a Royal Marine for a few years after I left school. I injured myself and had to leave, and decided to do a Software Engineering degree having never programmed before. I didn't graduate until I was 25 - so I wouldn't worry about being 19. I'm 33 now and I'm successful and earning very good money.

I'm not especially concerned if you don't like the word copyright. It's not particularly important, although there is an enormous number of seemingly redundant words in the english language, which actually illustrate subtleties depending on which redundant word is chosen. Copyright, assuming a tweak to it's legal definition, seems like a perfectly good word to me to describe the idea that a person has contractual rights over the copying/distribution of a work. "Contractual agreement" is unnecessarily vague. It sounds like you're not interested in principle, and are reverting to pragmatics to justify a lack of moral integrity in pirate downloaders. Nothing you've said there addresses whether downloading is complicity in fraud. Saying "oh, the musician probably wants me to violate our contract because i read somewhere that this other musician does" isn't really a justification, is it? How is going to the pirate bay and downloading known-to-be copyrighted music any different to your pal Bob breaking into the lab, taking photos of the secret formulas, and giving copies of the photos to you? By your own logic you should be entirely free to make use of those 'stolen'/copied formulae.

Exactly. The concept of property exists as part of man's nature. There is no escape. All the talk of tribes of nomads having no concept of property is nonsense. They only think that way so long as it's mutually to their benefits to do so. It's not that property doesn't exist, but rather that they choose to not lay claim to things - a very different kettle of fish. As soon as there is unbalanced external competition for resources which were previously regarded as communal, then suddenly that tribe will have changed it's tune.

What on earth are you talking about?! The OP asked if the NAP applies to non-human animals, not whether it pleases you or not to eat animals.

So you're arguing for rights, while contending that morality isn't useful when determining rights. You're really going to have to explain how you reason what rights are and how they are applied (as i've repeatedly asked) because now it sounds like you're just making it up as you go along.

Without thinking too deeply, the salient point for me is that by copyrighting a work, you are drawing up a contract whereby you agree to sell a product on the condition that the buyer agrees not to copy and redistribute it. It doesn't have to be much more complicated than that. Copyrighting a product is to put it's distribution under a ubiquitous model of contractual obligation. Copyrighting is the contractual agreement, whereas fraud is simply what occurs when someone violates a contact. Now... if you think that you can download pirated copyrighted music without being complicit in fraud, then how is that any different from saying to your pal "hey, if you break into that lab and steal the secret formula, give me a copy!" ? You're suggesting it's more like someone broke into the lab, stole the secret formula, and dropped a file on their escape through the woods. Then 2 years later you stumble across the file when walking your dog, pick up the papers and think "what's this? i'll go home see if I can make something with the interesting looking details on this anonymous piece of paper.". Clearly the two aren't the same, and I honestly think that to equate pirate music downloading with the second scenario is intellectual dishonesty from someone who wants to appropriate unearned value. Is deliberate contract violation, and evasion of any penalties contained within that contract, not a kind of fraud then?

Well it's still a contract violation. Whether it would be worth prosecuting is another matter. I personally think record companies these days are flogging an obsolete business model and should give up prosecuting illegal downloaders, but that's besides the point. I recently got a spotify subscription and see no need to download music now. Whether it's a decent business model, in terms of profits, or not I don't know.

I'm not sure i'd agree with that. The post is about the validity of the concept of IP, and the implications of that to people who mistake copyright with IP are that no IP means no copyright. This isn't valid. I understand that the legal frameworks we have to mix the two concepts together, but that doesn't mean that it's now morally ok to download pirated music, for example. Just saying "fraud is wrong" isn't sufficient (to me at least) because the people that mistakenly tie copyright to IP (the point of my original objection) will completely miss the point and feel righteous in engaging in copyright violations because they've failed to see that it is in fact fraudulent to do so. I know it seems like a minor point, but I personally think it;s important. We can't make any convincing argument for the invalidity of IP, and the immorality of enforcing it, while we simultaneously engage in fraudulent activities which we mistakenly feel are legitimised, due to our own lack of understanding of the topic. What do you think about the fraud that is occurring when a copyrighted work is copied?

What he said. You're basically suggesting a change of vocabulary in order to trick people into behaving nicely. Not something I'm interested in doing.

I think we're in agreement then. Buying a copyrighted artefact, like a CD for example, and copying it is clearly fraudulent. Hearing that CD being played, and then singing it out loud in the park is not. So, for example, an original work of literature, posted as an advert of a billboard on the side of the road could clearly not be protected under copyright, as the people seeing this work have no choice to agree or not to any contract before they get it blasted into their eyes. The car thief was just meant to demonstrate a chain of complicity. The complicity is dependant on a free choice - so if you bought that car not knowing it was stolen, then that's ok. If you hear the music - it;s in your head now. Too late to stop. If, though, you have the cd in your hand, you have the choice to copy it or not. I thought i'd already made a similar distinction actually, but scrolling up I can't see one. I always remember banksy (if thats how its spelled) saying that everyone should use trademarked images (eg on billboards) in artwork, because its forced down your throat whether you want it or not. So the point is (and i think we're in agreement after what you said) that CopyRight (albeit in a lightly different form from now) is a valid concept - so all you pirate music downloaders should stop feeling all righteous by not believing in IP!!! Thanks for this - I didn't already know that Rothbard had written about it. That makes me feel better about it, and might help me make the same case more concisely in future.

When we use the word 'animals' we're making the distinction between different types of being based on a particular trait, which is man's ability to reason in a world of free choices, rather than pure instinct. This is the single thing that sets us apart from animals. The fact that you're even objecting to use use of the word 'animal' is astonishing to me. You can dodge the real questions here as long as you like (you even quoted it), but all of this meaningless and entirely subjective and emotional fuzzy talk about being nice to animals, saving the planet, etc, is entirely worthless as long as you refuse to introduce any objectivity into your reasoning (or lack thereof). The thread is about the applicability of NAP to animals, and all anyone here seems to have to say is "oh, i like fluffy bunny rabbits, and it would make me happy to see them live their lives as equals, with their own zebra crossings so they don't get run over crossing the motorway. So OBVIOUSLY the NAP applies to animals". Can anyone prove how we even arrive at a principle of non aggression among men? before we even talk about animals? Because all i've seen in this thread is a determination to avoid considering what morality really is, and where it comes from, with a frightening persistence in ascribing almost religious pronouncements with regards to animal rights, with zero attempt to reason the argument from any kind of first principles. Saying that "humans are destructive and inconsiderate of nature, and this is bad, therefore animals have rights", is bollocks. Excuse my french.

No. This is the problem I see with your proposal - it's based on an idea that 2 parties are right just because they both claim to be right, or even believe to be right. The reality is that truth is truth, and they both can't be right. What's the point in talking about "responsibility" (which is just playing with words), when the real solution is to observe reality, embrace truth, and recognise which party owns whatever is being disputed. It is incredibly rare that arguments arise when 2 parties genuinely both feel that they are right. They arise because one or parties don't care who is actually right, and want to take what isn't theirs. There is in reality no confusion about ownership. Babies understand it because it is in man's nature. It's not a hard concept to grasp. We'll probably just disagree. But you're wrong

You do make such an agreement when you purchase a CD/DVD/Book, etc. If an advert was played on a tv screen in a public place, for example, then you can recreate that advert if you like. But if you enter into an agreement with someone not to recreate whatever you see on screen in the cinema, as a condition of entry, and you do then you are committing fraud.

If practicality is the goal, then this distinction that you're making is the exact opposite Ownership is axiomatic, and the only problem that arises from ownership is when someone else decides they want what they haven't earned, and are willing to use force to take it. It's straight forward and easy. Everyone can be good guys, and anyone who want's to be a bad guy has to make a conscious and deliberate choice to do evil. I suspect that i may have missed the point of your original post, because this all sounds like completely pointless playing with words rather than having any real substance to it.

Why not? It's just like when I bought my house - all of the land round here used to be owned by the church, and when you buy a house on my street (among others) it comes with a covenant that states that I am required to pay a certain amount of money towards repair of the cathedral roof, should it be struck by lightening, etc. One typically pays around £25 when purchasing the house for an insurance policy to cover this, even though it's unlikely anything would ever come of it. I didn't have to buy the house, and the church, however long ago, didn't have to sell it. We collectively struck a deal which and agreed to it in a contract. In the same way, in a free society where people paid for their own police/fire service I imagine that it would be very likely that housing developments being built would be sold on the condition that the purchasers agree to purchase fire service protection, for the good of the neighbourhood collectively. Deciding that contractual obligations stop as soon as property becomes yours is just nonsense. Otherwise I could contract myself to do some work, and not bother turning up with no consequences. My body is my own property after all.

Get a job and do your writing in your spare time, until you reach a point, if you reach a point, where you find you really need more time to write. Lots of people work a full week, look after kids, and renovate their house all at the same time. If you work and then write in your spare time you'll avoid the trap of potentially wasting a lot of time (I'm just speculating, but perhaps you'll struggle to find focus, etc - that doesn't matter so much when it's on the side instead of taking over your life). Plus you can pay the relatives more - I feel like doing that proactive work in order to support myself helps to keep me focussed, wheras in my student days the night and days blended together with no structure and I'm pretty sure the net achievement was less than if I had worked during that time. Obviously you know yurself better than me : )