Libertus

Yes, 'intellectual matter' (why call it matter if it's not made from matter?!?) seems to be a necessary condition for your pro-IP argument. I agree, if people already go "wait, what?!?" when you bring up 'intellectual matter', there's no sense in going any further. Maybe 'intellectual matter' (im) is what should be introduced and accepted first, because it's right at the basis of your framework. I just don't see how you can hope to support 'ip' with 'im' while 'im' is not being accepted as common ground. To me it seems like you're building a house on a platform that floats in mid-air. Like a magic trick. ip im ... ... ... air ... or what is the relation between the two? Do they mutually support each other? ip im ip im ip ... ad infinitum? That would be circular.

earlier you said: So we will only look at benefits of IP law, because you can't ignore outcome completely, but we will not look at negative effects of IP because that is in no way an argument either for or against IP. Got ya

Now you have stopped making your case altogether and are merely repeating your conclusions. I would argue against you, but you're not making an argument here. What if I don't accept your "Doctrine of Intellectual Space, Matter and Intellectual Property"? I thought this is the thread where you just wanted to list all common arguments against IP. Well, I gave you a couple. Have you stopped listing them and at some point made your case? I must have missed that. We're arguing in mid-air.

Names do not exist, they are not objects in the real world. But that is not the point here, he didn't say "the name 'canada' doesn't exist" he said 'Canada doesn't exist' which is also true. Canada is the name of a 'nation state', which is basically a monopoly on force within the given geographical area. It is also the name for that geographical area itself so you would have to ask what he is specifically referring to. Canada the nation doesn't exist (because nations are theoretical constructs which by themselves, do not exist (in the physical world)Canada the name doesn't exist because names never do.That certain geographical area exists and is being referred to as 'Canada', I'm OK with that.A bunch of people with guns, fences and office buildings exist, and a lot of other people whom they hold hostage do exist. That's a whole bunch of folks and stuff right there that does exist and what is usually referred to as 'Canada'. So, yeah, in a sense, Canada exists, and doesn't exist, you have to be more specific with your reference there.

Let me put it this way, I focus on what he says, other people might focus on how he says it. So while I agree with a lot of the actual content of what Alex was saying there, he came across as a little crazy to people who are not at all familiar with his lingo (New World Order, Globalists, etc..) and it's obvious that the producers counted on Alex going on rants and tangents and so they let him do just that, uninterrupted.

I repeat, I don't think so. And you're not helping your case, you're just repeating your assertion. Not. at. all. The subject matter of a non-disclosure agreement is the disclosed information, not the human body that could be, doesn't necessarily have to be, used to share that information. I'm getting the feeling you're redefining common terms as we speak to make them fit. No, but the other person does and so he can agree to do or not do stuff with it. People do that all the freaking time. By that contract, I would agree not to copy the contents to another medium. It doesn't necessarily have to be a DVD, no. Which I can agree not to copy to another medium or share with anyone.

Anyone who expected anything different from Alex than this performance clearly hasn't listened to his radio show. He said what he had to say, and in a way that was appealing to his listenership. However, I also agree with the commenter who said they gave him just enough rope to hang himself. You can't say Alex was wrong on his facts, and he did expose Morgan's tactic asking him trivia questions and the whole interviewing style as biased.

Kinsella:

I don't think so. What about non-disclosure agreements (NDA)? What if I'm having an affair and the girl and I sign a contract not to tell my wife? What if you and I do business, and as a provision for said business you and I agree never to do business with let's say Wal Mart? Not all contracts are about items being sold or licensed. I offered many examples for contracts that are about keeping a trade secret or not doing X (which can be done without any property being involved). Hold on. If you sell me a DVD, it's mine. If you grant me license (in a free society) to using the content of a DVD but in order to obtain the license I am prohibited from, say, making a copy, that would be part of the underlying contract. The contract between you and me, that is, not with a third party. Alexander and Libertus agree to the following: Alexander hands Libertus a copy of his latest film and in exchange Libertus pays Alexander the sum X and agrees to not share the contents of the film with anyone or make copies, or do X, do Y. Libertus agrees that if he gets caught violating the terms of this contract he will pay Alexander the sum of X*10 in gold. That would be a contract between parties who give their consent to honor your 'intellectual property' or however you want to call it. The difference between arrangements like these and the concept that we call intellectual property today is that a contract can only be binding to its signees, and whether you want to do business exclusively among people who agree with you on honoring a concept called 'intellectual property' and who want to bind themselbes to a contract saying so, is your decision alone. But it's not synonymous with any sort of IP law we know today. I don't object to you calling it ip, but I see where it gets confusing.

Damn, it took to long for me to edit my message, and I was unable to retrieve the text typed. So here's the short version: In a free society, people will voluntarily come together and possibly contract among each other to honor 'intellectual property' and agree to pay damages for breaking the contract. You can call it intellectual property if you want, but it will not be different from trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements and similar provisions we already know today. The difference between arrangements like these and the concept of intellectual property we know today is how it affects third parties, which are non-signees of the contract - in short, a contract can only be binding to its signees, and whether you want to do business exclusively among people who agree with you on honoring intellectual property and who want to bind themselbes to a contract saying so, is your decision alone. I know I won't join your club*, won't buy your music and won't watch your guys' TV, just as I'm not doing these things now. The only difference is in a free society your contracts are not binding to me and I won't be forced to subsidize your club catching people who make copies. I just won't. Let's see which group makes the better movies. And then let's see which group makes the better food, machines, medicine and smart phones and which club will be better off after all. *'club' meaning literally 'club', or DRO, or insurance company or community. Anything voluntary where people do business which each other.

How do you get there? You have listed a number of anti-ip arguments and did a good job if I may say so. Now I'm looking forward to reading about your unique argument pro ip, and how you deal with the arguments listed.

Not trying to be overly harsh, this is just how it comes out.. only attacking the messages, with both fists and feet - not the messenger. I'm not sure that's really a monopoly on force. Bad people will conspire and collude, and use force or threaten to use force, but how can they create a monopoly on force without the consent of the free, well-armed people that are protecting each other directly and indirectly through a network of defense and insurance agencies? How can bad people make sure they're the only ones (as in monopoly) with guns? You haven't yet established why that would happen at all. Only to end up where we ended up the last time: warrantless searches and seizures, victimless crimes, millions of peaceful people in jail cells and thousands in torture camps, wiretapping, drone bombings, carpet bombings of cities, hundreds of millions starving ... no, thanks. The market economy wasn't allowed by there being a federal government. It has existed before there was a federal government, and since then it has managed to grow despite the fed getting involved. Not because. They are not our founders. Show me the contract that is binding to me (pretending I was an American). What gives you the right to impose your government on me? Word games. It is, for all intents and purposes, not a government if it isn't a coercive monopoly against people within a geographical area. Let's call it a 'club' of people, or a 'group'. You can't call it government unless it's binding to everybody within a given area. If everybody could continue to use their own arbitration organizations, their own security firms and their own money, then your 'government' would be nothing but a competing organization and should not be called a government. But make it a monopoly on the services that 'minarchists' think are best to be managed by a government, it's not voluntary anymore (because it's not a monopoly if you can't stop others from getting their protection elsewhere). It's either or. Let's not mix the two together. Isn't working as a car salesman a voluntary activity, too? According to that definition, the income tax is OK after all, is it not? Think about it. What makes taxes theft is not whether the activity that is being taxed is a voluntary or an involuntary one, but whether the payment of the tax itself is voluntary or not. Please explain how the government got ownership of said road? How about I occupy your house and force you to pay a small fee for usage? Because that's what happens with roads, they were either stolen outright or built with stolen money. How is that not tyranny? But I don't need a court system, all I need is the defense and arbitration services that I have chosen for myself. I don't want to pay for your 'essential functions'. Is that OK or should I go to jail if I refuse to pay my taxes / tariffs / fees? Well, well. First we show you how what you're suggesting violates the NAP, and after all that you're telling us that it doesn't matter anyway, because of, ugh reality? Why did you go through all the trouble of demonstrating how minarchism doesn't violate the NAP when the NAP clearly doesn't matter anyway, because reality? No, we do not understand. They (the predators) can try. But you're saying, realistically, there is no way they could ever be stopped. So, let's say because people are fallible, so let's create a coercive monopoly on force, give a group of people all the guns and a heckload of money and a monopoly on force and authority to act in a given area and pretend they won't be overstepping, because of a piece of paper that says they may not violate our rights. Sure, that will work, it's totally reasonable to create a monopoly on force in order to prevent a monopoly on force from forming. The problem with your logic is that it has faulty premises that you seem to be taking for granted (a violent monopoly will always be built... taxes are not stealing if the activity is taxed is voluntary, and so on - I commented on your faulty premises) but are by no means demonstrable true and correct, and secondly that you don't appear to having thought through some of your points (the one about the roads, not understanding / misapplying what the NAP says, correctly pointing out that income taxes are immoral while - apparently - not understanding why they are, couple more) Did you mean "disciples"? I am not one of those, but I have applied some of the arguments I have heard on Stefan's show to your points, thank you. Peace and love! At least you're asking question and not making accusations, that is highly commendable. I enjoyed picking your post apart. Salute!

No, Krugman should be secretary of treasury, because it would accelerate America's downturn - and only after a collapse of the current system there's hope for recovery.

You know, it's not Obama's fault - in 2012 he inherited a mess from his predecessor, president Obama...

Another instance of double speak: "The 2nd amendment does not allow / does not mean for the people to be armed" "We need to repeal the 2nd amendment so we can disarm the people" If the 2nd amendment doesn't mean what it says, then why bother repealing it? The government could just go ahead and take the guns away. However, if he's saying, they need to repeal the 2nd amendment in order to take the guns, he admits that the constitution protects gun owners. Can't have it both ways..

But, but... aren't guns just a means to shoot people? Just kidding, outstanding work! You're taking a stand with both feet firmly planted on the right side of the issue.