[Intellectual Property]

If you don't accept Intellectual Matter, then you will not find a rational basis for IP.

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.

[Intellectual Property]

This is a cost-benefit analysis, interesting perhaps, but is in no way an argument either for or against IP.

earlier you said:

The initiation of force is wrong. But utilitarian considerations
cannot be ingored completely. It is human nature to be concerned about
how the future affects oneself.

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

[Intellectual Property]

Copyright law could absolutely arise through Common Law in a libertarian world, all that is needed is to understand and accept the Doctrine of Intellectual Space, Matter and Property. Intellectual Property then arises in precisely the same fashion and for precisely the same reasons as Physical Property, Kinsella's assertions notwithstanding.

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.

[Does Canada exist?]

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.

[Social media abuzz over Piers Morgan vs. Alex Jones]

Thanks for the comment. So he's right on his talking points but he hanged himself. By hanging himself do you mean his reputation and influence is going to suffer substantially as a result of this, even though he's spoken the truth?

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.

[Intellectual Property]

I repeat, only property can be the subject of contract. Period.

I repeat, I don't think so. And you're not helping your case, you're just repeating your assertion.

Non-disclosure and non-competition contracts are agreements about what will not be said, and what will not be done. In both cases the subject matter is the human body, which is owned by the contracting party. Such contract is valid.

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.

but if I tried to make a contract prohibiting some other person from saying something, it would be invalid because I do not own the other person's body.

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.

How can I contract with you to not copy the pattern of ideas of my DVD, if I do not own the pattern of ideas? In your anti-IP world, suppose I sell you a DVD and you agree not to copy the DVD.

By that contract, I would agree not to copy the contents to another medium. It doesn't necessarily have to be a DVD, no.

You make a copy of the movie on a Flash Drive. Have you violated our agreement? The flash drive is in no physical sense a duplicate of the DVD. The only thing duplicated is an abstract understanding of the intellectual content.

Which I can agree not to copy to another medium or share with anyone.

[Social media abuzz over Piers Morgan vs. Alex Jones]

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.

[Intellectual Property]

Kinsella:

However, in order for IP to work, it has to bind not only seller and
buyer, but all third parties. The contract between buyer and seller
cannot do this — it binds only the buyer and seller.

IP and Statism

One final problem with IP can be mentioned. And that is that IP
rights are statutory schemes, schemes that are constructed only by
legislation. A patent or copyright code could no more arise in a
decentralized, case-based legal system in a free society than the
Americans with Disabilities Act could. In other words, IP requires both a
legislature and a state. For libertarians who reject the legitimacy of the state or legislated law, this is yet another defect of IP.

[Intellectual Property]

Only property can be the subject matter of a contract.

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?

If I don't own it, I can't sell or license it to you.

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).

If I sell or license you a DVD

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.

but I do not enjoy a property right in the pattern of ideas embodied therein, by what contractual language could I prohibit you from duplicating the pattern while utilizing  your own physical property?

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.

[Intellectual Property]

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.

[Intellectual Property]

As I've said, with the implementation of my theory, IP now does not require any deviation from our core principles.

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.

[New member: Question about the Viability of Anarchism vs Minarchism]

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.

certain interests would collude to essentially create such a monopoly on force, and thus a "government", whether it is called that or not, will emerge regardless.

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?

the government that emerges out of conditions of anarchy

You haven't yet established why that would happen at all.

I agree that no written constitutions or methods have been sufficient to limit government over long periods of time.  But, with effective safeguards and separation of powers, I believe we can limit government for a considerable length of time.

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.

In the United States, despite the atrocious violations of the rights of women, blacks and Native Americans, the restraints that were imposed on government in the form of the Constitution allowed a market economy that propelled the rise of the worlds largest middle class and the acceleration in the rise of living standards was terrific.

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.

And I believe that we could do far better in crafting a Constitution, improving the one we have and implementing additional safeguards that could effectively limit our government better than that which our founders gave to us.

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?

I also think that a minarchist government, stripped to its essential functions, could exist and not violate the non aggression principle.

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.

For example, the income tax is horrific and clearly immoral.  It is clearly theft and coercion against peaceful individuals.  But I would suggest that a strictly limited government should run on revenues collected by Americans engaging in purely voluntary activities.

For example, importing certain products would come with a tax.

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.

But you can easily avoid that tax by not importing that product or buying it locally.  Or you could have a government toll road, but you could choose to drive on a private road.  Therefore, any American could easily avoid paying the government anything unless the convenience of doing whatever voluntary and unneccessary activity is worth the additional tax.

Please explain how the government got ownership of said road?

This does not seem like tyranny.

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?

Furthermore, if government did not engage in any wealth redistribution but used all revenues to fund its bare essential functions, defense of the country, maintaining a court system and so forth, and all these functions benefitted each person equally, I don't think this violates the non aggression principle.

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?

Now, even if some of you are able to show that this is not the case, that the non aggression principle is being violated and some sort of inconsistency is being shown in my libertarian logic, I think that the reality is

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?

that in any society on the planet, at some point, a group of predators will organize to create a monopoly on the use of force, which will end up being a de facto government regardless.  If we understand this to be inevitably true

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.

then it would make sense to proactively establish the best kind of government that can possibly exist, with as many safeguards and limitations on the growth of its power as possible. What is the problem with this logic? 

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)

Do any of the Molyneux disciplines have any good refutations to my points?

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!

[Why Paul Krugman should be Obama's pick for US treasury secretary]

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.

[Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases]

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

[Columnist calls for gun confiscation, death of gun owners]

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..

[The History, Philosophy and Ethics of Gun Control]

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.