Those guys gave up because they didn't have the resources to defend themselves, but had they, they would have won.

Devs are already doing that oO. You aren't very familiar with copyright laws are you?

It establishes a direct link between quality of intellectual products and their perceived value by the market. If the market undervalues such product by copying it, the quality will adjust itself down to that value. And value is relevant to property.

Who even remotely cares? It is not a matter of net loss for whatever people you are willing to lump in some group and call them representative of society, it is a matter of loss to you, as a consumer, for certain quality products are not profitable enough because they are too easy to copy and as such only low quality of such product is ever only made (read low investment).

This started as a fundamental look at property, let's keep it as such.

Also ethics and morals are not relevant in this discussion, because your morals are yours only and you cannot implement them into anyone. What you can expect though, is consequences for you actions, i.e., you do not respect my property by stealing the design I've come up with, do not expect me to respect your property, however material or immaterial it is.

You made it quite clear that you do not respect intellectual property and not simply the actual take of whatever government on it, which also puts you out of context since from the early steps of this discussion it was stated that no force was going to be used to apply those property rights.

Yet that property is very real. So very real that you want to take it to use it for yourself, and are making a point at not caring what I have to say about it.

Your example deviates from the point. What you present would be the equivalent of coming up with some ingenious design of yours and taking over my market share, which is perfectly fair, even if you based it off of my original concept, since you made it better, you deserve the rip from it.

The proper example would be I have x-ray goggles and you outright tell me "no you can't use them", then proceed to buy yourself a pair and use them.


If I rediscover it, it is mine to use. You are completely out of context. Laws of nature are for anyone to use if they can so manage. I am a painter and I come up with a piece. Now I choose to charge people to come and see it. I am not pretending dominion over paint, canvas or the technique I used to produce my painting. I am pretending property over the original alignment of colors that is the picture I have come up with. Then you come along, take a picture under the pretense that I cannot restrict access to that piece, that it somehow belongs to everyone, and god knows what else.

You take the stance that originality does not exist, that voluntary alignment of objects hold no meaning nor value, that a thousand monkeys with a typewriter and infinite time can come up the whole of Shakespear's work, and then pretend that I am calling dibs on words and semantics.


Programming languages were invented for the very purpose of being spread. You are oblivious to the intention of the creator, thinking that intangible creation were made for masses benefit, at the cost of its creator's time, effort and resources.


That is their very right, ideas aren't properties, their expression is. A movie maker isn't demanding rights over the concept of romance, only his take on it. A mathematician knows there is no rights to be held on a theory, but the software he builds after it, that is his property. If you can understand his process and give it your own shot, you are in your right and the more power to you. But to copy his software to spread it at your profit and at his detriment, this is not only aggression against the creator but also pocketing his wealth for yourself.



Specialists fill for your inability to specialize in said domain, in the expectation of returns for services rendered. The very existence of specialists implies that they were able to profit from their specialty more than from being common laborers, which is the reason we don't live in caves anymore. But we are headed straight towards cave land if they can't make a profit of holding and applying knowledge that you don't have. If intellectual rights are moot, then a doctor has no right to charge you for a diagnosis. Let's see where that is going to take us.


Yeah let's forget the existence of sponsors under the form of kings, feudal lords and later governments and corporates, all that have greatly benefited from said research that they financed. And you want to read the part on charity again. My business plan seems to be sound enough that you want to take over, don't you? And somehow what isn't property turns into "desirable property" out of a sudden. Well shit, son.

You pay to be taught but you don't pay for the book that holds that knowledge? That is nonsensical.


'scuse me what? If you gonna talk about private property at least respect it's principles... first come first served, it doesn't matter what I did to your wood, it was without your consent, I have no right to it nor did I ever had. And yeah, if I build a plane it belongs to me, and the original alignment of its innards too. kthx.

I don't agree with this at a fundamental level. This is a pragmatic explanation, that exposes the need of property rights for a functional society to exist. It does not tend to the fundamental concept of property. I walk on a beach and pick up a grain of sand and call it mine. Assuming no one claimed it before me, it is now mine, and as all value is subjective, I shall assign it any value that I wish, and it certainly is not scarce. Property is a factor of value, and even though scarcity is an important parameter of value, it is but situational. Here's a simple example. Titanium is the 3rd most available metal on the world. Yet items made of titanium are highly expensive, because it requires particular knowledge and skill to work it. Here what is scarce is the ability to work it, even though, according to you, ideas 'cannot be scarce', so since the knowledge is available, anyone should be able to reproduce it.

True, scarcity isn't relevant to an idea, but the ability to understand it, that is. And nevertheless, books are not scarce, but a particular book holding a particular idea is valuable, because of the knowledge it provides.

As I thought, you couldn't care less about what I think, as long as you can get your hands on it. I guess since you don't recognize private property you won't either recognize the fundamental concept of violence, only it's tangible consequence.





Property rights include: the right of exclusion, the right of destruction, the right to transfer ownership and the right to use said property as I see fit, which consist, literally, in profiting from it. You're like telling me "hey see that car? it's yours, but you can't drive it". And anyways, what is this setup? You don't acknowledge my right to profit from my creation because I made it, but you acknowledge yourself the right to profit from it precisely because you had nothing to do with my work to begin with?


I agree with non aggression. The fact that people think they have a right to strip me of my production because they can't physically touch it and can't recognize aggression when it's in their face is beyond me though.

So you're saying if I build some gigantic gizmo on my property and you see it, you won't try to copy it? Cause that's not what you're implying.


If my intended use was to profit out of it, how am I gonna do that hmm?


That's part of property rights, you are starting to deny the whole thing now.


Physics and Medicine are some of the fields that require the most funds to research, how is that research to be financed if there is no profit to be made at the end?

That's your choice, not mine, and I have clearly stated that I don't intent to let you take what I create for free. Are you still going to try and take it? You do understand the aggression comes from you in that case. Being a "libertarian" as you pretend, you ought to be respecting my wish to not be involved with you, don't you? Or how do you explain the breaking and entering to "rightfully acquire" the blue print of my gizmo?

It is not ad hominem since you are trying to discuss the nature of actions I perform, and the principles of ownership (of my body and mind) says that I set the premise. As such your arguments only have merit based upon the set premise of this discussion.


Where are you going with this exactly? That the muscle is off limit but the brain isn't? Last time I checked it's part of my body.

You choose to not regard it as property, which allows you rationalize taking it from me without my consent, kinda like religious people with their loonie book, ya know. Nevertheless, it needs not be property for it to be charity. Last time I checked labor can be given (read taken) for free, and thinking is a form of labor, unless you're going to step that far in your delusion...

As for the ability to profit, it can't be my right if you are not willing to recognize it as such. There are no guaranteed rights. Which will naturally drive people to stop trying to make a profit off of such practices (read they gonna stop doing it altogether, instead of giving it up for free like you're expecting them to)

I doubt this movie will ever hit Europe >_>

More like you force me out in the woods because out of the 100 of you 51 thought I should give them half of what I produce so you can go war the 100 guys living in the next village, and I am left with the clothes on my back and the woods. But guess what? Once I've established myself in the woods and I'm doing fine, you and your 100 buddies will be back to take from me again, to war some more. Good job there chief.

I don't care about society for one single bit. My problem with society is that it won't allow that. Show me one piece of dirt that has no nation controlling it and ima consider apatriating myself there. Hell, even Antartica is under UN legislation.

I have to say from all the animes i've watched I haven't come across a robot harem setup yet oO

Not to piss on your parade but I think democracy is an abomination. Do you think some random guy that lives on the other side of the planet should have a word in what you can or cannot do with your life and property? No. Then why should your neighbor have such power? To be free is to have the right to refuse to interact with others, no matter who they are and where they live.

Bunch of fruitcakes want to vote away they property rights and share all of their belongings together?  No problem go ahead. But why do I have to go to jail because I don't want to join you in your insanity?


You're missing your own point. If you walk away from the game as your opponent starts cheating, you're not enforcing the rules of the game, rather you are giving up on the game altogether. To enforce the rule in that case would be for you to be declared winner by an outside entity, which will then proceed to fine the cheater. You seem to forget that rules aren't enforced by individuals but by entities.

Chobits is horrid. Try Eve no Jikan, at least it's got some thinking into it.

How could I possibly enforce them? You people don't acknowledge that the fruit of my mind is my property and are going to take away from me my ability to make a profit with my brains, so be it. I can't rise against a mass of thieves, nor do I need to. As long as I have nothing to steal, I'll be fine.


There is a fine line between "voluntary" charity and "mandatory" charity, which is technically slavery, and there is but one way to put an end to slavery, to refuse to produce. You like libertarianism, so you should understand that the absence of rules certainly doesn't imply the absence of rights. If you do not wish to recognize the right I have to my intellect, I just have no incentive to produce anything that you can use, and hide whatever it is that i need to come up with anyways.

Your stand point implies that the fruit of the mind does not belong to the bearer, as such you are effectively rendering professions such as mathematician, physicist, philosopher, economist or doctor unprofitable. Looking back at the early years of USSR much? Where wealth was considered to only possibly be labor, that intellect belonged to the people and that scientists were put to death for stealing it from the masses?


You make no sense. There is a clear difference between besting me in a race and letting me run the race alone, walking to the charter, erasing my name, putting yours where mine used to be, and cashing my prize.

Intellect is the one most valuable resource known to mankind, no wonder people want to take it away for free.

Anyways, the problem is quite easy to fix. You don't pay, I don't think, and I'll be asking for front payments.


Spare us the riddle and expose your point.


I wonder. When it takes on average 10 billion dollars to develop an anti cancer drug, I'm pretty sure that stubborn medical researcher that can't give up his evil demand for funds is going to take you guys down in the crapper with himself.

You have to turn off crossfire in CCC. 5970 is by definition a crossfire device.

It's half cuz there are 2 gpus, you need to run a miner per gpu oO"

If i write a book, I spend time, effort and resources on this process. I need to recoup those expenses + profit. If you copy the book, I get no return on investment. If you copy the book and sell it for profit, I can't compete against your price, because you didn't participate in the original expenses so you can reduce your margins. Think about it with a movie. Lots of money spent on it, jobs to pay, places to book, stories to write, film to edit and god knows what else. If you take it for free, I am losing money in the process, and I certainly didn't make that movie to lose money. If you steal my movie, I can't pay for food or rent anymore, how's that?


A good thief usually makes sure no interactions will ever occur between you and him. He's only after your property after all. You are confusing physical violence with the concept of violence, which is to take actions with consequences to external parties with no care for such parties' stance on the matter. And once again, you take the point of view of the aggressor. You are taking something from me while you refuse to aknowledge it as something that can be taken. You need to look at it from the author's stand point. If you think you aren't taking something from me you are profoundly wrong.

But let's discuss the fundamentals: do you think intellect can consist in property?

That "debunk" is redundant. You assume intellect cannot be a property so that to copy without consent does not consist in theft. To debunk it, you need to start from the assumption that it consist in property and prove that at some point it contradicts itself or makes no sense. In this case your attempt fails, since you have to assume it stands as a property, in which case the copy is theft, which is aggression.