This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

I live with no electricity and no running water for 5 out of seven days a week.  I work cheap in the woods with a chainsaw making fuel and building material.  I am a good shot with handguns (to 25 yards), shotguns and rifles, at least to 100 yards.  So, you're tough.  So am I.  Do you think that these ideals grow in a vacuum?  What do you do to further the cause of freedom, other than fight for a state or live in Detroit?

I used to generate electricity and make running hot and cold water.  That got boring.  
I used to generate energy by pulling two large chunks of carefully designed, engineered and manufactured metal apart at extremely precise rates and amounts.  That got boring.  
I used to maintain security of a nuclear submarine base.  That got boring.  
I used to make warships invisible to radar.  That got boring.  
I used to make sure that nuclear weapons would work when needed but only when needed.  That got boring.  
I used to design lasers for weapons.  That got boring.  
I used to test satellites before they were launched.  That got boring.  
I used to fix robots that destroyed roadside bombs.  That got boring.  
I used to hold political office.  That got boring.  

Now I study the ocean. I hope we learn enough that we can protect it from the CO2 acid bath that mankind is pumping into it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

If I am successful, our great great great grand children might have an earth to grow up in.

If not, our great great great grand children will be more worried about their physiological needs than safety. (reference Maslow)


However, I have never worked cheap, even when handling a chainsaw, so you got me there.

edit
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I have a couple of these:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marksmanship_Medal

Gee with all that experience and money, you could own this site.  I guess setting up your own little totalitarian outfit to save the oceans is your thing.  Try to stay 100 yards or more from me.  Oh, and don't let the Cerenkov radiation get to ya, you laser designing, robot building, radar stealthing, nuke building hunk of hot water generating liar.

[Rassah]

edit
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I have a couple of these:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marksmanship_Medal

I have a Marine "Rifle Expert" medal and some rudimentary sniper training from USSR... So.... Yeah.

[TomUnderSea]

I live with no electricity and no running water for 5 out of seven days a week.  I work cheap in the woods with a chainsaw making fuel and building material.  I am a good shot with handguns (to 25 yards), shotguns and rifles, at least to 100 yards.  So, you're tough.  So am I.  Do you think that these ideals grow in a vacuum?  What do you do to further the cause of freedom, other than fight for a state or live in Detroit?

I used to generate electricity and make running hot and cold water.  That got boring.  
I used to generate energy by pulling two large chunks of carefully designed, engineered and manufactured metal apart at extremely precise rates and amounts.  That got boring.  
I used to maintain security of a nuclear submarine base.  That got boring.  
I used to make warships invisible to radar.  That got boring.  
I used to make sure that nuclear weapons would work when needed but only when needed.  That got boring.  
I used to design lasers for weapons.  That got boring.  
I used to test satellites before they were launched.  That got boring.  
I used to fix robots that destroyed roadside bombs.  That got boring.  
I used to hold political office.  That got boring.  

Now I study the ocean. I hope we learn enough that we can protect it from the CO2 acid bath that mankind is pumping into it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

If I am successful, our great great great grand children might have an earth to grow up in.

If not, our great great great grand children will be more worried about their physiological needs than safety. (reference Maslow)


However, I have never worked cheap, even when handling a chainsaw, so you got me there.

edit
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I have a couple of these:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marksmanship_Medal

Gee with all that experience and money, you could own this site.  I guess setting up your own little totalitarian outfit to save the oceans is your thing.  Try to stay 100 yards or more from me.  Oh, and don't let the Cerenkov radiation get to ya, you laser designing, robot building, radar stealthing, nuke building hunk of hot water generating liar.

Sadly the experience does not automatically generate wealth, I still work for a living.  I just am lucky enough to be in a job that I enjoy.  Some would consider that to be the ultimate in wealth.

Not much into totalitarianism.  I much prefer to lead by consensus whenever possible.  I endeavor to put the person most technically competent at the task in charge of the effort.  I have made some "command decisions" outside of the consensus path however when the pace slows down again I ensure that all hands understand the decision point, the decision and are given the opportunity to raise any concerns.  I don't enjoy oppressing people.

I referenced the Marksmanship Medal since I don't consider myself a good shot but I met the requirements.  I still do well at the firing range but I tire and my aim drifts after more than a hundred rounds.  That is probably fine for a fire fight.

You were doing fairly well until you added "liar" at the end.  Your belief in my reported work history doesn't really matter however calling me a liar is offensive.  I was asked so I answered.  I have no particular incentive to lie since "credentials" on the 'net are a joke.  If you feel a particular need to confirm any of those work experience items, PM me and we can chat.  

[TomUnderSea]

edit
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I have a couple of these:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marksmanship_Medal

I have a Marine "Rifle Expert" medal and some rudimentary sniper training from USSR... So.... Yeah.

I am curious about your reference to USSR sniper training.  A coworker was an officer in the USSR military (SA-6 missile battery commander?) and has a passionate interest in rifles.  Much more than mine, in fact.

I have contemplated volunteering for the "Mars Mission" reality show crap coming out but I would like to see my grandson grow up.  Guess I will be keeping my feet wet.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

True enough.  Also, despite the attempt at individual liberty, a government always implies a concentration of power, and as such, will always, in time, metastasize into a tyranny.
There is an interesting story called "The Mote in God's Eye", in which a sentient species is doomed to cycles of civilization and savagry for eternity, due to the nature of their biology, and certain members called "Crazy Eddys" keep proposing solutions to this trap.  IMHO we AnCaps are quite similar to a "Crazy Eddy" faction, in that we have carefully thought out a solution to the seemingly never-ending threat to liberty inherent in government.

As "Crazy Eddies" you are doomed to failure.

If you'll remember, at the end of "Mote in God's Eye" the "Crazy Eddies" were getting closer and closer to getting out...

I think, that now that the AnCap idea exists, it will be realized, eventually, even if the current setup must collapse first, as it will, at the usual cost in terms of human life.

I think agorism is our best bet... Have you read "Alongside Night"?

I think I have found myself surrounded by a collection of young intellectuals who have never faced a decision more traumatic than whether or not to have regular or non-fat whip on top of their latte.

Spend a few hungry sleepless nights dealing with people intent on killing you and the more fundamental aspects of life will become very clear.

You started it, pal.

[TomUnderSea]

True enough.  Also, despite the attempt at individual liberty, a government always implies a concentration of power, and as such, will always, in time, metastasize into a tyranny.
There is an interesting story called "The Mote in God's Eye", in which a sentient species is doomed to cycles of civilization and savagry for eternity, due to the nature of their biology, and certain members called "Crazy Eddys" keep proposing solutions to this trap.  IMHO we AnCaps are quite similar to a "Crazy Eddy" faction, in that we have carefully thought out a solution to the seemingly never-ending threat to liberty inherent in government.

As "Crazy Eddies" you are doomed to failure.

If you'll remember, at the end of "Mote in God's Eye" the "Crazy Eddies" were getting closer and closer to getting out...

I think, that now that the AnCap idea exists, it will be realized, eventually, even if the current setup must collapse first, as it will, at the usual cost in terms of human life.

I think agorism is our best bet... Have you read "Alongside Night"?

I think I have found myself surrounded by a collection of young intellectuals who have never faced a decision more traumatic than whether or not to have regular or non-fat whip on top of their latte.

Spend a few hungry sleepless nights dealing with people intent on killing you and the more fundamental aspects of life will become very clear.

You started it, pal.

... and you have not convinced me that you have the life experience beyond the traumatic decisions you face at Starbucks.

If your proposed economic / political system does not assume a significant portion of your society is mentally prepared to lock you in a cage and take your wealth at the first opportunity, don't bother proposing it.  Actually if that is all they do, it will be remarkably humane of them.

Might I recommend some light reading?

http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/revoluti.htm

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

True enough.  Also, despite the attempt at individual liberty, a government always implies a concentration of power, and as such, will always, in time, metastasize into a tyranny.
There is an interesting story called "The Mote in God's Eye", in which a sentient species is doomed to cycles of civilization and savagry for eternity, due to the nature of their biology, and certain members called "Crazy Eddys" keep proposing solutions to this trap.  IMHO we AnCaps are quite similar to a "Crazy Eddy" faction, in that we have carefully thought out a solution to the seemingly never-ending threat to liberty inherent in government.

As "Crazy Eddies" you are doomed to failure.

If you'll remember, at the end of "Mote in God's Eye" the "Crazy Eddies" were getting closer and closer to getting out...

I think, that now that the AnCap idea exists, it will be realized, eventually, even if the current setup must collapse first, as it will, at the usual cost in terms of human life.

I think agorism is our best bet... Have you read "Alongside Night"?

I think I have found myself surrounded by a collection of young intellectuals who have never faced a decision more traumatic than whether or not to have regular or non-fat whip on top of their latte.

Spend a few hungry sleepless nights dealing with people intent on killing you and the more fundamental aspects of life will become very clear.

You started it, pal.

... and you have not convinced me that you have the life experience beyond the traumatic decisions you face at Starbucks.

If your proposed economic / political system does not assume a significant portion of your society is mentally prepared to lock you in a cage and take your wealth at the first opportunity, don't bother proposing it.  Actually if that is all they do, it will be remarkably humane of them.

Might I recommend some light reading?

http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/revoluti.htm

The fact is, I am under no obligation to convince you of anything, and you have yet to convince me that you are anything but deceptive, in that by your own word, you have become bored with what would for most be 2 or 3 lifetimes worth of experience.   Your veiled insults are not funny, and you can spare me your Beatles lyrics, daddio.
Oh, and you never answered my PM.  Just goes to show, eh?

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

True enough.  Also, despite the attempt at individual liberty, a government always implies a concentration of power, and as such, will always, in time, metastasize into a tyranny.
There is an interesting story called "The Mote in God's Eye", in which a sentient species is doomed to cycles of civilization and savagry for eternity, due to the nature of their biology, and certain members called "Crazy Eddys" keep proposing solutions to this trap.  IMHO we AnCaps are quite similar to a "Crazy Eddy" faction, in that we have carefully thought out a solution to the seemingly never-ending threat to liberty inherent in government.

As "Crazy Eddies" you are doomed to failure.

If you'll remember, at the end of "Mote in God's Eye" the "Crazy Eddies" were getting closer and closer to getting out...

I think, that now that the AnCap idea exists, it will be realized, eventually, even if the current setup must collapse first, as it will, at the usual cost in terms of human life.

I think agorism is our best bet... Have you read "Alongside Night"?

I tend to agree, having just looked up agorism:

Konkin's class theory does seem to have some implications for the IP rights discussion:  The existence of IP rights helps the Entrepreneur, whereas zero IP rights helps the Non-State Capitalist.

[myrkul]

Konkin's class theory does seem to have some implications for the IP rights discussion:  The existence of IP rights helps the Entrepreneur, whereas zero IP rights helps the Non-State Capitalist.

The problem is, that it helps the entrepreneur at the expense of the consumer, and the market itself.

Have a read of this, with an open mind: https://mises.org/document/3582

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Konkin's class theory does seem to have some implications for the IP rights discussion:  The existence of IP rights helps the Entrepreneur, whereas zero IP rights helps the Non-State Capitalist.

The problem is, that it helps the entrepreneur at the expense of the consumer, and the market itself.

Have a read of this, with an open mind: https://mises.org/document/3582

I will read that later this week, as it is time for me to head back out to the bush.
I look forward to continuing this discussion in a week or so, in the meantime, I will leave you with this:

con·sum·er  
/kənˈso͞omər/
Noun
1.A person who purchases goods and services for personal use.
2.A person or thing that eats or uses something.

Take care, and all the best to you and yours!

[myrkul]

Konkin's class theory does seem to have some implications for the IP rights discussion:  The existence of IP rights helps the Entrepreneur, whereas zero IP rights helps the Non-State Capitalist.

The problem is, that it helps the entrepreneur at the expense of the consumer, and the market itself.

Have a read of this, with an open mind: https://mises.org/document/3582

I will read that later this week, as it is time for me to head back out to the bush.
I look forward to continuing this discussion in a week or so, in the meantime, I will leave you with this:

con·sum·er 
/kənˈso͞omər/
Noun
1.A person who purchases goods and services for personal use.
2.A person or thing that eats or uses something.

Take care, and all the best to you and yours!

Yes, I know who the consumer is. And IP law harms the consumer by enforcing a higher price than would otherwise be marketable.

Have a good week.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Konkin's class theory does seem to have some implications for the IP rights discussion:  The existence of IP rights helps the Entrepreneur, whereas zero IP rights helps the Non-State Capitalist.

The problem is, that it helps the entrepreneur at the expense of the consumer, and the market itself.

Have a read of this, with an open mind: https://mises.org/document/3582

I will read that later this week, as it is time for me to head back out to the bush.
I look forward to continuing this discussion in a week or so, in the meantime, I will leave you with this:

con·sum·er  
/kənˈso͞omər/
Noun
1.A person who purchases goods and services for personal use.
2.A person or thing that eats or uses something.

Take care, and all the best to you and yours!

Yes, I know who the consumer is. And IP law harms the consumer by enforcing a higher price than would otherwise be marketable.

Have a good week.

Well, I read "Alongside Night", and the little essay "Against Intellectual Property", and "The Mote in God's Eye" again, it's been over a decade since I read that one.

"Alongside Night" was interesting, but I don't see any evidence of large capital investments into agorism/AnCap as things currently stand.  Here in Canada (esp in Quebec), it is the custom for businesses to keep 2 sets of books, one showing minimal profits, for the gov., and one that has the real info.  I work for cash, as does my boss, so we are already part of the alt. economy.
As far as the IP essay is concerned, I don't buy that "Artificial Scarcity" argument, it's a logical fallacy.  He does make a good point about how IP rights (seem to) violate other's property rights, however.  While I do not dispute that existing state-enforced patent, copyright, trade secret, and trademark laws are broken, I think that declaring "Zero IP rights" is equivalent to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  I can think of several scenarios in which zero IP rights would result in noncompetitive market manipulation, monopolies by the already well-established, and a reduced level of production/diversity in broadcast services.  If you're intersted, I will describe the first and third possibilities, as we have already discussed the second.
In the second, (monopolies by the already well-established) you said an entrepreneur should sell the rights to a non-state capitalist, but what if said entity just takes a look at my design (on which I spent millions), says "no thanks" and just goes ahead into production?  That would destroy much incentive to innovate.

[myrkul]

As far as the IP essay is concerned, I don't buy that "Artificial Scarcity" argument, it's a logical fallacy.  

Artificially restricting the use of non-scarce ideas is not creating artificial scarcity?

In the second, (monopolies by the already well-established) you said an entrepreneur should sell the rights to a non-state capitalist, but what if said entity just takes a look at my design (on which I spent millions), says "no thanks" and just goes ahead into production?  That would destroy much incentive to innovate.

And that's where NDAs and similar contracts come in. You don't show a company your design until they've agreed not to produce it without your consent.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

As far as the IP essay is concerned, I don't buy that "Artificial Scarcity" argument, it's a logical fallacy.  

Artificially restricting the use of non-scarce ideas is not creating artificial scarcity?


The author makes the argument that only scarcity and first use/homesteading defines property.  If the Earth were flat and went on forever, by his argument, we wouldn't have property rights.  His little "Magic conjuring of a lawnmower" idea seems to imply that theft of my lawnmower wouldn't be theft if I could just conjure a new one at will.
As far as the idea that my possession/use of said IP is not violated by another's use of my idea, well, if I'm vacationing in the Bahama's, my possession/use of my bed, home and property is not violated by a squatter ho leaves my home the day before I get back, in the exact state that I left it.

I think we may have a major philosophical difference here: I believe that rights and freedoms do not exist naturally; in nature, might means right.  Rights and freedoms must be enforced by human-built structures, the state being a piss-poor choice for said structure, as it always leads to tyranny.  Would I be correct in assuming that you believe individual rights and freedoms are a human's birthright?  If so, history seems to disagree, as individual rights and freedoms are always bought with blood, from whatever state is violating them, at least that has been the pattern so far.

[myrkul]

As far as the IP essay is concerned, I don't buy that "Artificial Scarcity" argument, it's a logical fallacy.  

Artificially restricting the use of non-scarce ideas is not creating artificial scarcity?

The author makes the argument that only scarcity and first use/homesteading defines property.  If the Earth were flat and went on forever, by his argument, we wouldn't have property rights.  His little "Magic conjuring of a lawnmower" idea seems to imply that theft of my lawnmower wouldn't be theft if I could just conjure a new one at will.

Property rights are instituted to avoid conflict. If you could conjure a new lawnmower at will, is there any need for conflict over whose lawnmower it is? If the earth were infinite, would there be any need for conflict over who owns a portion of land?

As far as the idea that my possession/use of said IP is not violated by another's use of my idea, well, if I'm vacationing in the Bahama's, my possession/use of my bed, home and property is not violated by a squatter ho leaves my home the day before I get back, in the exact state that I left it.

Would you know? Have you lost anything, even if you did know? While I'll agree that your property rights were violated by the squatter, he put everything back exactly the way you left it before you returned, which is the essence of restitution. You're no worse off after you get back than you were when you left.

Someone else's use of your invention doesn't prevent you from using it, nor does it deprive you of your invention. If you had come home early and found the squatter in your home, he would be depriving you of your use of your home. At no time does someone else using your invention deprive you of its use.

I think we may have a major philosophical difference here: I believe that rights and freedoms do not exist naturally; in nature, might means right.  Rights and freedoms must be enforced by human-built structures, the state being a piss-poor choice for said structure, as it always leads to tyranny.  Would I be correct in assuming that you believe individual rights and freedoms are a human's birthright?  If so, history seems to disagree, as individual rights and freedoms are always bought with blood, from whatever state is violating them, at least that has been the pattern so far.

I am a philosophical libertarian, and do believe that rights are inherent in the human condition. You say that rights must be enforced by human-built structures, and I agree. But in order for them to be enforced, they must exist first. Rights are not created by laws, rather they are recognized or violated by them.

[Rassah]

I think we may have a major philosophical difference here: I believe that rights and freedoms do not exist naturally; in nature, might means right.  Rights and freedoms must be enforced by human-built structures, the state being a piss-poor choice for said structure, as it always leads to tyranny.  Would I be correct in assuming that you believe individual rights and freedoms are a human's birthright?  If so, history seems to disagree, as individual rights and freedoms are always bought with blood, from whatever state is violating them, at least that has been the pattern so far.

To this I always ask, did slaves in America have rights while being slaves? They obviously lacked any might, and the human-built structure they lived under did not consider them to have any rights either. So if they had no rights, what were they fighting for? Where did they get the idea that they should have rights, if that idea does not exist naturally?

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

As far as the IP essay is concerned, I don't buy that "Artificial Scarcity" argument, it's a logical fallacy.  

Artificially restricting the use of non-scarce ideas is not creating artificial scarcity?

The author makes the argument that only scarcity and first use/homesteading defines property.  If the Earth were flat and went on forever, by his argument, we wouldn't have property rights.  His little "Magic conjuring of a lawnmower" idea seems to imply that theft of my lawnmower wouldn't be theft if I could just conjure a new one at will.

Property rights are instituted to avoid conflict. If you could conjure a new lawnmower at will, is there any need for conflict over whose lawnmower it is? If the earth were infinite, would there be any need for conflict over who owns a portion of land?

This seems to deny the "mine" behavior.  I like my lawnmower, and feel better knowing that no squatters have slept in my bed.  As to how I would know, my security company would have photos.

As far as the idea that my possession/use of said IP is not violated by another's use of my idea, well, if I'm vacationing in the Bahama's, my possession/use of my bed, home and property is not violated by a squatter ho leaves my home the day before I get back, in the exact state that I left it.

Would you know? Have you lost anything, even if you did know? While I'll agree that your property rights were violated by the squatter, he put everything back exactly the way you left it before you returned, which is the essence of restitution. You're no worse off after you get back than you were when you left.

[/quote]
Restitution also includes punitive action.  I don't care if he left my fridge full of filet mignon and tiger shrimp, he violated my property rights.

Someone else's use of your invention doesn't prevent you from using it, nor does it deprive you of your invention. If you had come home early and found the squatter in your home, he would be depriving you of your use of your home. At no time does someone else using your invention deprive you of its use.

I never said it does.  Market share is not artificially scarce.

I think we may have a major philosophical difference here: I believe that rights and freedoms do not exist naturally; in nature, might means right.  Rights and freedoms must be enforced by human-built structures, the state being a piss-poor choice for said structure, as it always leads to tyranny.  Would I be correct in assuming that you believe individual rights and freedoms are a human's birthright?  If so, history seems to disagree, as individual rights and freedoms are always bought with blood, from whatever state is violating them, at least that has been the pattern so far.

I am a philosophical libertarian, and do believe that rights are inherent in the human condition. You say that rights must be enforced by human-built structures, and I agree. But in order for them to be enforced, they must exist first. Rights are not created by laws, rather they are recognized or violated by them.
[/quote]

Touché! It's a chicken-and-egg argument:  Do the rights exist, and thereby get enforced, or is it the enforcement that grants existence to the rights?  I tend towards the latter, that's why I believe in the 2A, etc.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

I think we may have a major philosophical difference here: I believe that rights and freedoms do not exist naturally; in nature, might means right.  Rights and freedoms must be enforced by human-built structures, the state being a piss-poor choice for said structure, as it always leads to tyranny.  Would I be correct in assuming that you believe individual rights and freedoms are a human's birthright?  If so, history seems to disagree, as individual rights and freedoms are always bought with blood, from whatever state is violating them, at least that has been the pattern so far.

To this I always ask, did slaves in America have rights while being slaves? They obviously lacked any might, and the human-built structure they lived under did not consider them to have any rights either. So if they had no rights, what were they fighting for? Where did they get the idea that they should have rights, if that idea does not exist naturally?

They evidently had very few, if any, rights.  It took force of arms to secure their rights, which did not exist until there was enough force to procure them.

[myrkul]

This seems to deny the "mine" behavior.  I like my lawnmower, and feel better knowing that no squatters have slept in my bed.  As to how I would know, my security company would have photos.

"Mine" is a recognition of scarcity. If you can conjure at will a lawnmower that is identical in every way to yours, can it be said to be scarce? As for the squatter, I agree that he did violate your property rights. He deprived you of the use of your property (regardless of the fact that you weren't, at the time, using it), so he should leave some additional compensation. But that is exactly why it is a bad comparison to IP. you're not being deprived of anything when someone uses your invention.

Touché! It's a chicken-and-egg argument:  Do the rights exist, and thereby get enforced, or is it the enforcement that grants existence to the rights?  I tend towards the latter, that's why I believe in the 2A, etc.

And I tend toward the former, and if you read the 2nd amendment, you'll see that it supports that position as well:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

This seems to deny the "mine" behavior.  I like my lawnmower, and feel better knowing that no squatters have slept in my bed.  As to how I would know, my security company would have photos.

"Mine" is a recognition of scarcity. If you can conjure at will a lawnmower that is identical in every way to yours, can it be said to be scarce? As for the squatter, I agree that he did violate your property rights. He deprived you of the use of your property (regardless of the fact that you weren't, at the time, using it), so he should leave some additional compensation. But that is exactly why it is a bad comparison to IP. you're not being deprived of anything when someone uses your invention.

I am being deprived of my rightful slice of market share.

Touché! It's a chicken-and-egg argument:  Do the rights exist, and thereby get enforced, or is it the enforcement that grants existence to the rights?  I tend towards the latter, that's why I believe in the 2A, etc.

And I tend toward the former, and if you read the 2nd amendment, you'll see that it supports that position as well:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[/quote]

The 2A can also be interpreted to mean that without individuals with arms, there is no free state.