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

[myrkul]

LOL.  OK, Encourage, through use of force.

Tsk... no need for euphemisms. We're intelligent adults. You can use the words you mean. Coerce, extort, compel. All will work equally well.

You are a 2A guy, you know that force exists and is a major part of how the world works.  Do you not see that many would use force as well?

Yes, many would. And if that force was used in aggression, those people would rightfully be considered criminals.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

LOL.  OK, Encourage, through use of force.

Tsk... no need for euphemisms. We're intelligent adults. You can use the words you mean. Coerce, extort, compel. All will work equally well.

You are a 2A guy, you know that force exists and is a major part of how the world works.  Do you not see that many would use force as well?

Yes, many would. And if that force was used in aggression, those people would rightfully be considered criminals.

Some would consider it a criminal offence to violate IP rights, others would consider it a criminal offence to enforce IP rights.  Can both of these schools of thought be reconciled in the same society?  I say "Yes".

[Mike Christ]

Some would consider it a criminal offence to violate IP rights, others would consider it a criminal offence to enforce IP rights.  Can both of these schools of thought be reconciled in the same society?  I say "Yes".

With compromise, I'm sure anything's possible.  In a case such as this, I believe we're leaning closer to minarchism...

So how would IP enforcement work on a global scale?

[myrkul]

Some would consider it a criminal offence to violate IP rights, others would consider it a criminal offence to enforce IP rights.  Can both of these schools of thought be reconciled in the same society?  I say "Yes".

And those who wish to recognize IP rights as valid would subscribe to arbitration and rights defense agencies which did so, and those who do not wish to recognize IP rights as valid would subscribe to arbitration and rights defense agencies which did not, the practical result of which will be the same as if IP rights were not recognized.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Some would consider it a criminal offence to violate IP rights, others would consider it a criminal offence to enforce IP rights.  Can both of these schools of thought be reconciled in the same society?  I say "Yes".

With compromise, I'm sure anything's possible.  In a case such as this, I believe we're leaning closer to minarchism...

So how would IP enforcement work on a global scale?

With Islam making up 2+ billion?  LOL.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Some would consider it a criminal offence to violate IP rights, others would consider it a criminal offence to enforce IP rights.  Can both of these schools of thought be reconciled in the same society?  I say "Yes".

And those who wish to recognize IP rights as valid would subscribe to arbitration and rights defense agencies which did so, and those who do not wish to recognize IP rights as valid would subscribe to arbitration and rights defense agencies which did not, the practical result of which will be the same as if IP rights were not recognized.

Except we innovators would get a bit of cash from the moochers.

[myrkul]

Some would consider it a criminal offence to violate IP rights, others would consider it a criminal offence to enforce IP rights.  Can both of these schools of thought be reconciled in the same society?  I say "Yes".

And those who wish to recognize IP rights as valid would subscribe to arbitration and rights defense agencies which did so, and those who do not wish to recognize IP rights as valid would subscribe to arbitration and rights defense agencies which did not, the practical result of which will be the same as if IP rights were not recognized.

Except we innovators would get a bit of cash from the moochers.

How do you figure that?

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Some would consider it a criminal offence to violate IP rights, others would consider it a criminal offence to enforce IP rights.  Can both of these schools of thought be reconciled in the same society?  I say "Yes".

And those who wish to recognize IP rights as valid would subscribe to arbitration and rights defense agencies which did so, and those who do not wish to recognize IP rights as valid would subscribe to arbitration and rights defense agencies which did not, the practical result of which will be the same as if IP rights were not recognized.

Except we innovators would get a bit of cash from the moochers.

How do you figure that?

Once I find someone who is violating my IP rights, my arbitration company will sue, and give me some cash.

[myrkul]

Some would consider it a criminal offence to violate IP rights, others would consider it a criminal offence to enforce IP rights.  Can both of these schools of thought be reconciled in the same society?  I say "Yes".

And those who wish to recognize IP rights as valid would subscribe to arbitration and rights defense agencies which did so, and those who do not wish to recognize IP rights as valid would subscribe to arbitration and rights defense agencies which did not, the practical result of which will be the same as if IP rights were not recognized.

Except we innovators would get a bit of cash from the moochers.

How do you figure that?

Once I find someone who is violating my IP rights, my arbitration company will sue, and give me some cash.

Unless that person is using an arbitration company that does not recognize IP rights.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Some would consider it a criminal offence to violate IP rights, others would consider it a criminal offence to enforce IP rights.  Can both of these schools of thought be reconciled in the same society?  I say "Yes".

And those who wish to recognize IP rights as valid would subscribe to arbitration and rights defense agencies which did so, and those who do not wish to recognize IP rights as valid would subscribe to arbitration and rights defense agencies which did not, the practical result of which will be the same as if IP rights were not recognized.

Except we innovators would get a bit of cash from the moochers.

How do you figure that?

Once I find someone who is violating my IP rights, my arbitration company will sue, and give me some cash.

Unless that person is using an arbitration company that does not recognize IP rights.

If I get no cash, I fire my arbitration company.

[myrkul]

Some would consider it a criminal offence to violate IP rights, others would consider it a criminal offence to enforce IP rights.  Can both of these schools of thought be reconciled in the same society?  I say "Yes".

And those who wish to recognize IP rights as valid would subscribe to arbitration and rights defense agencies which did so, and those who do not wish to recognize IP rights as valid would subscribe to arbitration and rights defense agencies which did not, the practical result of which will be the same as if IP rights were not recognized.

Except we innovators would get a bit of cash from the moochers.

How do you figure that?

Once I find someone who is violating my IP rights, my arbitration company will sue, and give me some cash.

Unless that person is using an arbitration company that does not recognize IP rights.

If I get no cash, I fire my arbitration company.

And soon, all the companies that support IP go out of business for lack of customers.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Some would consider it a criminal offence to violate IP rights, others would consider it a criminal offence to enforce IP rights.  Can both of these schools of thought be reconciled in the same society?  I say "Yes".

And those who wish to recognize IP rights as valid would subscribe to arbitration and rights defense agencies which did so, and those who do not wish to recognize IP rights as valid would subscribe to arbitration and rights defense agencies which did not, the practical result of which will be the same as if IP rights were not recognized.

Except we innovators would get a bit of cash from the moochers.

How do you figure that?

Once I find someone who is violating my IP rights, my arbitration company will sue, and give me some cash.

Unless that person is using an arbitration company that does not recognize IP rights.

If I get no cash, I fire my arbitration company.

And soon, all the companies that support IP go out of business for lack of customers.

Either that, or the other way around.  It's win-win.

[Mike Christ]

I don't think removing freedoms for the sake of the few is what we should be striving for.  Patents are terrible things that lay the groundwork for sanctioned monopolies.  How long does a business need to grow and recoup their losses?  A year?  Ten years?  Twenty?  We don't know.  Nor should we expect private businesses to make their debts and gains public, so we can see, exactly, how long they have to go before their patent expires (if we're going by the "just enough to recoup my losses" idea.)  All of this requires a lot of writ law, which goes completely against libertarian ideals.  We're striving for more agency, not less.  If that means the few inventors and innovators of this world must invent new businesses practices to succeed, so be it.  I don't want to live in a world where one guy can invent something, and must be paid every time that something is used, else those who violate the IP get sued.  Lets not pave the way for sanctioned monopolies; that's what we're trying to get away from.

[myrkul]

Either that, or the other way around.  It's win-win.

The market decides. And the market has a marked preference to remove monopolies.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Either that, or the other way around.  It's win-win.

The market decides. And the market has a marked preference to remove monopolies.

Agreed.  Zero IP rights will promote monopolies.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Bottom line:  If you don't give the little guy, the new innovator, a chance to monopolize the market for a while, all you will wind up with is old money monopolizing the market.

[myrkul]

And the market has a marked preference to remove monopolies.

≠

Zero IP rights will promote monopolies.

In some industries, market monopolies (also known as natural monopolies) will develop, but in most, competition and innovation will be the norm.

Bottom line:  If you don't give the little guy, the new innovator, a chance to monopolize the market for a while, all you will wind up with is old money monopolizing the market.

So, your answer, to prevent natural monopolies is... enforced monopolies?

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

And the market has a marked preference to remove monopolies.

≠

Zero IP rights will promote monopolies.

In some industries, market monopolies (also known as natural monopolies) will develop, but in most, competition and innovation will be the norm.

Bottom line:  If you don't give the little guy, the new innovator, a chance to monopolize the market for a while, all you will wind up with is old money monopolizing the market.

So, your answer, to prevent natural monopolies is... enforced monopolies?

Sadly, yes.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

And the market has a marked preference to remove monopolies.

≠

Zero IP rights will promote monopolies.

In some industries, market monopolies (also known as natural monopolies) will develop, but in most, competition and innovation will be the norm.

Bottom line:  If you don't give the little guy, the new innovator, a chance to monopolize the market for a while, all you will wind up with is old money monopolizing the market.

So, your answer, to prevent natural monopolies is... enforced monopolies?

Non-state capitalists can own several industries/economic sectors, and without IP rights, may eventually own all of them.

[myrkul]

Bottom line:  If you don't give the little guy, the new innovator, a chance to monopolize the market for a while, all you will wind up with is old money monopolizing the market.

So, your answer, to prevent natural monopolies is... enforced monopolies?

Sadly, yes.

Then it's a bad answer, wouldn't you say?

What's so bad about natural monopolies that they warrant violent monopolies to prevent them?