Awesome free state project open to bitcoin donations

[onarchy]

Your comparison between IP and contract enforcement is a complete non-sequitur.

Unfortunately, intellectual property is wholly incompatible with a free society. If you're actually interested in learning, you can start here.

I am very familiar with Kinsella and other anti-IP libertarians. My impression, though, is that these have not answered a single of the arguments that I have presented in this thread.

[1714859704]

1714859704

[1714859704]

1714859704

[1714859704]

1714859704

[1714859704]

1714859704

[1714859704]

1714859704

[wb3]

- a right is something you can legitimately use physical force to enforce

This is a Natural Law, stated in another way is "The only rights you have are the ones you can defend".

So if you are the strongest person, you can have any right you want, until another comes and takes it away from you. This principle still works within groups.

Peaceful enforcement (financially or otherwise) won't work as soon as more people disagree with that right. This will come to ahead pretty soon. Every American citizen (babies included) owes $54,000 on the debt. The average income is $30,000 dollars. The government might have "the right" to tax you, but that right will be stripped from them when they come to collect.

And suppose there is no physical violence, but everybody succumbs to the law and gets imprisoned. Who is going to pay for the prison's?

[NghtRppr]

3) the rules will in did be "dictated" and once the constitution is written and the Free State Charter is signed these basic rules can't change. BUT then again, no-one is living in that area at the moment. No-one are affected by those rules. The only ones who will be affected by them are the ones who VOLUNTARILY move to the Free State to live under those rules.

I find it hard to believe that you've actually thought about this deeply because that will only last for a generation. After that, the children born into that system will be there but it won't be because they voluntarily moved there. You're doing nothing but creating yet another state. I'm sure in true statist form you'll respond with "love it or leave it". Which of course was already refuted by Hume with his ship analogy. Saying that I'm free to move even though I have no way to do so or survive after having done so is akin to saying that a man kidnapped and taken on aboard a ship is later free to leave that ship when it's at sea by jumping in the ocean to drown, and by not drowning he is thereby consenting to the laws on board that ship. Hogwash!

Your idea, in its current form, is doomed.

Generally speaking the Free State will not be a complete data haven. Piracy ... will not be tolerated.

Right, I think I called it. This is just yet another state. To call it a "free state" is disingenuous at best and a fraud at worse since you're taking in money for it.

If I own a stack of paper then I can do whatever I want with it, including writing a Harry Potter novel on it and then selling the paper. To limit what I can do with my paper amounts to partial theft since you are taking from me the use of my paper.

What exactly makes you think you are justified in claiming partial ownership of my paper and dictating what I can and cannot do with it?

[jimbobway]

Looks interesting as a thought experiment; however, there is always a reason that unproductive regions are largely uninhabited.

Singapore and Hong Kong were unproductive regions 70 years ago, and that's still true. There are no natural resources in these states. Until recently Singapore did not even have fresh water. (Now they have through technological investments built rain water catchment and treatment systems to provide a significant portion of their own drinking water.) It wasn't natural resources that brought them prosperity, it was the fact that they transformed themselves into something very close to Free States. They had the most important resource of all: peace and liberty.

The website "http://freestateinitiative.org" and onarchy is just totally vague and confusing.  On so many points they contradict their own points it just doesn't make sense.

You think Singapore and Hong Kong are close to "Free States"?  WTH?  They have progressed very quickly but they are not free.  If you spit gum on the sidewalk there is a fine.  In fact, they have banned chewing gum.  There are cameras in every public restroom.  If you don't flush the toilet or urinal you will be fined.  Singapore is becoming like a big brother state.

freestateinitiative right now is a joke to me.

[LMGTFY]

Singapore is becoming like a big brother state.

I believe William Gibson is banned from returning...

[onarchy]

The website "http://freestateinitiative.org" and onarchy is just totally vague and confusing.  On so many points they contradict their own points it just doesn't make sense.

Can you be more concrete? I'll be more than happy to answer any questions you have. Also, most of the response we get from people is that the project is very clear, and not at all confusing.

You think Singapore and Hong Kong are close to "Free States"?  WTH?  They have progressed very quickly but they are not free.  If you spit gum on the sidewalk there is a fine.  In fact, they have banned chewing gum.  There are cameras in every public restroom.  If you don't flush the toilet or urinal you will be fined.  Singapore is becoming like a big brother state.

Sure, both Singapore and Hong Kong have strong authoritarian elements in SOME areas, but that does not change the fact that economically speaking they are the freest states in the world, see:

http://heritage.org/index

The Free State will be freer than both Hong Kong and Singapore in the economic realm and in the personal realm.

freestateinitiative right now is a joke to me.

Well, you have given no information what you think is a joke. You've mentioned Singapore and Hong Kong, which are provably the economically most free states in the world, by far.

[error]

Your comparison between IP and contract enforcement is a complete non-sequitur.

Unfortunately, intellectual property is wholly incompatible with a free society. If you're actually interested in learning, you can start here.

I am very familiar with Kinsella and other anti-IP libertarians. My impression, though, is that these have not answered a single of the arguments that I have presented in this thread.

The problem is that your arguments are incoherent. How can the ability to copy the text of a contract (without IP) possibly have any bearing on whether the contract is enforceable? This is utterly senseless.

[onarchy]

I find it hard to believe that you've actually thought about this deeply because that will only last for a generation.

So what? The constitution will not change because there is a new bratty generation, because the basic principles of the constitution cannot legally be changed. The people will have to actually make a revolt and overthrow the government in order to achieve this.

After that, the children born into that system will be there but it won't be because they voluntarily moved there. You're doing nothing but creating yet another state. I'm sure in true statist form you'll respond with "love it or leave it". Which of course was already refuted by Hume with his ship analogy. Saying that I'm free to move even though I have no way to do so or survive after having done so is akin to saying that a man kidnapped and taken on aboard a ship is later free to leave that ship when it's at sea by jumping in the ocean to drown, and by not drowning he is thereby consenting to the laws on board that ship. Hogwash!

I completely agree with this. Our solution to this is that those in the next generation will have to go through the same process as their parents to become CITIZENS. They will have permanent residence in the state, but in order to bear arms, vote etc. they will have to become a citizen, which involves passing elementary tests and pledging their allegiance to the principles of the state.

Your idea, in its current form, is doomed.

Can you be more specific? I think you're being a bit presumptuous to believe that we have not thought about these things and don't have an answer. How about taking a slightly more humble strategy and... ASK when there is some questions you have. I will answer anything you are wondering about.

Generally speaking the Free State will not be a complete data haven. Piracy ... will not be tolerated.

Right, I think I called it. This is just yet another state. To call it a "free state" is disingenuous at best and a fraud at worse since you're taking in money for it.

Freedom from violence (peace) does not mean the freedom to murder, rape, assault, rob, steal, bully, swindle, threaten or pirate. I have presented forceful arguments against most of the anti-IP arguments in this thread. I notice that you seem to have no intention to answer any of them, and just decide that I am wrong without any counterargument. In my book that is not a very rational behavior.

If I own a stack of paper then I can do whatever I want with it, including writing a Harry Potter novel on it and then selling the paper. To limit what I can do with my paper amounts to partial theft since you are taking from me the use of my paper.

By the very same token banning threats is to take away your freedom of speech. If you're not allowed to wave your gun around peacefully without harming anyone while saying "give me all your money or I will kill you!" then according to your logic YOU have been violated.

What exactly makes you think you are justified in claiming partial ownership of my paper and dictating what I can and cannot do with it?

What exactly makes you think you are justified in claiming partial ownership of my gun and my mouth and dictating what I can and cannot do with it so long as I don't PHYSICALLY hurt you?

[onarchy]

Your comparison between IP and contract enforcement is a complete non-sequitur.

Unfortunately, intellectual property is wholly incompatible with a free society. If you're actually interested in learning, you can start here.

I am very familiar with Kinsella and other anti-IP libertarians. My impression, though, is that these have not answered a single of the arguments that I have presented in this thread.

The problem is that your arguments are incoherent. How can the ability to copy the text of a contract (without IP) possibly have any bearing on whether the contract is enforceable? This is utterly senseless.

I agree that what you just wrote is utterly senseless and incoherent. But that is not what I said. A contract is an INFORMATION right. A contract is not the scribblings on a piece of paper, but the information content of that contract is enforcible by the use of physical force. Similarly IP is an information right. So they have something in common. The argument "I can do whatever I want with my PHYSICAL property as long as I don't infringe your PHYSICAL property" is what most libertarians use against IP laws, but the same argument can be used against contracts. In both cases you are refusing to acknowledge that information may be the legitimate source of physical force.

[error]

I agree that what you just wrote is utterly senseless and incoherent. But that is not what I said. A contract is an INFORMATION right. A contract is not the scribblings on a piece of paper, but the information content of that contract is enforcible by the use of physical force. Similarly IP is an information right. So they have something in common. The argument "I can do whatever I want with my PHYSICAL property as long as I don't infringe your PHYSICAL property" is what most libertarians use against IP laws, but the same argument can be used against contracts. In both cases you are refusing to acknowledge that information may be the legitimate source of physical force.

Again, this is a non-sequitur. A contract is an agreement between individuals, a meeting of the minds, as it were. The piece of paper, if any, only serves as evidence of the agreement. I fail to see, and you have yet to show, any relevance to intellectual property.

[onarchy]

I agree that what you just wrote is utterly senseless and incoherent. But that is not what I said. A contract is an INFORMATION right. A contract is not the scribblings on a piece of paper, but the information content of that contract is enforcible by the use of physical force. Similarly IP is an information right. So they have something in common. The argument "I can do whatever I want with my PHYSICAL property as long as I don't infringe your PHYSICAL property" is what most libertarians use against IP laws, but the same argument can be used against contracts. In both cases you are refusing to acknowledge that information may be the legitimate source of physical force.

Again, this is a non-sequitur. A contract is an agreement between individuals, a meeting of the minds, as it were.

Who cares? It's just information and I can do whatever I want with MY body so long as I physically don't harm you. Why isn't that a valid argument?

[NghtRppr]

I completely agree with this. Our solution to this is that those in the next generation will have to go through the same process as their parents to become CITIZENS. They will have permanent residence in the state, but in order to bear arms, vote etc. they will have to become a citizen, which involves passing elementary tests and pledging their allegiance to the principles of the state.

So even though they aren't citizens you're going to govern them by denying the right to own guns? Again, how is this any different from the USA where I'm born into a system and then forced to bend to the will of others?

Freedom from violence (peace) does not mean the freedom to murder, rape, assault, rob, steal, bully, swindle, threaten or pirate.

Murder, rape, assault and theft are violence. Threats are coercion. It's nonsense to group them together with piracy which is neither.

By the very same token banning threats is to take away your freedom of speech. If you're not allowed to wave your gun around peacefully without harming anyone while saying "give me all your money or I will kill you!" then according to your logic YOU have been violated.

Again, threats are coercion, a form of aggression, which is what I'm against. Your argument fails.

What exactly makes you think you are justified in claiming partial ownership of my gun and my mouth and dictating what I can and cannot do with it so long as I don't PHYSICALLY hurt you?

See above.

[jimbobway]

The website "http://freestateinitiative.org" and onarchy is just totally vague and confusing.  On so many points they contradict their own points it just doesn't make sense.

Can you be more concrete? I'll be more than happy to answer any questions you have. Also, most of the response we get from people is that the project is very clear, and not at all confusing.

You think Singapore and Hong Kong are close to "Free States"?  WTH?  They have progressed very quickly but they are not free.  If you spit gum on the sidewalk there is a fine.  In fact, they have banned chewing gum.  There are cameras in every public restroom.  If you don't flush the toilet or urinal you will be fined.  Singapore is becoming like a big brother state.

Sure, both Singapore and Hong Kong have strong authoritarian elements in SOME areas, but that does not change the fact that economically speaking they are the freest states in the world, see:

http://heritage.org/index

The Free State will be freer than both Hong Kong and Singapore in the economic realm and in the personal realm.

freestateinitiative right now is a joke to me.

Well, you have given no information what you think is a joke. You've mentioned Singapore and Hong Kong, which are provably the economically most free states in the world, by far.

I don't have time to debate the fancy website.  Stop saying Singapore an HK are the most free, economically free, whatever free.  Can I open a strip club in Singapore?  I cannot even sell chewing gum.  Give me a break.  If I sell medical marijuana there I'll be executed.  

[onarchy]

So even though they aren't citizens you're going to govern them by denying the right to own guns?

If you don't pass the very simple tests you are not fit to carry a gun, and if you refuse to pledge your allegiance to the principles of peace you are practically admitting that it is not safe to let you vote or to own and use a gun.

Again, how is this any different from the USA where I'm born into a system and then forced to bend to the will of others?

Are you saying that it is irrelevant whether you are born in North-Korea or in a Free State because both systems "force you to bend to the will of others"? Seriously? The Free State only enforces one thing on its citizens and residents: peace. Thus the only people who will "be forced to bend to the will of others" are criminals: murderers, thieves, rapists, swindlers etc.

Murder, rape, assault and theft are violence. Threats are coercion. It's nonsense to group them together with piracy which is neither.

You are not making an argument, but a claim.

By the very same token banning threats is to take away your freedom of speech. If you're not allowed to wave your gun around peacefully without harming anyone while saying "give me all your money or I will kill you!" then according to your logic YOU have been violated.

Again, threats are coercion, a form of aggression, which is what I'm against. Your argument fails.

I claim that piracy is a form of coercion, a form of aggression, which I am against too. It's not sufficient to make a claim, you have to substantiate it.

Also, I can deny that I am making threats. When I am saying "give me all your money or I will kill you" I am not physically harming you in any way. I am just making noises with my mouth. It's your problem if you take that as a threat. The same goes with a contract. That was just me scribbling on a piece of paper. I didn't agree to anything. I just nodded, made funny noises with my mouth and scribbled some doodles. By forcing me to abide to this so-called "contract" you are in fact assaulting ME!

[NghtRppr]

I claim that piracy is a form of coercion, a form of aggression, which I am against too. It's not sufficient to make a claim, you have to substantiate it.

It's funny that you make a claim and then say it's not enough to do that but one must also provide an argument while simultaneously failing to do exactly that. Piracy is coercion how? It's not because I'm not initiating violence or making threats on your property. That's the argument.

Also, I can deny that I am making threats. When I am saying "give me all your money or I will kill you" I am not physically harming you in any way.

You're not making any sense. Making a threat doesn't require that you are currently causing me physical harm, it's the promise of FUTURE physical harm. That's what a threat is. Please take your time and try to make more coherent responses. This is bordering on absurd.

[kelp]

I agree that what you just wrote is utterly senseless and incoherent. But that is not what I said. A contract is an INFORMATION right. A contract is not the scribblings on a piece of paper, but the information content of that contract is enforcible by the use of physical force. Similarly IP is an information right. So they have something in common. The argument "I can do whatever I want with my PHYSICAL property as long as I don't infringe your PHYSICAL property" is what most libertarians use against IP laws, but the same argument can be used against contracts. In both cases you are refusing to acknowledge that information may be the legitimate source of physical force.

Again, this is a non-sequitur. A contract is an agreement between individuals, a meeting of the minds, as it were.

Who cares? It's just information and I can do whatever I want with MY body so long as I physically don't harm you. Why isn't that a valid argument?

Because you're making a false equivalence. It wasn't until 1989 that copyright was even implicit in the United States. That came with the ratification of the Berne Convention.

IP laws are not inalienable rights, and they have been very significantly tightened, due to heavy industry lobbying, in the United States over the last 30 years, especially with several acts passed in the 90s. We had perfectly functioning contract law before significant copyright and other IP protections. The two are not inextricably linked.

[jimbobway]

I claim that piracy is a form of coercion, a form of aggression, which I am against too. It's not sufficient to make a claim, you have to substantiate it.

It's funny that you make a claim and then say it's not enough to do that but one must also provide an argument while simultaneously failing to do exactly that. Piracy is coercion how? It's not because I'm not initiating violence or making threats on your property. That's the argument.

Also, I can deny that I am making threats. When I am saying "give me all your money or I will kill you" I am not physically harming you in any way.

You're not making any sense. Making a threat doesn't require that you are currently causing me physical harm, it's the promise of FUTURE physical harm. That's what a threat is. Please take your time and try to make more coherent responses. This is bordering on absurd.

I agree it is absurd and gibberish.

[asdf]

I agree that what you just wrote is utterly senseless and incoherent. But that is not what I said. A contract is an INFORMATION right. A contract is not the scribblings on a piece of paper, but the information content of that contract is enforcible by the use of physical force. Similarly IP is an information right. So they have something in common. The argument "I can do whatever I want with my PHYSICAL property as long as I don't infringe your PHYSICAL property" is what most libertarians use against IP laws, but the same argument can be used against contracts. In both cases you are refusing to acknowledge that information may be the legitimate source of physical force.

Again, this is a non-sequitur. A contract is an agreement between individuals, a meeting of the minds, as it were.

Who cares? It's just information and I can do whatever I want with MY body so long as I physically don't harm you. Why isn't that a valid argument?

You: "a contract is information. IP is information. therefore any argument used against IP can be used against contracts."
What kind of logical fallacy is this?

Contracts and IP, though having a common property of being "informational" or abstract, are none the less different things. A contract is agreed upon by consenting parties. IP is not.

The sun is yellow. A banana is also yellow. Therefore I can eat the sun. non-sequitur.

[onarchy]

I claim that piracy is a form of coercion, a form of aggression, which I am against too. It's not sufficient to make a claim, you have to substantiate it.

It's funny that you make a claim and then say it's not enough to do that but one must also provide an argument while simultaneously failing to do exactly that. Piracy is coercion how? It's not because I'm not initiating violence or making threats on your property. That's the argument.

The same argument can be made against a contract. One who breaches a contract is not initiating violence or making threats on your property. Clearly then, since you think that contracts are valid, this argument of yours is not SUFFICIENT, because in the cases of threats and contracts another more important argument trumps it. I am saying exactly the same thing when it comes to intellectual property. There is a more important argument that trumps your "I'm not initating violence or making threats on your PHYSICAL property" and that is that the author has mixed his labor with nature to create something REAL that is of value: a book. Just like a contract or a threat, that thing does not exist in physical space. It exists ONLY in information space of consciousness. Mental work should be protected by property right, just as much as physical work, and this is so important that it trumps the argument that you can do whatever you want with your physical property so long as you don't initiatie violence against your PHYSICAL being or property.

Also, I can deny that I am making threats. When I am saying "give me all your money or I will kill you" I am not physically harming you in any way.

You're not making any sense. Making a threat doesn't require that you are currently causing me physical harm, it's the promise of FUTURE physical harm.

I completely agree that it doesn't make any sense, just like piracy doesn't require that you are causing me physical harm, but rather take away FUTURE revenue from my mental work.

That's what a threat is. Please take your time and try to make more coherent responses. This is bordering on absurd.

Notice that whenever you say that I am making an absurd argument I am simply taking all the arguments that anti-IP people are using and adapting them to other similar situations. Of course they absurd, just like the anti-IP arguments are absurd, it's just that in other areas YOU TOO see that these arguments are absurd. I am glad to see that you are arguing against these absurd arguments in just the way IP-proponents argue against anti-IP-arguments. Hopefully this will spur in you some reflection on why that is, and maybe consider if your position on IP is absurd too. (I think it is)

[onarchy]

You: "a contract is information. IP is information. therefore any argument used against IP can be used against contracts."
What kind of logical fallacy is this?

Contracts and IP, though having a common property of being "informational" or abstract, are none the less different things. A contract is agreed upon by consenting parties. IP is not.

I've already responded to this: have you made an agreement with every person in the world that they should not kill you? Of course not. Then according to your logic that a contract is needed why shouldn't anyone be who hasn't signed a contract not to kill you not be allowed to do so? Why is there a default value that you never consented to which says: "unless anything else is stated I don't want to die, and killing me is a gross violation" ? And why does that default value not apply to IP: "unless anything else is stated I don't want my intellectual creation to be distributed without my consent, and doing so is piracy" ?