Awesome free state project open to bitcoin donations

[sirius]

I don't think IP laws are economically viable and thus they wouldn't exist if the law was formed in a free market process. Ie. justice insurance companies wouldn't be willing to sell insurances that compensate for copying of your work without permission. But that's impossible to tell before we see a society based on free market common law.

Ok, I am now going to make a list of things that you will be able to do in the Free State that today is impossible in the United States or pretty much any country in the world:

- 100% privately owned roads
- 100% private health care
- 100% private education
- 100% private social security
- 100% private water and sewage
- 100% private airports and ports
- 100% private money (including Bitcoins) and free banking
- very close to 100% free immigration
- extremely low taxes, possibly zero (the goal is to have the Free State entirely financed by voluntary donations)
- zero regulations, other than that provided by private property

Anyway, I think this is a good enough reason to give it a try. It would still be way better than any other state in the world. IP laws can (hopefully) be changed later if they are found unjust.

[kiba]

If everything was private, there would be very little for free. Toll Roads, Pay Bathrooms, etc...  I kind of like the Pay Bathroom idea.

Clean bathrooms are nice.

[NghtRppr]

WHY does the non-aggression principle apply? And why is intellectual work supposedly not protected by this principle?

Because murder is a form of aggression and copying information isn't.

WHY do you own yourself?

I have the best claim to my body. Everyone else is a latecomer with respect to me and my body.

Here you are explicitly denying the existence of information

No, I'm not. I'm denying that it's a form of property. If you write in a book you own, you still own the book and the writings, the physical copy itself, not the information contained therein.

[onarchy]

WHY does the non-aggression principle apply? And why is intellectual work supposedly not protected by this principle?

Because murder is a form of aggression and copying information isn't.

Why isn't copying the work of someone else against their will not a form of aggression, whereas a threat (which is also just information) while pointing a gun peacefully at you IS a form of aggression?

WHY do you own yourself?

I have the best claim to my body. Everyone else is a latecomer with respect to me and my body.

That's not true. The atoms in your body has probably been claimed hundreds of times by other people, not to mention your parents. They produced you and fed you. Why don't they own you and can sell you as a slave if they like?

Here you are explicitly denying the existence of information

No, I'm not. I'm denying that it's a form of property.

Why?

If you write in a book you own, you still own the book and the writings, the physical copy itself, not the information contained therein.

Why not?

[wb3]

Quote
If you write in a book you own, you still own the book and the writings, the physical copy itself, not the information contained therein.

Why not?


Because you put it in the public domain. If you disagree, you must not have ever told somebody about what you heard on the news or in a newspaper. If you did, you violated your own principles.

[onarchy]

I don't think IP laws are economically viable and thus they wouldn't exist if the law was formed in a free market process.

Laws are not formed in a free market process. E.g. laws against murder don't arise in a free market, a free market ASSUMES laws against murder. If you mean that laws are just like any other commodity then I am sure that you will be able to find societies where it is "economically viable" to enslave, say, 10% of the population and to murder another 10% who are not fit to contribute to society. 80% say so. That does however not make it right.


When that is said I will grant you that BOTH the IP laws of today AND the practices of the various companies in the industry are bad. A major problem is in fact lack of micropayment, which in turn is largely caused by the insane regulations and taxations on money and banking. Thus, indirectly much of the cause of the current debacle on copyright are the banking laws and regulations and the taxes.

With micropayment systems much of the problems associated with piracy would be almost non-existent.

Another major problem is with industry who haven't understood that most people are actually NOT pirates. Most people respect intellectual property and want to pay for it just like they would any product. The problem is that the industry is punishing people who are legal. Where do you see a gigantic warning against piracy? On every DVD that is sold, i.e. those who actually PAY for the product and DON'T pirate are harassed by the industry. Furthermore, legal copies often have copy protection and time zone restrictions, which means that the legal product is LESS convenient and LESS available than the pirated copy. And often you simply CAN'T get the product via internet, you MUST buy a physical copy of a DVD that you care nothing about and that needs to be shipped halfway around the globe. Furthermore without proper payment systems there are no per usage payment for software. In some cases you have to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars for a product you want to use 4 times. And why do you have to pay full price for a Blue Ray version of the movie when you bought the DVD? Here you're paying for the same information (the IP) twice, and for no good reason. And if you lose the DVD too bad for you, you have to buy a completely new one.

All this is experienced as deeply unfair by consumers and rightfully so. Part of the problem is with the laws (e.g. banking laws) and part of the problem is with the dinosaur industry that is being unreasonable. We see that as somewhat ok consumer solutions arise people do prove that they don't want to be parasitic criminals who pirate other people's hard work. spotify.com is a brilliant example which has more than 1 million paying customers now, mostly from Scandinavia. In Sweden the music industry is now making more money through Spotify than through regular channels. And remember, Sweden was the home of Pirate Bay. Once fairly reasonable solutions are available, people choose them.

The key here from a customer service point of view is not to treat your regular customer as a criminal. Look at ordinary shops. There is maybe 2% shop lifting there, and you can quite easily get away with stealing, but most people don't AND most importantly: the shop owners will rather have 3% theft than to treat their customers as criminals with draconian anti-theft measures. In other words, the ordinary customer should NOT notice any anti-theft measures (i.e. guards who searches everyone on their way out) and this is where the music and film industry has simply misunderstood everything. You cannot avoid a certain amount of piracy, but treat your paying customers with respect and provide them a good service and most people will buy, not steal.

Of course the anti-IP libertarians are not exactly doing people any favors. They are spreading an idea that goes much further than to criticize the bad service attitude of the IP industry. They are in fact spreading the idea that piracy is NOT MORALLY WRONG. In essence they are trying to normalize pillaging and violation, and by so doing they not only contribute to a more sinister form of IP theft, but actually pushes many of the pro-IP people towards draconian measures.

Ok, I am now going to make a list of things that you will be able to do in the Free State that today is impossible in the United States or pretty much any country in the world:

- 100% privately owned roads
- 100% private health care
- 100% private education
- 100% private social security
- 100% private water and sewage
- 100% private airports and ports
- 100% private money (including Bitcoins) and free banking
- very close to 100% free immigration
- extremely low taxes, possibly zero (the goal is to have the Free State entirely financed by voluntary donations)
- zero regulations, other than that provided by private property

Anyway, I think this is a good enough reason to give it a try. It would still be way better than any other state in the world. IP laws can (hopefully) be changed later if they are found unjust.

This is true, and as of today The Free State Initiative is the only project where Bitcoins will be accepted as a fully free and legal payment without any legal hindrances. The Free State Initiative currently accepts and a future Free State will accept donations in Bitcoins to show this. Yet, despite this not a single person in the Bitcoin-community has donated a single Bitcoin to the initiative. I find that very, very strange.

[onarchy]

Quote
If you write in a book you own, you still own the book and the writings, the physical copy itself, not the information contained therein.

Why not?

Because you put it in the public domain.

This is more or less identical to the argument used by conservative islamists on rape. If a woman puts herself in the public domain (i.e. doesn't wear clothes that hides her body) then she is inviting and legitimizing rape. In fact, this is regularly used as an argument in muslim gang rape cases. They argue that by wearing sexy clothes she is a whore who have already volunteered to sex by putting the image of her body in the public domain.

If you disagree, you must not have ever told somebody about what you heard on the news or in a newspaper. If you did, you violated your own principles.

This comes under "fair use." Precisely because information does not exist independently of consciousness and that conscious work is required to (re-)animate information there has to be strong limitations on IP and a lot of leeway in its usage. That's why IP could and should never be expanded beyond a) economic exploitation and b) protection of personal privacy.

[MoonShadow]

Quote
If you write in a book you own, you still own the book and the writings, the physical copy itself, not the information contained therein.

Why not?

Because you put it in the public domain.

This is more or less identical to the argument used by conservative islamists on rape.

That makes even less sense than calling copyright infringement "piracy" in order to compare it to the violent mugging of a trade ship at sea.

The events are not comparable.  Copyright infringement is the violation of a state granted monopoly on data.  No physical harm, or threat of harm, comes to those who claim the copyright.  Nor are they denied the use of their data themselves for it.  Copyright has moved far from it's original intent of the framers, and of it's use in the Constitution; and even they were wary about copyright, and were very clear that they did not consider it property, nor the control of it as a natural right. 

Lacking the support of the state, private data is only protected so long as the owner can do so.  By publishing it, they are making it public by definition.  A person can protect their personal or trade secrets with strong encryption, but protecting data that has been released to the public is much harder to do, and cannot be reasonably enforced without an unnatural state supported monopoly.  I said before that IP would be the first to pass away because in anything close to an anarchist state, the public would be unconcerned about the violation of laws that only exist because of the monopolies granted by a prior state.

[onarchy]

No physical harm, or threat of harm, comes to those who claim the copyright.

Unless of course you count all the money they DON'T make when people pirate their books and works. But in any case, why should it matter that they don't come to PHYSICAL harm? Why is it that only atoms matter to human existence, and hence only atoms that gives rise to property rights?

Nor are they denied the use of their data themselves for it.

A woman under Sharia is also allowed to be fully naked under her Burqa.

By publishing it, they are making it public by definition.

Again, that's exactly what the muslim gang rapists say too. Why is it made public (in the sense not owned by anyone) just because it becomes publicly *available*?

A person can protect their personal or trade secrets with strong encryption, but protecting data that has been released to the public is much harder to do, and cannot be reasonably enforced without an unnatural state supported monopoly.

This is identical to what Islamists say about women who go outside without a male family member. A woman who goes outside alone is begging for rape and deserves all she gets. She has become public property because she's made herself publicly available, and protecting her is practically impossible. Therefore rape is ok.

I said before that IP would be the first to pass away because in anything close to an anarchist state, the public would be unconcerned about the violation of laws that only exist because of the monopolies granted by a prior state.

Actually the case of Spotify proves otherwise. The same is true for ring tones for mobiles. The very same kids who don't hesitate to download a movie without paying for it is willing to pay up to 3-4 dollars for a jingle that lasts only a few seconds. Why is that? It is due to the inherent decency of most people that they recognize that stealing is wrong, and that they don't want to make themselves into thieves for a few dollars.

[NghtRppr]

Why isn't copying the work of someone else against their will not a form of aggression, whereas a threat (which is also just information) while pointing a gun peacefully at you IS a form of aggression?

It's coercion.

That's not true. The atoms in your body has probably been claimed hundreds of times by other people, not to mention your parents. They produced you and fed you. Why don't they own you and can sell you as a slave if they like?

When people die their are atoms abandoned and become unowned. As soon as my body goes from a lump of matter to "me", I am in possession of my body. My parents are still latecomers, even if late means only a split second later.

Here you are explicitly denying the existence of information

No, I'm not. I'm denying that it's a form of property.

Why?

Information isn't property because it isn't scare or rivalrous. If you have a car and I take that car from you then I've deprived you that car. If I make an exact copy of that car then you can still drive the car. The only reason why we have property rights is because when disputes arise and we need some objective way of deciding who owns what. If anyone could have as much of anything they wanted, a mansion, a yacht, a space ship, a house on mars, whatever, it wouldn't make any sense to have property rights. I could never deprive you of those things because they are unlimited.

If you write in a book you own, you still own the book and the writings, the physical copy itself, not the information contained therein.

Why not?

See above. Anyways, I've successfully shown that mixing your labor with something doesn't make it yours. If you steal my marble and make a statue, you don't own the statue. You owe me for damages to my marble. If you disagree then you can give me a counterexample where mixing your labor with something thereby makes it yours but simply claiming it as yours won't do. Of course, trying to offer a novel you wrote as an example would only beg the question since that's the issue we're arguing over.

[MoonShadow]

No physical harm, or threat of harm, comes to those who claim the copyright.

Unless of course you count all the money they DON'T make when people pirate their books and works. But in any case, why should it matter that they don't come to PHYSICAL harm? Why is it that only atoms matter to human existence, and hence only atoms that gives rise to property rights?

Because property rights have a direct relation to 'primary use'.  Said another way, it's theft to steal my bike, because I can't use it.  You have harmed me by denying me the use of my own things.  Data doesn't have the same issues, as I can copy your bike design for my own use and never deny you your own bike.  The state monopoly that is copyright originally existed to incentivise the producers to produce more, by offering the possibility of making money for a short time off of the works, but even that ended after 15 years originally.  Now it's the life of the author plus 70 years, and doesn't benefit the author except by proxy, as the copyright holders are invariablely a publishing company.  Companies don't have rights, only people do; and even the children of the author don't have a right to unearned benefits.

Actually the case of Spotify proves otherwise. The same is true for ring tones for mobiles. The very same kids who don't hesitate to download a movie without paying for it is willing to pay up to 3-4 dollars for a jingle that lasts only a few seconds. Why is that? It is due to the inherent decency of most people that they recognize that stealing is wrong, and that they don't want to make themselves into thieves for a few dollars.

Nonesense.  Spotify works because it's actually more convenient than doing the work of searching for the desired ringtone.  Spotify's business model is dependent upon access, not copyrights.  They could charge for public domain ringtones as well, so long as it's easier to get the desired MIDI version of Bach than it would be to either find an artist who has already done it or do it themselves.

[NghtRppr]

Unless of course you count all the money they DON'T make when people pirate their books and works. But in any case, why should it matter that they don't come to PHYSICAL harm? Why is it that only atoms matter to human existence, and hence only atoms that gives rise to property rights?

The real question is, why do I owe you anything other than to not physically harm you and your property unless in self-defense, or coerce you? Do I also owe it to you to not hurt your feelings?

[PLATO]

bitcoin2cash: In your dream world where we can conjure up houses, cars, arts, etc. the only argument that would exist for 'you can't copy my art' is 'it hurts my feelings.'
Onarchy: Note that you can't really count the money people DON'T make due to piracy, as many pirates will never purchase the work regardless.

[jimbobway]

"Free State Initiative" is sounding more and more like some kind of Orwellian doublespeak.

Let's see... Isolate a population geographically and make them entirely dependent on resources provided by the State. Subject them to bizarre rules to control their behavior and confine them to regulated economic channels. And repeat this process all over the world, perpetuating a paradigm of neo-colonialism...

YES.  This sums up to exactly what I am thinking.  It is masking itself behind the word free when it is not really free.

Ok, I am now going to make a list of things that you will be able to do in the Free State that today is impossible in the United States or pretty much any country in the world:

- 100% privately owned roads
- 100% private health care
- 100% private education
- 100% private social security
- 100% private water and sewage
- 100% private airports and ports
- 100% private money (including Bitcoins) and free banking
- very close to 100% free immigration
- extremely low taxes, possibly zero (the goal is to have the Free State entirely financed by voluntary donations)
- zero regulations, other than that provided by private property


And yes, chewing gum will also be legal, although the private owners of the roads may have high fines for spitting it on their property. AND, if the host country does not have any objections, the Free State will also make drugs, alcohol, gay marriage, porn and full peaceful freedom of expression legal. There is a good chance that the host country as part of its charter will limit freedoms in one or more of these areas, but that will not be our fault.

Can you tell me exactly (be very specific now) in which way we are "masking behind the word free when it is not really free"?  What on this list I just mentioned is so horrible that you think we are virtually North Korea? Do you disagree that the list I just mentioned above makes the Free State *dramatically* freer than any state in the world today?

I think what turned me off about the freestateinitiative was because of how the site utilized Singapore and Hong Kong as examples to strive for.  Also, the freestateinitiative seemed to look down on western governments as failures when for some people it is a beacon of light.

In addition, there are a lot of concepts on your website that needs to be clarified.  For example, making things private is not the way to be free.  I think a free state should instead revolve its core principles on basic human rights, which should be guaranteed somehow to people living in the free state.

Some loop holes that really bother me is that what if there was someone how owned 100% of the water resources, 100% or the roads, etc?  That would be a monopoly and he could charge fees, deny travel, or limit water resources.

Anyways...

[onarchy]

I'm glad to see this thread getting interest.

What happens when I put a roadblock on my "Private Roads" for the lulz?

Why would you as a capitalist do something like that? Those who build roads do so to make money, not to harass people.

Onarchy - Have you ever read Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age"?

I have not.

Interactions between states, quasinational entities, individuals etc. are all governed by a 'Common Economic Protocol' - based on the libertarian ideal of "you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt me." It sounds like you are trying to set something in this vein up - am I correct in summing up your objection to information freedom as, "IP holds value, so allowing 'piracy' is tantamount to allowing economic theft from the rightsholder."

Well, yeah, sort of, except that I base it on the Lockean labor theory of property. Property arises from such action, and there are for humans TWO ways of acting: physically and consciously. Since we humans are *primarily* conscious beings and that most of what we call human nature pertain to the mind, it makes sense that the work of the mind is protected by rights just as much as our physical bodies and work. Thus I don't accept Marxist materialism. Karl Marx is in many respects the originator of modern libertarian anti-IP stance. Marx argued that ONLY physical work gives rise to value. Therefore he argued that capitalists and leaders were parasites because they were largely mind workers. Physically a leader sits in a chair all day picking up phones. Therefore a leader should not be paid more for his work than a secretary which also sits in her chair all day picking up phones. Since a leader gets paid more than a secretary he is deemed an exploiter that uses government monopoly to coerce profit out of the poor workers who do all the physical work (and thereby create all the value).

Modern anti-IP libertarians accept the basic materialist philosophy of Marxism, but have traded his labor theory of value with a free market theory of value. The result is that the libertarians use exactly the same arguments against authors and musicians as Marx earlier used against capitalists and managers. Indeed, we've even heard people in this debate stating their motivation for their anti-IP stance: information is a common. Hence they are information Marxists.

I think it is very important for libertarians to learn about their Marxist roots and whether that's really the kind of ideas they want to propagate in the world. ALL anti-IP libertarians I have run into are Marxist materialists, i.e. they deny the existence of the mind (at least in an ethical context) and only acknowledge matter as the source of property. But why is materialism true? It is a false philosophy in so many areas that leads to horribly evil conclusion: materialism denies the existence of mind altogether, and since consciousness is an illusion and has no real existence, then free will must be an illusion, and hence coercion is an illusion. Therefore materialism ultimately leads to a form of dictatorship through the denial of the existence of the mind.

[error]

This is getting pretty twisted.

I can't think of anywhere else on the planet that will throw you in prison or shoot you for having an unlicensed copy of Windows. I'm disturbed that anybody would create such a place.

[kiba]

Modern anti-IP libertarians accept the basic materialist philosophy of Marxism, but have traded his labor theory of value with a free market theory of value. The result is that the libertarians use exactly the same arguments against authors and musicians as Marx earlier used against capitalists and managers. Indeed, we've even heard people in this debate stating their motivation for their anti-IP stance: information is a common. Hence they are information Marxists.

What utter nonsense. My writers get paid for their work. I still earn revenue from my site.

Information is not a common. Information is always privately owned.

[kiba]

I think it is very important for libertarians to learn about their Marxist roots and whether that's really the kind of ideas they want to propagate in the world. ALL anti-IP libertarians I have run into are Marxist materialists, i.e. they deny the existence of the mind (at least in an ethical context) and only acknowledge matter as the source of property. But why is materialism true? It is a false philosophy in so many areas that leads to horribly evil conclusion: materialism denies the existence of mind altogether, and since consciousness is an illusion and has no real existence, then free will must be an illusion, and hence coercion is an illusion. Therefore materialism ultimately leads to a form of dictatorship through the denial of the existence of the mind.

Free will is an illusion because we live in a deterministic universe. We have minds. I see no contradiction.

[onarchy]

I think it is very important for libertarians to learn about their Marxist roots and whether that's really the kind of ideas they want to propagate in the world. ALL anti-IP libertarians I have run into are Marxist materialists, i.e. they deny the existence of the mind (at least in an ethical context) and only acknowledge matter as the source of property. But why is materialism true? It is a false philosophy in so many areas that leads to horribly evil conclusion: materialism denies the existence of mind altogether, and since consciousness is an illusion and has no real existence, then free will must be an illusion, and hence coercion is an illusion. Therefore materialism ultimately leads to a form of dictatorship through the denial of the existence of the mind.

Free will is an illusion because we live in a deterministic universe. We have minds. I see no contradiction.

Your entire paragraph is one giant contraction. You are talking AS IF you have free will. You are debating AS IF this makes a difference. But if you are truly determined, just like a rock, then why should I trust whatever comes out of your mouth or keyboard any more than I trust a rock? If you're determined to mean what you mean then obviously I can place just as much credibility in your thought as I can in the credibility of the ideas of the wind or a rock or a cheese.

Free will is the precondition of any rational argument, because why argue if you are determined in advance on what the outcome of that argument will be? And why should a deterministic process have the ability to gain knowledge?

[onarchy]

Modern anti-IP libertarians accept the basic materialist philosophy of Marxism, but have traded his labor theory of value with a free market theory of value. The result is that the libertarians use exactly the same arguments against authors and musicians as Marx earlier used against capitalists and managers. Indeed, we've even heard people in this debate stating their motivation for their anti-IP stance: information is a common. Hence they are information Marxists.

What utter nonsense. My writers get paid for their work. I still earn revenue from my site.

Information is not a common. Information is always privately owned.

If information is always owned (i.e. someone's property), how come there should be no property rights for information?