Read this before having an opinion on economics

[BitterTea]

The way I read your answers, it appears that you feel an individual does not have the right to defend himself from aggression. This is equivalent to stating that individuals do not have a right to live. Is this what you believe?

Based on this interpretation of my answers, here is how I see the situation playing out.

I infringe on your copyright. When you find out, you respond by notifying me of the fine you have levied. Since I don't agree that I have done anything wrong, I ignore the fine. In response, you send men with guns to my house to extract the fine by force if necessary. Seeing this as an invasion and threat to my life, I defend myself from the men, killing some and driving the rest off.

This is where it gets confusing, because you have stated both that I do not have the right to defend myself, but also that they do not have the right to kill me. Only one of us can be the aggressor, who is it?

As far as your question, bitcoin2cash answered it the same way I would have.

[1714053156]

1714053156

[1714053156]

1714053156

[JA37]

Correct, but it's the fact that I can't possibly use it, even if I don't want to. That's what makes it scarce. That's what makes it ownable. Once I own it, I get to control the use of it, even if I'm not using it all the time. Of course, this assumes that things have objectively defined uses, which is false. Maybe I collect beds. Maybe I derive joy from knowing I have a clean bed with pristine sheets on it. In that sense, I'm always using it and you would be depriving me of something just by laying on it. However, as mentioned already, that's irrelevant.

You know what else is scarce. The blueprints for a room temperature superconductor. It's so scarce there aren't any yet. Are they ownable? If I invent one I get to control the use of a bed, but not the thing that I and no one else in the whole world could create? Doesn't seem right.

[BitterTea]

You know what else is scarce. The blueprints for a room temperature superconductor. It's so scarce there aren't any yet. Are they ownable? If I invent one I get to control the use of a bed, but not the thing that I and no one else in the whole world could create? Doesn't seem right.

Can two or more people make exclusive use of a bed? No.

Can two or more people make exclusive use of a copy of the blueprints? Yes.

[NghtRppr]

You know what else is scarce. The blueprints for a room temperature superconductor. It's so scarce there aren't any yet.

Yet, once it does exist, it's no longer scarce. Unfortunately, you can't own something that doesn't exist yet so that doesn't help you at all. The paper the blueprints are printed on would still be scarce but not the content therein. This seems pretty simple so maybe you are trying very hard not to understand?

[JA37]

The way I read your answers, it appears that you feel an individual does not have the right to defend himself from aggression. This is equivalent to stating that individuals do not have a right to live. Is this what you believe?

Based on this interpretation of my answers, here is how I see the situation playing out.

I infringe on your copyright. When you find out, you respond by notifying me of the fine you have levied. Since I don't agree that I have done anything wrong, I ignore the fine. In response, you send men with guns to my house to extract the fine by force if necessary. Seeing this as an invasion and threat to my life, I defend myself from the men, killing some and driving the rest off.

This is where it gets confusing, because you have stated both that I do not have the right to defend myself, but also that they do not have the right to kill me. Only one of us can be the aggressor, who is it?

As far as your question, bitcoin2cash answered it the same way I would have.

People do have the right to defend themselves with the minimum force needed to repel the attack, and only as a last resort.
When did I say that people doesn't have the right to live? Please stop putting words in my mouth.

We now live in the real world where there is IP.
You infringe, I find out, I send you a notice, you ignore it. You are now the agressor. I had a rightful claim that you ignored. If money can't be extracted by any other means police will show up at your door, as a last resort. If you start shooting at the police you have a problem, as they have the right to defend themselves. Again, with minimal force.
However if you are a normal member of society things will never go that far.

[NghtRppr]

We now live in the real world where there is IP.
You infringe, I find out, I send you a notice, you ignore it. You are now the agressor.

According to Libertarianism, no. According to the current laws, yes. The law used to be that you could own black people. I guess you would have supported that back then too, huh?

[JA37]

Yet, once it does exist, it's no longer scarce. Unfortunately, you can't own something that doesn't exist yet so that doesn't help you at all. The paper the blueprints are printed on would still be scarce but not the content therein. This seems pretty simple so maybe you are trying very hard not to understand?

How do you know. Perhaps I have the blueprints in front of me.  
So even though I'm the only one with access to the content, it's not scarce?

[BitterTea]

People do have the right to defend themselves with the minimum force needed to repel the attack, and only as a last resort.
When did I say that people doesn't have the right to live? Please stop putting words in my mouth.

My first question was "Do you think an individual has the right to defend himself against aggression?" and your first answer was "No". Am I misunderstanding something?

We now live in the real world where there is IP.
You infringe, I find out, I send you a notice, you ignore it. You are now the agressor. I had a rightful claim that you ignored.

By this same logic... when slavery was legal, a slave that ran away was aggressing against his master, who had a rightful claim the slave ignored. Do you agree with this? If not, what's the difference?

If you start shooting at the police you have a problem, as they have the right to defend themselves.

I don't know about you, but if armed men come to my house and threaten me with imprisonment, I consider that an act of aggression. I never agreed to the terms you placed upon the use of your idea.

[JA37]

According to Libertarianism, no. According to the current laws, yes. The law used to be that you could own black people. I guess you would have supported that back then too, huh?

Dear lord. First I'm anti life. Now I'm also pro-slavery.
Let's be civil please. Don't do that.

[The Script]

People do have the right to defend themselves with the minimum force needed to repel the attack, and only as a last resort.
When did I say that people doesn't have the right to live? Please stop putting words in my mouth.

No one is putting words in your mouth.  Bitter Tea asked you five questions, you gave five answers.

If you support the use of force against individuals that make use of your ideas against your will, you ultimately support killing them.

Do you think an individual has the right to defend himself against aggression?

Do you think you have the right to fine me for infringing on your copyright?

Do you think you have the right to send armed men to my house if I don't pay your fine?

Do you think those men have the right to kill me if I defend myself against them?

Can you answer my question regarding a world where physical goods are as easy to copy as intellectual goods? Does it make sense that the above escalation of force is justified if I copy your lawnmower?

No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.

First question: "Do you think an individual has the right to defend himself against aggression?"

Your first answer: "No."

If this is not what you meant then you need to be more clear when you write.

We now live in the real world where there is IP.
You infringe, I find out, I send you a notice, you ignore it. You are now the agressor. I had a rightful claim that you ignored. If money can't be extracted by any other means police will show up at your door, as a last resort. If you start shooting at the police you have a problem, as they have the right to defend themselves. Again, with minimal force.
However if you are a normal member of society things will never go that far.

I think the point that Bitcoin2Cash and BitterTea have made is a good one.  Namely that if you agree that the right to life and the right to property are the two fundamental rights, you have to prove how the "right" to IP is not superseding either of those.  In your own example it is, because you are limiting their freedom to use their property (paper, ink, computer hard drives, etc.) in ways they choose.

[NghtRppr]

So even though I'm the only one with access to the content, it's not scarce?

No, as has been explained to you many times, for something to be scarce it has to be the case that only one person can possibly control its usage at a time. Are you saying that it's the case that only a single person at a time can possibly use the information contained on a set of blueprints? I hope not because that's obviously not true.

According to Libertarianism, no. According to the current laws, yes. The law used to be that you could own black people. I guess you would have supported that back then too, huh?

Dear lord. First I'm anti life. Now I'm also pro-slavery.
Let's be civil please. Don't do that.

So you admit then that just because a law is on the books doesn't make it justified? Good, now we are back to square one, providing a justification of intellectual property laws.

[JA37]

People do have the right to defend themselves with the minimum force needed to repel the attack, and only as a last resort.
When did I say that people doesn't have the right to live? Please stop putting words in my mouth.

My first question was "Do you think an individual has the right to defend himself against aggression?" and your first answer was "No". Am I misunderstanding something?

We now live in the real world where there is IP.
You infringe, I find out, I send you a notice, you ignore it. You are now the agressor. I had a rightful claim that you ignored.

By this same logic... when slavery was legal, a slave that ran away was aggressing against his master, who had a rightful claim the slave ignored. Do you agree with this? If not, what's the difference?

If you start shooting at the police you have a problem, as they have the right to defend themselves.

I don't know about you, but if armed men come to my house and threaten me with imprisonment, I consider that an act of aggression. I never agreed to the terms you placed upon the use of your idea.

I thought the first question was "If you support.... something something ... you support killing them".

Owning someone isn't morally right. So no rightful claim.

If you break the law armed men will come to your house and threaten you with imprisonment. That's not agression, thats defence on behalf of the community.
If you don't like the law you try to get it changed, or use civil disobedience, but civil disobedience means that you are willing to accept the punishment.

[NghtRppr]

Owning someone isn't morally right.

Since you own yourself, you have every right to sell yourself into slavery, if that's what you choose to do voluntarily. To say otherwise is to attempt to control what other people can and cannot do with their own bodies, which is involuntary slavery. What goes on between consenting adults is their business and no one else, be it sexual acts or even voluntary slavery. A contract is a contract. If you don't want to sell yourself into slavery, don't.

[djoot]

People do have the right to defend themselves with the minimum force needed to repel the attack, and only as a last resort.
When did I say that people doesn't have the right to live? Please stop putting words in my mouth.

We now live in the real world where there is IP legislation.
You infringe, I find out, I send you a notice, you ignore it. You are now the agressor. I had a rightful claim that you ignored. And here you decide to go to the monopoly court, who will interpret their monopoly laws and use their monopoly on violence, escalating this violence until BitterTea complies. If money can't be extracted by any other means police will show up at your door, as a last resort. If you start shooting at the police you have a problem, as they have the right to defend themselves. Again, with minimal force.
However if you are a normal member of society things will never go that far.

Great TED video by the way.

[BitterTea]

I was impressed by the TED video too. Have you considered that your position is self contradictory?

People do have the right to defend themselves with the minimum force needed to repel the attack, and only as a last resort.

Is threatening someone with the use of physical violence as a response to their disregard of your supposed right to intellectual property the "minimum force needed to repel the attack", and "only as a last resort"?

Owning someone isn't morally right. So no rightful claim.

Using actual or threatened force to prevent an individual from making use of their property on the basis that you own an idea isn't morally right. So not rightful claim.

If you break the law armed men will come to your house and threaten you with imprisonment. That's not agression, thats defence on behalf of the community.

The definition of aggression is "initiation of the use of force". Theft is an act of aggression because it deprives the owner use of the property. Unauthorized copying does not deprive the original owner of the original, nor the ability to create additional copies; without further justification it cannot be considered an act of aggression.

If you don't like the law you try to get it changed, or use civil disobedience, but civil disobedience means that you are willing to accept the punishment.

"Disobey civilly or we'll have to kill you!"

[stillfire]

Since most arguments in favour for Intellectual Property so far in this discussion have been rather poor from a fundamentals perspective, let me bring forth a more interesting one.

Murray Rothbard writes on copyright: "Copyrights [...] have their basis in prosecution of implicit theft. [...T]he defendant stole the former’s creation by reproducing it and selling it himself in violation of his or someone else’s contract with the original seller."

In other words, the definition of a copyrighted work is a work with a contract attached to it. The receiver agrees not to copy the material, and to hold any other person to which the material is transferred to the same contract, or otherwise refrain from receiving or transferring it.

This engages the right to hold property and the right to enter into a contract.

Now I hear you cry, 'But I never agreed to such a contract when I found the software/music/book on a P2P network!' This is no more a defence than if you purchased a chair made out of stolen wood. Somewhere along the line a contract was broken and the transfer was illegal.

[BitterTea]

That argument assumes that individuals have a right to control the use of their ideas through the use of physical force.

Why is this so?

If it is merely voluntary - by contract - then bypassing the contract and obtaining the information through alternative channels is not morally wrong.

[stillfire]

That argument assumes that individuals have a right to control the use of their ideas through the use of physical force.

It makes no such assumption.

This argument assumes the individual has the right to property, in this case the physical representation of their work in e.g. the form of a book.

The individual now refuses to give you access to their property, the book, unless you first agree to certain terms. He is exercising his right to form a contract with another consenting person.

Remember this is an argument in favour of copyright, not patents. The idea itself remains free, and should you be able to reproduce it independently, that's marvellous and it is your right. But you will never have access to the particular physical rendition required for you to make a copy without first agreeing not to make a copy.

[NghtRppr]

That argument assumes that individuals have a right to control the use of their ideas through the use of physical force.

Why is this so?

If it is merely voluntary - by contract - then bypassing the contract and obtaining the information through alternative channels is not morally wrong.

Plenty of things are morally wrong but still legal and rightfully so, such as cheating on your partner. I personally think it's morally wrong to obtain value from creative works without contributing some of that value in the form of many back to the creator. However, that's irrelevant because it still shouldn't be illegal.

[stillfire]

Ah, it seems like you added this part after I responded.

If it is merely voluntary - by contract - then bypassing the contract and obtaining the information through alternative channels is not morally wrong.

Only to the extent that you do not bypass the contract by illegally entering my property or handling physical property, such as a book, which does not belong to you.

For instance, earlier in the thread someone spoke of using binoculars to examine the material. This would be fine, assuming a copyright owner would be so foolish as to let the book lie open in plain sight.

But even taking the book of the shelf in a library would be wrong unless you first have permission to do so.  And again such permission will not be forthcoming unless you agree to the contract.