Do You Support the Initiation of Force?

[Canceled.2014.1]

IP is fallacious. If I overhear you telling a friend about an idea you have, is the idea in my head your property? If I purchase a book, the ink on the pages is my property, just as much as the binding, etc.

The only way IP can be enforced (at least in my mind), is through the initiation of force via the state.

The ink and paper are yours. But the story is mine. That is why they call it intellectual property.

By your logic, the artists would starve and those with copiers and recorders would make the money off their efforts.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The ink and paper are yours. But the story is mine. That is why they call it intellectual property.

By your logic, the artists would starve and those with copiers and recorders would make the money off their efforts.

Since he doesn't believe in IP, then if he's put a massive amount of money and work, into a new idea and before you can patent it, someone pilfers all the paperwork; then that makes it no longer his and he has no claim on it, no matter how much he has invested.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Iron, contracts can ONLY be enforced via the initiation of force (hence, en - force). In a world where people aren't simply going to march about to the tune of honor, integrity, and decency (because most human beings appear incapable), every single agreement is subject to flagrant violation without the threat of force behind it.

 

[ironhead]

Iron, contracts can ONLY be enforced via the initiation of force (hence, en - force). In a world where people aren't simply going to march about to the tune of honor, integrity, and decency (because most human beings appear incapable), every single agreement is subject to flagrant violation without the threat of force behind it.

If someone violates a contract, that is virtually the same as committing fraud, which is tantamount to initiating force. If people can't be trusted in general, why would you want to allow ambitious, power-hungry, unscrupulous people to have a monopoly on force, i.e. the government?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

If someone violates a contract, that is virtually the same as committing fraud, which is tantamount to initiating force. If people can't be trusted in general, why would you want to allow ambitious, power-hungry, unscrupulous people to have a monopoly on force, i.e. the government?

I always laugh when I see someone say the gov't has a monopoly on force. A quick look in my gun safe (or better yet, Billy's) show we are more than capable of force.

 

[Minister of Truth]

If someone violates a contract, that is virtually the same as committing fraud, which is tantamount to initiating force. If people can't be trusted in general, why would you want to allow ambitious, power-hungry, unscrupulous people to have a monopoly on force, i.e. the government?

1) No, violating a contract does NOT in any way have anything to do with force, whatsoever.

2) Did you ignore the entire history around the Constitutional Convention? A huge chunk of the dialogue was about the government having too much physical power. That's why we have the Constitution that we have.

 

[ironhead]

1) No, violating a contract does NOT in any way have anything to do with force, whatsoever.

2) Did you ignore the entire history around the Constitutional Convention? A huge chunk of the dialogue was about the government having too much physical power. That's why we have the Constitution that we have.

LOL - and how long did it take before FedGov violated its own rules? Ever hear of The Alien and Sedition Acts? I think you're the one who is ignoring history, my friend. How well is the government abiding by the constitution these days?

Violating a contract is the same as fraud; it's doing something you said you wouldn't do, or failing to do that which you said you would do.