tldr:Cowards and mental midgets, even those sincere in the goodness and efficacy of their actions, are parasites and enablers of other parasites, must be opposed and their ideas exposed, if civilisation is to continue.Subject of this thread:Poor argument opposing IP.picrel: looter's hall passNote:Title's "Free Riders" refers to those benefiting from respected libertarianism figureheads, while consuming (degrading) them. Like a weed.Intro:Purported allies who are inconsistent in their position are more dangerous to their own cause than the most skilled opponent. An enemy fights in the open.An inconsistent ally opens the gates.A principle compromised once is a principle abandoned. There are no half rights, no half measures."There was a time when men were afraid that somebody would reveal some secret of theirs that was unknown to their fellows. Nowadays, they're afraid that somebody will name what everybody knows. Have you practical people ever thought that that's all it would take to blast your whole, big, complex structure, with all your laws and guns — just somebody naming the exact nature of what it is you're doing?"- RandDefinition of property:People own themselves.A person acting converts what is theirs - their temporal existence - along with unowned inputs - to alleviate their uneasiness. This conversion results in physical and intellectual goods.Property begins where labor ends. The cotton is yours because you picked it. The technique is yours because you invented it. Scarcity describes the cotton. It says nothing about the technique. Kinsella's test smuggles that silence in as a verdict.Claim: Scarcity - that ideas aren't rivalrous because using another's idea doesn't affect the person who discovered it."If I invent a technique for harvesting cotton, your harvesting cotton in this way would not take away the technique from me. I still have my technique as well as my cotton. Your use does not exclude my use; we could both use my technique to harvest cotton. There is no economic scarcity, and no possibility of conflict over the use of a scarce resource. Thus, there is no need for exclusivity."-KinsellaNote:While a refutation of the validity of an argument only requires demonstrating a single mistake, people's willingness to build compromised arguments, and to operate on shaky foundations, indicates that total demolition is best.
Counter:Property is the fruit of labor.One's novel conceptions' value to themself are affected by others employing the novel conception, to their detriment when the employment was not permitted. The mechanism involves the marketibility of one's IP when others use it to influence the market without permission.Suggesting that scarcity affects whether something can be property implies that any idea or form of matter can be unlimited, which may actually be true of the universe, but on Earth it's a spectrum that Kinsella pled-especially-well-for to justify that intellectual output's novel conceptions cannot be property because they cannot be policed, implying that people have no right to force Recompense. Expropriators of wealth weaponize this Logic in their taking of the fruit of man's mind while espousing their charity, Case taking as many bananas as they can get away with taking, according to the effect that political Funders desire for individuals, to the degree that Funders affect what the politician chooses. Applies to all sources of Force.That is, IP not being property denies recompense of harm." 'The tycoons can stand being squeezed, they've amassed enough to last them for three generations' — then, later, had yelled: 'Why should the people suffer while businessmen have reserves to last a year?' — now were screaming: 'Why should we starve while some people have reserves to last a week?' "-RandIP results from labor. But no creator works from nothing - every mind stands on the shoulders of giants whose contributions can never be fully credited or compensated. That cumulative debt doesn't erase the creator's claim. It bounds it. A right that never expires would demand payment from minds that built on what came before, forever, without end. So the time limitation follows from the same principle that makes IP valid, not from philosophy or pragmatism. Where the line falls can't be fixed objectively - but neither can the line between one man's contribution and the giants beneath him. Indeterminable is not arbitrary. The anti-IP side engaged in fallacies to contrive time limits. They can have them. Without the fallacy."Scientists are not supposed to believe anything. Scientists are supposed to have some evidence that leads them tentatively to some conclusion or to some action. They're supposed to be able to show that to other scientists, any interested person in fact who's willing to understand what it is that was used as evidence, should be able to say, yeah, I agree with that, that makes sense, using rules of inference that we've used since Aristotle. Okay, and it's not complicated at all. You learn it in sixth grade. Most scientists forget it pretty quickly. But science is not a set of beliefs. I mean, there's only one belief in science, that you have to retreat to commitment at a certain point."-Kary Mullis
Physical property is accepted as valid.Intellectuals denying intellectual property is hardly intellectual - but a monkey can only understand what a banana is once they've seen one. Who is willing to evolve?
