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.picrel: Not the subject of this post, only a recognizable aspect of it. Notes:Work in progress, but this post will stand on its own. Title's "Free Riders" refers to those benefiting from ideas (Kinsella's respect within libertarianism), while consuming (degrading) them. Like a weed.Intro:Purported allies who are inconsistent are more dangerous to their own cause than any sincere, rigorous opponent. A known enemy fights in the open. An inconsistent ally hands the enemy his own arguments.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?"- RandSubject, of this thread:Poor arguments opposing IP.Definition of property:The fruit of labor, mental included;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.
1.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.Suggesting that scarcity affects property implies that anything can be unlimited, which isn't true, and expropriators of wealth weaponize this logic in their taking of wealth." '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?' "-Rand
I'll write more later. Writing this was cathartic.
>>545810192Retroactively refuted by Liquid Zulu:>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xKjHHzLUQQ
>>545810682>vid: scarcity is property, the smuggled verdictI'd love an actual opponent. Your refutation has been refuted. Better luck next time. Try using your brain - I hope this helps!
>>545810192>be an influencer>you too can run psyopsREACTION FOLDERhttp://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pDVj-pkOjbmDhfgaVjGCWfwyzIPmfn04
>>545812079another version moar details
>>545810192DuuudeYou gonna hit this?
>>545812376Yup
>>545812079>>545812144>>545812376>>545812521Flak over the target. Four off-topic replies.No rebuttal, just surrender with extra steps.
While I'm dancing on the graves of poor arguments, I'd like to note a few things: 1. There are counters to my arguments - that they haven't been made is quite pathetic.2. I am only 1/(4+) through refuting Kinsella's positions - that anyone would rest their position upon such a weak mind is beyond my comprehension.3. 1/(4+) is just Kinsella, who is 1/(1+) the position.
They came with a video, a psyop folder, and a meme.Not one word on scarcity.Not one word on the smuggled verdict. Not one word on the special pleading that lets them defend reputation while denying property in ideas.This silence is the indictment.Every argument they could have made would have required applying their own standard to themselves - and they know it.Options are: 1. Refute the scarcity premise and concede the framework collapses.2. Accept that non-rivalry was never a neutral test and the whole abolitionist case was built on a begged question.3. Ignore, which is just refutation with the courage removed.No quarter for those who lack the responsibility of consciousness. The premise is there. As are the contradictions.The anti-ip has every tool needed to see what they were doing. They choose not to look.It's not me you have to refute, it's the reality.I'm not making the indictment.I'm explaining it.
>>545816591Yes
