Kinsella's book "Against Intellectual Property" argues against consent in the use by others of one's intellectual goods.The book purports to be libertarian, but uses the begging the question fallacy to define property as scarce/rivalrous (he uses "scarce" in the book, "rivalrous" in later writings - Moving the Goalpost), whereas I start from a deeper premise: that man's mind is his base tool of survival and that complete control of his mind's labors is his right:https://abidode.substack.com/p/expropriation-of-the-mindKinsella makes another (unforced) error when he uses another fallacy (special pleading) to state that since enforcing intellectual property requires initiating force (begging the question, since this only makes sense if you accept his fallacious reasoning that using another's intellectual goods is not force), that it's not property.From here, we induce that physical property that is undefendable is not property.As such, Kinsella states that libertarianism doesn't necessarily allow the use of force in defense of one's property.
>>546254741The right to self defense is natural and self-evident, fuck you and your pedantic word games queer.
>>546254934>The right to self defense is natural and self-evident, fuck you and your pedantic word games queer.Not according to Kinsella
>>546254950WELL FUCK KINSELLA THAT STUPID BITCH!
>>546254741It is obviously more productive, more peaceful and less harmful if people learn from each other and are honest instead of gatekeeping jews. Intellectual property serves as an arbitrary excuse to attack people who mimic you, perhaps imperfectly. It probably has it's roots in highway robbery, as does rent. Yes I'm appealing to authority, the authority of "Adam Smith Father of Economics">but this doesn't address the right a man has to the mind's labor.The real value of enforced intellectual property is in marketing, people do not care of the source of information, they simply want the information. The whole problem of force comes into the equation here. Is the act of marketing or the act of research an act of force? Am I offending Socrates by asking a question? Who gives them the right to the "socratic dialogue" a process that no doubt predated socrates. Again I appeal to authority here. I also beg the question, because I assume that I am right.Right that people struggle to argue for or against intellectual property because they cannot reliably alienate the value of ideas from the identity of those who use ideas, from the process by which ideas are created. Can the E team or nickelodeon DMCA me for this post? Should they? Perhaps New York city should bill me for using their skyline. (Who owns a skyline anyway?) If I am understanding OP correctly this post is a violation of an idealized form of libertarianism, for I do not pay royalties and have not agreed by some contract to be able to render pic related.
>>546255150Frfr>>546255176>It is obviously more productive, more peaceful and less harmful if people learn from each other and are honest instead of gatekeeping jews. That's trade, by definition increasing value. >Intellectual property serves as an arbitrary excuse to attack people who mimic you, perhaps imperfectly. Who attacked first.>Yes I'm appealing to authority, the authority of "Adam Smith Father of Economics"Meaningless>>but this doesn't address the right a man has to the mind's labor.>The real value of enforced intellectual property is in marketing, people do not care of the source of information, they simply want the information. The whole problem of force comes into the equation here. Whose ip, is the question. >Is the act of marketing or the act of research an act of force? Am I offending Socrates by asking a question? Who gives them the right to the "socratic dialogue" a process that no doubt predated socrates. Insufficient information>Again I appeal to authority here. >I also beg the question, because I assume that I am right.>Right that people struggle to argue for or against intellectual property because they cannot reliably alienate the value of ideas from the identity of those who use ideas, from the process by which ideas are created. Read the Substack if you want to address what I say. You're just preaching.>If I am understanding OP correctly this post is a violation of an idealized form of libertarianism, for I do not pay royalties and have not agreed by some contract to be able to render pic related.Citation required
Yes, you can use your mind's labor as you want. But this premise doesn't establish intellectual property. For example, you use a unique recipe to make something, but somehow another person learns the recipe from you and builds the same thing using his own physical property. Does that mean theft was committed here? No, because theft requires taking something from you without your consent. When he uses the recipe that you created, you still have the recipe yourself; nobody took anything from you. You may not like this, and if you don't, find a way to make sure nobody learns your recipe. The whole process of theft requires taking something from someone so that, after the theft, the original owner no longer possesses it, which doesn't happen with intellectual property.
>>546254741Not a real libertarian. You fuck with my property in any way and I will nuke you for violating the NAP.
>>546254741God i would fuck a woman up so bad for attempting any of this unathletic, ineffective bullshit on me. A bitch attempting that nut kick would get her fucking cankles shattered under my heel the second her leg came up. My hand would be crushing her nose into her orbits and shoving her neck backwards into the concrete. Fucking try it, bitch. HOOOOOODAO!
>>546255804>Not a real libertarian. You fuck with my property in any way and I will nuke you for violating the NAP.McNuke era libertarianism was peek
>>546255690>I never read the post , and am begging the question
>>546255408>You're just preaching.Yes. I'm right, you will suffer in the hell you create
>>546255899>>You're just preaching.>Yes. I'm right, you will suffer in the hell you createYes, the hell that is logic.
>>546255925I've obviously not researched your gay faggot as much as you have. I don't really have anything to go by aside from the fact you appear to be arguing in an extreme form of IP.I don't like IP i can see no way IP will ever help me and a million ways in which IP can be used as a cudgel to beat me. I can point to various creators and entities in history that have lost access to their labor, success and achievements by way of less productive yet more connected or productive legal entities. Therefore I have reason to distrust IP and IP enforcement as a reliable and helpful system.Therefore I argue against it and refuse to platform or engage reasonably with defenses of IP. IP is, by my illogical reckoning, a demon conjured by yet more demons. A benighted and impractical extension of backwards middle eastern rentier institutions and caste systems. As construction workers wear hardhats, I reject IP as an institution.Maybe it was useful a long time ago to protect "Gregs Hats" from foreign copy cats. But today foreign copycats bribe the local county to steal "Gregs hats" from Greg. We call this modern system "IP" >citation needed4chan. 2026, webfourm, anon.
I know some cool libertarians but I always think of the goyim opinion box meme cause they vote third party
>>546255820I think the same but i dont know maybe that is too much i mean thre is a lot of hate in our planet right now, look yes i hate women so much that is unreal but hitting them more than one time is too much, maybe is time to not hit them but hit and berate the simps that are allowing this hell bend sóýciety that would bring normal dynamic in our relationships instead of this "grrpower" bullshit era.
she gonna get her neck grabbed around the beginning of step 2 followed by a jab to her side cheek then she would wake up 2 hours later with a dislocated jaws, a few broken ribs and her vagina blown inside out
>>546255845Okay, property can be the fruit of someone's labor. That's an aspect that is present in some property, but it's not the whole definition or the biggest aspect of property.Man needs things to cultivate himself and fulfill his needs, and for this reason, he employs many means to achieve his ends. Some of these means are so scarce that only a few can possess them. If others want to possess them, they can acquire them through voluntary exchange or violence, and the latter is theft. The whole point of introducing the concept of scarcity into the definition of property was to distinguish what can be stolen and what can't, so that the means to achieve one's ends aren't hindered.>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 pledges 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. In a libertarian framework, resulting in artists being questioned for begging for the observance of consent.Yes, some things can in fact be unlimited and cannot be decreased even if they are used by millions of people, such as intellectual output or a recipe, which some call intellectual property. Even if another person somehow knows it, you can still employ your intellectual output to achieve your ends, and nobody is stopping you.And intellectual property, in most cases, is manifested in real life through the unique use of other scarce physical property. You deciding how others should use their scarce property just because you used your scarce physical property in this way indeed violates the NAP.
>>546255845Also, just because you earn less money or lose reputation because others used the same recipe or idea as you doesn't establish a property right.Even your own idea is almost impossible to implement in real life because there is no way of knowing whether someone independently discovered the same idea as the first person who discovered it, because everyone could claim that they did. And your own post claims that property is the fruit of one's labor. By this premise, just because someone discovered an idea doesn't imply that the same idea can't also be the fruit of the labor of others, and thus be their property as well. and saying the first person gets the priority is non sequitur from your own premise
>>546256437I'm not sure if the one on the left in the red top is a boy or a girl but I would berry my dick so far inside that ass that whoever pulled it out would be crowned king arthur.
>>546256437I like how Vaush is in the back trying to make himself look tough.
>>546254741>hammerfist punchlmao
>>546255176>Intellectual property serves as an arbitrary excuse to attack people who mimic you, perhaps imperfectly.>It probably has it's roots in highway robbery, as does rent.neat so in your libertarian paradise, i write a book. someone copies it and sells it. i can't do anything about it. guess i just do the work of writing and some other nigger gets to reap the rewards? sounds like communism, nigger.
>>546256437tranny, most insufferable human alive, tranny, tranny, midwit, tranny, retard, tranny, dipshit, subhuman redditoid, fuckwit
