tadmjones

I was surprised at the author's view of the 'genesis' of property rights , along with rights in general. In another blog post he discusses various contexts in which rights should be viewed the most fundamental being 'inborn rights'. The comment section of that blog post is worth the read. I am somewhat confused as there seems to be no difference between the Libertarian Party and the libertarian school of thought or movement at least in the article. Do people who identify as libertarian mean both always?

I read Myth of the Robber Barons a few years ago, I may revisit it. What does one expect when investing? At the least, partial ownership.

In some respects it's funny that seemingly educated people can question what infants and turtles take for granted.

Unlawful assembly is unlawful, that I agree. Though everything else is intent, and the participants' moral choices (even taken collectively) can not be judged separate from or in conjunction with assembly lawful or not. A law that forbids trade with x, y, or z group is an inappropriate use of force . Organizing a demonstration that unreasonably impedes the free movement of nonparticipants(physically blocking a store front) is a use of force against private property and free association and legal action should be taken against the organizers and participants. Simply disseminating the idea that one should not purchse the products of x,y, or z should not be considered a restraint of trade punishable by law. It is a restraint or an effort to bring restraint, targeted even, i fail to see it as an immoral(action) use of force.

There is no 'goal' of a free market, other than that individual traders receive what they consider value in an exchange, voluntarily. The promotion of a free market is the realm of politics, the principles by which a societyshould be organized to facilitate free trade ie recognition of individual rights and the removal of force from personal interactions. Is the coercive aspect to be found in the action of acquiescing and participating in a boycott, or in the organization and suggestion of participation in a boycott? If it is in the former, how is participation in a boycott a use of force, the literal not taking action (not trading)? Or if it is the latter, how is suggestion to others that they refrain from taking action a use of force? It seems they could only be force if the withholding of trade violated someone's property rights, which I assume you would agree can only be violated by an act of force. Is withholding of action, an action ?

How does individuals' or even groups of individuals' right to free association amount to coercion , do they owe their current or future economic trade to anyone , other than those they have agreed to trade with?

While the discussion is an interesting topic, why questions imply intent, yes? "Why did evolution.." And similar phrases muddy the waters , at least for me it becomes like an ear worm that must be silenced or forgotten before I can even get to the rest of an idea.

I totally get the faded, slightly ripped or at least threadbare in areas look. I were jeans all the time and have my favorites that get to that condition, I actually don't like brand new really dark denim. The thing I totally don't get is the coloring of the new 'faded' denims , what is with that yellowish cast?! If my favorite pair of 'honestly' worn jeans looked like they were at some point stained with urine or vomit , they are done, gone, no question. Why the hell do people purchase new items that look like that, I'd rather wear purple , its a color for godsake, not a hue of a undesirable bodily function.

In some ways it seems similar to voting for political candidates. In casting a ballot for a presidential candidate you influencing the outcome as an individual in a very small way, but the reasons for your vote should reflect your own moral choices as best they can in the given context. Boycotting a local restaurant for advertising that they will not serve non whites , would mostly likely have a bigger impact especially if you share your views with others in the community. Joining or starting an organized boycott that is targeting a corporation based on actions of one of its employees is a different context. And the degree the individual is responsible for the success of the enterprise should be weighed against your own value of the product or service. In the OP , my first reaction was negative against the company for bending to public pressure. Not knowing the motivations of the principal actors makes it hard to judge.

Yeah , but I bet the Index was compiled by whites(can't trust them, they let the other races walk all over them).

oh wait I said property there, but I wsn't refering to a material object, so it can't, shouldn't (?) exist?

the property of 'ownership'? otherwise it would be the mind and the book ?

Competing defense agencies are different from feudal fiefdoms , how again? By slapping the words competing and profit onto sentences with those other words in them?

Plasmatic I'm not sure I understand your point. Perhaps I engaged in the fallacy of equivocation in a statement, being totally unschooled in logical argument . Are ideas, especially ideas like specific designs, not to be considered things? I do not think this is what you mean to point out. My point is that the anti IP position has in this discussion been defended on the ,and I hate to use this term here but.., the idea that since it is obvious that ideas are immaterial the principle of IP is inappropriate. While I do think that IP deals with implementation of ideas, establishing the existence and proper identification of ideas is the base of the argument. If they do not exist they would of course have no identity, and if they do they must( have identity).

Rand provided a moral justification for capitalism . Providing an incentive or even the life improving aspects of what a civilized division of labor society produces through trade are consequences not justifications.

Muhuk You have stated that ideas have no identity. What do you mean by that? Honest question. Do you mean that ideas do not exist? That the content of the mind is not a part of reality? Or that ideas are pattern like and can not be considered as discrete?

Why can't the patent process be seen as a hyper-expedited contract law scheme? Patented widgets are sold with the understanding of a boilerplate agreement to the effect that the buyer agrees to sellers conditions of no replication and or sales of replicated widgets.

Somebody owes me a sawbuck

Yeah but you could only relocate because the government gave you that right.(sarcasm, if that is not too obvious)

I'd wager his answer to be the force initiated would be morally equivalent to lying to a mugger about the amount of money on your person. Why deal morally with a prospective monopolizer bent on keeping him from value?

what dumbass patent clerk passed on that?!

As to the first part, if you use someone's idea, your use of that idea is dependent on the fact of his existence, no? As in , if the idea did not exist you could not use it, so your use of it depends on its existence, and its existence is depedent on his existence. and scientific discoveries are descriptions of natural phenomenon, not inventions of them. A widget based on my design would not exist without me, electricity would exist whether or not you or I understood it. And the second

I can not integrate the concept of 'dependent' with your entire base of knowledge. When did I argue that scientific discoveries are the same things as creative ideas? Oh and as an aside, i'd probably build the fire for you for a share of the forthcoming meal

How are you not dependent on him if you are using his idea ?

How are not dependent on him if you are using his idea ?