Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About KateTheCapitalist

  • Birthday August 5

Contact Methods

  • Other Public-visible Contact Info
    KⒶTE#7962 (discord)

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Synthesizing "contradictory" philosophies
  • Location
    New Hampshire
  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
    Gay / Lesbian
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Chat Nick
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Country
    United States
  • Biography/Intro
    New Hampshire mover and absolute freedom advocate
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Ive read all of Ayn Rands books but havent gone further
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • School or University
  • Occupation
    Cyber Security Architect

Recent Profile Visitors

478 profile views

KateTheCapitalist's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. it does not if it does the Union would rightfully not exist anymore even so democracy is a horrible system of governence and is simply tyranny of the majority its not tresspassing either there is no conflict of scarcity in copying ive already established you cant own IP therefore IP shouldnt exist
  2. You cant own a story you can own the paper and ink but a story is a concept its not material its not homesteadable its an idea you can not own a copyright on a story anyone can reproduce that story with their own property and be doing no wrong
  3. yes you own the physical property not the idea so making copies of atlas shrugged without getting appoved for copyright is justified you dont own an idea you own property physical thing not a concept or story or otherwise if you make a movie and I pirate it I did no wrong I stole nothing
  4. If you see my profile English isnt my first language im originally from China anyway you do not make anything that is ownable with your mind ideas are all commons because they can not be owned you can not homstead your ideas nor can I
  5. My critique of the whole thing is you cant own an idea or a product of your mind you cant homstead it and its not scarce so its not property and thus claiming so is irrational
  6. Again like I said in my first response in this whole thread I dont agree with Rand on every little thing and I think she failed to think objectivism through in some places so completion and revsion of her philosophy is needed what I am saying is that Rand fails to account for the issues of violation of rights in her views on copyright which are logically against objectivism
  7. You are the one who brought it up I was arguing against IP and Patents bc of the ethical wrong
  8. no there is not if voting worked they would make it illegal im not going to let my rights be trampled on by the ignorant majority the only solution is dissociation and radical change
  9. The patent law in america is blatant violation of property rights you can not own an idea its imposible so to claim you do just violates others ability to make and trade as they see fit
  10. Patents Limit and deny freedom I have the right to my own property to make and sell as I please if i copy someones idea and sell that product cheaper than they can it isnt theft because I am not taking their property I am only copying a non scarce idea if you say I can not make a certain type of fishhook because someone made it first and so they get a monopoly you are treading on my freedom to use make and sell as i see fit
  11. I make a distinction between randianism and objectivism rand laid out the proper philosophy but came to incorrect conclusions (which she has done on many matters) i know she has a stance and im saying shes wrong also spear doesn't dennote primitive society thats just drawing conclusions from which they dont exist as well as even if its a primitive society rights still exist objectively they may just not be recognized you didnt even engage with my critique that piracy and plagiarism doesnt violate anyone's property rights because you arnt leaving someone else without what they own and IP in itself violates property rights by preventing man from doing as he wishes with his own property
  12. I feel as though A correct interpretation of Objectivist legal stance on Intellectual Property is that of Anti Copyright because of the innate property right violations that IP suggests, when you have a scarce resource like a spear for example and you use that spear and someone takes it this is a clear violation of your property right to that spear because it creates a conflict in which the original owner is the only justifiably right one however when someone copies your idea of a spear and makes their own there is no conflict of property you are not taken what someone else has the right to or homesteaded but instead are creating your own property to use for your benefit with no conflict of scarcity because ideas are not a scarce resource
  13. Ive had issues but I dont talk to my family anymore as far as i know they know nothing about my life now and I have a girlfriend and community for validation
  14. first of all NATO is evil so defending it seems silly but also im not saying russia is in the right but the west poured fuel onto the conflict and basically accelerated it to the point of this war
  15. cant say I can relate I dont see any reason to have any guilt but whatever makes you happy i guess
  • Create New...