nanite1018

Just as an aside, Dr. Brennan values her work and getting the bad guy, as well as human life, tremendously. She has relatively few issue beyond her social awkwardness, and she's gotten better on that front. As for House, he isn't Objectivist, but he is tremendously enjoyable to watch.

I read the chapter, and it seems he largely agrees with a "if there was a magic button that got rid of all interventions instantly, then we should push it". Gradualism in theory is eternity in practice, after all. The basic strategy is to avoid any increase in intervention in any way, and to go for the largest gains we can at any point in time, and always make it clear that our goal is their total abolition ASAP. That is the only logical strategy, I should think, but it seems that many suggest that it must be gradual, even in theory/ideal. Or is that an incorrect impression on my part?

We should have a laissez-faire government, without taxation, and limited only to courts, police, and military (which acts only in self-defense). That is the political goal of Objectivism, with respect to the form of government. How to get there? I understand changing the culture, and all of that. But what should we advocate policy-wise? With the Tea Party seemingly gaining considerable political influence, particularly the support of many of them for "libertarian"/Objectivist-direction politics (i.e. limited government, elimination of the deficit through spending cuts, anti-welfare, etc.), it seems that we might have a chance to influence this group and start major change in the US. But what, exactly, should we advocate when we talk to friends or write our blogs or go to rallies? "Individual rights" and "laissez-faire", even when we back them up with moral arguments, are more slogans than actual plans of action. We say "cut spending", or more specifically, "end welfare programs", but on what timescale? "Cut taxes", but which, and when? Here is my thinking on the issue, starting with the basis of individual rights: Welfare programs are objectively immoral, as they steal from some to give to others. As such, I think it obvious that we must advocate their immediate abolition. "People will be thrown on the streets" is not an argument, as they had no legal right to there welfare (SS, medicare, medicaid, TANF, etc. are included in the term), i.e. if the government chooses to change how much they get paid they can't sue for the difference. Also, they were living off of evil actions, and so should never have been getting what they were in the first place. But, people will be thrown on the streets, and that would be bad, and since taxation is evil, we should get rid of it too. So, get rid of welfare, but at the same time we should advocate either a) the repeal of the income tax or barring that b ) a 100% tax credit for charitable donations (so if you owe 1000 dollars in taxes, and give 1000 to charity, you now owe 0). This would dramatically ease the negative consequences of cutting the welfare programs, and lighten the burden of taxation. All forms of government regulation of industry should be abolished immediately as well, as they too are immoral. As for the debt, the only way to pay it is to a) tax, which is immoral or b ) inflate, which is immoral or c) sell of "public" lands, which the government immorally appropriated, and has no right to. Therefore option c) is really only taxation, but indirectly as one would be paying for stolen property. So option c) is also immoral. Since you can't pay it, the only option left is to repudiate it. After all, someone who bought a government bond was buying a share in an immoral enterprise (taxation), and so, like welfare recipients, can't possibly be said to have a "right" to their "property", which could only be given them by theft. The elimination of most taxes, minimum wages, business regulations, etc. will almost certainly help mitigate the problems arising from repudiation of the debt and the elimination of welfare. And to do anything less would be to prolong immoral actions. It seems the logical strategy we should advocate (while accepting and working for any intermediate gains we can, of course) is essentially that which most advocate for band-aids: just rip it off.

Just out of curiosity, are you using the term as urban dictionary defines it? Roughly as performing well in difficult situations? I've never heard the word "clutch" used the way you did here, so I'm not really sure what you meant. As to the OP, I think you've pretty much got everything down. Physical fitness, friendships with women already (so you're not all tongue-tied around them), interests, etc. I mean, at this point, it is really just a matter of finding someone you really like and getting to know them better. Shouldn't be much of a problem to enter a valuable relationship if you try. Just trying to get laid isn't a good idea, and if that is your only real focus you will likely come across as unattractive, only after one thing, or needy. Not good. Of course, I don't have much background in this area, as I've only had one girlfriend, for a few months, two years ago now, and haven't dated since. So the whole "meeting" and "dating" thing, I can't really help you in. Haha.

Well, it depends. If you just say "I promise to give you X" then no, I don't think so. If you say "I transfer title to X to you on Y date" then yes. A promise is not a transfer of title, whereas the latter is. You might say it is semantics, but the difference is important. Enforcing things because you promised them is ridiculous, as engagements are basically promises to get married, and people promise things to people all the time. A promise is an agreement with the backing of my honor (you are saying they can depend on you because of your character, basically). A transfer of title is an agreement with the backing of law (you actually gave it to them, it is there's, say's so in the contract/agreement/transfer of title). Breaking promises aren't cases of fraud either, as fraud is the taking of someone's property without their consent through deceit. If you break a promise, you didn't do that, as the property wasn't there's (you didn't actually transfer the property title), whereas in my case of transfer of title, the property is rightfully there's and a violation of it would the the expropriation of their property through force.

Well, actually, what he does is state that "given a certain action, I transfer property title to 1000 US dollars to you", the action being not showing up. Therefore, when he doesn't show up, the other guy now has a right to $1000, as per the contract. Damages is irrelevant here, it is an agreement to transfer a property title under a given circumstance (which is a legitimate contract). Indeed, such penalties for not fulfilling the terms of the contract were standard in the middle ages and early Renaissance period for contracts. Breach of contract didn't really exist, as if you didn't do what you agreed to, the contract said what you had to do, and so courts could simply order you to pay the money you now owe the claimant. No need to assess damages (as consequences for not following through were already fixed in the contract itself). It wasn't until courts abandoned the idea that you must fulfill your contracts or be held fully responsible that "damages" and the like came in, with all the ludicrous things resulting from that (like millions in "emotional damages" and whatnot). In any case, it is a valid part of a contract, as it is a transfer of property title under the condition of a certain event (no different, except for which event it is predicated on, than a will). The fact that it doesn't "compensate a party against actual damages" is irrelevant, it is part of a contract, not "payment for damages". The contract mentions damages that cannot be determined as a reason for it, but the reason is irrelevant to the actual contract itself. Indeed, the contract would be made more clear by removing the reason and simply stating that "If you don't show, the no-show hereby transfers title to 1000 US dollars to the opponent." That makes it clear and simple.

In this case I would say it should not be illegal, though it would probably be immoral. After all, you are not initiating force, nor threatening force. The person doing the illegal stuff is the ex who is stalking, beating them, etc. etc. etc. Since he always has free will, he can choose to stop at any time; since the person doing the "threatening" (I don't think that's the best term) is not hiring the person to initiate force, nor even telling or asking them to, then I don't see how it could be construed as a violation of anyone's rights. And so, it should not be illegal.

What evidence is there that a shooting was in self-defense accept the evidence at the scene and the report of eyewitnesses? In duels, as it is a pre-arranged voluntary circumstance, it would be relatively easy to write up a simple document and get it signed by witnesses stating that there will be a duel between two individuals at a certain time; alternatively there would be eyewitnesses to the duel, etc. So there could easily be more evidence that a shooting was part of a voluntary duel than in the case of a shooting in self-defense. To demonstrate that there is an agreement, i.e. that the action was voluntary on the part of all parties involved, there would be standards of evidence, just as in your example of the receipt for the transaction at the store. In all agreements, or actions in general, there are standards of evidence to show it was indeed voluntary. Generally, it is the default position, with force needing to be proven by certain standards in order to show the action was against the person's will. In the case of a killing, or a beating, generally the default position is that it was involuntary (as it doesn't make any sense, and the vast majority would not agree to such a thing), and one would have to show that it was indeed voluntary (with eyewitnesses, documentation of agreement, etc.). The fact is that for any type of action, there are legal standards to show that it was voluntary, and those standards are based on the particular action involved (so dueling might have particularly high standards, as the alternative is the worst crime possible). Determining whether something was voluntary and involuntary, and if involuntary who did the coercing, is the "bread and butter" of the legal system, and it has standards specifically for that purpose.

Again, I don't think "crime of passion" should mean anything, except that it wasn't premeditated and should therefore, perhaps have a lighter sentence. Temporary incapacity is different than non-premeditation, so my position isn't the same as what you suggest is a "crime of passion." To try to invalidate the consequences of someone's actions by claiming (as you are, essentially) "temporary insanity" is ridiculous. Unless you are actually insane, that is out of contact with reality and incapable of comprehending your actions, you need to be held to full account for your actions. To do otherwise is to allow people an easy out for murder and other such crimes. Plus, if you noticed in my examples, I suggested an explicit agreement, with signed witnesses to it, for the duel. Such a law may easily be put in place, to the effect that without such a written agreement, the so-called duel has no legal weight and the victor would be charged with whatever crime is appropriate (thereby eliminating the possibility of impassioned duels). Also, do you suggest that a police officer is never allowed to enter into any agreement? For if his presence invalidates the agreement because of illegitimate social pressure as a result of his merely holding the office, then why not in dealings to buy a house, or a car, or at the donut shop? And if "illegitimate social pressure" (which I'm not sure really matters, unless there is an implied threat which can be shown objectively to exist) can be shown to exist by objective standards in any given contract or agreement, then its possible existence in a dueling agreement is no special problem for dueling, but rather something which must be looked for in all agreements as a general class. So, your objections were easily dealt with because a) illegitimate social pressure is possible in every single agreement, and in order to invalidate them must be shown objectively to exist in the single instance at hand in any given agreement and simply a requirement of a signed agreement with a witness (or a notary) is enough to rule out crimes of passion as having a role.

This seems interesting, and so I'll pose the hypothetical with details so as to make it clear, and hopefully Minarchist will agree it gets his point across. You are an engineer on a flight in from a Saudi oil field (you work for ExxonMobil, say), and have always strived to be honest and productive. Something happens, a bird flies into the engine say, and your plane crashes in the middle of the Sahara. The plane is ablaze, and you barely make it out alive. Everyone else is dead, and their bodies burned. All the supplies on the plane were burnt up in the fire. You wait for a day or two, but no one comes. You start walking north, thinking that maybe you'll eventually hit the Mediterranean, though when that will be you have no way of knowing. Finally, on your third day without water, you stumble across an oasis, where an old man lives. He's lived in the Sahara all his life, and found this oasis years ago, and made a life for himself there, alone. He built a fence around it, and tells you that you may not enter (he was taught English years ago by a Westerner, when he lived in Egypt many years ago). He is afraid you'll try to kill him, and he is armed with a bow and arrow. There is a small spring in the middle of the oasis, and he refuses to give you any water, even though you beg. He tells you to go away, though there isn't anyone else or any water that he knows of for many miles in any direction. You are on the edge of death, but find a nice rock, and you love to play baseball in your spare time as a pitcher. You know you could knock him out with a throw (possibly killing him), and then hop the fence and take the water. What do you do? There, you are in the situation through no fault of your own, and the man refuses to give you water, and there is no other water or people around for many miles. Take it or die. Dum dum dum.... Hope that satisfies everyone's need for detail. Now, as for my opinion: you could knock him out and take the water and be prepared to be charged with assault, possibly murder, and theft (that is always an option that you could, if you chose to, take). What you should do, in my opinion, is keep begging, for it is better to die as a man that live as an animal. And a moral code which lets you run roughshod over other people for any reason whatsoever is automatically invalidated because it is not universal and exceptions to it cannot be objectively determined (so suggesting that this is a moral exception is nonsense).

How is someone's desire to not show weakness or cowardice "duress"? I'm not even confident such a thing exists or has any legal bearing at all, but let's suppose it does. He is choosing to risk death rather than "show weakness". That is his choice. No one is forcing him to, he is under no physical compulsion or threat of force to engage in the duel. At any time he may withdraw by explicitly stating it; for example, by saying "I hereby withdraw from this duel." That is explicit and obvious, and if one were to say that, their intention could not be misunderstood. Your example is one where the person carries out his agreement voluntarily, without anyone using force or threatening force against him (except the very thing he is choosing to engage in himself). There is no problem there. And since when are laws based on taunting? If you can be taunted into risking your life in a duel, you're an idiot. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Remember that from when you were little? Applies perfectly here. "Fighting words" is a ridiculous notion (here, that notion is taken as statements which are not threats of force, but rather statements similar to taunting). Just because Biff says "What's the matter McFly? Are ya chicken?" does not mean that Marty is justified in trying to punch him (or perhaps more apt is Griff saying "Your nothing but a yellow-belly", Marty replying "Nobody calls me yellow"). If someone can call you a name and make you do something stupid, that's your fault, not their's. And since, absent the threat of force, you are free to do anything you like, if you choose to engage in a duel without anyone threatening you with force, then you have made a free, independent decision to do so and no one else has the right to force you not to (for that would be the initiation of force).

They are agreeing to die if they don't kill the other first. The two in the duel have mutually signed an agreement to duel, with the rules, location, time. This lays out a specific course of events (drawing your guns, firing) which is part of the duel, and is agreed to. Much like a physician injecting, for example, massive amounts of morphine, or perhaps more gruesomely an air bubble, the result may involve twitches or cries of pain, or the patient may cry, etc. That is agreed to when they sign their declaration of intent to kill themselves with the help of another. In both cases, they set out certain things which are mutually agreed to. Similar to BDSM, where one uses a safeword so as to ensure that both understand explicitly when consent has been revoked, and other actions are not to be taken as revocation of consent; in the cases of assisted suicide and dueling, certain actions have been agreed to in advance, which are explicitly not to be construed as revocation of consent. If a dueler or a person attempting assisted suicide cries out "No, no, I don't want to do this! Stop!" then that is revocation of consent. A dueler drawing his gun is not revocation of consent, as he agreed to take that action explicitly beforehand. It is implied in the action (just as cries of pain, or moaning "no" may be in certain types of BDSM activities) Non-contractual agreements are can't be enforced (as they do not involve the exchange of property in any way), but they do show consent. An example is an agreement to have sex; such agreement can be revoked at any time, and you can't make someone have sex if they do not wish to simply because they agreed to before. But it does show consent to the act, and if it is already over and then someone claims they were raped, the agreement (whatever form that takes) is taken as evidence that it is consensual, and the accused rapist is acquitted in full because consent had been given for an otherwise rights-violating activity. To claim that agreements that are not contracts are meaningless is to throw the whole idea of consent for sexual activity out the window, as well as making any informal match of tackle football, wrestling, or boxing cause for charges of assault as well. Clearly that is an absurd proposition. Duress and undue influence are not entered into an agreement to duel, at least not necessarily. If you sign an agreement with witnesses and get it notarized, for example, for a duel in two days, I don't see the duress or undue influence. There might be, but that is the case with every contract or agreement every created. Either party involved, their family, or the state in certain circumstances (just as in the case of murder), can contest the issue, and in any case which involves possible theft, assault, or murder the issue would be a criminal one of course (for if the agreement was invalid or if consent was revoked then the action was theft, assault, or murder; it would effectively be a murder trial completely decided by the question of whether the agreement was valid or consent revoked). So, I didn't find a legal disaster, and I think my answers are rational responses to your questions, at least as objective as decisions on, for example, the age of majority (which I take it you believe are objective, even if the particular age is arbitrary).

How so? If we both sign, with witnesses and get it notarized, a statement that states that we will duel, with the rules, time, and location, then how is that murder? I consented to it, explicitly. It is no different than an assisted suicide, accept that in this case, I may or may not die. Of course, that whole thing might be a little extreme, but it isn't impossible. The main point is that you have to be able to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that your activity was consensual (so for example, both proclaiming in a bar with a dozen witnesses that they are going to go in the alley way outback and duel). If you can show this, which really isn't that difficult, then how can you be said to have murdered anyone? They consented to be killed, provided they get the simultaneous opportunity to try to kill you. Result, they died. Where is the initiation of force? Where do you make someone do something without consent? Where do you separate their will from their actions? I don't see it.

I was going to say that I disagree, but then changed my mind. I was thinking "if I can make a contract delineating punishments, for example, fines, perhaps even corporal punishment, then why not have duels?" But then I realized- in order to be traded or signed over in a contract, the thing has to be alienable. My will is inalienable. Therefore, contractual slavery is impossible (indentured servitude is okay, but not slavery). In the case of a duel, you are signing over your life, in contract form, but since your life is inalienable (without it you don't exist, just as with your will), you can't sign over your life and have that enforced. But making the contract and voluntarily abiding by the agreement is okay. If you give someone permission to end your life, then that is okay. It is just that if you want to back out of it, then you can, as the government can't force you to give up your life (as it wasn't a legitimate/enforceable contract). So duels should be legal, but agreements to duels cannot be enforced (only voluntarily carried out).

If you want, morality is what you should do, ethics is defined by the boundary of what you can do (by right). Generally though, people would differentiate those by "personal morality" and "political ethic/ethics", it seems. In general, people use them interchangeably, and when they want to make the differentiation between what can be done by right and what is moral, they use the aforementioned phrases (at least once, and then move to use "morality" for personal morality, and "ethics" for political ethics). I don't know necessarily if their should be much of a difference between "moral" and "ethical" though, in non-technical discussions, as the entire field encompassing both should be called ethics, as morals influence and are indeed the basis for rights (and thus the "political ethic").

I think it is quite possible this could turn out great. First off, they aren't doing it all in one movie, but rather as a series of four, which is great. Second, it is an independent film which means that studios won't get their grubby hands all over it and turn it into the story of how socialism is great or something. Third, it's at least being made, and obviously this guy wants to actually make it and see it get DONE which is great. Sure, might they mess it up? Yeah. But this thing doesn't need a monstrously huge budget. It's trains and people talking, with some scenes in mountains, and cars driving. In terms of actual costly things, I just don't see much of them. And since it is four movies, they'll be able to recover costs over time, as most of the costs of sets and whatnot will be put up in the first movie. Kick-Ass and Serenity were both made for about 30 million dollars, and they turned out great and looked great too. Big names and big budgets can get in the way more than helped, as they have for decades with this project. I'm happy that it will finally be coming to the big screen.

I haven't been involved on this thread much, but I did want to jump in here. President Grant moved in thousands of soldiers to crush the KKK because it was a terrorist organization funding, backing, supporting, and committing killings and illegal threats against the freed blacks and white sympathizers. I believe that lasted for a year, and then the KKK vanished from the face of the Earth not to be seen again in any meaningful capacity for several decades. THAT is a proper response to mob killings and the like. If local law enforcement won't do its job, if the state won't do its job, then federal forces are necessary. Indeed, I think that the Insurrection Act should be applicable, for if law enforcement refuses to deal with the situation, or is simply overwhelmed, then surely that counts as "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." That is all that it is necessary to be able to maintain order and enforce the laws of this country. To do as Grames suggests is to violate the rights of those who have initiated no force against any other human being. I don't care what your aims are, that is unjustifiable. It violates the only principle separating government from a gang of mobsters: "thou shalt not initiate force."

I was describing the proper position of economics. Economists of non-Austrian schools claim to be acting as economists while making public policy pronouncements like the need for universal health care, government regulation, etc. In doing so they are attempting to lend the certainty the populace ascribes to proper science (which proper economics- essentially the Austrian School- indeed is) to their arbitrary/irrational claims in the field of ethics, without having to go through the trouble of logical argumentation or justifying their claims against objective fact. It is a ploy which is disingenuous and corrupt. Also, Keynesian economics, in terms of the theory (as far as it exists), does not in and of itself create those fiscal policy applications. It requires people to say "wealth and employment good, poverty and recession bad". That is a statement from ethics, not economics proper. In any case, if they wish to blur the lines and pretend to still be scientists, they are contradicting themselves. Scientists make no ethical judgments from within the field of science (excluding ethicists, as ethics is somewhat different from the other fields of science), precisely because science is about describing how the world is, not how it should be. So to make public policy pronouncements beyond "your policy does/does not meet the stated goals of the policy" is to step outside the bounds of the science of economics and into ethics. And if they wish to do that, then they must justify the ethical principles they are applying; they don't do this, as a result they cannot claim to be operating as scientists.

I've been considering the proper basis for justice under Objectivism, and I think it is this: you lose your rights to the extent you infringe on the rights of others. So, if you steal bubblegum, you 1) have to pay for the gum/give it back to the store owner 2) pay for the loss of time/revenue for the theft (usually straightforward, normally would be the interest rate for loans over that period, approximately) 3) pay for all legal proceedings (as it is your fault). That gets the proper owner back to where they are supposed to be. And then, for the losing your rights to the extent you infringe on the rights of others part 4) you have to pay for the gum again. Or, if you steal 1000 dollars, you have to pay 2000 dollars, interest, and legal fees (to the victim, or perhaps legal fees go to government). What if you do something you can't directly pay back, for example, if you don't have 2000 dollars? Then you have a debt, which would either be worked off like any other debt, or would be worked off in a debtor's prison. What if you used violence against another, like broke their arm or punched them in the face? Well, still have to pay legal fees. You lost your rights to the extent that the victim was infringed upon, so the victim can now break your arm or punch you in the face, or you can work out a deal where you pay him money so that he does not do so (and of course he can ask someone else to do it for him if he likes, or can wave his right to do so entirely if he is a dumb pacifist type). What about restitution? Well, I'm not sure, but the way I see it, restitution would be equivalent to the dollar value you would assign to a punch in the face or broken arm (that we would mutually agree upon). If I am to get that amount from you, then it would be (to each of us) the same as if I just hit you or broke your arm. So, not only do I get to punch you once because you lost your rights, but I can spend my restitution on hitting you a second time, or hitting you about twice as hard. And then we could obviously work out some deal so I do not do this. This seems the most fair, and most objective way to go about things. It leaves no ambiguity- if you rape someone, you can be raped in turn (though most would not go for this option), if you kill someone, you get killed. Steal, get stolen from, chop off someone's hand, off goes your hand. It seems sort of barbaric, but it is an obvious way to go about doing things. Then, we can work from there, with the convicted criminal knowing what I can do, and us negotiating what price or sentence is worth that to him (and if I don't like how he is playing the negotiations, I can exact say a portion of my ability to punish on him, or all of it; that will make him play ball). And of course, most victims will hire people to do their punishing for them, which would be a perfectly legitimate way to go about things as well.

Economics is not medicine, nor engineering. The field of economics is the study of human action in the face of scarcity (roughly speaking), and only seeks to describe behavior. It is fundamentally different than engineering or medicine, which always have a particular end built into the field, either saving the patient or enabling someone to do something (through a machine for example). Economics, psychology (the scientific half of it, not therapy/counseling), biology, chemistry, physics, sociology (to whatever extent it is a science, even though it seems to go about things the wrong way 90% of the time), all are studies of what is, of nature, but explicitly not about ethics. The economics-ey area akin to engineering would be "public policy", i.e. public policy analysis (or perhaps, on the micro-scale, business, though less so). We have a "public policy" department at my school, and they analyze public policies and tell what their consequences will be, and make recommendations, and craft public policy to meet certain goals, etc. Economics informs that field, but it is not actually that field. Economics is simply a system of knowledge. You give it an input- What maximizes the attainment of value (either definition you choose)?- and it gives you an output -laissez-faire capitalism. It does not tell you whether that is a good or bad thing, ethics does. Economics is properly a body of knowledge which you employ in decision making, not something which necessitates decisions by itself. Economists aren't doctors, they do not, from within their field alone, need to make moral pronouncements or even any sort of recommendation as to what to do, just as a physicist or biologist cannot make a moral pronouncement from within their field about electrons or amoebas. I think that is a crucial difference. If you say economics is a science, then it is value free, in the sense that it does not pass judgment on people's actions. If you say it is an application of science (such as medicine or engineering), it is not. I think it is properly a science.

No, you are incorrect in your assessment. They will say "If you do A then B, if C then D." And then perhaps one will say "so do A" and the other will say "so do C." But since they already told you the consequences of A and C were going to be, you can choose for yourself between the courses of action. An Austrian economist (as an economist) does not make recommendations. An Austrian economist, as a citizen/human being, does. And often times they make it clear that they are writing about their opinion, or a fact of economic science. They aren't using the same methods if they come to opposite conclusions. Economics stops with "if A then B, if C then D." Then, they use different methods (their ethical systems) to choose between them. If you give them a goal, for example, making the economy serve people as well as possible, then they can give you recommendations based on your stated goals, no different then any other consultant, whom you must give a goal for them to figure out the mens to attain.

Yes, the whole movie was just amazing. Very pro-capitalism, pro-technology, pro-individual. The song during the credits from what I assume was the Stark Expo '74 theme (not sure though) was wonderful, if anyone heard it. Just like the original Iron Man, a great superhero movie (though imo not quite as great as the first, it is still better than, say, the first Spiderman film, and nearly as good as Iron Man). Will definitely be seeing it again, probably this weekend.

Hold on though. Copyrights also apply to parts of the copyrighted material, as well as, more particularly, a thing which is almost identical but isn't quite. For example, If I changed the names of everyone in AS, but kept everything, including Galt's speech, intact, then while the book isn't the same, I would still be prevented from publishing (or be sued) because of a violation of property right. So you couldn't, for instance, make the same machine but paint it a different color, or add a useless piece just to change the design a teensy bit so it isn't identical. You'd have to make it a good deal different, using, say, all different components, and perhaps arranging them differently, etc., in which case you would have quite a different thing on your hands than the original machine, even if they end up doing the same thing by the same broadly defined method (say, reducing noise on your tv screen). Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like, with the "minor meaningless detail" changes also protected by a copyright, you would have to make some important change to the machine in order to avoid violating the copyright, in which case you would almost certainly be able to get a patent on the machine anyway, right?

I'm gonna guess Silas Barta. I haven't looked deeply into the the property rights question, but I haven't seen any real need in that arena beyond copyright. Copyright obviously protects books and all the rest, but if you copyright an invention, none of your buyers can copy the invention, and you make it known that it in all dealings you are not giving anyone permission to copy your property (it is a right you reserve to yourself). And anyone who didn't deal directly with you who creates an identical machine either violated your copyright to get it or (highly unlikely) created it himself (which, if it is extremely similar or identical, he would be forced to prove, as all the evidence would point insurmountingly to him copying it). I don't see much need for patents, as inventions, designs, and other productions could be protected under such a copyright system. I think Rothbard claimed such a system would be something he would agree to as well, so I don't think there is a necessary conflict. Perhaps the only thing which wouldn't be covered would be patents on methods, for example Apple's patent on "pinch to zoom" and the like (I'm not really convinced something so astoundingly obvious for touchscreens, and something so extremely general, should be able to be patented in the first place; it strikes me as akin to patenting cursive writing or a dance move). Perhaps I'm missing something though. I need to think about it further. I do object to ungrounded concepts. But my contention is more that the concepts and "axioms" of Austrian economics are indeed grounded (if not by their founders, they can be grounded by an Objectivist), and that as a result any deductions from them are as widely applicable (provided the caveats of the deductive chain, which progressively restricts the cases to which the conclusion is applicable, something the Austrian's accept and a major feature of praxeology in analyzing the consequences of government interventions) as the initial "axioms". Now, I think their anti-IP stance may very well be grounded on faulty positions with regards to property, but that does not, necessarily, imply that Austrian economics itself is invalid, or their method.