Slashdot Mirror

A short supply of doctors is sure to kill people than a larger supply that could more cheaply provide routine care and screening for a larger number of people. Medical licensing was not instituted to deal with quacks (that was just the pretext) The real reason was to weed out competition and the low prices provided by lodge practice (1-2 dollars/year vs. 1-2 dollars per visit) (Roderick Long, How Government Solved the Health Care Crises, http://freenation.org/a/f12l3.html ).

The soviets didn't tick off the U.S. from day one.They were allies in WWII, and the communist regime was strengthened by grain aide sent to it by the U.S, but that's beside the point. Funny you mention Russia though. Before the liberalization at the end, there are some estimates that 60% of russia's economy was in the black market. If Stalin and seccessors couldn't stop a black market, what makes you think a government which is currently losing a war against stoners and hippies could fare any better? The same government that needed to spend three trillion dollars just to kill one man?

Funny you mention the appearance of justice. That's all the courts and government in general is about... appearence. It's PR scheme to keep you distracted from what they are really doing. Violently controlling people. What's wrong with the substance of justice? (besides that judges would have to find themselves guilty under the RICO act)

Rule of law doesn't exist, it a term of art, meant to disguise the basic fact of rule of man. (John Hasnas, The Myth of the Rule of Law) Laws cant' rule you, only people can. Anyways it's not a problem, it's an entrepreneurial opportunity. Fair dispute resolution is a service that the vast majority values most of the time. Customary law, that is practices that develop over time through the resolution of actual disputes is more suited to the purpose than an arbitrary code.

Let's put it this way. How many people would "cheat" on their income tax if they could save $100 with no chance of being caught. How many for $1,000 with a slight chance... and so on. If people see an advantage for themselves they will join weather they have a full understanding of agorism of not.

And the choice isn't between what we have now and voluntary society, but between what we are becoming and a voluntary society, and it doesn't look good. What cannot continue mathematically, will not continue. Also I don't believe that government cannot be reformed, it's entire purpose is to concentrate power and control people. it must be replaced with voluntary institutions whose incentives are aligned with those of whom they serve.

I didn't describe the FSF as communist. The closest I came as "anarcho-socialist". For those not in the know, anarcho-socialism is a socialist society based on volunteerism as opposed to state coercion. That describes the GPL to a tee. The software belongs to the community but no one is forced to join the community. The only catch is that it uses state coercion (copyright law) to define the community borders, rather like anarcho-socialist communes using property law to define the boundaries of their property-less enclave.

Contract law won't help you, either, since code "in the wild" can be used by individuals who haven't explicitly entered into a contract.

Check out "Intellectual Property Rights Viewed As Contracts", an excellent discussion of IP in an anarcho-capitalist society. It addresses your "wild" code.

Of course your entire claim is based on the belief that there is such a thing as IP.

Since your unlikely to read anything that is critical of your views, here is something from the same camp as you (libertarian):

The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights

Iceland had a similar system in the middle ages. Citizens were able to choose their chieftain (gothar). Gothar were able to vote in the council, and could transfer their authority as they wished. Citizens were able to choose the gothar they were allied to with few obligations. For more on Medieval Iceland, see David Friedman's writings. His article Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: a Historical Case is a little dense (as a journal article) but readable. You can also check out some usenet responses he wrote at http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/My_Posts/Ice land_Anarch_FAQ1_reply.html. Also, Danny Yee has a review of the book Medieval Iceland.

P. E. de Puydt suggested a similar system of government in the 1800s, which he called "panarchy". De Puydt envisioned a system of non-physical political divisions which people could "emigrate" between without changing physical location. De Puydt was suggesting a blueprint for the government of Belgium. You can read his tract "Panarchy" online (also here. You can read introductions by contemporary authors here and here. Roderick Long of the Free Nation Foundation wrote a piece on Virtual Cantons influenced by panarchy and the Swiss government.

In case you're wondering, I would love such a system! I wish I could vote for Mr. Boucher.

Iceland had a similar system in the middle ages. Citizens were able to choose their chieftain (gothar). Gothar were able to vote in the council, and could transfer their authority as they wished. Citizens were able to choose the gothar they were allied to with few obligations. For more on Medieval Iceland, see David Friedman's writings. His article Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: a Historical Case is a little dense (as a journal article) but readable. You can also check out some usenet responses he wrote at http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/My_Posts/Ice land_Anarch_FAQ1_reply.html. Also, Danny Yee has a review of the book Medieval Iceland.

P. E. de Puydt suggested a similar system of government in the 1800s, which he called "panarchy". De Puydt envisioned a system of non-physical political divisions which people could "emigrate" between without changing physical location. De Puydt was suggesting a blueprint for the government of Belgium. You can read his tract "Panarchy" online (also here. You can read introductions by contemporary authors here and here. Roderick Long of the Free Nation Foundation wrote a piece on Virtual Cantons influenced by panarchy and the Swiss government.

In case you're wondering, I would love such a system! I wish I could vote for Mr. Boucher.

Iceland had a similar system in the middle ages. Citizens were able to choose their chieftain (gothar). Gothar were able to vote in the council, and could transfer their authority as they wished. Citizens were able to choose the gothar they were allied to with few obligations. For more on Medieval Iceland, see David Friedman's writings. His article Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: a Historical Case is a little dense (as a journal article) but readable. You can also check out some usenet responses he wrote at http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/My_Posts/Ice land_Anarch_FAQ1_reply.html. Also, Danny Yee has a review of the book Medieval Iceland.

P. E. de Puydt suggested a similar system of government in the 1800s, which he called "panarchy". De Puydt envisioned a system of non-physical political divisions which people could "emigrate" between without changing physical location. De Puydt was suggesting a blueprint for the government of Belgium. You can read his tract "Panarchy" online (also here. You can read introductions by contemporary authors here and here. Roderick Long of the Free Nation Foundation wrote a piece on Virtual Cantons influenced by panarchy and the Swiss government.

In case you're wondering, I would love such a system! I wish I could vote for Mr. Boucher.

Iceland had a similar system in the middle ages. Citizens were able to choose their chieftain (gothar). Gothar were able to vote in the council, and could transfer their authority as they wished. Citizens were able to choose the gothar they were allied to with few obligations. For more on Medieval Iceland, see David Friedman's writings. His article Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: a Historical Case is a little dense (as a journal article) but readable. You can also check out some usenet responses he wrote at http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/My_Posts/Ice land_Anarch_FAQ1_reply.html. Also, Danny Yee has a review of the book Medieval Iceland.

P. E. de Puydt suggested a similar system of government in the 1800s, which he called "panarchy". De Puydt envisioned a system of non-physical political divisions which people could "emigrate" between without changing physical location. De Puydt was suggesting a blueprint for the government of Belgium. You can read his tract "Panarchy" online (also here. You can read introductions by contemporary authors here and here. Roderick Long of the Free Nation Foundation wrote a piece on Virtual Cantons influenced by panarchy and the Swiss government.

In case you're wondering, I would love such a system! I wish I could vote for Mr. Boucher.

> You're distributing a number. This is why copyright (and intellectual property) law doesn't make sense with digital data.

Actually they do, but not for the reason you mentioned.

Yes, you're right, ultimately it DOES come down to just a number, BUT, if an author puts time and effort into creating something, I believe, he should have a) the right to limit how his work is spread, and b) the right to be comensated.

We should be free to distribute any sequence of digital data as we want, as long as the number is being "interpreted in the proper usage."
i.e. I need to to send someone a long prime, which also happens to represenet some .mp3. If the number is not being "interpreted" as a song, then no restriction on the transaction should occur.

Intellectual property rights are neither.

If a solution could be found which did away with software ownership and still preserved the freeness of free software, I'm sure the FSF would jump all over it.

The only way to guarantee certain attributes of Free Software is to own the software. If you wish that all distributions of your authored software retain access to the source code, you have to have sufficient ownership rights in it order to assert that control. You cannot control something if you do not own it (unless you employ coercion).

There's nothing wrong or hypocritical with opposing software ownership, and then using it as a means to the end of free software.

If the FSF viewed software ownership like "fire", then fought fire with fire, that's okay. But reading throught the FSF pages, I get the distinct impression that they believe software ownership to be evil and immoral. If so, then owning software with a GPL label on it is still evil and immoral. It would be like fighting murder with murder. As my Mother always told me, two wrongs do not make a right.

As an aside, if the FSF ever got its wish and copyright law suddenly disappeared, nothing much would change. The vast majority of proprietary licenses are not predicated on copyright law, but on contract law. Lack of copyright law would not affect the Microsoft EULA in any way. What would happen is that those people who wished to protect their software ownership rights (whether the be Free or proprietary) would find other ways to do so besides relying on government recognition. Take a look at this Free Nation article for an anarcho-capitalist look at copyright law. The Free Nation site also has other articles on intellectual property from a libertarian perspective, including the one mentioned at GNU.

I think he (and a lot of people, both here and elsewhere) need to be educated and made to realize (or at least confront and argue against) the notion that a government mandated and enforced monopoly isn't necessary for IP creators to be fairly compensated and, furthermore, has a stifling impact on the field of endeavor so affected, not to mention the society, culture, and the economy as a whole.

Government mandated and enforced monopoly? Do you have any idea what libertarians even are? Take a look at all of the intellectual property articles at Free Nation, especially this one. You don't need an official government pronouncement to make something property. Do you think that if the trespass laws were repealed that fence builders would go out of business?

I think he (and a lot of people, both here and elsewhere) need to be educated and made to realize (or at least confront and argue against) the notion that a government mandated and enforced monopoly isn't necessary for IP creators to be fairly compensated and, furthermore, has a stifling impact on the field of endeavor so affected, not to mention the society, culture, and the economy as a whole.

Government mandated and enforced monopoly? Do you have any idea what libertarians even are? Take a look at all of the intellectual property articles at Free Nation, especially this one. You don't need an official government pronouncement to make something property. Do you think that if the trespass laws were repealed that fence builders would go out of business?

&gt The world needs dynamite too; but that doesn't mean it ought to be available to just anyone on a whim as some so-called "right."

&gt I'm sorry, but you have no "right" to steal that from them in the name of OSS or whatever golden idol you worship.

&gt> reverse engineering (and also programmers developping for life critical components) needs to be licensed by a regulatory body ...

the FSF does not take any rights away from me

You do not have the right to any non-GPL derivative, no matter how free and permissive you make it. You can't even create a public domain derivative of GPLd works. If RMS believes that software should not be owned, then why does he restrict me from creating unowned derivitives of the works he himself says he does not own?

As you yourself impied, if I give someone your software in such a way to violate your license, you still have your software.

If, after becoming familiar with what your opponent says...

What intellectual sophistry to assume that anyone disagreeing with you is ignorant of the topic! You're completely ignoring Locke, who has much to say on the nature of property. Just as a repeal of government trespass laws would not negate the existance of land property, neither would a repeal of the government copyright laws affect the ownership of software in any way. For a radical look at a world where software is owned in the absence of any government recognition of it, see Intellectual Property Rights Viewed As Contracts. This paper also has some very good references coming off of it as well.

> Intellectual property is theft

Oh please. Are you saying using someone else's concepts such as math and physics is theft?

Intellectual property rights are neither.

The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights

Perhaps the GPL is a temporary measure to achieve their goals in the current situation where IP is used as a weapon in the war.

Moral people do not use evil to fight evil. The abolitionists did not enslave the southern plantation owners, as one example. If software ownership is evil, then so is the GPL. No ifs ands or buts.

I have heard it said that using the copyleft (GPL) against copyright is akin to fighting fire with fire. However, fire is not evil! By using the GPL to fight against copyrights, RMS, as a moral man (and I can only assume that he is), is implying that software copyrights are not evil, but rather out of control. I would agree.

Once the battle against IP is won, perhaps they will put down their weapon (the GPL)

This is a common belief, and the FSF may very well do this, but it will change nothing. Their fight is not against copyright, but against non-free and closed sourced software. Even public domain software can still be non-free and closed source.

A good reference on this topic can be found at the Free Nation Foundation

A good example of a less stringent libertarian view of copyright can be found here at Mises.org which is as libertarian as any group I can think of. They say that patent law should be liberalized if people are worried about the high price of drugs. This will bring in faster competition from generics.

So don't go painting all Libertarians as copyright fascists because this is still and will perhaps indefinitely remain a topic of debate among libertarians. Oh Yes and take a look at The Libertarian case against intellectual property here

I am always amazed at the number of laissez-faire, free-market libertarian yahoos who somehow claim that IP is nonetheless valid.

There is some disagreement among laissez-faire, free-market libertarian yahoos on this subject.

This guy makes a libertarian case against IP laws.

I'm still trying to form an opinion, personally. On one hand, it seems like the new street-performer-like business models are going to make the whole issue moot (there's that damned market at work again). On the other hand, copyright can be thought of as a form of binding contract. Sort of.

I'm really hoping the new business models do take off. There is way too much bland, homogenized BS in the entertainment world, which is priced exorbitantly and licensed restrictively. $15.99 for a stupid CD from a sucky artist? No thanks. I quit buying CD's 5 years ago, and have stuck mostly with DJ mixtapes and streaming MP3 radio.

I'm tired of hearing this stupid old saw about copyright law being necessary to enforce the GPL. If you'd actually bother to listen and read, Stallman himself says that in the absence of copyright law, he wouldn't consider the GPL necessary.

Thinking of copyright as enforcing ownership rights as being the only valid viewpoint is incredibly misinformed and pig-headed of you. Intellectual 'property' is not property. Go out and read a few things about it and start arguing intelligently for a change.

If you need help in modifying you ill-thought out opinion of what copyright really means, perhaps a trip through this website or this website will help open your mind a little.

I largely agree with you. The whole idea of intellectual 'property' needs to be rethought. Copyrights and patents are not natural rights. It behooves our society to encourage people to create works of art and useful inventions, but I think copyrights and patents are no longer very helpful in serving this purpose. This is something I've thought about at great length. The conclusion has not been reached lightly.

Here's an excellent article on this: The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights

if I use my car in some way that does not maximize what you perceive to be social gain, then the government can come into my home, beat the crap out of me, and relieve me of my "illegal monopoly" on my car.

Information creation is a public work, like building roads, cleaning up pollution, etc. The government makes sure public works get done by either forcing people to do them or taxing citizens and paying people to do them. Copyright works a little differently; it grants special monopoly privilege to them. The monopoly is artificial, because it exists only at the force of a government and, like taxes, precludes peaceful use of one's own property.

Please see The Libertarian Case against Intellectual Property Rights and Ben Tucker on Copyright

Why shouldn't there be a natural property right, to intellectual property? Why should the works of my mind, be any less mine, than the works of my body?

I'm curious about your definition of "libertarian" as applied to free software licenses. I assume you intend to group (at least) the non-advertising BSD and X11 licenses as "libertarian free software" and the GPL as "non-libertarian free software." I see the distinction you want to draw--the X11 and GPL licenses have different aims, and try to protect different freedoms.

You seem to be classifying as "libertarian" only those licenses in which the author has given up his rights under modern copyright law to exclude others' use (the basis of property in general, and copyright in particular). Does your definition of libertarianism not include the right of author to control his work?

I ask, because the (modern) definitions I've seen generally do (although here's The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights)

Share and enjoy.

Share and enjoy.

It would be interesting to discover how far a seriously critical view of the benefits to society of the law of copyright ... would have a chance of being publicly stated in a society in which the channels of expression are so largely controlled by people who have a vested interest in the existing situation. -- Friedrich A. Hayek, "The Intellectuals and Socialism" quoted on The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights