In his article he states that physical properties are permanent while intellectual properties eventually disappears. This is not true. Consider a house worth X dollars. If the government collects Y dollars in taxes, eventually the total amount collected would be greater than X. Thus, intellectual property is not being discriminated against.
That's a well known logical fallacy called an ad hominem argument. Attack his ideas, not him.
I'll probably be modded-down for disagreeing with the Slashdot status quo.
Slashdot Mirror
>> worst reasoned essays I've ever read Name-calling is never an effective way to argue. I fail to see any use of logic is your assertions.
In his article he states that physical properties are permanent while intellectual properties eventually disappears. This is not true. Consider a house worth X dollars. If the government collects Y dollars in taxes, eventually the total amount collected would be greater than X. Thus, intellectual property is not being discriminated against.
That's a well known logical fallacy called an ad hominem argument. Attack his ideas, not him. I'll probably be modded-down for disagreeing with the Slashdot status quo.