No.101607 [View All]
For an individual to be considered a human being, he has to recognise other human beings as so, thus, as humanity derivates from the ability to hold property, those who do not respect other's properties do not deserve to be respected as human and should be both legal and ethical to shoot them on spot.
Let's say, for the shake of argument, that I don't allow my property to be polluted, such a thing allows me to ask for a compensation if somebody polluted my land or my body with chemicals, cigarrete smoke, etc… a refusal to provide such compensation would allow me to shot the aggresor in the spot or to force my way into earn such compensation, like organ harvesting or debtors prision (which is not slavery like statist say, as nobody forces you to commit crimes, thus being this kind of "forced" labour voluntary at the end).
The exact same logic applies to IP, the main reason why I like article 13 so much, it does not matter, at all, if ideas or information are abundant in nature (they are not- as they relay on scarce resources like time and energy), let me explain:
Water and air are both abundant in nature, however, both their harvesting and removal of pollution requiere resources that are not scarce, pretty much the same can be applied to IP.
As a side note, IP should be eternal, saying otherwhise would be geolibertarian pink-socialism, asking IP to expire is like asking land property rights to expire.
As both a Disney and Activision-Blizzard shareholder you are literally taking food out of my mouth.
So stop illegaly downloading online content you socialist brats or the day of the rope will come sooner than you think.
Thanks for your time faggots. -L
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101758
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>101757
>>101728
Forgot embed
>>101729
I tend to ignore frogposter, I personally think that is a good thing and a wholeshome way to save my time and my sanity.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101760
>>101757
>he mentioned that progressives will always offer you cheap or free things
…like an infinitely-reproducible nonrivalrous good?
Don't get me wrong, please keep shilling IP. It accelerates the rate at which communism will win, because it teaches THROUGH DIRECT EXPERIENCE the contrast between the infinite wealth of an infinitely-reproducible nonrivalrous good as contrasted to the impoverishment of artificial scarcity embodied by capitalism. Communism is basic economics and basic locke - and Bastiat; you get POORER for breaking people's ability to download (and even poorer than that by breaking people's ability to remix, i.e., communism).
Cappies just don't basic economics.
>in exchange for your inmortal soul.
But… I don't believe in the social contract, anon.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101763
>>101740
You just stated that property rights are created by government fiat in an effort to prove that your opponents are socialists. You're either an ineffective troll or completely blind to irony.
>>101756
You're welcome to explain how following an internally consistent definition of property is a "social contract" at any time. You're also welcome to explain how a copyright system, which can only be enforced through a large, overbearing state, is somehow anti-authoritarian.
>>101757
>he mentioned that progressives will always offer you cheap or free things in exchange for your inmortal soul.
How exactly are progressives offering anyone anything here? This idea is predicated on the notion that the free stuff in question can be provided by progressivism, and only by progressivism, as they need to be given massive amounts of state power in order to redistribute everything. Torrenting shit, by contrast, requires no state intervention to occur. If anything, the less state intervention there is, the easier it is to torrent shit.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101764
>>101763
>You just stated that property rights are created by government fiat
…and yet, if you go to a different jurisdiction, land is suddenly no longer scarce.
> in an effort to prove that your opponents are socialists.
Not sure if insane or retarded…
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101765
>>101764
>Not sure if insane or retarded…
I'm sure you're retarded. Go back to reddit with your shitty meme generator-tier comments.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101766
>>101764
>land is suddenly no longer scarce.
Really? So if I cross over into commiestan, does land become infinite? Can I create more land at zero cost? Can an infinite number of people and objects all use the same plot of land simultaneously for their own purposes? Scarcity is an emergent property of reality, you 80 IQ subhuman. You can't legislate it in or out of existence.
>Not sure if insane or retarded…
Read the OP.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101800
>>101766
> Scarcity is an emergent property of reality, you 80 IQ subhuman. You can't legislate it in or out of existence.
Hmm…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
Changed jurisdictions, land no longer scarce.
>Read the OP.
So, retarded?
>You can't legislate scarcity into existence.
>posted in a copyright thread
Yup, retarded.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101801
>>101800
>my desire to squat on someone else's land means land is infinitely reproducible
You're in no position to be calling other people retarded.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101803
>>101801
>Oh, shit, land scarcity is a legislative function which doesn't exist in other jurisdictions.
>I guess I'll have to shitpost to try to deflect from the fact that I have the IQ of a slime mold!
"Squatting" is the attempt to privatize land, which creates artificial scarcity… so yes, you're retarded. Anyone else can at least concieve of things outside their system. You? Too fucking retarded.
Now, tell us again IN A FUCKING THREAD ABOUT COPYRIGHT how scarcity cannot be created by legislative mistakes?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101804
>>101803
All right, let's go through this, one step at a time…
Imagine a house. You can do that, right? This hosue has three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a kitchen, a living room, and all the amenities you might expect a middle-class domicile to have. Currently, this house exists in a system of private property. It can support five residents comfortably, and, say, fifteen residents at the absolute maximum. Now, suppose this house suddenly falls under the rulership of some faggot communist, who declares land to be a human right, and anyone who tries to privatize it is being exploitive. You're still following, right? Tell me, now that scarcity has been "eliminated", can this house support any more residents than it could before? It still contains only three bedrooms. These bedrooms have the same square footage, and you can only fit so many people into each one. Because (and this is the tricky part, pay attention), each human occupies a certain amount of space, and you can only fit so many men into a room before you are unable to squeeze any more in. There are two bathrooms, both under private property and under public property. No more than one person can use a bathroom at any given time. We may say that they are "scarce," or "rivalrous," because there are only so many bathrooms in the house, and a much larger number of people who would care to use them. Now, I know you worship the almighty state more than God himself, so this may be hard for you to believe, but passing legislation is not a magic wand. It will not change the fact that this house has two bathrooms. Legislation will not allow create a bathroom for every person who wants to take a shit. Legislation will not allow multiple people to seat themselves on the toilet at the same time. It does not matter if you pass a law saying shitting in a porcelain bowl is available to everyone, because that law will not allow the toilet to be used by more than once person. Legislation will not allow resources to be any less scarce, in other words. There will still be a limited amount available. It will still be impossible to use one unit of a resource for multiple competing tasks. The desires of any given person will still be less than what is available to them. Scarcity, then, still exists, regardless of what's written down in the books.
Now that we've gotten those very deep theoretical concepts out of the way, let's talk about copyright. Intellectual property is considered not to be scarce because a piece of digital media may be copied indefinitely, and a man using the copied piece does not prevent another man from using the original piece. You're on a computer right now, so I must assume you understand this aspect of digital media. Passing a law saying it's illegal to copy digital media does not change the fact that digital media can be copied indefinitely. It can still be done, it's still an intrinsic quality of digital media, because changing the law does not change reality. For the same reason that passing a law making private home ownership illegal does not allow an infinite number of people to simultaneously make use of the finite resource of real estate, passing a law making filesharing illegal does not prevent the ability of media to be copied indefinitely.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101805
>>101804
>Imagine a house. You can do that, right?
So, you're starting with a residential structure that creates scarcity ARTIFICIALLY.
"That's your problem right there." I can imagine the flawed mistakes of the now just fine; it's your belief that they describe the whole of what is physically possible that is flawed.
So, it is now a yurt, and you pack it up and carry it in the morning.
> Now, I know you worship the almighty state more than God himsel
Fucking. Ironic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
Hop jurisdictions. Your whole "physical reality" disappears.
Meanwhile, both the Jewish and Christian bibles discuss the entirety of land being unowned as our natural inheritance.. so, you're… literally worshipping the almighty state more than God himself, should such an entity exist.
>Now that we've gotten those very deep theoretical concepts out of the way, let's talk about copyright. Intellectual property is considered not to be scarce because a piece of digital media may be copied indefinitely
I'm not the one arguing for artificial scarcity, moron.
You did, however, state that scarcity cannot be legislated into existence… in a copyright thread.
Both are artificial.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101806
>>101800
>So, retarded?
Despite the fact that they obviously ARE retarded, I think "insane" is the bigger problem here.
Consider, for instance…
>>101801
…adverse privatization is the OPPOSITE of noncreation of artificial scarcity, but they still go there. After being reminded of this…
>>101804
…they choose
>consider a house
…i.e., a structure unneccisarily based on enclosure (and thus enforced scarcity) AS A DIRECT RESPONSE.
They cannot think outside their delusional architecture, and assume their habits are laws of the universe. So - "insane" is the problem. They're literally fucking delusional.
How far does it go? Their last post is a goldmine.
>It still contains only three bedrooms.
"If it does not have a sign labeling it 'bedroom,' it is physically impossible to sleep." Never mind that people have done so. M'spooks.
>No more than one person can use a bathroom at any given time.
"Because I am uncomfortable going to the bathroom with other people around, IT'S ACTUALLY A PHYSICAL LAW OF THE UNIVERSE. Deep delusional architecture, and a sign they cannot distinguish between themselves and the rest of the world - literally, no boundaries or sense of self.
Similarly…
>because there are only so many bathrooms in the house, and a much larger number of people who would care to use them.
…THIS PERSON ACTUALLY THINKS PEEING ON A BUSH IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE A SIGN THAT SAYS "BATHROOM" ON IT. Seriously, it's a collection of delusional architecture, and it's WAAAAAYYY out of touch with physical reality.
> will not allow the toilet to be used by more than once person.
"I've never peed in a toilet bowl while someone else was doing so, therefore it is physically impossible." This person would have a meltdown if they ever encountered a trough urinal, I presume.
Not to mention the whole "I can't pee on a bush because it doesn't have a sign that says 'bathroom.'"
The closest they come to the physical world is…
>you can only fit so many men {on the earth} before you are unable to squeeze any more in.
…so, there's a hypothetical point at which land appears to have scarcity, although
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammock
…in reality, this too is a delusion. It is, however, the first time they've tried to appeal to anything other than "m'spooks," literally on a "it doesn't have a sign that says _ so it's physically impossible to _" level.
However, even in the ludicrous case - which, as we've seen, doesn't even actually impose scarcity - crops would be trampled sufficiently that the resulting famine would reduce the population, meaning that even given a ludicrous extreme WHICH IS STILL NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SCARCITY, the scenario STILL CANNOT HAPPEN IN THE REAL WORLD.
…but this fucker literally thinks it's impossible to sleep, pee, or shit - literally, physically impossible - if it doesn't have a corresponding name or title. Full-fledged delusional architecture. Everyone else in the room, I assume, knows that while it may be unwise to shit on one's table in the restaraunt, it is actually physically possible.
So…. literally full-bore fucking insane. While they are retarded, it's a delusional break with reality that's the bigger issue here.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101807
>>101806
Alright, you've led me on a merry chase. I hope you're having fun LARPing as an insane socialist, the real ones are batshit enough that you had me going for a good few posts.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101826
>>101800
>Access does not extend to built up or developed land (such as houses, gardens) and does not necessarily include commercial exploitation of the land.
>Picking cloudberry may be temporarily restricted to local residents in parts of Lapland
> These exceptions include – but are not limited to – access during breeding seasons or during sensitive growth periods
Did you not notice that there are limitations placed on this practice because land is scarce?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101854
>>101826
>did you not notice that different jurisdictions impose different legislatively-induced scarcity?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101876
>>101854
Thus land is scarce even when changing jurisdictions, which contradicts your earlier point that you made here:
>>101800
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101883
>>101876
>different jurisdictions have a variety of laws, therefore my one cherrypicked token jurisdiction is not legislatively created
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101884
>>101699
You realize that people can defend their property right?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101902
>>101883
>gets disproved by being shown that land is scarce
>responds with an off-topic strawman that the poster wasn't even arguing
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101903
>>101902
I'm fairly certain he's not actually serious at this point, and just contradicts every argument you make for the sake of contradiction.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101907
>>101902
>references legislation
>to prove that they weren't even talking about legislation.
Lol. Meanwhile, all the other forms of "scarcity" that disappeared when hopping jurisdictions just vanish. But they're natural, honest!
Pick up your damn gear in the morning and walk.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101912
>>101907
>switching from one area of scarcity to another is area of scarcity is not scarcity
Also, the off-topic strawman is not about refereeing legislation, yet you still keep rolling for it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101942
>>101912
Nice avatar, bro.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101958
>>101912
> the off-topic strawman is not about refereeing legislation
>which is why I'm referencing legislation to "prove" scarcity.
Yeah. Did you know that the ability to accept gas money is inherently scarce?
https://www.gov.uk/taxi-driver-licence
It's, like, a physical law of the universe bro!
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101969
>>101958
>which is why I'm referencing legislation to "prove" scarcity.
This is not the strawman I was referring to, but you still keep repeating it.
Also, petroleum is scarce but I do not see how licensing disproves this scarcity or how this has anything to do with land.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101970
>>101969
>Also, petroleum is scarce
Technically, no. All the hydrocarbons that end up in a landfill will eventually become metamorphic rock, i.e., petroleum.
As such, every bit of petroleum burned… is still petroleum. Tree breathes CO2, becomes paper bag, ends up in landfill, gets sucked under.
This conceptual shift is… essential. OTOH, most of us don't have that kind of time to wait around, making it academic for this topic.
Not so much in others. Meanwhile, accepting the change to fuel your vehicle is another "legislative proof of scarcity" rather than an inherent one… just like jurisdictional changes in land.
Think in four dimensions. It completely changes the scene…
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101975
>>101958
What do you think "scarcity" is? The other guy has referenced the definition, but you keep acting under a different definition.
In economic terms, "scarcity" refers to the fact that resources are finite. Some things like air may be abundant, meaning that the market clearing price is so low that it's not worth the effort to charge for it, but in economic terms it's still scarce because there is a finite supply. Economic scarcity is not the same as colloquial scarcity.
There is a finite amount of dry land on the planet. That amount may change over time, and it may be possible to make more, but it is still scarce. Everything is, and that's simply a matter of physics.
>>101970
>All the hydrocarbons that end up in a landfill will eventually become metamorphic rock, i.e., petroleum.
That makes it renewable, not non-scarce.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101982
>>101970
Petroleum is still rivalrous (and thus scarce) even if it's renewable; the fact it will come back eventually does not alter the fact that two men can't simultaneously burn the same gallon of petroleum for fulfilling two different tasks.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102036
>>101982
> two men can't simultaneously burn the same gallon of petroleum for fulfilling two different tasks.
They can, actually. It's called "sticking a sterling engine in the exhaust pipe."
>>101975
>In economic terms, "scarcity" refers to the fact that resources are finite.
Exactly.
Conservation of matter, on the other hand, tells us it's a mobius strip of recycling.
>Some things like air may be abundant, meaning that the market clearing price is so low that it's not worth the effort to charge for it
…and that is the state of energy in this equation. Eventually, we will have too much of it and live IN a helium sun.
>There is a finite amount of dry land on the planet. That amount may change over time, and it may be possible to make more, but it is still scarce.
…and this is a curious case where, without artificial imposition, infinite consumption is still equal to zero. If I walk a million miles, the circumference of the earth has not decreased.
Now, drag this back to your "finite" definition. Assuming immortality and an inexplicable absence of oceans and other barriers, is the distance I can walk finite?
>In economic terms, "scarcity" refers to the fact that resources are finite
Seems the ability to travel across land is NOT finite. Only legislative exclusion is.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102042
>>101970
CO2 is not a hydrocarbon
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102045
>>102036
>petrol isn't scarce because you can strap a sterling engine to a truck's exhaust
>land isn't scarce because you can walk on it
>energy isn't scarce because uhhh ummm it just is okay? We'll live IN HELIUM some day!
Mate, get a job. You need something to do with your free time other than rationalizing your bad arguments.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102046
>>102036
The key word is 'simultaneously,' doublenigger. Even if both the Sterling engine and the car are 100% efficient, you still have to wait for the first task to be completed before beginning the second. Hence the good is rivalrous.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102076
>>102046
>>102036
It's called a STIRLING ENGINE you fucks
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102117
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102136
Socialism is workers owning the means of production. I don't work, I don't own any means of production, and I am an online pirate.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102176
Just read some Mises you bakas; here's a wonderful article that argues against IP from both ethical and utilitarian perspectives.
https://mises.org/library/fight-against-intellectual-property
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102180
>>102176
>from both ethical and utilitarian perspectives.
<uh duh, I don't know that utilitarianism is literally a philosophy about the nature of ethics
What did he meant by this?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102181
Nonrival goods. No theft. Next.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102182
>>102180
>>102180
It means he took the deontology bluepill
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102183
>>102181
>Next
Next? And what about bump.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102186
>>102182
>internal consistency is bluepilled
>a priori reasoning is bluepilled
>first principles are bluepilled
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102257
>>102186
what are first principles?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102259
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102268
>>102259
polish version of that article says modern logic discards notion of "first principles"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102271
>>102268
Yet they ironically accept axioms, which are the exact same thing.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102284
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102287
>>102284
>A first principle is an axiom that cannot be deduced from any other within that system.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102308
>>102287
> Pewnego rodzaju odpowiednikiem "pierwszych zasad" jest w logice współczesnej pojęcie "aksjomatu" – zasady uznane w logice tradycyjnej za "pierwsze" nie mogą jednak stanowić aksjomatyki rachunku zdań ani żadnego systemu dedukcyjnego. Są one bowiem twierdzeniami, które wyprowadza się z aksjomatów rachunku zdań za pomocą wielu kroków dowodowych.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102417
>>102308
Looks like whoever wrote the article is confusing a priori statements with a posteriori statements.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102730
>>102186
Prove it.
Completely.
Without resorting to circular reasoning.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.