"Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it." -John Adams


Welcome to Patriot's Lament. We will strive here to educate ourselves on Liberty. We will not worry ourselves so much with the daily antics of American politics, and drown ourselves in the murky waters of the political right or left.
Instead, we will look to the Founding Fathers of our great Nation, and draw on their wisdom of what it is to have a truly free Republic. We will learn from where our Providential Liberties are derived, and put the proper perspective of a Freeman and the state.
Please join us!

Monday, January 23, 2012

The State (Dubstep) and Notes on Intellectual (non)Property

What happens when you merge Murray Rothbard's "For A New Liberty" audiobook (read by Jeff Riggenbach) with some dubstep wobble bass? Inherent anti-establishment nirvana. Also, SKisM's ultra-sick remix (which could use a bit more Rothbard in my opinion).



In response to some of the feedback I've gotten regarding intellectual property, as I posted a few months ago, IP requires force against peaceful non-signatory parties in order to be upheld, just like Social Contract. This puts it in direct opposition to the Non-Aggression Principle. I recommend reading Stephan Kinsella's excellent book: Against Intellectual Property for an in depth analysis. Or, watch his lectures below:



2 comments:

  1. I watched the entire 25 minute video and didn't hear a single argument defending his statement that intellectual property is incompatible with capitalism. I heard Kinsella mock (at minute 10) the idea that IP rights are property rights, but mockery isn't an argument. I heard Kinsella say (at minute 24) that IP patents are costly. I suppose we should not try to apprehend a murderer, rapist, or purse snatcher because that could be costly too.

    It's hard to argue with somebody that just talked for 25 minutes and didn't make a single point to support his contention.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's hard to argue with someone who watches one of two youtube videos, doesn't read the book, then defends caging and killing people who mitigate scarcity at no cost to anyone else (oops, I mean I.P. "criminals").

    Only someone who is intellectually lazy would categorize reducing scarcity (which is by definition an increase in wealth) along the lines of murder, rape, or theft.

    ReplyDelete