*** The Official "Yet another AC question" Thread ***

fluxrad · #1 02-16-2006, 01:10 AM

How does Anarcho-Capitalism address intellectual property? If possible, please address patents, copyright, the term of copyrights and patents, fair use, and unregulated use (e.g. right of first sale).

PoBoy321 · #2 02-16-2006, 01:13 AM

In AC, am I allowed to run around killing hobos since they don't have an insurance company to watch their backs?

Borodog · #3 02-16-2006, 01:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In AC, am I allowed to run around killing hobos since they don't have an insurance company to watch their backs?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

BCPVP · #4 02-16-2006, 01:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In AC, am I allowed to run around killing hobos since they don't have an insurance company to watch their backs?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not allowed to run around killing anyone, insured or otherwise. This is borderline trolling since I can't believe you actually think you could under AC.

PoBoy321 · #5 02-16-2006, 01:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In AC, am I allowed to run around killing hobos since they don't have an insurance company to watch their backs?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not allowed to run around killing anyone, insured or otherwise. This is borderline trolling since I can't believe you actually think you could under AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well why not? What market forces are there to ensure the safety of the homeless? Why would an insurer spend money to retaliate against aggression against someone in whom they had no financial interest?

nietzreznor · #6 02-16-2006, 01:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How does Anarcho-Capitalism address intellectual property? If possible, please address patents, copyright, the term of copyrights and patents, fair use, and unregulated use (e.g. right of first sale).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a difficult question since there is widespread disagreement amongst libertarians/ACers on intellectual property (IP).

I would wager that many (myself included), though, would be opposed to IP--both patents and copyright. The general idea is that IP can't truly be property in the same sense that, say, a house is. The basic argument is something like this: if I had a copyright on say a book, then what the IP I own? The "abstract book" doesn't really exist--so I must own something more material. The most natural candidate would be then that I own each instance (token) of the universal book. But this is absurd, since someone who buys a copy of the book clearly owns that copy. And say the book was short, and someone memorized it. Clearly they "own" the copy inside their head. So why can't they do with it as they please?
As for how the lack of IP might look economically, someone with a better grasp of economics will have to help out.
And perhaps some ACers who disagree could comment.

nietzreznor · #7 02-16-2006, 01:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In AC, am I allowed to run around killing hobos since they don't have an insurance company to watch their backs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because hobos aren't people like you and I.

PoBoy321 · #8 02-16-2006, 01:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In AC, am I allowed to run around killing hobos since they don't have an insurance company to watch their backs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because hobos aren't people like you and I.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that anyone thinks that they aren't people, but they certainly wouldn't be insured.

BCPVP · #9 02-16-2006, 01:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In AC, am I allowed to run around killing hobos since they don't have an insurance company to watch their backs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because hobos aren't people like you and I.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that anyone thinks that they aren't people, but they certainly wouldn't be insured.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what's your point? Is the state adequately protecting them now? Seems to me I recall a couple of punk kids were beating up homeless people. Great job the state did in preventing that.... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

PoBoy321 · #10 02-16-2006, 01:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In AC, am I allowed to run around killing hobos since they don't have an insurance company to watch their backs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because hobos aren't people like you and I.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that anyone thinks that they aren't people, but they certainly wouldn't be insured.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what's your point? Is the state adequately protecting them now? Seems to me I recall a couple of punk kids were beating up homeless people. Great job the state did in preventing that.... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I ever say anything about prevention? My only question is whether ot not there would be any retaliation against me if I DID decide to go around doing it.

If my understanding of the Insurance model is correct, then nothing would happen to me because no one would have a financial interest in the homeless and as such, no reason to spend money retaliating against those who have aggressed against them.

And as an aside, I do believe that those kids who were beating up the homeless were eventually caught and arrested. I certainly know that there have been instances in which people did jail time for similar offenses.