-12 votes

For you anti-Intellectual Property people. Do you think this is cool?

It appears Urban Outfitters copied this girl's ideas, and may have copied designs from other amateur jewelers too:


How can you defend something like this? Can't you see that it's a NATURAL RIGHT to own the product of your labor? An idea is the product of the mind's labor, so that private property ought to be protected. Theft of intellectual property is not cool.

Dr. Paul supports protection of intellectual private property ("I favor enforcement of intellectual property rights...": http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/08/02/05/1511225/Ron-Pa...), and the Constitution does as well. It's a natural right. So please, do not post any more anti-intellectual private property pro-theft posts, such as that from Adam Kokesh. They are in direct opposition to Dr. Paul's views.

And by the way, the brilliant Austrian economist Murray Rothbard defended intellectual property as well. As did Lysander Spooner.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Tell us how you really feel!

Actually, they were in common

Actually, they were in common use all the way to 1978 in the United States, and played a special role in unpublished works and audio recordings - the wikipedia informaton is wrong. Common law copyrights in fact appear to be still valid.

Or at least as valid as other common law rights like not having your door knocked down by the cops. Valid, and based upon unalienable rights.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Sounds like people are having

Sounds like people are having problems defining Intellectual Property.

Also Intellectual and Property for that matter.

Definitions definitions....

"There is nothing new under the sun but there are lots of old things we don't know."

"There are no original ideas. There are only original people."

Free Luna!

you're right, the world looks

you're right, the world looks exactly like it did 1000 years ago, not a SINGLE new idea since then.

I think I see the problem now -- You Pro-IP Folks lack

understanding in "how" an innovator / entrepreneur "profits" from his ideation in a free-society.

Because of this you advocate Capitalism and the more stricter IP Gov't Model -- Corporatism.

The latter being infinitely better at protecting IP Rights then the former.

Because you lack this understanding you want an even stronger form of Gov't -- stronger then American Corporatism, what you want is One-World Gov't, because only a ONE-WORLD Gov't can protect-enforce IP Rights over all the earth.

Or maybe what you want is colluding corporatist gov'ts?

If you are interested I'll explain to you how you can earn a profit in a free-society -- it will be based on Mises' Consumer-Sovereignty (RP being a self-professed Misesian Scholar).

i WOULD like an explanation

i WOULD like an explanation of how profit can be had by all in a IP-free world, and i would like to know how many assumptions/premises you'll need to make it work out

I understand very well

You even stated it earlier.

Now -- I would argue FOR IP Rights (my own) while living in a Corporatist Society because of the slow-down to innovation; meaning all the licensure / regulatory blockers make it hard to come up with something new, so the turn-around on ideation-to-bank is so slow that one MUST protect what one invents (because there may not be another opportunity).

Since you consider this to be a Corporatist Society, you would argue FOR YOUR OWN IP Rights... but you haven't created a product or process to claim said rights.
Hence you proclaim the evils of IP Rights.
The problem isn't IP Rights - it's really about OTHERS having IP Rights, and you (not having anything that might qualify for IP Rights) wanting a chunk of their labor - whether manual or mental.

I understand that patents become purchased and "lost".
That really sucks. It does.
But FORCING all people to become slaves for the General Welfare is more sinister, IMO.

The product of my mind is my own. What I chose to do with it is mine to chose.

Ersch: Taking what I said out of context and then

deriving a conclusion I do not support is not a "win" -- it is an average one man band

*lots of clamor little musicianship*

I disagree

The remainder of your post spoke of Fantasy Island. Your "free society" is not what we currently have, nor even envisioned by the folks that drafted the Constitution... so your thoughts on what IP would be for Fantasy Island are not nearly as relevant as your thoughts with regard to IP in our current society.

The context of your quote is for Today. My conclusions may not be 100% accurate, but I can see no other possibility.

How you feel about property rights in Octopia is out of context.

The founders put "Promote" in Article 2 Section 8 for a reason

So they did plan on an open marketplace within a republic.

And you misinterpret human action; an incentive for creative destruction with.. human action; an incentive for profit-motive... because your ideas are stuck within this economic structure.

your words seem to assume it is unrealistic to speak about the systemic process in an open society as solutions. if the economic structure you base your argument off of is suffering systemic problems from a changed condition for which you must find a systemic solution to then it is you who is being unrealistic by taking us out of context and equating our argument with one for which realizes no changed condition.

That is like arguing "How is bankruptcy going to save people if the channels of production are closed loop models"... one is dependent on a separate system to survive.

So by the fact that the conditions are changing for this system to fail it is entirely realistic to raise our arguments against IP

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

Ersch: You are correct -- We have something to agree on now

I have not "envisioned" a "harken" back model of society -- because back then my people (black - indian - irish catholic) did not have a happy beginning.

Neither did your people -- no one "advanced" much during this period.

The reason why technology advanced so quickly in such a short period of time was because whole new industries popped up before Gov't could figure out how to put the regulatory stoppers on it and partially because they had their own design behind one-nation-connectivity.

You could say that the tech growth in the last 20 years happened in a "relatively" free-market (comparative to the nearly every other market); in the same way that Ron and Rand point out the quality / low cost advancement found in the Lasik market -- again owing to very low regulation/intervention.

If we had that in the currency market and in the self-defense market then your IP Enforcement (big gov't expansionism) on a world-wide scale would not be possible.

so what you're saying is

so what you're saying is capitalism works and so does IP rights... and its corporatism and fascist government which doesn't. well we can agree on that, but how you go from that to f capitalism, and f property rights is beyond me, perhaps you like to fill in the blanks on that thought process


you don't seem to "see" the "problem", if I may mis-use quotes are badly as you have done. I assume you meant to show stress on "how" and "profits", right?
The process to take an idea from thought to final product is usually long and expensive. People that spend their and money going through this process usually do so in the hopes of being compensated. They hope that the final product is successful enough (meaning that it fills a need and does it well enough that people want to buy it) to not only pay them for their time and effort but to also show a profit, the bigger the better. You probably accept this, at least as a premise. The part you don't seem to be able to accept or grasp is that this process would become infinitely less appealing if the inventor (inventor = hard working person) weren't able to stop some slacker...er, pardon me, worthy human being only trying to better humanity, from quickly and easily copying (read stealing) the idea.
There are certainly cases where public-domain does very well and it usually does this without the intention of profit for any single group or individual. All fine and altruistic. However, I would argue that these public domain efforts often use the very same IP protection that you are complaining, especially in software. The GNU license is exactly that, a license. You still have to agree to the terms if you plan to use the software LEGALLY. You can't just copy the software and attach your name to it. If you do so you end up in legal troubles.
I don't agree with everything that is done in IP protection but I do believe that it is one of the cornerstones of our huge economic expansion. If you want to study a good example of what happens with everyone owns something just look at the USSR. How many things did they market to the world?

Rok: You argument is only proving my point

If you understood how (in) a free-society one derives profit (on intellectual effort) and if you used that understanding (during a deep meditation) you could see how IP "Self-Defense" would be (itself) innovated.

A Free-Society has a few axioms that no Austrian Economist will differ on:


Do you think small gov't means: Gov't Defense (monopoly) or Self-Defense (individualism).

I am an inventor and an innovator myself.

I agree that under Corporatism or Capitalism one is only wise in seeking some-level (reasonable within the perverse society) of protection.

However -- I hold on to my ideas long enough to create "competitive barriers." Meaning if my initial ideation is "phase 1" then I dream up phase 2, 3, and 4.

I have to do this in my primary line of work, as a business plan writer. I must help people with unique ideas flush out how they cannot protect themselves from their investors, or from their corporation (if it is a product-line innovation), or from the market itself. Self-Defense / Self-Protection.

This puts more emphasis on ideation and less on litigation which is un-trustworthy as is anything politicial parties tow-the-line over.

IP Rights is a sort of sacred cow as both Dems and Repubs seek to increase the size and scope and reach of US Gov't in this arena.


All the IP people want is the Gov't to protect their income stream through violence ...that's it. That's their whole argument. They're just scared they'll lose their cash cow and have to actually work for a living.

what are you, twelve?

Do you honestly believe that people that are responsible for innovation and taking ideas to market are LAZY?
I assume Octo is the number of braincells you wasted on that thought?

No I'm not twelve.

And no I do not believe that people that are responsible for innovation and taking ideas to market are lazy. I believe that IP people use the threat of Gov't violence so they can sell their product for more than a natural market would bare.


It is contract, not governmental force.
Your product is yours, and nobody has the right to it until you contract with another.

Ersch: Mises much?

Mises said that intellectual property is not an economic good because there is infinite interpretive use and re-use.

That Ideas come from the Non-Scarcity Vault.

How will you force the Chinese to comply with your contract theory?

If you can answer that in context of your version of a "free-society" (or limited gov't) that would be awesome.

IP advocates tend to their minds but leave their labour

to others.. because it is their right?

Most IP advocates have no economy of their own.. no permaculture or cost efficient side to them.. these people have no reason to want others to benefit as fast they will benefit from their ideas because they need their own ideas to sustain themselves or else they are just as dependent as others.

How ironic it is when the IP advocate is enslaved by a system for which the advocate believes they are the leaders of creativity through their intelligent inventions... as if they’re so divine.

Most anti-IP thinkers who take open society seriously know that they should not think their way to the top.. so they practice building sustainable methods.. they take care of their problems and lead by example, not just with their head but with their practice.

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

It is in your world, as well

For "the best" tips, tactics, etc for permaculture, one needs to spend some dough.
Videos need to be purchased.
Books need to be purchased.
Conferences have fees to get in the door.
I've tried to find some real good "open source" material - for the new entrant into permaculture. The material is lacking.

Is that okay, because it's for a good cause?

sorry I didn't realize how long this was.. but figured i'd share

Our minds are still dependent on the overall scheme of things

If you want to depend on what others use to expand your permaculture mindset then you have to buy books and learn their ways. But that is still all mind, if you want you could go outside and start putting it together off of observance but it would take more time as you would need to do more with less and more time to learn from your mistakes.

The best way to learn about permaculture is to separate permaculture into Yin (David Holmgren) and Yang (Bill Mollison).

Then, just go outside and learn from locals about what works best in your area… meetup groups or clinics are either free or cheap but the hardest part is just doing it… breaking away from the television or computer screen and being outside thinking in terms of permaculture… I do this everyday and I have seen my path grow clearer from starting with my longest terms goals first and inwards.

Just go network with the right people but always take everything with a grain of salt and build your own original practice.

What I am doing is walking the line between the system created for me and the one I create for myself. I will be a lawyer who knows the ins and outs of natural resource and property law so I can structure my own sustainable design around the municipal regulations of the big system. I also can use my fees as a way to stimulate better technology to speed up the time it would have to take by diversifying resources.

As long as you walk that line you will be fine.

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

Please don't apologize

I do not mind reading lengthy replies, for the most part. So you are admitting that the "best" way to set myself up for my own personal Permaculture Revolution is to shell out some cash. I have no interest in Yins & Yangs, though. It seems to me that the folks that have studied permaculture believe it to be a requirement to have a New Age philosophy.
I don't believe that to be the case.
I don't give a rip about the emotional state of crops.
I do care whether or not the interactions of plants in proximity are harmful or beneficial.
I don't give a rip about how Gaia feels about me.
I do care whether or not my soil conditions are right for certain crops - and how I can change the conditions in an organic manner.

To each his own..

I am happy you’re interested in living and learning that’s all that matters to me.

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.


I didn't think I double-posted

How ironic

is it that much of the wonderful tools and helpful knowledge that so many anti-IP "thinkers" are using to create their utopia was developed by greedy, lazy ip advocates, those non-divine bastards.

Nature is Ironic..Which is why we can only individually find God

God works through the collective.. but each individual is God’s child.

If we/the child are aware that God works through the whole/collective we can individually grow from observing our parents/society.

So far:

Dad had to take us on his conquest and show us how to traverse the wilderness and now mom is waiting for us to come back and learn how to nurture the wilderness.

Coming to terms with the irony of nature will make the Buddha laugh and the ego suffer… life is suffering without learning such a principle.

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

That which is seen, and that which is unseen

We will never know how many more wonderful tools and helpful knowledge would have be available if it weren't for the violent-loving statist IP advocates.


we certainly know just how blessed this country has been because people had the chance to not only dream but have an environment where they could, more often than in any other country in the history of the world, take that dream from gossamer wings to solid reality, becoming successful and wealthier in the process. Belittling what this country has accomplished, in terms of self-starters and innovators, is truly selfish.

I agree that utopian ideas arose from a patriarchal state

But to say one depends on the other denies the evolution of ideas into anything other than those absolute terms. I am not insinuating that IP advocates serve no purpose but the whole is changing and so it is necessary that we change too.

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.