[PREV - STATISTICAL_INDIVIDUAL]    [TOP]

DOOM_CONTRA_TARIAN

                                                      April    10, 2001
                                                 Rev: February 17, 2009

   To write a persuasive anti-libertarian
   argument, one should try to talk about
   things the way libertarians do.


   An institution like "private property" is
   clearly very useful in many ways, but the
   details of what that really means aren't
   engraved in stone anywhere.

   Libertarians like very simple
   statements of principle,
   perhaps something like "you're
   free to do what you like with
   your property, as long as you
   don't infringe on other's
   freedom", but the exact                (It would seem, for example,
   boundaries of where the                that you guys driving around
   infringement begins aren't all         in your cars really shouldn't
   that clear.                            be allowed to poison me with
                                          your exhaust, but for some
                                          reason libertarians really
                                          like "private" cars --
   And once you recognize                 despite the heavy government
   that there isn't any                   subsidies running all through
   obvious one correct way                the auto transit system).
   that "capitalism" has to
   be set-up, there are a lot             BUTCHERS_BILL
   of things that are open to
   question.

   You do not, for example have to
   be a communist to wonder if
   corporate liability limitations         (If it makes sense for
   are really that great an idea           corporations to have limits
                                           put on their liability to
   Nor do you need to be a                 protect them from frivolous
   communist to wonder if                  law suits, why not grant the
   "intellectual property"                 same protection to everyone?)
   is exactly the same beast
   as physical property                                 There's an implicit
                                                        assumption that
        You steal my bike, I can't ride                 corporations are more
        anywhere, you "steal" a song I                  responsible than mere
        wrote, I can still sing it...                   human beings.


               But on the other hand I *might* lose
               income because of that "theft".  And
               so I might quit writing songs.

                                 Should the legal system
                                 be set up to protect *my*
                                 interest in this case, or
                                 in yours?

                                 How original was the
                                 material in those
                                 songs I wrote,
                                 anyway? Maybe I used
                                 a standard chord
                                 progression, lifted a
                                 riff here and there...

                                 If you protect "my song",
                                 are you making it harder
                                 for someone else to write
                                 a song in the same way
                                 I did?


--------
[NEXT - MADNESS]