I honestly never pegged @dan to be that radical so reading that it was resonating positively with me as I have argued that IP is a crime against humanity since I first reasoned it in my early twenties, it's immoral to copyright and patent and rely on violent enforcement of the state to uphold that selfishness, and both are spiraling out of control and soon are going to come to a conclusion. It's driven exclusively by greed, to monetize an idea, a concept, what good can come out of that?!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Yeah, dan is decently radical. :)
I think the voluntaryst anti-IP stance is intriguing. You have a community that, on the one hand, upholds personal property rights as inalienable. But on the other hand, they demand that intellectual property, if public, must be commonly-owned (of course, trade secrets are fine - but everybody agrees on that one). I see how both of these are logical conclusions of the non-violence principle, but they also look (from the outside) to be a bit at odds with one another. This is neither the time nor the place to discuss it, I suppose. I'll write a blog about it one day.
re: Voluntaryist approach to infinitely reproducible works (ie: IP) - enlightened consumers are free to consciously choose to support their favoured content creators.