I'd say the fact there aren't open revolts stands as good evidence that the people, by and large, view the Constitution as legitimate. Even those who want to get back to “the true Constitution” still view the document as legitimate. You live in dream world. Your philosophy is intriguing but has no practical application. That makes it a useless philosophy.

I'd say the fact there aren't open revolts stands as good evidence that the people, by and large, view the Constitution as legitimate. Even those who want to get back to “the true Constitution” still view the document as legitimate. You live in dream world. Your philosophy is intriguing but has no practical application. That makes it a useless philosophy.

The Constitution is not even close to anything that should be considered a “contract.” While there are hundreds of great arguments against such a foolishly held position consider simply that not only did no living person (who is currently bound to it) sign it, but even if it was signed as a contract between the original drafters and society at the time, none of them had any right to bind future generations.

Read some Lysander Spooner before you embarrass yourself next time.

Since the constitution itself is a contract, and by being a citizen and residing under the laws of the constitution you ascribe yourself to it and are bound by it's rules, you agree to copyright law.

As you said, “A law for intellectual property rights can only exist in a society where all people bound by the contract of intellectual property rights agree to it.” Seems like we do, therefore it is legitimate. Unless of course you think the US Constitution is an illegitimate document/contract.

No one has a “right to profit.”

No liberty-based philosophy begins with conclusions. Hence, I Do. Not. Give. A. Single. Shit. whether or not there is individual incentive to do anything. All a libertarian can proclaim is that people “should not” do something. Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't coerce.

Information is not property. Information exists independently of its physical manifestation. Tricky/Enlightening example: You can own a webpage. Amazon can own the domain Amazon.com. They cannot, however, own the *idea* of Amazon.com. Just because someone happens to think of/patent something first does not give them exclusive rights.

It's simple.

A contract binds two people to an agreement.
A patent is a contract.
A patent is a contract that says “A invented X, therefore B gives A the exclusive right to profit from X.”
A patent is a contract that actually says, “A wants B to prevent C, D, Etc from profiting from X.”

But C, D, Etc didn't agree to this contract.

A legitimate contract cannot bind unwilling third parties. Hence, patents are illegitimate.

QED. A law for intellectual property rights can only exist in a society where all people bound by the contract of intellectual property rights agree to it. …which had you read the “File Sharing” announcement post, you would have known.

I assume you have no problem with an individual profiting from labor. Thus, if I make the next great movie, I should be able to profit from it by selling it to anyone who is willing to buy it. But in a digital era, there is no guarantee I will make any sales beyond the first. After that, piracy could take over. So that's where IP laws come in. The state backs up my ability to profit from my labor by giving me civil causes of actions against pirates and in some cases criminalizing the infringements.

But if individual liberty is to be maximized, how can a libertarian at once both be for the liberty of the content creator to make and profit from the creative work and the liberty of the pirate to diminish the value of the labor?

Let's see what kind of pretzel I get as a response. If we remove the state from the equation, then there is no individual incentive to produce because no greater force will protect that interest. I don't see how you can possibly balance the interests without involving the apparatus of the state.

1. Discovering is not a legitimate form of ownership, I don't care how deeply established in The Western Tradition it is. The long and short of property creation is Land + Labor = Property. Simply discovering a piece of land doesn't make it yours. Till the soil and then we'll talk.

2. I don't give two shits about the incentives. I care about a functionally working self-consistent philosophy based on the ideals of liberty. If that means mathematicians are only hobbyists, then fine.

3. Your third point seems entirely irrelevant. I invite you to look around Mises.org a bit.

The infinite set of 0s and 1s represents every possible bit of information that can every be. Information can exist outside of its embodiments. One can own the embodiments of information (the iPod, for instance) but one can't own information (F=ma).

Next time come to the meeting if you think you have anything to add to this conversation.