Any state convention would definitely lead to worse results.

What do you mean by that?

Oof

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

A lot of people think you have a right to protection. You don't. You have right to life and liberty, that's different.

The protection (by law) is a protection of the rights.

Government was established to secure rights, not grant them.

Negative vs postive rights = rights vs privileges.

People have the rights, the constitution should limit the government’s ability, not the people’s rights. The rights are within the people.

To simplify, a negative right is a protection from something while a positive right is an entitlement to something

The people give up freedom to be governed.

An example of a positive right is the right to a speedy trial

The government doesn’t grant rights.

Who grants them?

God!

God.

Gouuuuud!

the BIG G-O-D

People will contest if positive rights are a thing at all, often

Gawwwd does not exist. Sorry.

Then use some other higher power.

Doesn’t have to be god.

Does not exist either.

God as the religious one or as a shorthand for nature

A level above government grants them just for being people.

part of the reason they are called 'natural' rights

And even if we assumed it did exist, what are the rights granted by that higher existence?

@H3llbender Which are the natural rights? Which rights did God give us?

But having public schools that are mostly paid for by the government (taxpayers) is a good thing, as long as the government manages its resources well and doesn't tax people like crazy

Property rights are the natural rights.

For example, many (even libertarians) think copyright is natural.

The rights god (or nature) grant is are all the rights we have except the ones we relinquish to government.

Exhaustive list.

An illiterate person is a social outcast, in today's world

I think that's the biggest load of shit I've ever heard, to argue copyright monopoly as a natural right.

Intellectual "property" rights are postive rights.

Because it's "property". Property of an idea. Or word.

I've quite literally never talked to someone who called copyright a natural right

Most ancaps reject IP rights.

The idea is that you have all rights. The only non-rights are anything which infringes the rights of another.

@halfthink But isn't all property kind about positive rights?

Property rights are pretty much "Don't fuck with my shit"

@whiic no, socialised institutions to protect them are though.

How it becomes "my shit" and how one defines "fuck with" are various things

Especially when it comes to common property

Capital is generally required to have copyright. Since you invested something into the idea.

For example, is any land you circle with a fence "your land"?

Under some definitions, yes

If you can defend it, sure. You put money into circling it. Capital.

Capitalism.

"worked" land is activating a part of my memory

@whiic Are you familiar with squatter's rights?

Well, some would fence of more land they can work with, just because it's expected that free land will run out, and being too greedy allows them to sell it with nice profit later, when there's no land to grab onto.

Most libertarians accept the homesteading principle as how unowned property is originally appropriated.

Basically, Molyneux land ownership logic stopped working a few hundred years ago in USA, and was already outdated much earlier in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

Here's a non religious argument for natural rights
https://youtu.be/tx7XUuPrbZo

Make sure to ping him

Ping me when you are active again @whiic , I want to speak about the most annoying ideology of the 19th century with you

Which would be?

Geogism

Wow look at how wrong everybody is

What's wrong with Georgism?

Land use tax is probably more just way to tax than income or trade tax is.

Nothing particularly, it is actually quite compatible with much of liberarianism

They just annoyed a lot of people in the 19th century

Like commies did in the 20th

The police protect the right and not the people. That’s rich

I quite like LVT

@H3llbender And if there's nothing wrong with Georgism or Geo-Libertarianism, what is that makes it annyoing?

I know it annoys hardline capitalists because they like to think land as property the same way niggers were property once.

Georgists do. They had a commune just north of me during the early 20th century

@whiic John Galt for example funded communal utilities in Galt's Gulch via what appeared to be a LVT

I used to be an AnCap, BTW

But what makes Georgists the most annoying?

@H3llbender have you ever read Rothbard?

They served the same social role as Commies do today

@H3llbender It is on my list

@halfthink

@H3llbender Same role? As in threatened some part of capitalism, just like slavery abolitionists did?

@H3llbender have you ever read any Austrian economists?

No

I mean, threatening to release a type of property (whether it's land or niggers), it annoys the owners.

I'm a Geo-Libertarian, btw, despite being a land-owner.

@H3llbender in what sense did you "used to be an ancap"?

@whiic As in quite literally a lot of georgist communes reorganized as communist communes

@halfthink Randian

Randians aren't ancap.

I'm used to talking to leftists

Ayn Rand was minarchist.

@H3llbender Rand was not an ancap, she even rejected the label "libertarian"

as you can clearly tell

...also Rand supported copyright because she was a selfish bitch who wanted monopoly of her writings.

@whiic same reason Milton was a Keynesian.

@halfthink No-one's perfect.

own work that you produced? how absurd

@whiic Hoppe comes pretty close.

Copyright is an interesting topic that we are all probably more likely to actually convince each other of

I personally think copyright is mostly obsolete now

@Unwound Well, that applies more to copyright than to land. And you can modify the land, but you didn't create it.

property rights only count for scarce resources. You can't steal am idea.

On the other hand, if copyright was a legit property, what is the libertarian argument against Cultural Appropriation?

At one point due to the scarcity of information copyright was useful to promote the distribution of IP

But that isn't quite a thing anymore

The purpose of copyright has always been the control of information.

Tim is awake

https://youtu.be/NAvbWeivv8o

Thr libertarian case against IP.

He was asking for the one *for* IP tho.

Speaking of which, Discord is absolutely proprietary

That's a contradiction. What's the communist argument for capitalism?

Nah, I was asking against. But I was particularly asking it from @Unwound because he said "own work that you produced? how absurd" and I found it a particularly retarded thing to say.

I'm definitely against intellectual monopolies, as they aren't even tangible goods but just ideas. You cannot own an idea, if you cannot even own a nigger.

Hippity hoppity.

```[Women] are “economic land,” because they are equivalent to physical land in being original, nature-given factors of production. Yet will anyone deny title to a cow to the man that finds and domesticates her, putting her to use? For this is precisely what occurs in the case of land. Previously valueless “wild” land, like wild animals, is taken and transformed by a man into goods useful for man. The “mixing” of labor gives equivalent title in one case as in the other.

-Murray N. Rothbard.```

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyS1j2EeSrc

Always funny how we go to the past for the reasons to move forward and ignore the present for reasons to do the same.

I think TP underestimates what's going on in the true alt-right. Richard Spencer's channel and discord server are only growing, and the Murdoch Murdoch crew is as popular as ever.

https://youtu.be/5PbMzuweaEc

Basic copyright seems necessary when it comes to art.
Personally, I would be willing to give up "art as we know it" for fully open source society, but I imagine professional artists being upset over this.
When it comes to science there is both big pros and cons.
But with recent Youtube policy of demonetizing videos for having seconds of other person's footage, which used to fall under "fair use", I think pretty much everyone (except big corporations) is in favor of reducing copyrights.

I don't think art will die if copyright did.

and plop https://pastebin.com/nHD257Af

"art as we know it"

Whether it's painting something on canvas, mural or Sistine chappel, copyright doesn't even come to it.

"art" as we know it

And lots of digital arts is released on other funding models to begin with such as Patreon.

Commissions.

preemptive response

https://pastebin.com/WEXBpiKb

Comissions for what? You can just take someone else's photo and edit it a bit and there you go. Why pay comissions

Considering it's illegal to take photographs outside, with a known building on the background, behind your friend, I think pressure to destroying copyright is already past the point of salvaging copyright.

Which country are we talking about?

And the CP promoters are just pushing more and more dystopian levels of protection, more dystopian levels of monitoring, and more dystopian jurisdictions for both police and private investigators. And extortion letters, etc.

In the USA at least you can't actually be prevented from taking pictures on public property last time I checked

@Yuukimaru Some countries in Europe has copyright extended to architecture. And the consider the copyright to belong to the architect, not the photographer.

Ok. I still think reducing copyright is more politically viable than abolishing it completely

Same could be said about fixing the EU.

Yet both the copyright holders and EU resist being regulated or fixed. Of course they do. The critique is coming from outside.

To check whether you have the right to take pictures of buildings and art placed in public areas, check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama

EU copyright is a joke at this point, it's barely legal to even post links

Both EU and copyright are jokes separately. You don't even need to combined them to make a joke.

https://youtu.be/fdBtsJnfAEo

An hour long commentary? What makes it worth listening to?

HOLY SHITE! is he really alive?

David Duke responds to the SotU?

Why should I care what a KKK Grand Wizard thinks?

The Dems need him to endore Trump to prove Trump is racist KKK Facist Bigoted NEONAZI.... ect ect

,,, but I thought he backed Democrats and shit

MSM runs his endorcement of the GOP President Hopeful every year to get people to vote Dem

XD

that's cute

If you'd change your vote to Democrat because some crazy idiot out there likes the Republican candidate...
You were already voting Democrat.

Was illhan Omar right? How is the Israel related stuff the only thing most US politicians can agree on?

And was it really antiemetic?

Why is slowmode enabled?

```Why should I care what a KKK Grand Wizard thinks?```
Because all people have the right to tell their opinion. Just because he was in the KKK doesn't make him a bad person.
I'd say he might be a Pacifist and totally against violence

https://youtu.be/qaeK9js9I_4

dafuq, 70k people signed up for it. And 10 are in there.

but because he was in the KKK, it makes me take what he says with a small hint of bias

why is my rank pleb when peasant rank superceded plebians?

Tim should watch THAT!

Look to people like Daryl Davis to understand why you should be willing to listen to a member of the KKK.

Daryl is a world champion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pESEJNy_gYQ

All white people are Nazis.

Soon to be popular opinion among media.

@Stefan Payne
>Because all people have the right to tell their opinion.
But I'm not obligated to listen.

Am I the only who considers this guy an annoying troll?

I dont like how much he just posts quotes

besides that hes not too bad
doesnt seem very open to changing his mind though

Nomen est omen.

@Analytical Chick what makes you think I'm a troll?

no bullying

half think is alright. hes standing by his principles

his principles are like a ring, they connect to each other

THAT level of insanity...
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1094917434476294145

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k2QKVz36UY

I'm staunchly anti-left

шта?

fucking retard

What the hell is wrong with politicians these days, that common plebs have better grasp of economics then them?

no, he's right

Markets need rules to flourish

Too much regulation and it goes to shit, too little regulation and everything goes to shit as well as nobody hinders a company to extord shit or do other things.

For example: What does force an insurance company to pay for the thing you ensured and not just keep the money???

are monopolies free market ?

Exactly that is the point. And to prevent Monopolys or at least give little companys somewhat of a chance, we need rules so that the big ones don't abuse it and kick the little ones out of the market

If insurance companies didn't pay out, people wouldn't buy insurance from them, and would face lawsuits over it. No ancap argues for a system without law and defence services, only that, just as everything else, they would be better provided by the market than a compulsory monopoly that forcibly suppresses competition.

lawsuits without a state ?

lol

~~halfthink you should rename yourself to nothink~~
Sorry, shoudn't say that

What prevents the state from stealing your money?

Or from "extracting the surplus value of your labour", to put in terms you might understand?

Half think is ancap too?

But on a serious note, without a state there cannot be a free market.
Because in order for *any* market to exist you have to have some __no stealing__ rules implemented

That sounds like bullshit tbh

See, here's a lfe rule. Steal from me, get shot.

Where is the need for government law in this case?

someone has to stop me shooting you first, before stealing from you

Because I'm not going full KOTOR on you before shooting you - I will shoot you in the back, probably wouldn't even finish you off, and then proceed to steal all I want

And since there is no state, there will be no investigation

Give your guns to the grubberment. No one has ever been shot in a gun free zone before, that's impossible.

Tetra, think of it like this

And anyone who tries to build something will eventually be constantly raided.
Have you tried Rust or Arc?

The rule of life is as follows

"Big risk, big reward."

So you sellimportant everyday goods

Rust and Ark don't have death penalties. Terrible analogy

If you had to buy the game again every time you died, it would turn into ancapistan pretty quick.

@halfthink any penalty implies government. What is wrong with anarchists these days

The penalty from stealing from me

https://youtu.be/fibDNwF8bjs

https://youtu.be/_5PwQKW62to

I already told you, you get shot

By who?

By me

You are dead already

anarchists : you can't do that, that's illegal
also anarchists : government isn't needed

☝

No I am not, as long as I am alive, I got my gun

I already shot you in the back. Now what?

A monopoly on government isn't needed.

I ain't stupid enough to have windows and doors in the back of my store

You either come in from the rfront or blow open a way in the back

Eitherway I know you are there

~~Abstract thinking is not your strong side I see~~
We are not taking about your store, we are talking about an arbitrary point in your life.

Like, sure you can steal from me, but see I can also murder you

Cause it's not murder anymore

as if you could even hold a store in an anarchist society

See my link up there

You just shoot me for no reason?

you'd be raided every thursday, in-between "protection" groups that come to racket

WKUK - Anarchy

Why not? You got stuff I want

Nice dude, well good luck with that

No I dont, my store does

I got clothes

I do not carry cash, I would leave that too the banks

See, the world isnt going to revert back to what it was before

oh, so you trust banks

We still have technology, so banks would employ trained guards

You would need a seriou crew to steal from one

If the banks have trained guards strong enough for you to think your cash is safe and sound, then you wouldn't be able to get back what's "yours" would you?

But agian, good luck mate. You can kill me for nothing, but as I said. You gain nothing

if they ever decide to steal

So people stop using that bank, see the market is all about trust

Sure I get screwed

Worst case scenario:
https://youtu.be/NbNFJK1ZpVg