More important, I believe, to the evolution of a stateless society is a fundamental cultural shift—one that is made much more challenging by the “faceless” aspect of the Internet and our instantaneous communication (you don’t get the benefit of that half day it takes for the post to be picked up, to bite your tongue or find a less inflammatory phrase). A prerequisite of that stateless society will be a deeply-held and widely-recognized respect for other individuals. I believe we can start today, and I propose the following paradigm: if you wouldn’t say (or do) what you propose while looking the object of your actions (verbal or otherwise) in the eye, then don’t do it.

I expressed some very similar thoughts here: Libertarians and IP: Shall we replace the state with “principled” thoughtlessness?

and here: Charitable discussions of IP?

I think this conversation would be much more productive if Stephan and others (1) displayed a little more sensitivity for the position of Neil and Cathy Smith, for whom a believe that copyright is property has been a deep and natural part of their environment and (2) spent a little more time discussing (and working towards) alternatives to copyright.

In one post, Stephan brought up the idea of implementing a “Creator Endorsed”mark:; “Fogel’s and Paley’s intellectual innovation here should be strongly considered by those seeking a moral way to profit off of creative content.” (emphasis added).

Well, in a principled society, we must consider not simply the morality of an author trying to profit from his work, but also of those who seek to use such work without the author’s freely given consent.

it is precisely the impulse to restrict information to one discreet living thing that represents the animal instinct.

Jeffrey, it seems to me you are uninformed here; animals do a great deal of sharing of information. Think of ants and bees, and other social mammals from dogs to elephants. Rather, what is more typical of animals is that they have far less ability than humans do to HIDE information from each other.

Only reasoning human beings have the capacity to learn from the experiences and knowledge of others and make something of their lives across many people, many times, many generations.

This is also incorrect, though it may be a fair generalization. Other intelligent animals learn from each other, parents try to educate their young, and different social groups of the same species develop different cultures.

This is the same idiocy as Kinsella’s argument about the house.

Cathy,

Did you read the comments policy for this website? Keep it civil or your comments may be deleted or marked as spam.

You do this time and time again. Why is it that you systematically misrepresent what IRP defenders have to say, while to my knowledge, none of us have ever misrepresented or misunderstood the acts of piracy you are attempting to justify. (And furthermore, it’s you and yours who keep bringing up the state — not the aggrieved parties.) Are you really so dense that you can’t comprehend the difference between information and the use that individuals make of that information? Is it really that hard. Funny, I’ve yet to meet a working class individual who can’t grasp the difference.

This is the same idiocy as Kinsella’s argument about the house. Anyone who can imagine “house” is welcome to build one. However, Housebuilder (or whatever Kinsella called him) is under no circumstances obligated to share the plans to his house — even after he’s built it — and no matter what you insist.

I don’t care in the slightest, and in fact, I care less every passing day, what you do with your information and knowledge. It’s my unique use of information that is the issue here. Do whatever you want — but do it with your OWN mind, not mine.