Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 10:54:32 PM

People do have the right to defend themselves with the minimum force needed to repel the attack, and only as a last resort.
When did I say that people doesn't have the right to live? Please stop putting words in my mouth.

No one is putting words in your mouth. Bitter Tea asked you five questions, you gave five answers.

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 10:22:25 PM

Quote from: BitterTea on May 02, 2011, 07:20:35 PM

If you support the use of force against individuals that make use of your ideas against your will, you ultimately support killing them.

Do you think an individual has the right to defend himself against aggression?

Do you think you have the right to fine me for infringing on your copyright?

Do you think you have the right to send armed men to my house if I don't pay your fine?

Do you think those men have the right to kill me if I defend myself against them?

Can you answer my question regarding a world where physical goods are as easy to copy as intellectual goods? Does it make sense that the above escalation of force is justified if I copy your lawnmower?

No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.

First question: "Do you think an individual has the right to defend himself against aggression?"

Your first answer: "No."

If this is not what you meant then you need to be more clear when you write.

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 10:22:25 PM

We now live in the real world where there is IP.
You infringe, I find out, I send you a notice, you ignore it. You are now the agressor. I had a rightful claim that you ignored. If money can't be extracted by any other means police will show up at your door, as a last resort. If you start shooting at the police you have a problem, as they have the right to defend themselves. Again, with minimal force.
However if you are a normal member of society things will never go that far.

I think the point that Bitcoin2Cash and BitterTea have made is a good one. Namely that if you agree that the right to life and the right to property are the two fundamental rights, you have to prove how the "right" to IP is not superseding either of those. In your own example it is, because you are limiting their freedom to use their property (paper, ink, computer hard drives, etc.) in ways they choose.