Quote from: fergalish on August 30, 2011, 09:14:27 AM

...Here are the question: Do you think Libyans supporting the rebels are bound by the rebels' new constitution & law? Should their children & grandchildren also be bound? Are those who oppose the rebels also bound? Please answer.

If the constitution was a contract for anything other than a non-aggression pact (i.e. prevent injury, slavery, and plunder), then no. You must acquire consent, free of coercion, before you negotiate with me for my property and life. Regarding their decendants, the same is true. The rebels who oppose are on the same footing as everybody else. Isn't that the beauty of equity in law? It doesn't matter if you're short or tall, black or white, jew or gentile, it still works. True laws are immutable.

Quote

...If you think that laws shouldn't change with the prevailing winds, then I can't see why you think IP, copyright or patent law should be altered one whit. They've been around for hundreds of years.

Slavery has been around for thousands of years, and your point..? Since when does the "when" and "how long" matter here? Isn't wrong wrong, and right right regardless of the when? It would seem obvious to anybody, that laws are independent of chronology.

Quote

You're confusing the common understanding of the word "force" with the scientific one...

Not true. Everybody else is confusing the generic term "force" with the one which is scientific, which was my whole point. If you can define a word to mean things that don't correlate with reality, they tend to have less utility (due to them being make-believe). I believe in fairies but I'm not going to force you to believe in fairies. I'm not trying to take people's opinion from them, just prevent them from using real "force" upon me due to their confusion. Threats of force aren't real physical force. This is true, but then everything hinges on intent at that point. Self defense comes to mind...

Quote

...I find it hard to believe that, if it hadn't, there would have been a massive open-source movement such as we have now though, and it seems to me that Frederic is arguing that all R&D should be open-source. ...In any case, IP etc law allows for closed-source AND open-source. According to the principles of Libertarianism, people, and hence institutions, are free to choose whichever they prefer, right? If open source is "better", then it will suffocate closed source and Frederic will win.

I'm not advocating open source over closed source. You can program however you like. Just don't use draconian laws in an attempt to protect yourself against competition. That makes for less competition and thus more monopoly power, which is not what we want. The reason why many things don't exist or thrive very well is because governments meddle in the affairs of the private individual in an attempt to manipulate the outcome of their decisions. I'm against meddling nanny/statist/collectivist systems.

Quote

Now we're getting to the nut of the problem. Ever head of the "social contract"? Answer the questions on Libya first please, then we'll talk about that.

Yes I've heard of this "social contract" you're referring to. Bring me the contract to review with my attorney present and I'll decide, after much deliberation, whether or not the terms of the contract suit me. If they (the terms) do not, I will go my way, back to my private property and continue to live my life as I see fit. Don't molest me, and I won't molest you. Fair enough?