Please define "economic exploitation".
Direct commercial utilization of the IP. Someone who buys the book doesn't have the right to distribute and sell copies of the book. This should be fairly easy to understand since current IP law examplifies this very well.
If ideas are not property you cannot own your idea.
That's right.
Labor != property, but you can use labor to create property.
ALL property was originally created through labor. (Property can be sold or given away, but that doesn't change the fact that the origins of the property was labor)
You own your labor, you own the object you created, but you don't own the idea.
That's right. You own your own thoughts of course, but owning an idea would infringe people's right to think freely with their own minds and that would be a gross violation of the freedom of thought. In your head you can do whatever you want.
If you used 10 years of your life to figure out how to walk backwards, I won't pay you for it.
Well walking backwards is not UNIQUE is it? It's not a novelty, and hence it doesn't matter that I've spent 10 years reinventing something mundane. I cannot exploit that concept economically with IP rights because it is not novel.
If you don't sign a contract with another person explicitly stating not to, it's ok to kill him.
Why would you even suggest something like this? I know you agree that you own your own body and therefore do not need a sign.
Because the right to not be killed IS an implicit contract. You CAN agree to have someone kill you (euthanasia) so it's not completely unrealistic that someone wants to be killed. However, by DEFAULT you assume that people DON'T want to be killed, and you therefore have to make an EXPLICIT contract with someone in order for it to be legal for someone to kill you.
Why is "10 years" and "hard work" relevant? Do you believe in the labor theory of value?
I'm only using a large number to create an extreme example. Most people's moral compasses often require more than fine nuances. They need to see the most significant bit before they can sea the lesser bits. So its only purpose is to make a very clear point. No, I don't believe in the labor theory of value, but I DO believe in the labor theory of PROPERTY, which is not the same thing. That something has a MARKET VALUE is not the same as it being your PROPERTY. These are completely separate topics. Property means "that which is under your sovereignty, i.e. full control." Market value means what people are willing to pay for someone's property.
Other than that, I applaud Onarchy's initiative, although I suspect there will be a lot of debate on certain issues like IP and FRB.
I don't mind debate, that's why I am participating. I just wonder how materialism (upon which Marxism is based) could acquire such a prominent position in libertarianism. It's flabbergasting and disturbing because the position of anti-IP libertarians and Marxists on intellectual property is identical and for identical reasons.
The same goes with "FRB is fraud." I can understand that people are skeptical towards FRB (just like I understand that they think IP law is broken) but from here to conclude that FRB is fraud is a complete mystery. I have btw, written an essay on Fractional Reserve Banking for those interested:
http://onarki.no/blogg/2011/04/fractional-reserve-banking-vs-pure-gold-standard/