I know a ton of libertarians that are pro-IP and don't consider FRB to be inherently fraudulent. Most of them adhere to the Austrian school (which is the only school that seems rational to me), and most of them love the works of Ayn Rand. But they don't necessarily agree with everything that comes out of either camp.

I often quote Rand and Rothbard even though they aren't always compatible. But both of them did a great deal of good. What worries me is the rivalry that I sometimes witness between Objectivists and Austrians. I won't dismiss Rothbard because Rand "shunned him". (And I won't dismiss Mises, Reisman etc for that reason either). I don't mind that people disagree, but I think it's sad when Objectivists try to discredit Austrians, frantically avoid quoting them (even though they often have to in order to support their arguments), embrace supply siders etc, only because some of their supporters would disagree on certain issues.

I suspect that you refrain from calling yourself a libertarian in order to distance yourself from anarchists, Rothbardians, anti-IP and anti-FRB people, and maybe even Rothbard himself. I don't see it that way. I don't think you have to be anti-FRB or an anarchist to be a "libertarian". (Yes, I've read some Objectivist literature on "libertarianism", but I don't endorse their definition.) I align myself with people like you because we agree on 99% when it comes to politics (considering the socialist, welfare state, corporatist plague that is so prevalent today). I applaud every attack on the collectivist mentality, and I won't stop promoting Atlas Shrugged even though my Objectivist neighbor calls Rothbard a liar. Like Rand said: "Mises in economics". And like Mises said: "... but Atlas Shrugged is not merely a novel. It is also (or may I say: first of all) a cogent analysis of the evils that plague our society, a substantiated rejection of the ideology of our self-styled "intellectuals" and a pitiless unmasking of the insincerity of the policies adopted by governments and political parties.".

And, to quote someone else: "Baby, this shit we got together, it's so good we gotta get the government in on this shit. We can't just share this commitment between us. We need judges and lawyers involved in this shit, baby. It's hot!"

Own the legal rights to economic exploitation of the ideas? If I sell an idea that you've created, that would be illegitimate in your book. Getting gold coins in return for "selling" your idea would be wrong. How about using your idea to physically create gold coins? How about using your idea to physically create chocolate coins, which I would could eat? How about using your idea to prevent falling in a ditch? How about using your idea to create stone figures which I later trade for a big log so I can safely cross the ditch? Please define "economic exploitation".



In a rational world that's not how things work because you would own your body.


If ideas are not property you cannot own your idea. Labor != property, but you can use labor to create property. You own your labor, you own the object you created, but you don't own the idea.

If you used 10 years of your life to figure out how to walk backwards, I won't pay you for it.


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.


Why is "10 years" and "hard work" relevant? Do you believe in the labor theory of value?


Again, all the posters here agree that you own your own body.

It seems like most of your analogies don't work.

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.