Thread 941988643

If you learn about Austrian school economics and by extension Anarcho-Capitalism. It deals with the ethics of private property rights. Essentially property is defined as a scarce good.

Under natural law theory, pure information is not considered a scarce good. If someone steals a banana from you. You are being deprived of a scarce good. But if you learn to start a fire and someone copies your actions. You are not being deprived of anything. In other words, it is not considered stealing to learn information from someone else and use said information to produce your own goods & services.

This is why libertarians consider Intellectual property to be illegitimate. Intellectual property is not a free market principle. Its a socialist policy. Patents especially are basically government enforced monopolies that drive up the price of goods & services. Why is big pharma so big? Its because of lobbying and patents. When you're the sole manufacturer for a medicine, you can increase the price as much as you want as long as desperate sick people are still willing to pay. Intellectual properly makes everything more expensive and it stifles innovation.

The same argument is also made for digital goods & services. A song or video game can be copied an infinite amount of times. You are not being deprived of anything. If you purchase a copy of a game and make additional copies for your friends. You are not depriving the game developer of anything. You own the copy of the game you purchased and the nature of it being a digital good allows you to make additional copies.

This is why the term "internet piracy" is a misnomer. You are not stealing. Online Piracy is essentially a rebellion against state overreach in the economy. You are exercising the full extent of your private property rights even if the state says you're not allowed to do it. Yet Libertarian private property rights theory has not been widely adopted by all the major piracy communities on the internet.

The world would be a much better place if intellectual property was abolished. Stuff like copyright claims would not exist. Nintendo would have zero legal recourse to take down fan projects like Pokemon Uranium or Palworld. There was one example of a guy being forced to pay two million dollars because he created emulation software that circumvented Nintendo's copyright protections. Emulators would have free reign if copyright didn't exist. Imagine multiple games with the genesis system because Warner bros was denied the ability to apply for a patent.

The stop killing games initiative will probably be a failure even if the online petition succeeds. Because it would only introduce more governemnt regulation instead of deregulating the economy. When users on twitter celebrate the petitions success. You always have a few libertarians in the comments desperately trying to convey the importance of deregulation. But you always have retards responding back who claim the free market is the problem. You commie fuckwits will be the downfall of the gaming community.

No one would own the rights to Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. Which means anyone could make their own movie or series based on their own vision. It would result in more shitty adaptations but the inverse is also true. I remember Disney copyright striking a Star Wars short film made by a fan. Social media platforms like YouTube and twitter would not have to deal with copyright claims. Imagine YouTubers being allowed to use copyrighted songs and film clips in their videos. Well copyrighted in the past tense. Abolishing intellectual property would actually increase the scope of our free speech protections.

Anime streaming sites would not be taken down. I could then watch my loli hentai in peace without Japanese regulators getting in the way.

>>941988643 (OP)
deep

>>941988643 (OP)

I identify by whatever sociopolitical system lets me pump one or more lolis full of cum 2-4x a day

>>941988643 (OP)
I have literally never met a libertarian/ancap who wasn't a pedophile.

>>941988689
so are we fucked then? any lawmaker with the ability to suggest that is going to be in bed with the companies trying to protect things like patents. and typically the ones without big corpo attachments are in favor of increased government overreach

>>941991480
Its a common misconception because of the bad optics. One of the leading figures in Austrian Economics, Murray Rothbard argued for the abolishment for the age of consent. As for why, self ownership is included in your private property rights. Rothbard argued people matured at different rates so having a "fixed" age of consent didn't make sense. You should be allowed to self determine when you think your mature enough to be an adult. Like choosing to move out when your 17 or sixteen.

Most of the Ancaps I have discussions with see the logic in Rothbards words but ultimately disagree. Sure, some kids start puberty at 11 while others at 12. Which means some mature earlier in their later development and others mature later. But Rothbard was mostly referring to mental maturity. And we all know kids have the tendency to claim their not kids anymore despite not exhibiting a sufficient level of maturity. So a lot of Ancaps disagree with his reasoning

Most Ancaps are fine with 18 being the standard.

>>941992755
Pretty much, this is one of the drawbacks of a democracy. You need to jump through too many hoops.

>blah blah blah
Loli thread, right?