angular404

Some more nits: Around 1 hour in, Michael refers to peak off as Rand’s “intellectual heir”. This so cringe, so cult sounding. Who talks like this? WTF does it even mean? Also: around 1 hour in Michael rightly calls out Jack for saying that if we could know what is good for someone we would have the right to coerce them, which is the same mistake Milton Friedman makes in his argument that liberty/tolerance: that we do not know enough about what is “the good life” etc. to justify forcing them to do the right things. If we did know, presumably we would be justified in coercing people. Yikes! Good thing Friedman was humble enough to feign ignorance so that he did not support tyranny! stephankinsella.com/2009/11/… At 1:04:00 or so, Michael says that initiating force is the greatest evil in Objectivism. I agree, but of course opposing the initiation of force or aggression is just another way of saying that you own your body—which is just another way of saying that other people may not invade the borders or affect the physical integrity of your body without your consent. But of course intellectual property just does this--it wields literal physical force against the BODIES of people, without their consent, and even though they did not violate any contract or commit any crime, tort, or acts of trespass against the bodies or owned resources of others. I.e., IP is aggression, initiated force, in direct violation of the self-ownership principle Rand and Randians elsewhere pretend to support. See LLFS tephankinsella.com/lffs/, ch. 15, Part IV.B, esp. n.48 and links to pieces by Roderick Long, and IV.H. IP rights, esp. patent and copyright, are literally infringements of, physical invasions of the borders of, that is aggression against, the bodies of others. A patent may be enforce by an injunction from a court against an innocent person: an order compelling him not to use his own body in certain ways under penalty of imprisonment. Same with copyright law--copyright infringement (a civil claim) may be enforced with injunctions, for example "when a grocery store in Canada mistakenly sold 14 copies of a new Harry Potter book a few days before its official release on Saturday, July 16, 2005, a Canadian judge 'ordered customers not to talk about the book, copy it, sell it or even read it before it is officially released at 12:01 a.m. July 16.'" See my book, ch. 14 at n.57. Or, worse, for criminal copyright infringement (yes, it's a literal crime), case such as Aaron Swartz (who committed suicide rather than face decades in federal prison merely for uploading copies of academic articles--no act of aggression or even contract breach!) and the guy sentenced to federal prison for uploading the “Wolverine” movie. (See ch. 24, n.41). Hell, until Congress limited the ability of doctors to enforce medical procedure patents, they could get a court order to force doctors not to use their own hands to perform (see my article "How to Operate Within the Law: Patents on Medical Procedures," The Legal Intelligencer [Philadelphia], Thurs., Feb. 5, 1998 kinsellalaw.com/publications…). For more see The Patent, Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Secret Horror Files stephankinsella.com/2010/02/… So anyone who favors IP rights is in favor of slavery and aggression against people's bodies, the exact opposite of self-ownership and Rand's non-aggression principle. Rand should know better: she is trying to have her cake (opposing aggression) and eat it too (favoring the aggression that accompanies IP rights). You have to choose. You can't have both. Since you guys are adamant about IP, you of course choose IP over justice and the non-aggression principle, i.e. you become pro-slavery and pro-aggression. After all Rand ridiculously and embarrassingly said “Patents are the heart and core of property rights.” c4sif.org/2012/10/ayn-rand-a… OMFG. She was so confused.