Anarcho-capitalism

The same person who asked me some questions in my previous post titled Will anarcho-capitalism devolve into Feudalism? asked some more questions via e-mail today:

I’m trying to define self-defense and the defense of those unable to defend themselves as acceptable. It tends to be quite problematic because of how many loopholes etc there are.

Here’s a question for you, what do you think about the concept of intellectual property in general and what do you think of how it has been implemented in the United

Here are my thoughts on self-defense and intellectual property in a Stateless zone:

Defense

One of the most important things you would immediately have to learn to live by in a Stateless zone is the knowledge that the property owned and maintained by another is not yours to use or trespass on without approval. This means you stay off someone else’s land until you know exactly what their rules and regulations are. In a Stateless zone, you may get some people with some
“outrageous” opinions on how their land is to be used. Your neighbor Peter might have a rule that says any white male under the height of 6′2″ can be slayed if they come on the property. In this case, I would likely never venture onto Peter’s property since I am 5′7″. Without knowing the rules to someone’s land, you are best off not venturing on there without invitation and a mutual promise to abide by their rules. In reality, you likely won’t have people with prejudices such as these, but trespass is trespass, so traveling with caution is wise.

For me, I am an anarcho-pantelist, so I don’t believe that my property is mine or that my body is mine or that my possessions are mine — I give all ownership to what I consider my creator — God the Father. Since this is the case, I believe I only exist mortally to take care of what I have acquired over time using the skills that I was created with. My land is NOT mine, my body is NOT mine and my tools are NOT mine, I just earned them to make better in my mortal life. If someone wanted to come on “my” land and steal my tools or take over that land or kill me, I believe I have to be defenseless against their attack. The best thing that I can do for others is live in a positive light and use no coercion against others. If they come to attack, I can only hope to love them and serve them and hope that my positive actions give them reason for living positively. I can not judge their actions or “evils.” Note that much of my anarcho-pantelism beliefs are considered heresy to most Christians or those with faith of some kind, including most of my friends and family.

The use of force against an other is up to the land owner. Don’t go on the land of another person and you should be free from being concerned with self defense. You also can use self defense (as you define) it on your land. The definition of “land” and “property” is for another article.

Intellectual Property

I am against the idea of intellectual property of any kind. My father (who is a VERY neoliberal Democrat) once told me that if I discover some new process or invention, I should keep it a secret until I could figure out how to profit from it. The same should be true of any process. ALL intellectual property “rights” revolve around the thought that the State can use force to prevent another person from thinking or acting or using their hands in a particular way. A guitar riff that is under copyright says that no one else can manipulate their fingers on a guitar string in a certain way. Lyrics or spoken words that are under copyright says that no one else can manipulate their vocal chords, tongue and lips in a certain way. It is unrealistic to think that you can make those manipulations scarce by the threat of force by the State.

All my websites are free of copyright or patent, in fact I openly tell people to copy everything I write, publish it under their own name, never reference me and make as much money as they can from it. Why? Because if others read these words published on your website or book or magazine, even under your own words, eventually they will either learn from it (my entire point), or they will discover me. That is how it is. What you have done in the past has very little effect on your ability to earn in the future.

I like to say that if a plumber fixes your toilet, you don’t pay them for every flush from that point on — you pay them for the specific actions they did for you when they fixed your toilet. You pay bands to hear them play live, and you might even pay them for a CD of their music, because you want to support them playing in the future. Intellectual property is the idea that others can be forced to reimburse an inventor that may not be doing any additional labor in the future. It is a ridiculous idea when you think about it.

All of us can make money by continuing to be more efficient at a given task than others. You might be really efficient at mowing lawns, I am not. I pay you to mow my lawn because you are more efficient at it. You might be really excellent at entertaining others, so others will pay you for entertainment. Intellectual property rights have nothing to do with any of it — they are just there to protect work you have ALREADY DONE and don’t care to do again or get better at. I call all intellectual property laws “Laws to allow you to be lazy.”

Just because you might have 30 years of experience in IT services doesn’t mean you deserve to be paid more than a guy with 6 months experience. Why? Because your past experience has NO effect on your efficiency today. People hire you because you can handle their current and FUTURE tasks more efficiently than they can. No one cares how good you were 5 years ago or 10 years ago, they only care that you will be good at a task today. Your past history can be a positive for work because people may trust that you’ll work hard today, but it still has zero effect on your actual talents today, right now.

Discuss this article at the anarcho-capitalism forum.