If your brand of libertarian fantasy involves living on land adjacent to Serbia, but which Serbia doesn’t want, your dream has come true!
Don’t libertarians believe that nationality is fungible? Why would the specifics of where it is located matter?
2 Likes
That would be the premise for the “other” Peter Sellers comedy about nuclear armageddon.
8 Likes
Not just modern ones. Government was basically invented as an alternative to “everything belongs to the caveman with the biggest stick.”
4 Likes
Once upon a time, I had a Nomad Territories passport [1]
I got mine at Artpool in Budapest, 1994. Apparently my parents were visiting then, because they briefly appear on the right-hand-side of the frame around 1:50
2 Likes
Along those lines, libertarian paradises, whether physical or virtual, generally devolve into oligarchies or dictatorships (enforced by violence) amazingly quickly, even without outside interference. Take a look at this great example about Dread Pirate Roberts and the Silk Road: http://aeon.co/magazine/technology/on-the-high-seas-of-the-hidden-internet/
6 Likes
Even though I find nationalism to be rather trite and cynical as it usually is, I think any effort to democratize nationalism should be respected and supported, including secession by anyone. Captive audiences and monopolies are IMO incompatible with any concept of civil society. The more micronations and cryptocountries, the better. We can take the planet out of the hands of the 100-200 traditional, geographically-entrenched nation-states and put it in the hands of the people.
I’ll need to read up on this! I am a citizen of The Kingdoms of Elgaland-Vargaland, among others.
1 Like
John Galt Go! This is your chance.
1 Like
(Seriously, just go.)
18 Likes
As staunch defenders of private property they must have paid the full amount to license that orchestral music for the video. I’m sure it wasn’t cheap.
1 Like
Also Derby Line, VT and Northwest Angle, MN. I think there’s one in Michigan too, but I can’t remember the name.
1 Like
Well, the music itself is public domain, and as for the recording even people who advocate strong property rights don’t always define property to include “intellectual” property, or would really care to go to bat for the way copyright is currently handled.
1 Like
I’ve never seen such a person. Are you one?
Does it make any sense to you that nonmaterial things can be “owned”? How a thought, a word, a tune, an idea can be owned? They can be authored, yes, but once they are out they are just like memes - they move around, are multiplied and modified by other people. The attempts of ownership of such autonomous (albeit parasitic) immaterial creatures are doomed to fail miserably,
Cf. a shovel. It sits in the garden and the ownership is much easier to both describe and maintain.
1 Like
Physical and intellectual property are both social/legal constructs.
For example, how can a human being “own” land that predates the existence of the human race? In practice this is accomplished by entering into social contracts in which one person’s exclusive right to use land in a certain way is protected by force when necessary. I enter your “property” without permission, society says I can be fined/incarcerated/killed. The same goes for intellectual property—it’s nothing more or less than a social agreement about who is allowed to do what with an idea.
7 Likes
Presumed agreement. No modern society should require people to believe in falsehoods under the pretense that they are needed to make life “easier”. Social agreements between people are perfectly legitimate, but not when they supposedly prescribe relationships of non-humans and inanimate objects of the world at large, as there is no practical way to subjugate these to human law without destroying everything.
Consensus delusion is still delusion, and it’s at least as dangerous as the individual kind.
1 Like
Well fine, but the idea of property as a “consensus delusion” applies equally well to physical property as it does to intellectual property. In a sense the very idea of law and/or government are “consensus delusions.”
1 Like
IMHO it’s not that tangible (or even real) property is a “consensus delusion.” After all physical objects and the dirt below your feet EXIST. But “ownership” as distinct from mere possession IS a social construct. Without SOME form of government, even if it is just the consensus of your neighbors you can only “own” that which you can prevent other from taking from you.
That’s what you get for ignoring/violating the thalweg principle.
2 Likes
No, but that’s not my question, nor is my question asking if someone who believes in strong property rights can also reject so-called “IP.” Of course such a person can exist. What I’d like to know is have I now made the acquaintance of one? And whether I have or not, what, I wonder, is the likelihood that the makers of the video are such people? Because my guess is they are strong supporters of both property and “IP” rights who have for whatever reason decided to set that aside when making their video. But I’m just speculating, of course.
It’s not all that different, really.
Physical property:
A: Hey, you can’t be here! This is private property!
B: I don’t recognize your claim of exclusivity for this area of land. Anyway, who’s gonna stop me?
A: The guy with the gun and the handcuffs.
Intellectual property:
A: Hey, you can’t print copies of that book! That’s my intellectual property!
B: I don’t recognize your claim of exclusivity for this arrangement of words. Anyway, who’s gonna stop me?
A: The guy with the gun and the handcuffs.
2 Likes
