Intellectual Property

[derick]

Maybe. Even so, if someone steals something worth $100K+, I don't have any sympathy for them.

What would be your reaction? What if they couldnt give your $100K back, would you then have the right to kill that person or just break their legs? either way you dont get the $100K back. The way I see it is if you sell someone a house, on a contract, you are taking a risk. That risk is reflected in your price and interest charged. Now if your mortgagee stops paying and will not leave the house, your contract should cover this situation, if it doesnt you lose, if it gives you the right to use reasonable force to remove them, you are just acting on the agreed upon contract.

[Dagnytg]

Since you won't 'forgive' me for using a term as it is defined, then I won't forgive you for talking down to me.

I'm out of this thread.  

Syock, look…I apologize if you thought I was talking down to you. I was only trying to inspire (or incite) you to think deeper and strengthen your position or reconsider it. I meant nothing personal.

I’m used to the Mises blog and I can tell you from years of writing over there often it was a gladiator pit. If you didn’t have your stuff down philosophically, semantically, and often times grammatically someone was going to notice and call you on it.  Most of them (though witty) were not nice about it.  Regardless, writing there was an adrenaline rush and I found it addicting.  I miss it greatly.

At Mises, I took the approach of seeking newbies when possible before the others got to them.  I saw it as a way to teach and inspire. With others, such as ancaps, minarchists, or neoconservatives (depending on their arrogance) I might be a bit curt but it was all about the exercise of thought and sharpening my thinking skills as well as theirs.

Syock...that is all I was trying to do with you. Again, I apologize.

Note:
No need to leave the thread…especially now, since you have strengthened your argument.   

[David Giessel]

Example of needing to use force to enforce a contract (ie, defending property): evicting someone who stops paying their mortgage. You can't "ostracize" them out of that one. Paying off that home would have taken 15-30 years. Most people would find it worthwhile to kill your credit score for a free house. So what if they can't use credit cards in the future...That's not much of a deterrence.

Shut off the power, water, and heat. Would work well in Alaska, till they start burning their furniture (little Human Action reference there).

There are lots of repo services that do not use aggression. They will pickup the car when it is parked, or go to take the TV back when the person is not home. Similarly you could re-take the house when the squatters aren't inside.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Example of needing to use force to enforce a contract (ie, defending property): evicting someone who stops paying their mortgage. You can't "ostracize" them out of that one. Paying off that home would have taken 15-30 years. Most people would find it worthwhile to kill your credit score for a free house. So what if they can't use credit cards in the future...That's not much of a deterrence.

Shut off the power, water, and heat. Would work well in Alaska, till they start burning their furniture (little Human Action reference there).

There are lots of repo services that do not use aggression. They will pickup the car when it is parked, or go to take the TV back when the person is not home. Similarly you could re-take the house when the squatters aren't inside.

I don't disagree with any of that, I think it's just a semantics thing. Is reclaiming property a defensive or retaliatory form of aggression? Maybe.

[derick]

I don't disagree with any of that, I think it's just a semantics thing. Is reclaiming property a defensive or retaliatory form of aggression? Maybe.

Reclaiming property is a contractual action, its not a form of aggression, to me.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

I don't disagree with any of that, I think it's just a semantics thing. Is reclaiming property a defensive or retaliatory form of aggression? Maybe.

Reclaiming property is a contractual action, its not a form of aggression, to me.

I hadn't noticed your previous reply to me last time I read through. So you really don't oppose using force to do that, as long as it's in the contract? Okay, then in ancap law I'm sure people would be certain to include that extra line in the contract.

[derick]

I hadn't noticed your previous reply to me last time I read through. So you really don't oppose using force to do that, as long as it's in the contract? Okay, then in ancap law I'm sure people would be certain to include that extra line in the contract.

Im not really sure why that would be an "extra" line. A contract consists of, an offer, acceptance and consideration. There is usually a performance clause that details what is expected of both parties and the cosequences if one or the other does not perform or uphold the agreed upon contract. The force involved here, has been agreed upon and in my opinion could never be confused with NAP.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

I hadn't noticed your previous reply to me last time I read through. So you really don't oppose using force to do that, as long as it's in the contract? Okay, then in ancap law I'm sure people would be certain to include that extra line in the contract.

Im not really sure why that would be an "extra" line. A contract consists of, an offer, acceptance and consideration. There is usually a performance clause that details what is expected of both parties and the cosequences if one or the other does not perform or uphold the agreed upon contract. The force involved here, has been agreed upon and in my opinion could never be confused with NAP.

Okay, I was starting to get confused here, I thought you had just done a 180 turnaround. Now I see that the post about how retaliation is force was actually Dagnytg, not you (lots of people around here whose name starts with "d"). That's the reason for the word "extra" because in a world where you can't retaliate, that line wouldn't have been in the contract....

^^Hopefully that explanation didn't confuse you, but now this all makes sense. I don't think I ever disagreed with you, but thought I saw a contradiction so was asking questions about it.

[derick]

Okay, I was starting to get confused here, I thought you had just done a 180 turnaround. Now I see that the post about how retaliation is force was actually Dagnytg, not you (lots of people around here whose name starts with "d"). That's the reason for the word "extra" because in a world where you can't retaliate, that line wouldn't have been in the contract....

^^Hopefully that explanation didn't confuse you, but now this all makes sense. I don't think I ever disagreed with you, but thought I saw a contradiction so was asking questions about it.

Thanks for your questions no matter the confusion. I was just trying to see if my thoughts on this subject, are clear and make sense.