Alan, give me a holler at nskinsella@gmail.com. Have lost touch with you. Stephan

For related posts:

Patents Kill: Millions Die in Africa After Big Pharma Blocks Imports of Generic AIDS Drugs http://c4sif.org/2013/01/patents-kill-millions-di...

Update: Patents Kill: Compulsory Licenses and Genzyme’s Life Saving Drug http://c4sif.org/2011/01/update-patents-kill-comp...
My recent post Conversation with a Student about Australian Copyright Reform, Piracy, and Innovation and Creation in a Copyright-Free World

"I am still not exactly sure what a stock is."

Cathy, a stock, sometimes called a share, is a contractual right of a person (a shareholder or stock holder) among other people (other shareholders, managers, directors) related to the control of certain scarce resources owned by "the corporation" in which the shareholder owns shares in. The rights are fairly narrow and specific: a shareholder usually has the right (a) to participate in votes for nominees for members of the board of directors at annual or special meetings, (b) to receive a pro-rata distribution of dividends *if* and *when* the managers/board members decide to distribute some of the corporate profits as dividendss (but not a general right to receive dividends; the managers can decide to retain and roll over earnings to build up a war chest); (c) the right to sell the share to someone else; (d) the right to receive a pro-rata share of net assets of the corporation upon its dissolution, winding up, or a liquidation event. In other words the shareholder has the right to influence the board members, and to receive profits down the line, somehow. That's about it.

" Getting rich in America requires two things the poor don’t have: financial literacy and surplus wages."

Surplus wages? Not sure what this is, unless this is meant to revert to disproven, outmoded Marxian theory. And many poor people become rich.

"Owning land isn’t hard. It doesn’t help anyone else, in and of itself."

Not sure how you know this. I can think of ways in which owning land "in and of itself" does help others.

" Building a ship is hard. Sailing to another continent without satellite navigation is hard. Building a factory is hard. These are all activities, and they help the doer by helping other people."

Owning land helps others too, in any number of ways.

"Perhaps in theory thriving financial markets produce wealth across the board. But not ours."

I am not sure how you know this to be true. Sounds like an assertion to me.

Not sure why you give the Revolutionary war a pass. Conscription (of slaves, even), shooting deserters, taxation, inflation, war crimes, and so on.

Nice..........

I agree with all this David. I realize you don't endorse it.

And in fact I think the TTTC would permit such a contract. But this is usually a bilateral contract; it's hard to imagine a community-wide one. Much less one that persisted over time and binds future generations. But such contracts would not bind third parties, which is the key. Further, they are extremely infeasible and unlikely, for a variety of practical and commercial reasons. As one example: why would I pay $20 for a new novel, if I have to promise to pay $1M in damages if I am accused of copying it? Why would I incur such possible huge liability for a simple object--when I can just go pirate it, or move on to a more reasonable author/publisher? And if the damages fine is small, then it won't deter copying. You would have a class of "pirates" who are getting books for free, with a dwindling group of paying customers who are saddled with huge liability -- being punished by the seller for offering to be a paying customer. The whole idea is ludicrous.

According to Rothbard, contracts are not binding promises, as most people today conventionally assume. They are simply transfers of title to owned resources--an exercise of ownership by the owner. That is all. The entire theory of social contract, and other ideas like "imagine a world where people contract to respect IP" is based on a nebulous and incoherent understanding of contract. It is this reason that Rothbard understands slavery contracts are not enforceable--they are not binding promises, and even if they were, breach of such a contractual promised obligation would not call for enslavement--that's disproportionate; but they are title transfers, but a title transfer is a transfer by an owner of a resource that he has acquired ownership to, to someone else. You do have an ownership right in your body but the person who is the owner is not separable from his body, or from his "will" as Rothbard explains. One of Rothbard's most revolutionary theories in my view was his theory of contract (he built it on Evers, but Evers apparently got it first from Rothbard -- I explain this here, http://libertarianstandard.com/2010/11/19/justice... . Pro-IP libertarians who fling the "contract" notion (and fraud as well) without having a serious clue about the nature of contract and fraud and how they are rooted in and related to a coherent theory of property rights are making bad arguments.

It is trademark that protects brands, not copyright. And trademark is also illegitimate, but for different reasons. All you need is regular contract and fraud law to handle the issue of someone deceiving the consumer. And it is telling that most people say you need trademark law to stop fraud--that it is based in fraud law. Well, then why do we need it--fraud is already illegal. In fact, trademark law does NOT require a showing of fraud. It only requires you show a "likelihood of consumer confusion." You can show this *even* when the customer is not deceived--e.g. when they buy a fake Rolex, knowing that it is fake. Further, trademark lets the original company sue the trademark infringer--but if the victim is the customer, they should be the plaintiff. Not the original company. And further still: trademark law does not even require a showing of likelihood of consumer confusion: there is an antidilution cause of action, based on actions that "dilute" the "value" of someone's mark, or "tarnish" it. This whole field of law is corrupt and unlibertarian, just as defamation law (reputation rights) is. I explain all this in detail in various articles, -- trademark for example is covered in Against Intellectual Property, and in my Reply to Van Dun, all on my site.

And so what if it's "frustrating"? What has this to do with political philosophy?

"we can all understand that it's frustrating for authors to not be rewarded for writing a book that people enjoy"

It is not frustrating at all. Your failed business model is not my problem. Etc. No one "deserves" a revenue or profit.