Walls

July 18th, 2011 Arguments, Delusions, Economics, IP

6 comments to Walls

• Anarchei

  July 18, 2011 at 6:58 am · Reply

  If there’s a legitimate claim to what they are building walls around, no need for consent since owners of property can decide how it is used in the same way a person can decide how their life is used. Since governments have no legitimate claims, this strip is accurate in its depiction of borders and immigration controls, as well as the alleged creation of jobs at the actual expense of lost jobs due to prevented immigration.

• drew Roberts

  July 18, 2011 at 8:10 am · Reply

  @Anarchei,

  the problem is also in the “Let’s build” part. Build your own walls at your own expense. Why would I help you to build a wall to keep me out or to charge me to get in?

  • Anarchei

    July 18, 2011 at 9:07 am · Reply

    Why help? Because if I were to do it myself, only I benefit, no one else. If I ask you to build the wall and pay you to do it, you benefit as well. As for charging you to get in, you must first want admission in the first place. If you do, you will pay the price if you think it is worth it. In this way we both benefit. If not, you don’t want admission that badly. In this case, we both don’t benefit, but perhaps there’s someone else out there that has a better price (even free) for something similar, so you always have that option. So long as it’s voluntary, there’s no problem.

  • Anarchei

    July 18, 2011 at 9:21 am · Reply

    I would just like to add that copyright law, much like immigration law, is a usurpation of property and trade. It essentially imposes a monopoly on property, in this case intellectual property, and almost eliminates the possibility of trade. While I personally side with the idea that IP should be free, I do not think this conflicts with the idea of trade, or contracts. When people have an idea or express themselves, they can attach contracts to these things when they release them to the world. This is where the idea of licensing comes in. In a world free of IP law, the default position would be that everything can by copied and shared freely, but if a license applies there are certain limitations placed on copying and sharing. These limitations would be agreed upon by all contracting parties, otherwise they would not get access. Again, if it’s voluntary, there’s no problem.

• Steve R.

  July 18, 2011 at 9:22 am · Reply

  There is a small, but fairly vocal minority, that cannot seem to comprehend that people will do things (such as being creative) for free. I frankly don’t understand why.

  What is also interesting from the business perspective is that when people/companies use a product such as LINUX it lowers your costs; meaning that you can sell for less. Therefore, it would seem that those hungry for profit would welcome products that are essentially free and easily shared rather than lambasting the concept.

• Mimi & Eunice: Walls | The Libertarian Standard

  September 14, 2011 at 12:47 pm · Reply

  […] Eunice on IP~*~This is a syndicated post, which originally appeared at Mimi and Eunice » IP. View original post. Nina Paley is a creative artist and anti-copyright innovator. She is the creator of the animated […]