> But copyright [...] is about forcing people to pay
Which, in my opinion, is not an unreasonable thing. If you want to consume the content, you pay the content creator in their currency of choice (be it github stars, their name immortalized in an attribution clause, or cash).
But I don't care about your silly movie and I'm still forced to pay for the enforcement arm of the law, the courts, etc, that you use to prop up your government granted monopoly.
And even with all that, we don't guarantee you an income, we only offer you help hurting people who don't pay you. You can still go broke and nobody cares, which I think shows that it's not about helping creators or rewarding hard work.
> If you want to consume the content, you pay the content creator in their currency of choice (be it github stars, their name immortalized in an attribution clause, or cash).
I consider doing this as a gesture of politeness, but nothing that should be enforced by violence.
> I consider doing this as a gesture of politeness
I disagree. The rights of a content creator are, after all, enshrined in the constitution. That's a bit more than "being polite". That said, the right of the public to have access after a defined period of time is also enshrined, so that does need to be taken into account.
> nothing that should be enforced by violence
Thats quite the jump - violence? I'm going to make the assumption that you're referring to the idea that no law should be made that you aren't willing to resort to violence to support.
Even under that assumption, I am OK with this being the law of the land. I believe that a person has the right to demand compensation for access their work, regardless of the form that work takes.
>> I'm going to make the assumption that you're referring to the idea that no law should be made that you aren't willing to resort to violence to support.
All laws are enforced by violence, that is what makes them law.
Law is force, Force is violence. Every law, from Jay Walking, to First Degree Murder is based by the threat that an armed agent from the government will enforce that rule upon you.
Not really - a law is a codification of desired human behavior.
> an armed agent from the government will enforce that rule upon you.
This is definitely at the extreme end of the list of possibilities. The enforcement of those laws can take any number of forms, but most do not involve armed agents. Most involve certified letters and negotiations between lawyers in front of an (unarmed) judge. This is especially true when we're discussing copyright (with the occasional exception proving the rule). Even speeding tickets are handled more and more frequently by mail.
Armed agents are typically reserved for cases where harm to either a body or a property are possible.
> Not really - a law is a codification of desired human behavior.
No, that's a standard.
> This is definitely at the extreme end of the list of possibilities.
No, it's in the middle of the inevitable steps of escalation. A speeding ticket becomes an armed agent hitting you with a stick and jail time if you wait long enough. As does a court judgment over an illegally downloaded song.
Which is drastically different from an armed agent coming to get you. I know of COOs of corporations who have armed bodyguards - does that make them a direct threat to you?
> if you ignore the commandment of the judge
If you ignore a judge, then you're breaking a separate law, and being held in contempt of court. At which point, you're playing in a whole separate ballgame than if you were caught speeding.
This is the game libertarians play with 'Initiation of force'.
You're saying that you're allowed to disagree, can negotiate with an unarmed judge, won't be hurt, etc, but then if you ignore a ruling - boy howdy you initiated violence against the state and they have a right to hurt you.
If I'm not free to ignore the outcome of the first issue (speeding, as you say) then the men with guns have metaphorically been there all along.
Stop dodging and just admit it - our laws are backed by the threat of lethal force. All of them, from murder down to jaywalking or posting speed-trap data on twitter.
> If I'm not free to ignore the outcome of the first issue
In what society are you free to ignore the penalties for breaking the law without consequence?
Saying that the lethal violence is at the forefront of our legal system because you're not free to ignore the law with impunity seems quite disingenuous.
I won't disagree that ultimately our laws are backed by the threat of lethal force. All societies have this same reality, though. Even in a pure anarchy, violence is the ultimate deciding factor.
Violence is certainly not the first tool of enforcement, however. Most US citizens can speed, or park illegally, or download a movie via BT, all without fear of being killed as an outcome.
The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
> libertarians only support laws that are DEFENSIVE in nature
This is key for a few reasons. By rephrasing everything from 'X is wrong because ...' to an issue of the right transgressed you're entirely sidestepping the issue of victimless crimes. Second, they're by nature proportional.
> only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do
Right, a collective is the sum of its members so it has their rights and no more.
This firmly roots all power in the individual. It's semantically incorrect to write a libertarian law allowing actions that people themselves don't have the right to perform. Again, sidestepping entirely the tyranny of the majority.
It's not perfect, but it's a far better base to start from.
> This is definitely at the extreme end of the list of possibilities.
Color me crazy or something, but it's the possibility of being shot that stands out.
It's extreme only in its brutality, not its rarity.
> Even speeding tickets are handled more and more frequently by mail.
Right, but as soon as you don't agree with the outcome the men with guns are right there.
> a law is a codification of desired human behavior.
A self-help book is a codification if desired human behavior. (The author usually doesn't threaten to beat/jail/kill you if you don't follow their advice.)
Which, in my opinion, is not an unreasonable thing. If you want to consume the content, you pay the content creator in their currency of choice (be it github stars, their name immortalized in an attribution clause, or cash).