Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › No Collusion
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) No Collusion (Read 510 times)
Tommy Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2033
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
No Collusion
Jun 11th, 2019 at 4:57am
Print Post  
According to Russia scholar Stephen Cohen's May 30 article in the liberal magazine, The Nation, there is evidence that "US intelligence agencies (deep state, if you will) undertook an operation to damage, if not destroy, the presidency of Donald Trump."

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-did-russiagate-begin/
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 46258
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: No Collusion
Reply #1 - Jun 11th, 2019 at 7:50am
Print Post  
Tommy Palven wrote on Jun 11th, 2019 at 4:57am:
According to Russia scholar Stephen Cohen's May 30 article in the liberal magazine, The Nation, there is evidence that "US intelligence agencies (deep state, if you will) undertook an operation to damage, if not destroy, the presidency of Donald Trump."

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-did-russiagate-begin/
That's just the flip side of the common idea that the deep state was trying to get Hillary elected isn't it?

I bet they haven't decided who to try to get into office this time around... Somebody most like Hillary? Who would that be...
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10823
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: No Collusion
Reply #2 - Jun 11th, 2019 at 9:09am
Print Post  
Tommy Palven wrote on Jun 11th, 2019 at 4:57am:
According to Russia scholar Stephen Cohen's May 30 article in the liberal magazine, The Nation, there is evidence that "US intelligence agencies (deep state, if you will) undertook an operation to damage, if not destroy, the presidency of Donald Trump."

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-did-russiagate-begin/


They have every right to do so. Lies aren't aggression.

Yes, you can lie to get someone fired. The reason they owe you nothing (according to Rothbard) is that there is no property in reputation.

You're always posting articles so you can sound smart, so how about you go read, like I have?

https://mises.org/library/knowledge-true-and-false
Quote:
Smith has a property right to the ideas or opinions in his own head; he also has a property right to print anything he wants and disseminate it. He has a property right to say that Jones is a "thief" even if he knows it to be false, and to print and sell that statement. The counter-view, and the current basis for holding libel and slander (especially of false statements) to be illegal is that every man has a "property right" in his own reputation, that Smith's falsehoods damage that reputation, and that therefore Smith's libels are invasions of Jones's property right in his reputation and should be illegal. Yet, again, on closer analysis this is a fallacious view. For everyone, as we have stated, owns his own body; he has a property right in his own head and person. But since every man owns his own mind, he cannot therefore own the minds of anyone else. And yet Jones's "reputation" is neither a physical entity nor is it something contained within or on his own person. Jones's "reputation" is purely a function of the subjective attitudes and beliefs about him contained in the minds of other people. But since these are beliefs in the minds of others, Jones can in no way legitimately own or control them. Jones can have no property right in the beliefs and minds of other people.


Emphasis added. No property in reputation. You have a right to lie, even to get someone fired. In fact, for whatever purpose you want.

You have a right to distribute whatever information you want, unless it's intellectual property.

Read the article.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tommy Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2033
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: No Collusion
Reply #3 - Jun 11th, 2019 at 9:59am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 11th, 2019 at 9:09am:
You're always posting articles so you can sound smart, so how about you go read, like I have?


I agree with Rothbard and Voltaire regarding "intellectual property rights" and free speech.

Do you always post articles so you can sound stupid?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7988
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: No Collusion
Reply #4 - Jun 11th, 2019 at 10:00am
Print Post  
Tommy Palven wrote on Jun 11th, 2019 at 9:59am:
I agree with Rothbard and Voltaire regarding "intellectual property rights" and free speech.

Do you always post articles so you can sound stupid?


I know, right?  Opposition thinks you sound smart.  You're right, you don't, not at all
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10823
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: No Collusion
Reply #5 - Jun 11th, 2019 at 10:03am
Print Post  
Tommy Palven wrote on Jun 11th, 2019 at 9:59am:
I agree with Rothbard and Voltaire regarding "intellectual property rights" and free speech.


Care to elaborate? Voltaire favoured unfettered free speech. Rothbard, like all libertarians, believed intellectual property should limit speech when the information is the property of someone else.

Tommy Palven wrote on Jun 11th, 2019 at 9:59am:
Do you always post articles so you can sound stupid?


Tell me what I got wrong. Is there property in reputation, or not?

Is it aggression to lie to get someone fired, or not?

Am I wrong that Rothbard said slander should be legal?
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7988
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: No Collusion
Reply #6 - Jun 11th, 2019 at 10:29am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 11th, 2019 at 10:03am:
Am I wrong that Rothbard said slander should be legal?


OMG, an anarchist who doesn't believe in government thinks slander should be legal!  Stop the presses!

Another bit of humor from your low content posts is how you consider both an anarchist, Rothbard, and a Republican, Jeff, to both be the standard for libertarian when they don't agree on pretty much anything, LOL
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10823
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: No Collusion
Reply #7 - Jun 11th, 2019 at 10:31am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jun 11th, 2019 at 10:29am:
OMG, an anarchist who doesn't believe in government thinks slander should be legal!  Stop the presses!


Am I wrong to quote Rothbard when it's Tom posting? Since, you know, Tom has said he believes in the Non-Aggression Principle.

And yes, Tom does sound smart when he drops a link and runs. I have no way of knowing if he is or not, since he won't engage with real libertarians like you.

My guess is the reason he won't debate you is that you'd refute him flat on his face, like you keep doing to me.

But he avoids that since all he does is drops a link and runs.

Hey, maybe I should become a spambot too. Then you'd be forced to dispute the high-handed articles I posted from Lew Rockwell, and I doubt you could find flaws in them by using your own words.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tommy Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2033
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: No Collusion
Reply #8 - Jun 11th, 2019 at 10:38am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 11th, 2019 at 10:03am:
Am I wrong that Rothbard said slander should be legal?


1.  No, you ae correct.  Rothbard, like Voltaire, advocated unfettered free speech.

2.  Rothbard opposed government-enforced patent and copyright "intellectual property rights" while Rand, and surprisingly, Lysander Spooner, supported government enforcement of patent and copyright laws.
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-views-intellectual-property-r...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10823
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: No Collusion
Reply #9 - Jun 11th, 2019 at 10:44am
Print Post  
Tommy Palven wrote on Jun 11th, 2019 at 10:38am:
1.  No, you ae correct.  Rothbard, like Voltaire, advocated unfettered free speech.

2.  Rothbard opposed government-enforced patent and copyright "intellectual property rights"


Are you sure? From the article I just posted.

This article is excerpted from chapter 16 of The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray N. Rothbard.

https://mises.org/library/knowledge-true-and-false
Quote:
Violation of (common law) copyright is an equivalent violation of contract and theft of property. For suppose that Brown builds a better mousetrap and sells it widely, but stamps each mousetrap "copyright Mr. Brown." What he is then doing is selling not the entire property right in each mousetrap, but the right to do anything with the mousetrap except to sell it or an identical copy to someone else. The right to sell the Brown mousetrap is retained in perpetuity by Brown. Hence, for a mousetrap buyer, Green, to go ahead and sell identical mousetraps is a violation of his contract and of the property right of Brown, and therefore prosecutable as theft. Hence, our theory of property rights includes the inviolability of contractual copyright.

A common objection runs as follows: all right, it would be criminal for Green to produce and sell the Brown mousetrap; but suppose that someone else, Black, who had not made a contract with Brown, happens to see Green's mousetrap and then goes ahead and produces and sells the replica? Why should he be prosecuted? The answer is that, as in the case of our critique of negotiable instruments, no one can acquire a greater property title in something than has already been given away or sold. Green did not own the total property right in his mousetrap, in accordance with his contract with Brown — but only all rights except to sell it or a replica. But, therefore Black's title in the mousetrap, the ownership of the ideas in Black's head, can be no greater than Green's, and therefore he too would be a violator of Brown's property even though he himself had not made the actual contract.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › No Collusion
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy