The Tiny Dot

[LoveIsTruth]

Solution:
People can be free by implementing these principles:


Honest Money Constitutional Amendment
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread ... -Amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Taxation Constitutional Amendment
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread ... -Amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread ... -Amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nullification Constitutional Amendment
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread ... -Amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread ... nd-Patents" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jason]

Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... nd-Patents

Obviously you've never spent 20 or 30 years of your life researching some particular angle while investing millions of investor dollars.....and then watched someone reverse engineer it in weeks and offer a similar product for 1/10th the price.....

It seems that you lean really hard towards anarchy rather than republic.....

[LoveIsTruth]

Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... nd-Patents

Obviously you've never spent 20 or 30 years of your life researching some particular angle while investing millions of investor dollars.....and then watched someone reverse engineer it in weeks and offer a similar product for 1/10th the price.....

It seems that you lean really hard towards anarchy rather than republic.....

I am for Liberty and for fundamental principles of Liberty without which Liberty must perish. As for your barb about the proper way to profit from inventions, without improper government force, read the thread and comment there.

[Original_Intent]

Well, the real problem is that a good number of those 100 million dots are being bought with the money that the tiny dot demands. And also, because so few of the hundred million dots actually stand up to the little dot, that the enforcers actually CAN and DO crack down and make an example of them, and all the other dots watch and say "we don;t want that to happen to US!" (

[Jason]

Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... nd-Patents

Obviously you've never spent 20 or 30 years of your life researching some particular angle while investing millions of investor dollars.....and then watched someone reverse engineer it in weeks and offer a similar product for 1/10th the price.....

It seems that you lean really hard towards anarchy rather than republic.....

I am for Liberty and for fundamental principles of Liberty without which Liberty must perish. As for your barb about the proper way to profit from inventions, without improper government force, read the thread and comment there.

LOL....already debunked in sufficient measure there. Plus you brought it up here!

[LoveIsTruth]

Well, the real problem is that a good number of those 100 million dots are being bought with the money that the tiny dot demands. And also, because so few of the hundred million dots actually stand up to the little dot, that the enforcers actually CAN and DO crack down and make an example of them, and all the other dots watch and say "we don;t want that to happen to US!" (

Hence the importance of seeing the reality, as well depicted in this video. The only thing needed for people to take up their own power is to realize they have it! Truth is an amazing thing, it is truly unconquerable, because God is unconquerable!

[LoveIsTruth]

LOL....already debunked in sufficient measure there. Plus you brought it up here!

Yeah? What's your handle there?

[Jason]

LOL....already debunked in sufficient measure there. Plus you brought it up here!

Yeah? What's your handle there?

I don't participate there.....just read through the comments. One forum in my life is plenty......

[fegunz]

Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... nd-Patents

Obviously you've never spent 20 or 30 years of your life researching some particular angle while investing millions of investor dollars.....and then watched someone reverse engineer it in weeks and offer a similar product for 1/10th the price.....

And what is wrong with that? Obviously just because an individual spends 20 or 30 years of his life while investing millions of dollars into a product does not mean that anyone owes this individual a dime especially if someone else is willing to offer the same thing at a lower price. What is wrong with competition? What is wrong with someone offering a product cheaper than someone else is? Why should prices be artificially propped up by governmental force?

It seems that you lean really hard towards anarchy rather than republic.....

And? Something wrong with that? By anarchy do you mean anti-state?

[Jason]

Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... nd-Patents

Obviously you've never spent 20 or 30 years of your life researching some particular angle while investing millions of investor dollars.....and then watched someone reverse engineer it in weeks and offer a similar product for 1/10th the price.....

And what is wrong with that? Obviously just because an individual spends 20 or 30 years of his life while investing millions of dollars into a product does not mean that anyone owes this individual a dime especially if someone else is willing to offer the same thing at a lower price. What is wrong with competition? What is wrong with someone offering a product cheaper than someone else is? Why should prices be artificially propped up by governmental force?

It seems that you lean really hard towards anarchy rather than republic.....

And? Something wrong with that? By anarchy do you mean anti-state?

Oh so you believe in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property....just not intellectual property???

The patent "laws" are there to protect the "intellectual property" of the creator. They don't force you to buy that person's products. They are supposed to keep people from stealing. Of course in this day and age they are abused beyond belief.....

Anarchy is absence of law. FYI - God isn't a proponent! Nor is it realistic....as everything is governed by law. You can't escape it if you tried......

Nor are you very safe in the midst of anarchists.....as personal rights and rule of law go out the window.....think slippery and sleeping on your sword!

[fegunz]

Oh so you believe in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property....just not intellectual property???

Yes; "intellectual property" is a misnomer and is incompatible with tangible property rights.

For example as the owner of my hard drive I already have the property right to magnetize any sector (which is all "writing data" is) I want to in any order. Or another example would be that as the owner of my paper and ink I already have the property right to arrange this ink on this paper in any manner I want to. To forcefully refrain me from magnetizing sectors of my hard drive or arranging ink on my paper would be aggression against my "right and control of property" (D&C 134:2).

The patent "laws" are there to protect the "intellectual property" of the creator.

But what about my tangible property? Do I not have a property right to it? For example let's say you design a wooden mouse trap and patent it. This means then that I cannot take my own wood and arrange it in the same way you have arranged yours. This however is a violation of my tangible property.

As the owner of my wood I already have the right to control it and arrange it in anyway I want to. Your patent is nothing more than aggression against my property: my wood.

They don't force you to buy that person's products.

Right, they only force an artificially high price by aggressively denying anyone from competing against them and providing the same product for less.

They are supposed to keep people from stealing.

Stealing what? Let's go back to the mouse trap example: you design a mouse trap and patent it. Now I take my own wood and arrange it in the same way you arranged yours thus creating my own mouse trap. What exactly have I stolen from you? You still have your design, you still have your trap, you still have your wood, etc. You have nothing less. How could I be accused of stealing something from you if you having nothing less and everything you had before?

Anarchy is absence of law. FYI - God isn't a proponent! Nor is it realistic....as everything is governed by law. You can't escape it if you tried......

Nor are you very safe in the midst of anarchists.....as personal rights and rule of law go out the window.....think slippery and sleeping on your sword!

Anarchy is defined deferent by many people but if your definition of anarchy is no law then I agree with you and am not an anarchist.

[Teancum-Old]

Well, the real problem is that a good number of those 100 million dots are being bought with the money that the tiny dot demands. And also, because so few of the hundred million dots actually stand up to the little dot, that the enforcers actually CAN and DO crack down and make an example of them, and all the other dots watch and say "we don;t want that to happen to US!" (

Exactly. So many of the 100 million will take advantage of each other in order to get a piece of the "handout" and "get over on your brother" pie that this Tiny Dot video is really only part of the picture. The video assumes the 100 million got along pretty well (highly improbable) and that ALL 100 million actually "don't like" the way that the tiny dot is spending their money. In reality, I believe only a small minority actually really care and oppose the "tiny dot". My synopsis: Funny cartoon but does not describe reality very well.

By the way, what do the video producers endorse? It appears they are for some sort of pure democracy, or even anarchy, exactly what the Founding Fathers despised.

[Jason]

Oh so you believe in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property....just not intellectual property???

Yes; "intellectual property" is a misnomer and is incompatible with tangible property rights.

For example as the owner of my hard drive I already have the property right to magnetize any sector (which is all "writing data" is) I want to in any order. Or another example would be that as the owner of my paper and ink I already have the property right to arrange this ink on this paper in any manner I want to. To forcefully refrain me from magnetizing sectors of my hard drive or arranging ink on my paper would be aggression against my "right and control of property" (D&C 134:2).

Ahh but what happens when your "rights" conflict with someone else's "rights"????? You have the right to swing your fists....but it stops at the end of my nose......

Who/what protects your "rights" to arrange the ink on the paper whoever you desire? Or to protect your "right" against someone else from copying or stealing your "work"? Everything comes down to force....those that rant against force should read about the great flood.....or the clearing of the land by the Israelites....or parting of the Red Sea.....or chopping off the head of Laban....etc etc etc.

The patent "laws" are there to protect the "intellectual property" of the creator.

But what about my tangible property? Do I not have a property right to it? For example let's say you design a wooden mouse trap and patent it. This means then that I cannot take my own wood and arrange it in the same way you have arranged yours. This however is a violation of my tangible property.

You can arrange it the same. You can utilize it the same. Under the law (not often enforced despite belief to the contrary) you just cannot sell your work to others without coming to an agreement with the patent holder (royalty fee, etc).

As the owner of my wood I already have the right to control it and arrange it in anyway I want to. Your patent is nothing more than aggression against my property: my wood.

...load of bunk...

They don't force you to buy that person's products.

Right, they only force an artificially high price by aggressively denying anyone from competing against them and providing the same product for less.

Yeppers....called return on investment. If it weren't there....the investment would not occur. You don't like it....move to China. They could give a flying rat's hiny about intellectual property rights. When doing business there the due diligence is 10X more extensive....

They are supposed to keep people from stealing.

Stealing what? Let's go back to the mouse trap example: you design a mouse trap and patent it. Now I take my own wood and arrange it in the same way you arranged yours thus creating my own mouse trap. What exactly have I stolen from you? You still have your design, you still have your trap, you still have your wood, etc. You have nothing less. How could I be accused of stealing something from you if you having nothing less and everything you had before?

Already explained that above....but concisely...you can do exactly that....just can't sell it to others.

Anarchy is absence of law. FYI - God isn't a proponent! Nor is it realistic....as everything is governed by law. You can't escape it if you tried......

Nor are you very safe in the midst of anarchists.....as personal rights and rule of law go out the window.....think slippery and sleeping on your sword!

Anarchy is defined deferent by many people but if your definition of anarchy is no law then I agree with you and am not an anarchist.

[Teancum-Old]

Am I missing something here??? I believe Mummy has it right according to the Constitution:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. (Art 1, Sec 8)

Besides, I thought the Founders struck a balance between Anarchy and Tyranny; both extremes are evil. America's Constitution (ordained by God) set us on a course somewhere in the middle to avoid either of those two extremes. Having no patent rights would be nothing more nor less than anarchy.

[Teancum-Old]

I believe the patent discussion belongs on its own thread.

[fegunz]

Ahh but what happens when your "rights" conflict with someone else's "rights"?????

You are jumping ahead by assuming someone has a right to partially control the tangible property of others but you haven't established such a right exists to begin with.

First show how and why an author who has copyrighted his work has any legitimate right to partially control my hard drive, my paper, or my ink to the degree that he can legitimately tell me how I can and cannot arrange it. Only AFTER you show such a right exists and is legitimate does this question have any validity.

You have the right to swing your fists....but it stops at the end of my nose......

The reason I have no right to swing my fist into your nose is precisely because your nose is yours and you have a right to do with it as you please. But as long as I don't prevent you from doing whatever you want to with your nose and the rest of your property I too can do whatever I want to with my fist. But when we extend this reasoning to "intellectual property" it falls apart because no matter how I arrange my property you can still do with yours as you please. Copying your "work" does not in anyway prevent you from using your work as you please.

Who/what protects your "rights" to arrange the ink on the paper whoever you desire?

It's not protected right now; that's my point. Due to "intellectual property" laws my rights to my tangible property such as my hard drive, ink, and paper are aggressed against by countless numbers of artists who claim to have partial control over MY tangible property to the degree that they can dictate in what ways I can and cannot arrange them.

Or to protect your "right" against someone else from copying or stealing your "work"?

Again you are jumping ahead and assuming that a right to deny others from copying your "work" exists and is valid which you have not established. As far as stealing a "work" I already refuted that but let me reiterate: If you write a book and copyright it, loan it to me, I copy it, then return it to you what exactly have I stolen from you?

Everything comes down to force....those that rant against force should read about the great flood.....or the clearing of the land by the Israelites....or parting of the Red Sea.....or chopping off the head of Laban....etc etc etc.

I'm not ranting about force itself but aggression which is initiatory force by MAN. I am in no way questioning God's use of force; I am only questioning the aggressive force of MAN.

You can arrange it the same. You can utilize it the same. Under the law (not often enforced despite belief to the contrary) you just cannot sell your work to others without coming to an agreement with the patent holder (royalty fee, etc).

Buy why can't I sell my own property? The right to sell property is a component of property rights. If I have the property right to my car for example I also must have the right to sell it; you cannot have one without the other.

As the owner of my wood I already have the right to control it and arrange it in anyway I want to. Your patent is nothing more than aggression against my property: my wood.

...load of bunk...

Merely calling it "a load of bunk" does not make it so. If I own a piece of wood then my property rights to my wood includes the right to arrange it as I please and to sale or trade it. If YOU forcefully deny me my right to arrange my property or trade/sell it then certainly you are an aggressor.

Yeppers....called return on investment. If it weren't there....the investment would not occur.

False. Think of any work that is generally considered a "masterpiece" and tell me if it was created under the "protection" of intellectual property laws.

If what you were saying were true then there would not have been any Shakespeare stories, DaVinci art, or Beethoven music.

You don't like it....move to China.

Why should I have to move to a different country because I don't want artists to aggress against my property? Seems to me as though the aggressors should be the ones moving away to another country.

Already explained that above....but concisely...you can do exactly that....just can't sell it to others.

Forcefully denying my right to sell my property is an aggressive violation of my property rights.

[fegunz]

Am I missing something here??? I believe Mummy has it right according to the Constitution:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. (Art 1, Sec 8)

The Constitution is not a perfect document and the scriptures even specify that "that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me." (D&C 98:5). So per scripture just because a law is Constitutional does NOT in and of itself justify it before the Lord.

Here's another scripture to keep in mind:

According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; (D&C 101:77)

Note how He said He "suffered" it to be established. Doesn't "suffered" mean to tolerate or allow?

America's Constitution (ordained by God)[...]

Per D&C 98:5 God does not automatically ordain the entirety of the Constitution.

[Jason]

Ahh but what happens when your "rights" conflict with someone else's "rights"?????

You are jumping ahead by assuming someone has a right to partially control the tangible property of others but you haven't established such a right exists to begin with.

First show how and why an author who has copyrighted his work has any legitimate right to partially control my hard drive, my paper, or my ink to the degree that he can legitimately tell me how I can and cannot arrange it. Only AFTER you show such a right exists and is legitimate does this question have any validity.

You have the right to swing your fists....but it stops at the end of my nose......

The reason I have no right to swing my fist into your nose is precisely because your nose is yours and you have a right to do with it as you please. But as long as I don't prevent you from doing whatever you want to with your nose and the rest of your property I too can do whatever I want to with my fist. But when we extend this reasoning to "intellectual property" it falls apart because no matter how I arrange my property you can still do with yours as you please. Copying your "work" does not in anyway prevent you from using your work as you please.

Who/what protects your "rights" to arrange the ink on the paper whoever you desire?

It's not protected right now; that's my point. Due to "intellectual property" laws my rights to my tangible property such as my hard drive, ink, and paper are aggressed against by countless numbers of artists who claim to have partial control over MY tangible property to the degree that they can dictate in what ways I can and cannot arrange them.

Or to protect your "right" against someone else from copying or stealing your "work"?

Again you are jumping ahead and assuming that a right to deny others from copying your "work" exists and is valid which you have not established. As far as stealing a "work" I already refuted that but let me reiterate: If you write a book and copyright it, loan it to me, I copy it, then return it to you what exactly have I stolen from you?

Everything comes down to force....those that rant against force should read about the great flood.....or the clearing of the land by the Israelites....or parting of the Red Sea.....or chopping off the head of Laban....etc etc etc.

I'm not ranting about force itself but aggression which is initiatory force by MAN. I am in no way questioning God's use of force; I am only questioning the aggressive force of MAN.

You can arrange it the same. You can utilize it the same. Under the law (not often enforced despite belief to the contrary) you just cannot sell your work to others without coming to an agreement with the patent holder (royalty fee, etc).

Buy why can't I sell my own property? The right to sell property is a component of property rights. If I have the property right to my car for example I also must have the right to sell it; you cannot have one without the other.

As the owner of my wood I already have the right to control it and arrange it in anyway I want to. Your patent is nothing more than aggression against my property: my wood.

...load of bunk...

Merely calling it "a load of bunk" does not make it so. If I own a piece of wood then my property rights to my wood includes the right to arrange it as I please and to sale or trade it. If YOU forcefully deny me my right to arrange my property or trade/sell it then certainly you are an aggressor.

Yeppers....called return on investment. If it weren't there....the investment would not occur.

False. Think of any work that is generally considered a "masterpiece" and tell me if it was created under the "protection" of intellectual property laws.

If what you were saying were true then there would not have been any Shakespeare stories, DaVinci art, or Beethoven music.

You don't like it....move to China.

Why should I have to move to a different country because I don't want artists to aggress against my property? Seems to me as though the aggressors should be the ones moving away to another country.

Already explained that above....but concisely...you can do exactly that....just can't sell it to others.

Forcefully denying my right to sell my property is an aggressive violation of my property rights.

Its all perspective isn't it......the leach versus the host! Is the leach entitled to the blood of the host? Or is the host entitled to retain its blood? Is it just paper and ink? Or is it something special? Is it just a piece of wood? Or is it something special?

[Original_Intent]

I have an easy answer here.

When you purchase copyrighted material you are entering a moral contract to respect the intellectual property rights of the author. When you purchase a patended item you are entering an unwritten moral contract not to act, or through your negligence allow others to act by infringing on the intellectual property of the individual.

Now you may say "I never agreed to such a contract!" I disagree. If you try to access for your own use materials that you know to be copyrighted, and do so in such a way to rob the creator of said material - you are morally committing theft. And you can excuse, rationalize, etc. to your hearts content, but due to conscience I know deep down you know that is true. And the same goes for patents - all your selfish approach of not respecting intellectual property does is drive those with the creative talent or inventive genius to go elsewhere where their HARD WORK and possibly years of research are protected and they are rewarded.

Your argument that this was just one of the "imperfect" parts of the Constitution falls flat on its face. What in the world gives you the authority of picking and choosing what bits of the constitution are ordained from on high? Why do you think that the U.S. was the center of so much invention thatchanged man's standard of living above the subsistence level?

Your idea that another persons ideas that they may have spent years developing are immediately yours to duplicate once they enter the market - do you not feel the slightest twinge of guilt when you suggest such a thing?

[LoveIsTruth]

May I say, fegunz, you are BRILLIANT! Can you lend me a hand at ronpaulforums?

Thanks!

[fegunz]

Its all perspective isn't it......the leach versus the host! Is the leach entitled to the blood of the host? Or is the host entitled to retain its blood?

But when a leach takes blood away from the host the host now has less blood to use and control himself. The same however cannot be said about an author, artist, or inventor that has had his work copied by another. When a "pirate" copies a book for example the author does not now have less of a book; no, the author is still in possession of his original book and can still use and control it in anyway he wants to. That's the fundamental difference between something tangible, like blood, and something intangible like an idea, design, or story: Tangible property by its very nature cannot be simultaneously controlled by multiple individuals while something intangible can be used by literally everyone and anyone simultaneously without conflict. This is why examples that try show that copying a work is the same as stealing another's tangible property are invalid.

Is it just paper and ink? Or is it something special? Is it just a piece of wood? Or is it something special?

I never said it's "just" paper and ink or it's "just" a piece of wood. I fail to see your point though. Could you please elaborate?

[Jason]

Its all perspective isn't it......the leach versus the host! Is the leach entitled to the blood of the host? Or is the host entitled to retain its blood?

But when a leach takes blood away from the host the host now has less blood to use and control himself. The same however cannot be said about an author, artist, or inventor that has had his work copied by another. When a "pirate" copies a book for example the author does not now have less of a book; no, the author is still in possession of his original book and can still use and control it in anyway he wants to. That's the fundamental difference between something tangible, like blood, and something intangible like an idea, design, or story: Tangible property by its very nature cannot be simultaneously controlled by multiple individuals while something intangible can be used by literally everyone and anyone simultaneously without conflict. This is why examples that try show that copying a work is the same as stealing another's tangible property are invalid.

Is it just paper and ink? Or is it something special? Is it just a piece of wood? Or is it something special?

I never said it's "just" paper and ink or it's "just" a piece of wood. I fail to see your point though. Could you please elaborate?

Oh so you are saying you have the right to the work and labor of others without them setting a price (by law) on the fruits of their labors???

For example you talk about having the right to copy works by author's, artist's or inventor's.....without their permission or compensation that they set for their works......and that's not a leach???

Again I reckon its all perspective.....obviously you've never produced anything yourself like a book, music, etc....

[LoveIsTruth]

Your argument that this was just one of the "imperfect" parts of the Constitution falls flat on its face.

You are wrong. Constitution was mostly inspired but is NOT 100% perfect. I give you slavery as an example. Even greater examples are the taxation clauses and allowing congress to coin money. Please see detailed explanations in the amendment links at the top, explaining moral and doctrinal basis for correcting these mistakes in the Constitution.

What in the world gives you the authority of picking and choosing what bits of the constitution are ordained from on high?

The Spirit of God does, which is the Spirit of Truth. I know the fundamental principles of Liberty:

• a) Private Property IS Liberty
  b) The Benson Principle. (http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 19&t=12347" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

I examine the provisions of the Constitution in the light of these fundamental principles, and it allows me to see which principles of the Constitution are correct and which are wrong.

Why do you think that the U.S. was the center of so much invention thatchanged man's standard of living above the subsistence level?

Because it had respect to Private Property of the individual which IS Liberty. Patent and Copyright laws VIOLATE private property and have no moral right of existing.

Your idea that another persons ideas that they may have spent years developing are immediately yours to duplicate once they enter the market - do you not feel the slightest twinge of guilt when you suggest such a thing?

Let me ask you are related question: Do you not feel a twinge of guilt when you do not give money to the poor if you can? If you are a good person, of course you do. Does this give the government power to FORCE people to do charity? Of course not! If you feel “a twinge of guilt” towards an inventor give him a donation, but it is highly IMMORAL to use government FORCE to give the inventor a government forced monopoly on the use of the ideas he discovered. Why? Because to do so you will have to violate the private property of others, who have NOT violated the property of the inventor. It also violates the Benson Principle by allowing the government an authority that cannot be properly delegated to it by the governed, because no individual has moral right to FORCE his neighbor not to use information or ideas, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

Again, the Benson Principle is a fundamental principle of liberty, without which Liberty must unavoidably perish. It is key to analyzing this situation. Benson Principle is an eternal principle of truth.

[fegunz]

When you purchase copyrighted material you are entering a moral contract to respect the intellectual property rights of the author.

1. Where is the so-called contract? I don't see any such contract within a book for example... How can it be claimed I am entering such a contract when I don't even see this so-called contract?

2. Where is the proof that I agreed to such a contract? Did I sign something? Did I verbally agree? How exactly did I give consent cause I sure don't remember doing so. In fact if I had the opportunity I would be willing to make sure it's known that I do NOT consent to any such contract.
3. How about copyrighted material I didn't purchase cause I downloaded it online? Is there such a contract there too? If so where? What are the terms? How did I consent to it?
4. You are begging the question by assuming "intellectual property rights" exist and are valid yet you certainly have not show that.

When you purchase a patended item you are entering an unwritten moral contract not to act, or through your negligence allow others to act by infringing on the intellectual property of the individual.

1. If there is no written contract then what are the terms? How do you know the terms if they are unwritten?

2. How can I possibly be expected to uphold a contract if I don't even know what the terms are? If I was sued for violating such a contract how would it be proven that I violated anything? If there is no contract to reference where is the proof I was under any obligation?
3. You are again begging the question by presupposing "intellectual property" exist and is valid.

Now you may say "I never agreed to such a contract!" I disagree. If you try to access for your own use materials that you know to be copyrighted, and do so in such a way to rob the creator of said material - you are morally committing theft.

What does he have less of now? What did I take away from him that he no longer has? If I copied a book does he no longer have his original book? Does he have less money? I fail to see what he has been deprived of...

And you can excuse, rationalize, etc. to your hearts content, but due to conscience I know deep down you know that is true.

No, I know deep down it's baloney. It makes no sense to accuse me of stealing something when the so-called victim has nothing less.

And the same goes for patents - all your selfish approach of not respecting intellectual property

I'm selfish? How am I being selfish exactly? Because I don't want artists, inventors, and authors from aggressing against my property by forcefully denying me my right to arrange it in any manner I please? Clearly it's these creators that are selfish because they greedily advocate monopoly privileges via government force so they can charge artificially high prices while being protected from competition. It's these greedy creators that want to partially control and therefore have partial ownership over My tangible property! It's these greedy creators that have the audacity to tell me how I can and cannot arrange my own property and threaten to send men with guns to my door if I dare arrange it in ways they don't want me too.

does is drive those with the creative talent or inventive genius to go elsewhere where their HARD WORK and possibly years of research are protected and they are rewarded.

Hard work, time, and research do not justify aggressively denying my right to arrange my own property in any pattern I want to.

Your argument that this was just one of the "imperfect" parts of the Constitution falls flat on its face.

Except that the entire concept of "intellectual property" violates an individuals "right and control of property" as stated in D&C 134:2

What in the world gives you the authority of picking and choosing what bits of the constitution are ordained from on high?

I never claimed to have such authority however the scriptures I have shared clearly make that case for me. It's not my words that make it true, it's the Lords words.

Why do you think that the U.S. was the center of so much invention thatchanged man's standard of living above the subsistence level?

Because of relative freedom.

Your idea that another persons ideas that they may have spent years developing are immediately yours to duplicate once they enter the market - do you not feel the slightest twinge of guilt when you suggest such a thing?

No, I do not feel the slightest twinge of guilt for advocating we all honor each individuals "right and control of property" by allowed them to arrange there own property as they please.

Do you not feel the slightest twinge of guilt when you suggest I be aggressively denied, violently if necessary, my right to arrange and sell my property as I please?

[fegunz]

May I say, fegunz, you are BRILLIANT! Can you lend me a hand at ronpaulforums?

Thanks!

Why thank you but I think I'm already on too many forums as it is! Maybe another day.