/ancap/ - Anarcho-Capitalism

You will find some are pro IP while others are anti-IP. If we obtain a laissez-faire environment, it will be up to those who uphold contract law to determine the policy when it comes to disputes over IP.

I imagine it would require the defending party to include some form of easily identifiable branding or a unique creative influence in their IP in order to reap the benefits of their intellectual work as well as a clear history of publishing and endorsements by third parties.

>>65
I'll give a better example.

Windows is proprietary software(freedom denying)
GNU/Linux is free as in freedom.

You, by definition cannot have windows in a free society. Or do ancaps think otherwise?

>>64
Read this: http://books.google.com/books?id=og0OkSwUnUQC&lpg=PA8&ots=HFN03wm95K

>>66
Windows OS can exist in a free society, but it is through private contract that its IP is upheld (via End User Agreement).

>>64
It seems fairly straightforward that a free society could not support involuntarily enforcing prohibitions on the manufacture of goods and services. You could achieve many of the same functions as intellectual property without actually having the restrictions. For instance, branding seems perfectly reasonable, as it would allow you to identify the products as being associated with your firm's reputation. Anybody else could manufacture the same product, but mimicking your brand, while not an issue in itself as far as liberty is concerned, would constitute fraud, as you would be lying to consumers about the manufacturer or quality evaluation of the product.

>>68
This makes sense
>>67
But then so could statism, pretty sure tons of people love that private contract between citizens and state

AnCap is having enough goods and items and services to trade and otherwise barter when this empire collapses.

>>69

This is why ancom fantasy-land could theoretically exist in a laissez-faire environment. The only problem is when the (anarcho) statists try to force their will on unwilling participants.

So only trademarks make sense and the only permissible licenses would be open licenses. Unfortunately that's not what most ancaps believe and it essentially becomes pure capitalism rather than anarcho-capitalism.

>>117

I think the main thing to keep in mind is that we won't really know what IP rights will look like in ancapistan until we are there. If there is a demand for IP rights, which I am sure there will be, it will be up to those who go into the IP service industry to make the proper arrangements with all those who are involved in order to enforce IP policy and contract.

On that note, I am sure there will be DROs that are in some capacity "anti-IP" and will need to figure out a way to defend those who are accused of violating another's IP in order to profit from doing so.

>>120
Isn't that as retarded as saying

"We dont know if there will be a constitution and laws in anarchism"

>>129
I guess that's why America chose government rather than anarchy, people would rather have a constitution than freedom.

>>129
A constitution? No. There would likely be many contracts people would have the option to accept or not, but they would not constitute statutes that apply to everyone (or else it wouldn't be anarchy). Due to that, there can't be IP because you can't impose your monopoly without imposing laws and thus nullifying the state of anarchy.

Laws? Absolutely. Tons. You get all the laws you can buy, but again, remember that this doesn't oblige anyone to obey them. Laws would naturally take on their more traditional role of dispute resolution rather than serving as commandments.

It's generally safe to say "I don't know" when discussing anarchy, though. The fact that we don't know the ideal way to organize society is kind of the point of anarchy. You have to try lots of things at once and let people adopt what works for them.