Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Torwald | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Torwald

what is your definition of a capitalist economy then?

View on HN

IMF energy subsidies.

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew0...

An economy that is void of coercion (in the sense of violence or threat of it)

Clarification edit: Coercion in response to coercion is self-defense. If someone physically forced their way to your property, you have a right to defend yourself, and this should be enforced. We need some way make sure there's no coercion in the market.

Property is naturally coercive, why don't we have the right to repair and own our software? The last 20 years has the videogame industry hacking and stealing videogames en mass since the rise of the internet.

I know because I lived through it. Games before steam and client-server based rpg's that were designed to trick gullible consumers to give up PC game ownership.

>Property is naturally coercive, why don't we have the right to repair and own our software?

Many (most?) hardcore libertarians actually oppose intellectual property, because it's not justified under the reasoning used to justify normal property. If someone puts a gun to your head and steals your car, they're clearly using violence to force you to do something you don't want to do (give them your car). If someone downloads a copy of a game you published and shares it with their friends, they're not doing any violence against you or making you do something you don't want to do. They may be making it less likely for other people to pay you money for that game, but under that minimalistic libertarian framework nobody has the obligation to pay you for a game just because you made it.

Yes that is correct. It really depends on the approach to libertarian law, but protection boils down to contractual limitations that come with purchasing a copy.

I also know of some libertarians that do not oppose IP itself, but claim that any system to enforce (and definitely our current patents system) is worse than no system at all.

What would happen in such non-coercive society if a poor, homeless person occupies an empty house?

Depends what the owner of that house wants to do. It will be within their right to evacuate that person.

Otherwise if you want a house all you have to do is go bankrupt then pick an empty mansion.

>It will be within their right to evacuate that person.

But that would require coercion, since that person doesn't want to leave.

I have clarified my original definition, that would be self defense, in the same way that if someone tries to coerce a knife into your throat, you can coerce their face to the pavement.

You can redefine terms any way you like, but coercion in response to coercion is still coercion. That's not an "economy void of coercion", just one where the monopoly on violence has been replaced by a free market of violence.

After all, if the person squatting on what you consider to be your property doesn't recognize your claim of ownership, it would seem that you pose a greater threat to them than they do to you, especially if you're trying to remove them from the property when they're not presenting an immediate threat of physical harm.

That's a quite an arbitrary definition of self defense

This was my first thought—how do you enforce property rights and ownership of capital?

I may have needed to be clearer, but coercion in response to coercion is self-defense. If someone physically forced their way to your property (if you'd let them, no violence will be needed), you have a right to defend yourself, and this should be enforced.

So, fortified dwellings and shooting/beating up trespassers? Sounds fun, but I think I’d prefer the state having a monopoly on violence and property rights enforcement.

Just curious, have you ever been in a fight or had a gun pointed at you?

Are food and construction standards cooercive?

Are you seriously arguing for an economy where anyone can build a skyscraper out of any material?

This is not true. Capital requires the use of laws and state violence to enforce a claim upon it.

It just requires violence to enforce laws, it doesn't require a entity with a monopoly on violence.

He's uneducated, capitalism as the upper class preaches from the universities has never existed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY

You're attacking a straw man. I did not say pure capitalism existed before, but that the US is less capitalist today than before.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com