4 ms·

Please explain why "patents are violence." (And while you're at it, what does being "truly non-violent" mean?)

• AndrewKemendo 11y ago
  It's pretty clear to me that the OP is saying that a Patent is basically worthless outside of it's capacity to draw force from a state actor. Specifically in this case, that coercion took it's most direct form with armed federal officials seizing property.
  • dingo_bat 11y ago
    But isn't that true for any law? Fraud and theft can only be prevented or the perpetrators punished by armed state actors (policemen). That does not mean the entire judicial system is violent. In fact, this usage of the term 'violence' is confusing and likely incorrect. The same reasoning can be used to say stuff like 'Law is violence. Freedom is violence. Business is violence.' Since each of those are run by laws enforced by policemen and armed federal agents.
    • AndrewKemendo 11y ago
      All true. It's pretty typical rhetoric in libertarian circles to call anything that is done by or with the help of government as "violence." Kind of falls apart at a certain point, but I see where they are coming from.