3 ms·

I think this argument can be generalized. There are no real laws. Only consequences. You can do whatever you want. Some actions will cause the cops to throw

• Tichy 19y ago
  Not sure I would express it like you, but perhaps we agree. I think to argue about right and wrong as Paul did in the article is a slippery slope - people might never agree. Wars go on forever because of reasoning like that, each party believes to be in the right. The "real" reality is that what is right is exactly what the people in power say is right. If you believe something is right, but the people in power believe differently, all you can do is gather the power to make it right. That is what Ghandhi did, even though he did it without using weapons. But being able to convince enough people to support your cause is a form of power, too. There is no god given right to own intellectual property, or any other property for that matter, people can own it only because society as a whole allows them to. If there is no society/police to enforce your rights, all you can do is sit tight in your house with the shotgun ready. You might still be able to defend your property. But that is because you have a shotgun, not because the property belongs to you. People chose to organize in societies and accept property rights because they think it benefits everybody. As soon as it does not benefit somebody, there is no reason for that person to go on supporting property rights (but the "benefits me" equation should factor in things like jail).