In reply to Cameron Neylon.

I disagree that simply because our views are diametrically opposed that we cannot have a discussion. I am willing to talk to anyone about their ideas, and modify mine where they are clearly in error.

I understand that the Royal Society enquiry has a focus that is different from the thrust of my post, but it is important to question the assumption of everything to make sure we are thinking correctly.

Recently, the British government has decided that people should be 'allowed' to copy and transform files from CDs that they have bought to that they may use them on their computers. Because the legislation has been working from a bad assumption (that people do not own CDs that they have bought) for over a decade, millions of people have been de-facto criminals simply because someone had not thought deeply enough about what rights are.

Rather than ask questions about the economic impact of IP on science, I am asking a fundamental question about the true nature of IP and property rights. Its rather like a physicist not simply accepting the models that have been handed to him, and wanting to go deeper to the most basic parts of reality to find out how things really work at the most basic level.

Since we are talking about other people's money and ethics, it makes perfect sense to ask these fundamental questions.

I note with some dismay and delight, that you think the idea of asking these questions is 'extremist'. This is the same reaction all scientists get when they ask questions that are 'off script'. In the end, the people who are thinking deeper make the discoveries and breakthroughs, so I am quite happy to be called ad hommed with the label 'extremist'.

If you believe that there are public goods, you must say why it is not immoral for the State to force people to pay for anything. You must say how it is that a power that you do not have (the power to steal and use violence) can be transferred to other people.

You and I can fundamentally disagree on these points, but there is a clear distinction between the philosophy of Libertarianism and your philosophy; if I disagree with you, I will not contract others to come and steal your money to 'fund' my ideas, whereas you will send your agents to my house to steal from me and put me in jail.

This is the fundamental truth that Statists will not face up to and say openly; "I am willing to pay other people to steal your money for the greater good, and if you do not comply with my wishes, I support you being put in jail, your family broken up and your property seized."

The foundational ethical principle is The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html

This has been laid out very clearly by Murray N Rothbard. I suggest two books for you; 'For a New Liberty', and 'The Ethics of Liberty' by Murray N Rothbard. These two tomes will cause you to come to the same conclusions that I have, as difficult as they are to accept at first.

You say you could argue that all property is theft from our common inheritance, but inheritance does not work in that way; inheritance, by definition, is where real property passes through living people to their heirs. There is no 'common inheritance' of any physical property. To digress slightly, there is a commonÂ inheritanceÂ in ideas, the intangible data that can be copied and which is infinitely abundant, which is why Patent and copyright laws areÂ illegitimate. Once again, see Baldrin for the details of this.

Libertarianism is not formulated from slogans ("property is theft") it is a rigorous, complete, scientific system of ethics that (for all you atheists out there) is derived purely from logic and does not rely at any point on invocation of a deity.

The starting point of Libertarianism is not at all arbitrary; I imagine you have asserted this because you are not at all familiar with it. I suggest you take a look at those books so that at the very least, you can try and refute them from a knowledge of what Libertarianism actually is.

Finally, if you want to do things as well as we can, then you should explore property rights and Libertarianism. A free society that is not based on violence andÂ coercionÂ would be many times more innovative than the one we are living in right now. This is not an assertion, but is provable fact.

I hope my reply was not too 'extremist' for you!