nimpnin

IP only protects companies for some reason

IP only protects those who have the means to defend their IP in court, which is rich people and companies.

A big company can take that book, print it and sell it without you seeing a dime

Sure. I don't think that is theft.

As a consumer, you can download the book, listen to a free audiobook, or print it yourself if you want to. The company only gets money if they somehow make better physical version than what others have access to.

To me this is not at all akin to ownership or theft.

Yeah but you can't really profit off of that because anybody can print the book. And if there's no IP, I can just download the book and print it myself. Or read it as a PDF. Or download the IP-free audiobook and listen to that. Even for printed books, competition drives the price to the production costs so very little profit is being made there.

Otherwise big companies would be making big money off of shakespeare and the bible. But that's not how they make their money, they make their money with IP monopolies instead.

Without IP the company would also get approximately 0 money for selling movies or books. This hypothetical doesn't make sense.

How can you steal something that you can't own?

L take

There are studies on this, smoking impairs your driving a lot less than drinking. But it's not good to drive while high, to be clear...

Bringing a person into existence for your own entertainment is the ultimate form of pointless hedonism

I am against the death penalty out of principle, not practical reasons. It goes fundamentally against rehabilitation, its effect differs from person to person drastically, it's just weird and vengeful. And making exceptions for edge cases is not good for a justice system.

So what if you do this instead: consistently enforce, say, 10 year prison sentences for murder as a CEO. This kind of stuff would stop overnight. But that doesn't happen unfortunately.

What does that mean in practice?

Maximizing personal freedom shouldn't be the only goal, yes. But not letting people choose whether they live or die is minimal personal freedom to me. Or it should be, like the bare minimum.

I am of the complete opposite opinion. Not letting people decide if they want to live or not is the ultimate restriction of personal freedom. I think there should be some kind of process for euthanasia for practical reasons cause most people will eventually feel they want to keep on living, but for those who don’t there should be a right to die.

What the hell