Thoughts on Russell Brand? new book REVOLUTION

[randpaul2016]

Has a new book coming out titled REVOLUTION

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bz1hCftIUAAmEen.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV4LAzwykY4

I've been a fan of his for a while now, before he got involved into politics, back when he had his own show BrandX. Yall ever watch TREWS?


Its okay to like him right? lol Some flip out and hate him a lot. wtf?

[rpfocus]

I've been a fan of his for a while now, before he got involved into politics, back when he had his own show BrandX. Yall ever watch TREWS?


Its okay to like him right? lol Some flip out and hate him a lot. wtf?

I've watched some of the Trews videos. He's funny. I don't agree with all he says and he's probably far too left for this board, but I find him entertaining. Especially when he's blasting some of the idiocy on Faux News and MSNBC. Not much interested in the book though.

[Valli6]

Has a new book coming out titled REVOLUTION
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bz1hCftIUAAmEen.jpg


WTF? He doesn't know this is Ron Paul's logo? What art director did he pay to put Ron Paul's logo on the cover of his book? (which also happens to have the same title as a book Ron Paul wrote.) :mad:

[Miss Annie]

He's a commie

[maybemaybenot]

He's a commie

He's also an idiot.

[navy-vet]

Commie idiot works.

[twomp]

He's also an idiot.
This troll doesn't think he's an idiot because he's a commie. He thinks Brand is an idiot because he said some not so nice things about poor, poor, mistreated and abused Israel who is a victim of everyone. Why does everyone have to pick on Israel? tears... sniff... sniff...

[TaftFan]

He's a lunatic and a commie. And I hope Ron (or whoever owns the logo) sues the pants off of him.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fZOoT1QPTBM/Thf41XCDwvI/AAAAAAAAJ3E/-3lSwd2jJXk/s1600/ron-paul-revolution.png

[vita3]

Guy is interesting to hear. He Should come to a Liberty event & meet our side, while hearing stories from mom & pop business folks, trying to make it happen.

[vita3]

Does sound like he was on cocaine w/ Letermann

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

This troll doesn't think he's an idiot because he's a commie. He thinks Brand is an idiot because he said some not so nice things about poor, poor, mistreated and abused Israel who is a victim of everyone.


That's RPF user PRB for ya.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Sounds like he's another dumbass trying to co-opt our movement. Heard him on Alex Jones and wasn't impressed with his knowledge, to say the least.

[pcosmar]

He's also an idiot.

Coming from you,,, that is an endorsement.

[pcosmar]

He's a lunatic and a commie. And I hope Ron (or whoever owns the logo) sues the pants off of him.



Ron does not own the Logo. As I remember,, the logo and stencils were produced by Ernest Hancock of Freedom's Phoenix.
It was released copy-left. Free to use.

And Freedom's Phoenix has done several stories on Russell Brand. I'm sure they are aware.

[Bastiat's The Law]

A socialist calling for a revolution, how original.

[AlexAmore]

He's a lunatic and a commie. And I hope Ron (or whoever owns the logo) sues the pants off of him.

That would definitely be within the spirit of the logo. /sarcasm

The stencil and spray paint symbolizes rebellion and anarchy.

How can one own a logo? Through government violence. Notice how the only way to "rectify" this is through more government violence (suing his pants off).

[TruckinMike]

Ron does not own the Logo. As I remember,, the logo and stencils were produced by Ernest Hancock of Freedom's Phoenix.
It was released copy-left. Free to use.

And Freedom's Phoenix has done several stories on Russell Brand. I'm sure they are aware.
And if I recall correctly from a previous logo thread Hancock said it was created back in the sixties ....during the era of peace, love, long hair, and hippies. Don't quote me on that...lol.

[specsaregood]

And if I recall correctly from a previous logo thread Hancock said it was created back in the sixties ....during the era of peace, love, long hair, and hippies. Don't quote me on that...lol.

Yeah, I recall him saying he didn't come up with the logo originally, but he definitely modernized it and associated it with Dr. Paul. Ron Paul had nothing to do with its creation and he certainly doesn't own it.

This is the video that started it all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwRXp8ZMdNQ
Uploaded on Mar 21, 2007

[AuH20]

Russell Brand still hasn't figured out that socialism is a tool for the elites. Interesting fellow though...

[Deborah K]

And if I recall correctly from a previous logo thread Hancock said it was created back in the sixties ....during the era of peace, love, long hair, and hippies. Don't quote me on that...lol.

Ernie actually said he ripped it off from an internet ad.


This is my standard response,… the idea/logo belongs to everyone and to no one. I was very certain about what was gong to happen (long story why) and made the decision before the first sign was made to promote the concept without any restrictions (it’s a freedom thing).Ernie Hancock


http://scottnix.com/ron-paul-revolution-image/

Here's a blast from the past: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?63119-Who-created-the-Revolution-logo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfHrHAl4DyA

[Valli6]

I realize the "logo" is not owned or trademarked, and would not expect anyone to sue over it - but it is reasonably well-known, and recognizable as a graphic image associated with Ron Paul, and has been such for at least 7 years. A simple google search would've been enough to inform anyone who didn't know this.

So it's odd that Brand's publisher (Cornerstone in UK) would allow their art department to design a book cover using an already well known graphic, associated with another well-known person, who has already written a book titled "Revolution".

Nevermind that the word "Revolution" has been used with the backwards 3-V-O-L before. In this case, those letters are portrayed as having been stenciled - something unique to artwork created by Paul supporters in combination with the word "revolution" AND they've used the identical color scheme. Unless this book is an homage to Ron Paul, using this image was a crass and selfish move.

Ron Paul, an unapologetic capitalist, wrote a serious, informative book called Revolution to educate people about policies their government practices, and to bring people together for positive change - not to make money. And Russell Brand, anti-capitalist that he is, wrote a book called Revolution, centered on his own lightly-informed opinions, to make himself richer. The fact that he's copped a well-known graphic from someone else's movement in his pursuit of increased personal wealth, makes him look like a hypocrite. Apparently, he believes integrity doesn't matter unless you can be threatened with a lawsuit or government force.

As far as Russel Brand himself goes, he can be funny - or not - watch him if you enjoy him. I'm not too interested in'im myself.

[jllundqu]

He's a lunatic and a commie. And I hope Ron (or whoever owns the logo) sues the pants off of him.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fZOoT1QPTBM/Thf41XCDwvI/AAAAAAAAJ3E/-3lSwd2jJXk/s1600/ron-paul-revolution.png

http://media.timeout.com/blogimages/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Russell-Brand-Revolution-Book.jpg


LAWSUIT??? :toady:

[maybemaybenot]

That would definitely be within the spirit of the logo. /sarcasm

The stencil and spray paint symbolizes rebellion and anarchy.

How can one own a logo? Through government violence. Notice how the only way to "rectify" this is through more government violence (suing his pants off).

But logos are creations. We allow ppl to claim private property, to claim sole possession over a piece of the Earth, a right of exclusiona against other human beings enforced by violence. We allow private property based on the idea that its true value is based on what human beings do with it, and nothing would be done with it if it didn't have someone privately benefiting from it. Well in the case of art/trademarks/copyrights, allowing ppl to use violence to claim what they created is perfectly justified, and best for encouraging the creation of them. They didn't take it from anyone, and if others could use it without permission, then ppl would stop creating it. Even huge brands like logos or super hero characters, if the state wasn't violently enforcing those copyrights, those creations wouldn't come into exist. Every great copyright/trademark is 1 success out of a million attempts, no one would attempt to create something if they couldn't get money out of it. Just like land would be treated like shit if it wasn't enforced through the state's violence (and they did invent private property, saying it can work without government doesn't change the fact that govt started the idea of private property).

Btw, patents are different, that's holding onto cures and technology, not pieces of art/entertainment/text. It would be the same issue/disagreement, but saying we should have copyrights/trademarks is not the same as saying we should have patents. 1. Inventions would still be created without patents, because large corporations would still get a huge benefit out of a headstart, and then just being 1/3 of the market eventually or w/e happens. Stories, logos, w/e would have zero meaning because they can be reproduced easily to the pt of defeating the whole pt of making money off of them, movies could truly go under because of the internet (a long time from now, its a cultural relic, like baseball). There would be literally no profit. 2. Saying ppl can't produce needed inventions is evil, saying ppl can't copy the BK logo or a book or anything else is harmless. The only thing that needs to be publicly available as far as text/information/trademarks are educational material which is all available on the internet legally and illegally, there's no harm in copyrights/trademarks.

Seriously, what's the harm in copyrights/trademarks? I respect if this is just out of principle, fuck the state, but really the policy is fine. Its harmless.

[pcosmar]

And Russell Brand, anti-capitalist that he is, wrote a book called Revolution, centered on his own lightly-informed opinions, to make himself richer.

Do you listen to yourself? or were trying to be deliberately contrary.

If the man wants to profit,, he is not anti-capitalist.. He is a Capitalist.

And Ron does not own the logo,, never did.
The Campaign never owned it. It was the grassroots (a widely diverse bunch) that used it to promote Ron,, and the ideas of Liberty.

As far as Brand,, He lives in a highly socialist society. He is steeped in it. But what I have seen him oppose is Authoritarianism (Monarchy) and corporatism.
And corporatism is closer to socialism than it is capitalism.

[pcosmar]

Seriously, what's the harm in copyrights/trademarks?
They have their place.

and they are irrelevant in this case.
That particular Logo was released Copyleft,, or creative commons. Free to use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

Copyleft (a play on the word copyright) is the practice of using copyright law to offer the right to distribute copies and modified versions of a work and requiring that the same rights be preserved in modified versions of the work. In other words, copyleft is a general method for making a creative work as freely available to be modified, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the creative work to be free as well.

[AlexAmore]

Seriously, what's the harm in copyrights/trademarks? I respect if this is just out of principle, fuck the state, but really the policy is fine. Its harmless.

IP is actually a violation of private property. You're telling me I can't put a bunch of colors shaped like your logo on MY t-shirt and sell it? You're violating MY property rights. I'm not stealing anything. Theft can only occur in the realm of scarcity. There is no scarcity in concepts. As soon as an IP is granted, they automatically gain partial ownership over EVERYONE else's property because now they're restricting what other people can do with their property.

You also seem to be caught up in this notion that people are entitled to their ideas earning them money. First, I hate entitlement thinking. Second, you won't find this occurring in the realm of theoretical sciences and mathematics. You can come up with some genius scientific discovery and you can't claim IP on it for everyone who ends up using it. Yet we have plenty of theoretical scientists and mathematicians working diligently.

[maybemaybenot]

IP is actually a violation of private property. You're telling me I can't put a bunch of colors shaped like your logo on MY t-shirt and sell it? You're violating MY property rights. I'm not stealing anything. Theft can only occur in the realm of scarcity. There is no scarcity in concepts. As soon as an IP is granted, they automatically gain partial ownership over EVERYONE else's property because now they're restricting what other people can do with their property.

You also seem to be caught up in this notion that people are entitled to their ideas earning them money. First, I hate entitlement thinking. Second, you won't find this occurring in the realm of theoretical sciences and mathematics. You can come up with some genius scientific discovery and you can't claim IP on it for everyone who ends up using it. Yet we have plenty of theoretical scientists and mathematicians working diligently.

I specifically said patents were a separate issue, and explained why. The harm done by restricting the creations of cures and inventions is infinitely greater than the harm done from restricting unauthorized Spider-Man t-shirts (and I don't think this is some weird strawman argument, I really do think trademarks/copyrights don't get anymore harmful than that, make a case otherwise if you disagree). You make great pts that copyright laws restrict ppl's use of their property, like an entitlement program for the copyright owner. But this argument applies to ALL private property. Why is anyone entitled to private property over land, a violent, state-enforced right of exclusion against others? Because by giving one person (or multiple but specific owners) an entitlement to all profits on the land leads to taking better care of said land. There's no libertarian or moral justification for private property, its just the best system there is (and great for ensuring other individual rights, because without private property it would just mean total state control without any balance of power with the ppl).

Copyrights/trademarks are exactly like real estate and other private property and patents (but the harm of patents is huge, so patents are horrible), only with less harm. Claiming that no one can touch your grass is violating the inherent human rights of everyone else on the planet, but its the best system man has ever invented, collectivism (the default, natural state of the land) is just disastrous. Same goes for copyrights/trademarks, its a restriction that leads to efficiency and better outcomes. Telling someone they can't reproduce a fictional book is a restriction on ppl's right to use their property, and telling ppl they can't step foot in Disney World without paying first is ALSO a restriction on ppl's right to use their property, because no moral rule ever said anyone gets to own all that land, its just a violent, state-enforced right against others using it. If the state didn't beat ppl up for going into Disney World and "trespasing" onto the planet they were born on, then Disney World would lose its profits, thousands would lose their jobs, etc. Same goes for copyrights/trademarks, only the restriction is even more rational and harmless.

[AlexAmore]

I specifically said patents were a separate issue, and explained why. The harm done by restricting the creations of cures and inventions is infinitely greater than the harm done from restricting unauthorized Spider-Man t-shirts

I never mentioned patents once. I mentioned how there are massive groups of people making incredible discoveries without a patent system available to them. So why do we need any IP (force) at all?


(and I don't think this is some weird strawman argument, I really do think trademarks/copyrights don't get anymore harmful than that, make a case otherwise if you disagree).

I did and you seemed to have failed to grasp it.


You make great pts that copyright laws restrict ppl's use of their property, like an entitlement program for the copyright owner. But this argument applies to ALL private property. Why is anyone entitled to private property over land, a violent, state-enforced right of exclusion against others?

private property was around before governments existed. I can claim private property without needing a government at all. I simply need to make the claim that something is mine. Afterwards, I can choose how to defend that claim. I could defend that claim with a gun or I could use the government (which I'm against). I don't think you understand basic Libertarianism all that well tbh.


Because by giving one person (or multiple but specific owners) an entitlement to all profits on the land leads to taking better care of said land.

But there doesn't need to be a government giving out land deeds for that benefit to occur.


There's no libertarian or moral justification for private property, its just the best system there is (and great for ensuring other individual rights, because without private property it would just mean total state control without any balance of power with the ppl).

You're contradicting yourself. If the government is giving out land deeds, then there is total state control. There is no private property if you're paying property taxes or if you can only claim private property because the government recognizes it.


Claiming that no one can touch your grass is violating the inherent human rights of everyone else on the planet, but its the best system man has ever invented, collectivism (the default, natural state of the land) is just disastrous.

Collectivism implies that there are positive rights to land, but those rights don't actually exist. So you're wrong about it being the default, natural state of the land. Prove to me that positive rights exist. The core of your arguments are based on false premises.


Same goes for copyrights/trademarks, its a restriction that leads to efficiency and better outcomes. Telling someone they can't reproduce a fictional book is a restriction on ppl's right to use their property, and telling ppl they can't step foot in Disney World without paying first is ALSO a restriction on ppl's right to use their property, because no moral rule ever said anyone gets to own all that land

Again, you're implying that people have a rights and that one of those rights is to use any and all land. Show me where that is written into the fabric of the universe. You're making stuff up. People are not born with moral claims to anything.


its just a violent, state-enforced right against others using it. If the state didn't beat ppl up for going into Disney World and "trespasing" onto the planet they were born on, then Disney World would lose its profits, thousands would lose their jobs, etc. Same goes for copyrights/trademarks, only the restriction is even more rational and harmless.

I think Disney World has private security forces. Why should tax payer funding go to subsidizing a billion dollar operation such as Disney World? They can fund all their own security (and they do).

With Trademarks, I would rather let Pepsi and Coca Cola privately go after copycats for fraud. We don't need government subsidies for Pepsi to keep their business afloat. To lie to people about a drink being Coca Cola is fraud and IP is not necessary at all. Very few societies would allow fraud to go rampant. This can all be solved in a free society as the incentives are there and so force is not necessary.

[Valli6]

Do you listen to yourself? or were trying to be deliberately contrary.

If the man wants to profit,, he is not anti-capitalist.. He is a Capitalist.

And Ron does not own the logo,, never did.
The Campaign never owned it. It was the grassroots (a widely diverse bunch) that used it to promote Ron,, and the ideas of Liberty.

As far as Brand,, He lives in a highly socialist society. He is steeped in it. But what I have seen him oppose is Authoritarianism (Monarchy) and corporatism.
And corporatism is closer to socialism than it is capitalism.
My point was that if Brand badmouths capitalists while practicing capitalism = hypocrisy. I'm not a fan (nor do I hate him, just not that interested), so may have missed something, but from what I have seen/heard, he thinks socialism is the answer, and he's unable to distinguish between capitalism and corporatism. Bitching about authority is easy. Does he speak about any solutions that don't involve taking property/money from the "selfish" people, or forcing people to behave one way or another? Has he admitted that, despite the grand intentions, forced redistribution of money/property doesn't raise a class of people out of poverty?

I know that no on owns the logo and it developed spontaneously through supporters, but with that particular version of the graphic - the stenciled "E-V-O-L" in red, with the rest of the word "REVOLUTION" (the same word) in black capital letters - the association to Ron Paul already exists and is well known.

It's already the same word - couldn't the art director use a more disimilar typeface, and/or a differet color scheme, and omit the stencil effect - which only came about because Ron Paul's supporters couldn't pay printers to make all their signs, like everyone else did? From a graphic standpoint, the stencil sucessfully reinforces the fact that those wielding the image were truly grassroots. In contrast, what does the stenciled lettering represent on Brand's book cover? Nothing whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Why was it used, if it was not an intentional ripoff of the graphic Ron Paul supporters made famous? (okay, perhaps not in Britian, but google is everywhere.)

They didn't break a copy right law, it's not worth a lawsuit... but it's rather scummy just the same.

[specsaregood]

They didn't break a copy right law, it's not worth a lawsuit... but it's rather scummy just the same.

It certainly makes his book lame and makes him look like a johnny come lately with nothing new or real to offer.

[pcosmar]

My point was that if Brand badmouths capitalists while practicing capitalism = hypocrisy. I'm not a fan (nor do I hate him, just not that interested), so may have missed something, but from what I have seen/heard, he thinks socialism is the answer, and he's unable to distinguish between capitalism and corporatism. Bitching about authority is easy. Does he speak about any solutions that don't involve taking property/money from the "selfish" people, or forcing people to behave one way or another? Has he admitted that, despite the grand intentions, forced redistribution of money/property doesn't raise a class of people out of poverty?

I know that no on owns the logo and it developed spontaneously through supporters, but with that particular version of the graphic - the stenciled "E-V-O-L" in red, with the rest of the word "REVOLUTION" (the same word) in black capital letters - the association to Ron Paul already exists and is well known.

It's already the same word - couldn't the art director use a more disimilar typeface, and/or a differet color scheme, and omit the stencil effect - which only came about because Ron Paul's supporters couldn't pay printers to make all their signs, like everyone else did? From a graphic standpoint, the stencil sucessfully reinforces the fact that those wielding the image were truly grassroots. In contrast, what does the stenciled lettering represent on Brand's book cover? Nothing whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Why was it used, if it was not an intentional ripoff of the graphic Ron Paul supporters made famous? (okay, perhaps not in Britian, but google is everywhere.)

They didn't break a copy right law, it's not worth a lawsuit... but it's rather scummy just the same.

OK,,
I Don't know that the Guy is in opposition to Capitalism.. I have heard that claim,, but have never heard that from him.
Admittedly, I have not followed him closely..

I oppose Corporatism,, and unbridled greed. Yet I am still a capitalist.

That is not Hypocrisy.

And if you look and search just a little bit,,, you will find that the logo has been used by others before Ron Paul supporters picked it up.
https://www.google.com/search?q=revolution+logo&biw=1531&bih=736&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=j05BVNypLMbuoASr34DQAw&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=f6UvBeXpfEjIAM%253A%3BATk30qDHfw7oIM%3Bhttp% 253A%252F%252Fwww.soperreesetheatre.com%252Fdev%25 2Fuserfiles%252Fimage%252FGod%252520Project%252FRe volution%252520logo.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.s operreesetheatre.com%252Fcalendar%252Fcalendar-details.asp%253Fid%253D42%3B1800%3B1200

[specsaregood]

And if you look and search just a little bit,,, you will find that the logo has been used by others before Ron Paul supporters picked it up.
https://www.google.com/search?q=revolution+logo&biw=1531&bih=736&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=j05BVNypLMbuoASr34DQAw&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=f6UvBeXpfEjIAM%253A%3BATk30qDHfw7oIM%3Bhttp% 253A%252F%252Fwww.soperreesetheatre.com%252Fdev%25 2Fuserfiles%252Fimage%252FGod%252520Project%252FRe volution%252520logo.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.s operreesetheatre.com%252Fcalendar%252Fcalendar-details.asp%253Fid%253D42%3B1800%3B1200

That's not the point. Has anybody ever named their book "revolution" before Dr. Paul and used that specific styling of the word/logo?
It's clearly a copycat move. Legal, sure. Lame? yeah.

[pcosmar]

That's not the point. Has anybody ever named their book "revolution" before Dr. Paul and used that specific styling of the word/logo?
It's clearly a copycat move. Legal, sure. Lame? yeah.

A book? Not sure. Possibly.

The logo was in use before the Ron Paul grassroots used it.. buy a great many diverse groups.

Much like the Rainbow flag. That has been used by many.

[maybemaybenot]

I never mentioned patents once. I mentioned how there are massive groups of people making incredible discoveries without a patent system available to them. So why do we need any IP (force) at all?



I did and you seemed to have failed to grasp it.



private property was around before governments existed. I can claim private property without needing a government at all. I simply need to make the claim that something is mine. Afterwards, I can choose how to defend that claim. I could defend that claim with a gun or I could use the government (which I'm against). I don't think you understand basic Libertarianism all that well tbh.



But there doesn't need to be a government giving out land deeds for that benefit to occur.



You're contradicting yourself. If the government is giving out land deeds, then there is total state control. There is no private property if you're paying property taxes or if you can only claim private property because the government recognizes it.



Collectivism implies that there are positive rights to land, but those rights don't actually exist. So you're wrong about it being the default, natural state of the land. Prove to me that positive rights exist. The core of your arguments are based on false premises.



Again, you're implying that people have a rights and that one of those rights is to use any and all land. Show me where that is written into the fabric of the universe. You're making stuff up. People are not born with moral claims to anything.



I think Disney World has private security forces. Why should tax payer funding go to subsidizing a billion dollar operation such as Disney World? They can fund all their own security (and they do).

With Trademarks, I would rather let Pepsi and Coca Cola privately go after copycats for fraud. We don't need government subsidies for Pepsi to keep their business afloat. To lie to people about a drink being Coca Cola is fraud and IP is not necessary at all. Very few societies would allow fraud to go rampant. This can all be solved in a free society as the incentives are there and so force is not necessary.

No, I did not fail to grasp your argument about the principles of liberty/property rights being violated by copyright law, I conceded it outright, it is a restriction on our rights. You fail to grasp my argument, which is that copyright laws are harmless even if they violate our principles.

I would like to see proof/evidence/anything of private property existing before government, so show me what you have there. But, the fact that you can violently defend property without the state doesn't change the fact that its violence. Violence is horrible, violence is a violation of the only natural right of human beings, to not have their body interfered with. The fact that states monopolize violence is what demonstrates how evil they are, whether or not they're necessary. Their violence is what makes it evil. If you discover a plot of land and then violently prevent others from stepping on it, you're violating their rights (while also performing a wonderful service for the human race by cultivating the land, which can't be done collectively). If you think violence is alright so long as its not the state doing it, then maybe you're the one who doesn't get libertarianism, not me. (Lol obviously libertarianism calls for private property rights, but you're justifying private property on the grounds that you can enforce it with your own violence, and that's silly, violence is a crime anyway).

And no, I don't contradict myself when I say private property exists under govt. I'm using the definition of private property followed by 99.99% of the human race. That's how human beings talk. They don't pretend that everyone uses the definitions that they want to use, they use common definitions to ensure that the listener understands the speaker. I recommend it, this way I don't have to listen to an hour-long rant from you before having a conversation, when both of us already speak English. Semantics is always a stupid argument, its even dumber when you're proposing a definition that isn't even common.

Well if ppl don't have a positive right to touch whatever land they want, what gives an individual the positive right to exclusively monopolize a plot of land? You're right, ppl don't have a positive right to enter any land. But then how do private property owners have a positive right to enter the exact same land? Further, supposed trespassers have a negative right to NOT be violently interfered with in any way when they enter land. That means you don't have the right to stick your hand in front of them and stop them if they want to enter "your" property. Justify your right to use violence.

Btw, I'm not making an argument for collectivism, the world is what we make of it, and private property is the best system ever invented. My point simply is that its not natural, its a human invention that does interfere with ppl's rights, while also protecting those ppl from starving to death from the stupidity of collectivism. Same goes for copyrights. Private property and copyrights are arehuman inventions, they're violent, they're not truly libertarian even if ppl associate them with capitalism, and they're great policies.

[torchbearer]

Russel hasn't connected government force with a gun to your face. Once that happens his transformation to the light side of the force will be complete.

[AlexAmore]

No, I did not fail to grasp your argument about the principles of liberty/property rights being violated by copyright law, I conceded it outright, it is a restriction on our rights. You fail to grasp my argument, which is that copyright laws are harmless even if they violate our principles.

Plenty of young children have had their lives ruined by the government for downloading songs. It's not harmless.



I would like to see proof/evidence/anything of private property existing before government, so show me what you have there.

Because private property is simply making a claim. There are a variety of ways to make a claim, some with government force, some not. I can claim something is private property. Certainly I didn't make some godly claim where it's objectively my property, but the government doesn't have that power either.


But, the fact that you can violently defend property without the state doesn't change the fact that its violence. Violence is horrible, violence is a violation of the only natural right of human beings, to not have their body interfered with.

You actually don't have the right to not have your body interfered with. Show me where it's written down. Negative rights don't exist, either. All that exists are claims and how well you can defend those claims using violence or otherwise. Yep, violence sucks, but it's not objectively a bad thing.


The fact that states monopolize violence is what demonstrates how evil they are, whether or not they're necessary. Their violence is what makes it evil.

You just contradicted yourself. You had it right the first time and then got it 180 degrees backwards. The state monopolizing violence is bad, but not violence itself. Violence can be used to ward off a rapist...is violence bad there?


If you discover a plot of land and then violently prevent others from stepping on it, you're violating their rights (while also performing a wonderful service for the human race by cultivating the land, which can't be done collectively).

Where does it say that I have a right to walk into your home? WHERE? Who says I have a right to walk into your home and be on your property? Another human such as yourself? How can you objectively say that rights exists and what they are? You're just making weak claims, not presenting to me some objective supernatural right.


If you think violence is alright so long as its not the state doing it, then maybe you're the one who doesn't get libertarianism, not me. (Lol obviously libertarianism calls for private property rights, but you're justifying private property on the grounds that you can enforce it with your own violence, and that's silly, violence is a crime anyway).

I'm not justifying private property. I'm saying copyright is an aggression upon huge swaths of the human population and it can be objectively shown.


Well if ppl don't have a positive right to touch whatever land they want, what gives an individual the positive right to exclusively monopolize a plot of land? You're right, ppl don't have a positive right to enter any land. But then how do private property owners have a positive right to enter the exact same land? Further, supposed trespassers have a negative right to NOT be violently interfered with in any way when they enter land. That means you don't have the right to stick your hand in front of them and stop them if they want to enter "your" property. Justify your right to use violence.

Nobody has the positive right to exclusively monopolize a plot of land. Again, somebody can make a claim and try to defend that claim. There's an entire philosophy that doesn't believe in rights, whether they're positive or negative.

So now you agree that people don't have a positive right to enter any land (which is 95% of my argument). On the flip side nobody has any negative right to NOT be violently interfered with in any way...what a ridiculous hypothetical. You're essentially saying I could go around and rape people all day and nobody could do a thing about it. This is what happens when you debate on the side of rights existing, you start making crazy arguments as your swan song.



Btw, I'm not making an argument for collectivism, the world is what we make of it, and private property is the best system ever invented. My point simply is that its not natural, its a human invention that does interfere with ppl's rights, while also protecting those ppl from starving to death from the stupidity of collectivism. Same goes for copyrights. Private property and copyrights are arehuman inventions, they're violent, they're not truly libertarian even if ppl associate them with capitalism, and they're great policies.

Rights and private property are BOTH human inventions. The difference is that private property has utility and rights do not. Semantics are important and the notion of "human rights" has created a world full of welfare and despotism. For example, if I claim to have a right to your money, then I can claim that I'm justified in using violence to get it. The problem comes when "rights" are considered supernatural and objective. This creates a religious fervor and violence follows. We need to get back to understanding that these are just mere claims and human rights are NOT objective truth.


And Libertarians have a problem with aggression, but NOT with violence.

[maybemaybenot]

Plenty of young children have had their lives ruined by the government for downloading songs. It's not harmless.




Because private property is simply making a claim. There are a variety of ways to make a claim, some with government force, some not. I can claim something is private property. Certainly I didn't make some godly claim where it's objectively my property, but the government doesn't have that power either.



You actually don't have the right to not have your body interfered with. Show me where it's written down. Negative rights don't exist, either. All that exists are claims and how well you can defend those claims using violence or otherwise. Yep, violence sucks, but it's not objectively a bad thing.



You just contradicted yourself. You had it right the first time and then got it 180 degrees backwards. The state monopolizing violence is bad, but not violence itself. Violence can be used to ward off a rapist...is violence bad there?



Where does it say that I have a right to walk into your home? WHERE? Who says I have a right to walk into your home and be on your property? Another human such as yourself? How can you objectively say that rights exists and what they are? You're just making weak claims, not presenting to me some objective supernatural right.



I'm not justifying private property. I'm saying copyright is an aggression upon huge swaths of the human population and it can be objectively shown.



Nobody has the positive right to exclusively monopolize a plot of land. Again, somebody can make a claim and try to defend that claim. There's an entire philosophy that doesn't believe in rights, whether they're positive or negative.

So now you agree that people don't have a positive right to enter any land (which is 95% of my argument). On the flip side nobody has any negative right to NOT be violently interfered with in any way...what a ridiculous hypothetical. You're essentially saying I could go around and rape people all day and nobody could do a thing about it. This is what happens when you debate on the side of rights existing, you start making crazy arguments as your swan song.




Rights and private property are BOTH human inventions. The difference is that private property has utility and rights do not. Semantics are important and the notion of "human rights" has created a world full of welfare and despotism. For example, if I claim to have a right to your money, then I can claim that I'm justified in using violence to get it. The problem comes when "rights" are considered supernatural and objective. This creates a religious fervor and violence follows. We need to get back to understanding that these are just mere claims and human rights are NOT objective truth.


And Libertarians have a problem with aggression, but NOT with violence.

If you're saying aggression is initiating violence, and that this is a crime, but not violence in general, I agree. You're right, because violence is justified if its self-defense against aggression. Fine, I agree with this.

But now you're saying that copyrights cause harm because of how they're enforced... but you violently enforcing control over land is NOT harmful? No, its the same thing, its violence.

So if your argument is that rights don't exist, including the right to not have your body interfered with, then why are you saying the government harmed kids for DLing songs? You go on to say that they don't have rights to not have their bodies interfered with. So... what's with the disconnect here. Do they have a right to not hae their bodies interfered with or not?

If its justified for you to use violence to stop them from stepping on land, how is it not justified to use violence to stop them from drawing Spider-Man and selling it for profit? Both are using violence. So you call copyrights aggression, but not shoving your hand in front someone for stepping onto a plot of land that you want all for yourself? You're violently preventing them from planting crops and feeding their families, but if you violently prevent them from drawing a picture of Batman, all of a sudden its aggression?

[heavenlyboy34]

He's a lunatic and a commie. And I hope Ron (or whoever owns the logo) sues the pants off of him.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fZOoT1QPTBM/Thf41XCDwvI/AAAAAAAAJ3E/-3lSwd2jJXk/s1600/ron-paul-revolution.png
Yeah, get that Thought Criminal! :rolleyes: The "liberty for me, not for thee" crowd strikes again. :(

[heavenlyboy34]

IP is actually a violation of private property. You're telling me I can't put a bunch of colors shaped like your logo on MY t-shirt and sell it? You're violating MY property rights. I'm not stealing anything. Theft can only occur in the realm of scarcity. There is no scarcity in concepts. As soon as an IP is granted, they automatically gain partial ownership over EVERYONE else's property because now they're restricting what other people can do with their property.

You also seem to be caught up in this notion that people are entitled to their ideas earning them money. First, I hate entitlement thinking. Second, you won't find this occurring in the realm of theoretical sciences and mathematics. You can come up with some genius scientific discovery and you can't claim IP on it for everyone who ends up using it. Yet we have plenty of theoretical scientists and mathematicians working diligently.

Yes, this^^.

[maybemaybenot]

I'm not saying Brand stole anything, cuz its not copyrighted. But Russell Brand makes his entire living off of copyrights. That BOOK is copyrighted. He would use govt violence to prevent you from xeroxing his book.

[AlexAmore]

But now you're saying that copyrights cause harm because of how they're enforced... but you violently enforcing control over land is NOT harmful? No, its the same thing, its violence.

Before you said private property is the best thing humans have ever invented and now you're saying it's harmful. Maybe you should get your ideas straightened out.

Violently enforcing control over land is not inherently harmful. There needs to be a context. What if it's an orphanage and I'm a security guard defending myself and the children from a prostitution ring leader's gang?


So if your argument is that rights don't exist, including the right to not have your body interfered with, then why are you saying the government harmed kids for DLing songs? You go on to say that they don't have rights to not have their bodies interfered with. So... what's with the disconnect here. Do they have a right to not hae their bodies interfered with or not?

You can harm somebody even though rights don't exist. The next step is to find out if the harm was justified. If you made eggs and bacon and shaped it like a smiley face and I copied it...did I steal anything from you? Did I harm you in any way? No. But then you stick a gun at my head and steal all my money as a "fine". Were you justified? I would argue not. Kids copying music is the same thing. Did I have a right to that money that you stole from me? Nope. Would society work if everyone just stole each other's money left and right? Nope. Do we need to make up "rights" in order to realize what the right and the wrong thing is? Nope.

How is it justified that you can take a combination of musical notes and tie them up from anyone else doing the same? That's an aggression. I'm not making a moral argument about rights or anything. I making an argument from the position of "Will this lead to a productive and effective society?". I'm simply saying transgressing up others doesn't tend to have many benefits.


If its justified for you to use violence to stop them from stepping on land, how is it not justified to use violence to stop them from drawing Spider-Man and selling it for profit? Both are using violence. So you call copyrights aggression, but not shoving your hand in front someone for stepping onto a plot of land that you want all for yourself? You're violently preventing them from planting crops and feeding their families, but if you violently prevent them from drawing a picture of Batman, all of a sudden its aggression?

Nobody has the right to plant crops nor feed their families and therefore I am not obligated to accommodate them. I would make the claim that private property is a beneficial idea and hope others would back me up.

[AlexAmore]

I'm not saying Brand stole anything, cuz its not copyrighted. But Russell Brand makes his entire living off of copyrights. That BOOK is copyrighted. He would use govt violence to prevent you from xeroxing his book.

If he didn't copyright that book, someone else could copy his book, even name it with the same title and then copyright it themselves. They could then sue Russel Brand. I'm not even joking. I've read an anti-IP book that had it's IP protected for this precise reason. The government policy forces people into a corner against their will. I'm sure you pay taxes for things you are against with every fiber of your being.

[maybemaybenot]

Before you said private property is the best thing humans have ever invented and now you're saying it's harmful. Maybe you should get your ideas straightened out.

Violently enforcing control over land is not inherently harmful. There needs to be a context. What if it's an orphanage and I'm a security guard defending myself and the children from a prostitution ring leader's gang?



You can harm somebody even though rights don't exist. The next step is to find out if the harm was justified. If you made eggs and bacon and shaped it like a smiley face and I copied it...did I steal anything from you? Did I harm you in any way? No. But then you stick a gun at my head and steal all my money as a "fine". Were you justified? I would argue not. Kids copying music is the same thing. Did I have a right to that money that you stole from me? Nope. Would society work if everyone just stole each other's money left and right? Nope. Do we need to make up "rights" in order to realize what the right and the wrong thing is? Nope.

How is it justified that you can take a combination of musical notes and tie them up from anyone else doing the same? That's an aggression. I'm not making a moral argument about rights or anything. I making an argument from the position of "Will this lead to a productive and effective society?". I'm simply saying transgressing up others doesn't tend to have many benefits.



Nobody has the right to plant crops nor feed their families and therefore I am not obligated to accommodate them. I would make the claim that private property is a beneficial idea and hope others would back me up.

I never said private property was harmful, I called you out for saying it wasn't harmful but saying that copyrights were harmful. You said copyrights are harmful because of violent enforcement, but not private property. This is an inconsistency that you refuse to acknowledge or reconcile, so you purposely distort my views. My position has been very clear from the beginning: private property is the best thing ever, and its also an immoral institution built on violence. Lol any other institution is built on violence too, I'm not saying its worse, I'm just saying its not this flowery, perfect freedom thing we make it out to be. Its the best system ever, its best for everyone in every way whatsoever, but it is technically evil and violent. Excuse me for having nuanced views.

And I love how your example to justify violent defense of private property is an orphanage under attack, you purposely combine it with elements that change the situation entirely. Even if that wasn't private property at all, anyone would agree that you have the right to defend those orphans. But absent those orphans under attack, all you have is land that you want to keep for yourself that you enforce with violence. You purposely come up with a situation where self-defense is mandated even without private propery. I'm asking you to justify the violent defense of private property in general, not particular situation where a violent invasion always justifies self-defense. Practically its awesome, I love private property, but I'm not going to subscribe to some religious libertarian catchphrase that its "freedom" and "liberty." We invented private property, we violently enforce it, and that's great. Its best for everyone, its even best for the homeless, but that doesn't make it peaceful and just, it makes it the best system ever. It even makes our society "the most free" by empowering individuals better than any other system can, but that doesn't make private property "freedom," it makes it a 'necessary evil' for freedom. I mean "evil" in a technical sense, I have to admit violence is evil, that is the one principle of morality I subscribe to; but private property is still the best system ever, and any other system is certainly more evil.

So you call it aggression to stop someone from using musical notes, but you don't call it aggression to use the exact same physical violence to stop someone from stepping on your grass, because you put a sign up? That's inconsistent. Violence is violence. Your orphanage under attack is a particular, weird scenario that does not represent private property in general, and you know it. I'm not arguing against private property, my point is that the very logic of private property applies to copyrights all the same. Its violent, evil, and necessary to living in the freest, most comfortable and just society ever.

Okay, you confuse two totally different things. You act like someone using "your land" is you "accomodating them." No, you sticking your hand out in front of them before they plant crops on this Earth is violent aggression. I'm not saying it to insult you, that kind of violent aggression will cure cancer and HIV one day, but it is violent aggression. You keep talking about someone else not having a "right" to use your land, but you ignore the fact that you have no "right" to use it either, nor a right to stop them. You're just inconsistent.

You keep comparing the violent enforcement mechanism of copyrights with the peaceful aspects of private property. Both copyrights and private property are enforced by the same exact violence.

[JK/SEA]

anyone up for donating to have a blimp with ...WHO IS RUSSELL BRAND?..printed on the side?

i got 5 bucks in...anyone else?...

Trevor?...you up for this?

[AlexAmore]

You keep talking about someone else not having a "right" to use your land, but you ignore the fact that you have no "right" to use it either, nor a right to stop them. You're just inconsistent.

Okay I have clearly just caught you in the act of having horrible reading comprehension. Reread my freaking post, infact here's a snippet:

"Did I have a right to that money that you stole from me? Nope. Would society work if everyone just stole each other's money left and right? Nope. Do we need to make up "rights" in order to realize what the right and the wrong thing is? Nope.

BOOM. I DID NOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT I HAVE NO RIGHT MY PRIVATE PROPERTY EITHER. Please read my freaking posts more carefully.

My argument for the millionth time is that this isn't about "rights", this is about what leads to a productive and peaceful society. You don't need IP protections to have a productive society. They aren't part of a free market. They are incredibly abused.

[randpaul2016]

haters everywhere

why?

[navy-vet]

haters everywhere

why?
not real hate
frustration, fear, anxiety, not hate though

[oyarde]

Never heard of the guy .

[maybemaybenot]

Okay I have clearly just caught you in the act of having horrible reading comprehension. Reread my freaking post, infact here's a snippet:

"Did I have a right to that money that you stole from me? Nope. Would society work if everyone just stole each other's money left and right? Nope. Do we need to make up "rights" in order to realize what the right and the wrong thing is? Nope.

BOOM. I DID NOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT I HAVE NO RIGHT MY PRIVATE PROPERTY EITHER. Please read my freaking posts more carefully.

My argument for the millionth time is that this isn't about "rights", this is about what leads to a productive and peaceful society. You don't need IP protections to have a productive society. They aren't part of a free market. They are incredibly abused.

Okay, but before you said that violent enforcement of copyrights were harmful but that violent enforcement of private property was not harmful. Still haven't explained why. I've been arguing based on practicality/productivity this whole time. Its best for the creation of art and media for it to be copyrightable. If we could legally stream CNN and skip the ads, they would go out of business. The current state of streaming/piracy is nothing compared to what would be available if it were actually legal, it would kill media companies, and we'd lose the TV shows, books and other things that we enjoy. But, very little productivity comes from unofficial reproduction, it just discourages creation. Just like violently enforcing private property is best for the human race, violently enforcing copyrights over art/media/etc. is best for everyone.

Oh, and stop getting pissed over semantics about "rights." You were insisting that it was allowable/valid/acceptable to use violence to keep ppl off land, but unacceptable to use violence to keep ppl from drawing Batman. That inconsistency is what I'm talking about. Not rights. The simple fact that you condemn one but not the other, or approve one but not the other, or w/e word you want to use, just tell me what word you want to use. And you did claim a "right" to property, so stop getting all agitated over me reading the words you typed:


IP is actually a violation of private property. You're telling me I can't put a bunch of colors shaped like your logo on MY t-shirt and sell it? You're violating MY property rights. I'm not stealing anything. Theft can only occur in the realm of scarcity. There is no scarcity in concepts. As soon as an IP is granted, they automatically gain partial ownership over EVERYONE else's property because now they're restricting what other people can do with their property.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Still haven't explained why.


You still have not explained your very first forum post:


I'm a libertarian...I've been a libertarian since I read Ayn Rand freshman yr, and a Ron Paul supporter (and Republican) the moment someone told me a libertarian Republican was running for president.


You then immediately went on to insult multiple forum members as demonstrated in just two examples here:


Its an acronym, you f'n idiots


Seriously, if Ron Paul told you to eat your own shit you'd do it.




Explain.






.

[PaulConventionWV]

He's a lunatic and a commie. And I hope Ron (or whoever owns the logo) sues the pants off of him.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fZOoT1QPTBM/Thf41XCDwvI/AAAAAAAAJ3E/-3lSwd2jJXk/s1600/ron-paul-revolution.png

The problem is, I don't think anybody owns that logo. That's why everyone was able to use it freely during the campaigns. The person who made it probably wanted people to use it without limits.

[PaulConventionWV]

That's RPF user PRB for ya.

Still scoutin' for trolls, I see. Question, is there any point at which constantly commenting on the trolliness of a user makes one a troll themselves?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Still scoutin' for trolls, I see. Question, is there any point at which constantly commenting on the trolliness of a user makes one a troll themselves?


Hmm; interesting question and a good one. I think the question transcends the single sub-forums of politics, philosophy, and site feedback.

[PaulConventionWV]

That would definitely be within the spirit of the logo. /sarcasm

The stencil and spray paint symbolizes rebellion and anarchy.

How can one own a logo? Through government violence. Notice how the only way to "rectify" this is through more government violence (suing his pants off).

Calling a lawsuit "government violence" is a bit off the mark. I would even go as far as to call it hyperbole. The lawsuit is a generally agreed-upon method of seeking compensation for damages and the lawsuit itself is not initiated by the government but the plaintiff.

[PaulConventionWV]

I realize the "logo" is not owned or trademarked, and would not expect anyone to sue over it - but it is reasonably well-known, and recognizable as a graphic image associated with Ron Paul, and has been such for at least 7 years. A simple google search would've been enough to inform anyone who didn't know this.

So it's odd that Brand's publisher (Cornerstone in UK) would allow their art department to design a book cover using an already well known graphic, associated with another well-known person, who has already written a book titled "Revolution".

Nevermind that the word "Revolution" has been used with the backwards 3-V-O-L before. In this case, those letters are portrayed as having been stenciled - something unique to artwork created by Paul supporters in combination with the word "revolution" AND they've used the identical color scheme. Unless this book is an homage to Ron Paul, using this image was a crass and selfish move.

Ron Paul, an unapologetic capitalist, wrote a serious, informative book called Revolution to educate people about policies their government practices, and to bring people together for positive change - not to make money. And Russell Brand, anti-capitalist that he is, wrote a book called Revolution, centered on his own lightly-informed opinions, to make himself richer. The fact that he's copped a well-known graphic from someone else's movement in his pursuit of increased personal wealth, makes him look like a hypocrite. Apparently, he believes integrity doesn't matter unless you can be threatened with a lawsuit or government force.

As far as Russel Brand himself goes, he can be funny - or not - watch him if you enjoy him. I'm not too interested in'im myself.

Yeah, I agree that it was a dickhead move and very unoriginal, but that's about all there is to it. But hey, that's Brand for ya. He's just another loudmouth sticking his nose in places it doesn't belong. He should just stick to being a loudmouth funny-guy. He's better at it.

[PaulConventionWV]

http://media.timeout.com/blogimages/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Russell-Brand-Revolution-Book.jpg


LAWSUIT??? :toady:

Dude, no. Just... no.

[Occam's Banana]

Revolution ... so easy a caveman can do it.


http://media.timeout.com/blogimages/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Russell-Brand-Revolution-Book.jpg