Your website offered us with helpful info to work on.

You’ve performed a formidable job and our whole community will probably be grateful to you.

“Absolutely. And beyond that, I think there’s an even more important discussion to be had: how could IP law be reformed to provide a commercial advantage to creators without relying on a strict system of permission & control? I believe it’s possible.”

“is there a way to give the creator some sort of legal/economic “first mover” advantage without going as far as saying “you control all usage of your work”?”

“if the discussion is about what a hypothetical perfect system would look like, I’m not going to rule out the possibility that copyright or something copyright-like could play a meaningful role in it.”

So we’re not quite there yet.
I heard Rick Falkvinge mentioned in a comment, he says he goes by the Overton window: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdqt0euf6w1qan7oxo1_1280.jpg
And I’d say give it some more time as well. When 3D printers flood our Kmarts, so so many more will waken to this nonsense. Stephan just watch them dig their own graves.

a) “Exclusive rights in intellectual property are not natural rights”

to

b) “Copyrights are property only if and to the extent that Congress chooses to say they are.”

thus insinuating that she’s talking about the same thing, i.e. insinuating that ‘rights Congress is empowered to secure’ and ‘the privileges Congress granted’ are one and the same.

Being a transferable monopoly, it’s easily arguable that copyright constitutes legal property. But, of course, it vanishes in a puff of pixie dust upon abolition.

Being a priori inalienable, rights are not property – unless by ‘right’ one means ‘legislatively created right’ or ‘state granted right’, i.e. privilege.

It is not up to Congress to say what is or is not property, but nature. Even copyright supporters are having to recognise that saying their monopoly constitutes natural property doesn’t actually make it so – even if it lends a veneer of justification to the prosecution of the monopoly.

“Natural rights are nonsense on stilts” is not a counter-argument, nor is your equivalent riposte that I am now quite used to hearing from you.

You realise you are resorting to the same kind of evasive tactics as Robert Wenzel?

Rights are natural – ‘rights’ granted by the state are, a priori, rights annulled in the majority.

‘non-scarce’ is an esoteric term for non-existent. It would be simpler, more-coherent if you weaned yourself away from ‘scarcity’. It’s esoteric jargon incoherent to the layman.

A ‘non-existent good’ is more obviously an oxymoron than ‘non-scarce good’.

To have natural rights in non-existent goods is also an obvious oxymoron. One would have to have super-natural ‘rights’ in non-existent ‘goods’.

We can naturally only exclude others from objects that exist. To even attempt to exclude others from objects that do not exist, we lobby for super-human power to be granted to us by the church or state. Even then, as we see with copyright, even super-human power can be impotent against the liberty of the people and the laws of nature.

Our first priority must be to perpetuating the growth of Corporations as it is their wealth that trickles down to the people.