After people have grasped what the NAP (Non Aggression Principle) is and understand the basic implications of establishing this principle as law it is not hard to see what of our current society would remain the same and what would change. 
The basic stuff is obvious. Theft, rape, murder, assault (all of which are illegal today) remain illegal under any law that is based on the NAP while drug laws, gambling laws and anything else that violates self ownership would be gone. Taxation would be illegal as would government as a ruling force. 
The principle is clear and how it applies to each situation is pretty clear as well, but some areas may require a little more consideration than others do. 

26069006 sWhat of Intellectual Property in a free society? 
While the answer to this question is not quite as immediately obvious as it is with most other things, there is an undeniable answer that is clear after minimal objective analysis.
Once again we rely on the NAP to set the standard for law.

In short, the NAP offers no copyright protection as a matter of law, but what it does allow for is the establishment of copyright through contract law. 
Adding copyright demands to purchase agreements, or even placing all encompassing standards within the regulated markets, are both ways that intellectual property and copyright standards can be preserved and to anyone who voluntary commits to such an agreement your obligation to the contract is supported by the NAP laws, but such things do not exist outside of contractual law, only as part of standards that have been voluntarily agreed prior.

So you could have copyright and intellectual property, exactly as it is today, within the regulated market. 
The rules can be exactly as they are today but they will be rules within the regulated market (not law outside of it) and only apply to those who have voluntarily agreed to such obligations, they will not be part of actual law (outside of contract law).

Even if it is not applied across the board within the regulated market(s) copyright can still be applied through contract law by attaching copyright standards to purchase agreements. 
Either way the standards that have been established today for copyright and intellectual property can be retained as part of contractual agreement, they just cannot be imposed to those who do not agree to be part of such standards.
This is consistent with both the logic and the spirit of a free society, but more importantly it is undeniably consistent with the principle that defines a free society, the NAP.

The one area where the law of the NAP is providing some direct protection for your "intellectual property" outside of basic contract law validation and enforcement is through the law against fraud (theft through deception). 
In or out of a regulated market committing fraud is a violation of the NAP. It is theft, utilising deception as the methodology but still a definite and tangible form of theft.
So people can share and even sell your intellectual "property", if they are not bound by contractual law, but they still cannot pose as you or as a legitimate distributor. 
So make your own unofficial Star Wars movie if you want, even for profit, just don't pose as George Lucas (or Disney as it would be now) or pretend that you are providing official content.

To break it down, it is the same principle for all aspects of the regulated market, just as it is the same principle governing a free society. 
You have every right to reject the rules and standards of the regulated market, just as you have every right to ignore copyright and intellectual property standards. But if you operate outside of the regulated market while pretending you are in it, then you are defrauding both the consumers and the regulated market providers by intercepting their potential transaction with each other.
Posing as a legitimate owner or distributor of intellectual property would be fraud for the same reason. Theft through deception.

So there is the basic standards that the NAP takes care of and people can then negoiate and agree to what the NAP does not cover as part of voluntary standards.
The NAP laws are not voluntary standards so, regardless of your agreement, the black and white standards of the NAP is enforceable to anyone (and by anyone).
In other words, it is a crime to commit fraud and if you enter into contractual agreements then you are obliged to honour them, but if neither of those scenarios apply then intellectual property is simply not recognised as your property by the law of the NAP.

So, to summarise the situation, in a free society IP and copyright will only exist as part of contract law, but contract law is enforceable under the NAP so this is a solid home for the concept of intellectual property and copyright, but you have to agree for contract law to become relevant.
The simple reality remains that copying, sharing and even selling other people's intellectual "property" is not a violation of the NAP because there is no actual theft there and once an artist puts their work out there then it is out there. Nobody can claim ownership over ideas and copying, even cynically, is not a crime (unless you are breaking contract or committing fraud).

That's the long and the short of it. The NAP defines crime clearly for us, beyond that it is all voluntary only in a free society and if you want copyright then you will have to do so through contractual agreements.


Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Become A Volunteer

Join the Nations Of Sanity and help us create a real revolution of simple sanity

Join Now

 

Connect with Us