: and when they arent dying then 'denying' them is not because they can get it elsewhere? it eitehr is or it isnt.Look, the distinction is thus: if have something, and am using it for myself, its fine, its not 'propterty' in teh capital sense (say my house), but once I stop using it for myself, and start to make a profit by using your right to exclude other's using it, to set conditions tehrefore, then it is theft, it is 'capital'/property.
We don't want your tooth brush. If you have a glass of water, thats not property, as soon as you sell it to someone else, it is.
: heres the crux of the thing, the inventor or organisor of some product is bound over to supply to anyone who says "yeah ill have that" and be gamned to hell if they dare have an opinion about how *their* minds work is to be used, whcih couldnt exist without them.
If we were on a sinking ship, and I had a plan for our escape, by what *right* could I withold it, and make you swear to serve me, or give me things?
Once an idea leaves your head, enters into common language, it ceases to be yours, I cannot say what a screwdriver will be used for once I make it, so why should I hold property over an idea in such a manner?
:slaves
No, freely associating members of the community- without money, property, a state nor any form of co-ercion, how could such people be slaves? We recognise their idea s being a part of them, and thus recognise them, and esteem them for their products and ideas, but there is no need, nor right, for them to de-recognise us, and claim soverignty over us, because of their ideas.
How can it be right to let someone die because they cannot pay for my idea?
