For me, books are—besides the Internet—the greatest things of all, an ideal form of thoughtful communication. The writer can sort out and enumerate his arguments in peace; whoever is uninterested in his anecdotes can skip over them without hurting the writer’s feelings. Words often take a long time before they actually reach someone. It can easily happen that suggestions are never really internalized, but merely float around in our heads. We need a connection to our inner being. Books allow us to pause, focus ourselves, look up, and let our gaze wander into the distance. We might observe the horizon or other people; we might lose ourselves in our ideas; we might use our time to solve old conflicts in our head using new ideas. In any case, a book gives us unending opportunity to fathom at our own pace the thoughts and motivations underpinning the author’s statements.
In Objectivism, ethics concerns the question of how we should act in our lives in order to achieve what we value. But the world is too complex to look into the future in detail; for this reason, we need to rely on fundamental principles. Just like concepts are a tool for us to understand the world, principles are a tool for us to act in the world. For both concepts and principles, we omit the concrete measurements in order to focus on the essentials. In this article, we will discuss copyright, i.e., the right of the creator to determine how his or her creation is used and how we should act towards the property of others. While we will discuss ethics actually only later in the book series1, I want to anticipate this topic because knowing about copyright is like packaging: it is necessary to deliver the book into your hands, even if you do not see any use for it at first glance. The history of a book—from the first written line, to the print, the packaging, and the delivery—are invisible to you. But without this “packaging”—the copyright—this book would not exist. I hope to awaken an understanding of the copyright, but I will focus on the field of ethics and refrain from citing any clauses from the law.
The copyright is currently under attack from the technological as well as from the ethical side. Morally, the case is clear: if you produce something, you have a right to its utilization. The opponents of copyright law try to relativize this with various arguments. In this article, we want to discuss these arguments one by one as well as create a deeper understanding of the value of an idea or a book, respectively. But ultimately, here, we cannot solve this conflict. Two groups with differing moral concepts can only be brought together if they agree on a common philosophic basis. Otherwise, most of the moral, economic, or political arguments are but hot air. So, what do I want to achieve with this article? To take a stand, to sensibilize for the subject, and maybe also out of own interest to communicate the value of a book.
The modern world of printed ideas started with Johannes Gutenberg. He lived from 1398 to 1468 in Germany and worked as a blacksmith. As the inventor of the movable-type printing press, he revolutionized book creation in Europe. With his idea, he was a key figure in the Middle Ages as it allowed mass production of the written word. He provided the possibility to the everyone in society to expand their horizons.
While the printing press made it possible for ideas to spread widely, it also made unauthorized copying economical. The newly created market needed a protection because no longer was material possession alone relevant; the ideas and thoughts behind the writing became more prominent. This was the beginning of the knowledge-based economy and provided the foundation of the first copyright laws about 300 years later.
In the following, we will take a closer look at this new world of copyable thoughts. In the first part, I will start with a brief overview of how this book has found its way to you, the reader. The second part will be about the foundation of values and why the right to the products of your own mind is beneficial to all parties. To conclude, I will address some practical arguments concerning intellectual property.
The Value of a Book
Perhaps you are reading this text, without a reference to its author or this book series, copied and standing alone on a website or in another book. Whom do you talk to if you have questions? Who communicates and corrects found errors in the text? Who informs you when there are updates? Who brings together a community of readers? Who publishes future books? And how can you be sure that the views of the author are presented correctly?
Wherein lies the Value of a Book?
Firstly, a book consists of paragraphs of text. Thus, a book is a medium to transfer language, be it telephone numbers, stories, pictures, or instruction manuals. Language is more than pure information. One can communicate a lifetime of wisdom and memories. Every thought of the author can lead us to new ideas, upon which we can build. We can imagine being the protagonist of a story, what he feels, what he senses, what he touches.
Secondly, books are in most cases targeted to a larger group of readers; books create communities and connect people with the same sensibilities. Books can be like an open sign to others to communicate one’s views, experiences, or values. In addition, a book is corporeal. It has a cover, a design, pictures, and a text as a title. A book sits on a bookshelf and is displayed to visitors. You can read it in café and create a connection with others on a visual level. Books are a means of communication. You can read books to, or exchange them with, others. You can cite important passages of the text; every citation is like a cue to a common background and common interests.
Finally, books are not just collected text. They are different from conversations or a simple blog on the Internet, as there is a clear statement of intention and investment behind a book. Because of the time and costs required to create a book, each paragraph is treated with great care. Books consist of concentrated thoughts, which have been restructured, rearranged, and revised again and again, thoughts which first went through the minds of a whole series of critics. Books need time. There are books which consumed many years of the author’s life. Books are materialized over a lifetime—somewhat like a child you send on her way who must learn to stand on her own.
In summary, as a distilled lifetime of the author, a book represents the following values to you:
- Wisdom, feelings, sensations;
- Community; and
- Communication, signaling.
The Art of Publishing
How are the values that we mentioned earlier created? First and foremost, there is the author who poured his lifetime, wisdom, feelings, and perceptions into the text. But is this then also reflected in the text for the reader? We have learned that we need to translate our thoughts and find a common base of communication, so any draft requires a whole number of reviewers who can provide constructive criticism.
In addition, the text has to be brought into its final form. An editor must check the list of references, the footnotes, the table of contents, and the index. All of this work has to be coordinated, for which we require a collaboration system, a modern online management and communication system, and a build system that automatically creates new versions of the book and tracks every change.2 Because of the costs involved, those publishing companies who still rely on manual labor in that regard are a dying breed.
Then, the book has to be locatable for the reader. It has to be registered with the (German) national library and furnished with an ISBN number, the price of the book has to be registered (because of book pricing laws in Germany), a title and description have to be written, the book has to be photographed, and it has to be displayed in a book shop or online shop. The text has to be rendered in the proper printing format, a printing company has to be selected, and investments have to be made in advance to keep the book in stock.
Then, payments have to be processed, logged, and submitted to the tax office. In addition, the company has to have an attorney, every buyer has to be registered, addresses have to be managed, payments have to be checked, and customer support requests answered, ideally on the same day as they are submitted. A website has to be designed, information updates have to be communicated, and community support has to be developed through public readings. The readership expects to be informed about new developments by newsletter, Twitter, and Facebook.3
The “bottleneck” of the production of a book is not the author, but rather the creation of a community of readers.
Ideas and stories are available everywhere; publishers accumulate many finished books which cannot be put out on the market because the publishers cannot find a readership that would make publication worthwhile. The challenge is bringing together the right people at the right time. The job of the publisher is to find people interested in a subject, find an author writing about that subject, and effectively communicate why the book is relevant to the interests of the potential readers.
A book is much more than the paper and the words written on it, and a substantial part of the costs of creating a book goes into the creation of a network of authors and readers.
The question we should ask the opponents of copyright is: How can a book exist without having a publisher to support it? Of course, there are exceptions, but most books are never printed; no publisher waits for the “next big hit” that floats through the door in the form of a manuscript by an unknown author. There are enough texts—the question is, how can we create communities and get them interested?
In the face of all these points, the book that we finally hold in our hands seems like a mere footnote whose actual value lies hidden. It is no surprise that authors usually receive only about ten percent of the book’s selling price. Most of the revenue is used to create bridges and bring people together, spontaneously and without further commitment, for a greater purpose: the creation of a book. That is roughly the reason a telephone book is rather difficult reading and why specialized books are expensive: Telephone books are free, and specialized books usually not concerned with creating a community.
An investment in a book is an investment in the whole process, in the development of a community of ideas.
This book does not end with the last page; you do not put it aside and “see what else is on TV.” Instead, I would hope that you share your understanding of the subject with others. An investment in a structure that develops around this book supports your own goals. As a publisher, we will gladly support you regarding any questions you might have and will consider all your suggestions and ideas. This service is part of the purchase of the book and not separable from the copyright. No institution is better suited than the one owning the copyright to support this community, as it is the central hub for all of the readers and interested people. The purchase of the book and the reading itself alone help to promote the ideas in this book to a larger audience.
By purchasing this book you have already supported the further development of this series, and we thank you very much! If this text reached you through a different path, I hope that you appreciate what we want to achieve, ask us for your own personal copy and that you mention this book to others.
“Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind. […] What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values: these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea.” Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
The German word for “property” (literally “sitting-at”) comes from the verb “sitting.” The origin of the word lies in the fact that in former times, land ownership was acquired by actually living and working on the piece of land in question. An example in the modern world would be the colonization of America, when the government granted land ownership with the “Homestead Act” to those who had been living and working on the land in question for five years.
COPYRIGHT · Copyright is a temporary monopoly right to a monopoly for the benefit of the creator of a work.
I hope to have made clear to you in the previous section the great value of the copyright for the creation of a book. Despite this, there are others who understand the value of ideas but still see no value in protecting them. They rationalize this behavior by arguing against the very concept of intellectual property. In this case, we encounter predominantly the argument that (only) physical violence and, for this reason, copyright (which ultimately must be enforced by the government) is immoral: “Everything goes as long as nobody is hurt.” In this section, we will examine more closely how we can counter such an argument.
A World without Intellectual Property
Imagine a world without intellectual property. Imagine an artist who puts all her lifeblood into a project. Another company gets hold of a copy and markets the project professionally. The artist receives nothing and sees her life achievement warped and destroyed. Other artists are discouraged and ultimately the general public notices that, in the end, the lack of protection hurts them as well. Cases are litigated in court, and some artists even resort to vigilante justice. After a while, a court rules that an artist deserves compensation and needs to grant permission before their work is copied: this is basically the origin of copyright.
The point is that even if copyright did not exist, sooner or later something like a copyright would be developed because the creators ultimately sit at the longer end of the lever: Without them, the novel, piece of music, film, or painting would not exist. There is no power in the world which could force people to be creative. They have to want it; there needs to be a trade of similar value available.
Of course, there are theories about how intellectual property can still be protected in a society without copyright laws. Two parties can form a contract making it illegal for one party to talk about, write about, or copy a certain thing. But that is not centralized protection. Whoever looks over your shoulder and copies your novel has not formed a contract with you and cannot be sued. The same applies to a burglar who could be tried for burglary but could still legally sell the copied data. While we can encrypt such data, this merely increases the time and energy required for the theft; at some point, the data has to be decrypted to be read by a third party.
Another approach is to start out with the assumption that the product is being copied freely after publication and to search for investors not after but in advance of the publication. That is the goal of the alternative, so-called “crowd-funding” model. There, interested people pledge a donation in advance and then profit from special options, e.g., from a free ebook or a personal meeting with the author. The disadvantage of this approach is that one cannot let the market “test” the product. Every participant has to know the value of the product prior to or at the time of publication.4
Of course, in the case of “crowd-funding” or other payment models without copyright, the “compensation” of the creator is reduced to the financial component and the author forfeits their control over the content. The creator would no longer retain the right to take action against the corruption or misrepresentation of his product. This is especially relevant in fields where monetary profit is not the main reason for a work’s creation: Think of private pictures, diaries, or telephone conversations. Without copyright, it would be more difficult to determine someone’s original statement because anyone could copy and modify any intellectual creation under any name.
Finally, the quality of our material and intellectual products has reached such a high level that many can exist on their own. Many people can use smartphones, books, television, etc. without special training. These things are designed for immediate consumption or use. Due to copyright infringements, we are unfortunately currently moving in the opposite direction, whereby more and more companies are giving up on creating worthwhile products that can stand on their own merits. Instead, they try to bind the customer to the company.
The price of “free media” is that you are chained to a company by technological means (e.g., digital rights management), psychological manipulation (advertisement), or by services that are no longer part of the product (e.g., consulting, training, or speaking events). You are only really free when you are the last element in the chain of industry—the consumer. Removing copyright means replacing the publisher with another organization to create the relationships to bring together readers and authors. Ultimately, it means that you replace the money-based economy with an economy based on relationships. Here, you would have to invest time and energy yourself to become part of and develop a network of readers and authors. The price is still there, it just has to be paid with different means.
To summarize, a lack of copyright protection reduces the power that media like books can have. Without copyright protection, a book can no longer stand on its own, but rather its existence is limited by the services offered alongside the book.
Implementation of a Copyright
Because of this missing content protection, it was decided that the abstract content itself should be protected, rather than the paper on which it is written. At the same time, creative work is judged to be unique and thus we have to assume that identical works could only arise through being copied. Law enforcement is simply missing the technology to be able to prove theft of intellectual property concretely. We cannot look into people’s heads and trace every memory. Instead, we assign a temporary monopoly to each creative work. In addition, we establish a lower creative limit so that the mere discovery of an idea is not sufficient (e.g., you cannot register a patent on a natural law). It is not possible to give a clear statement of where exactly we draw this line; thus, there inevitably will be patent cases which are accepted or rejected arbitrarily.
Effective protection of intellectual property must be bound to the contents of and not to the thing itself.
The only open question concerning copyright remains why the copyright does not terminate with the death of the author. This question can be answered quickly: A book project is an investment, and money has to be spent before its publication. What investor would be interested in a book written by someone who is near the end of his life? Thus, to extend copyright to survive death is in the interest of everyone. The voice of an ill or dying person has just as much value as that of a healthy person; value depends on the content, not the health of the author. On the other hand, when we quote from publications, their contents thus become more widely recognized cultural knowledge. For this reason, to limit copyright to, say, 50 to 70 years makes sense, and anything beyond that timeframe would amount to a form of censorship.
Selected Arguments of Opponents
In the following, we will look at and refute the most frequently mentioned practical and philosophical arguments of the opponents of copyright. Ultimately, they do not address the main moral argument defending copyright, namely that the producers work with their mind (like anybody) and should own the fruits of their labor. Instead, they usually focus on technicalities or problems when trying to implement copyright law. An in-depth discussion of rights, morality, and law will be discussed at another time, so here, we will argue on the technical level as well.
Studies have shown that those who favor the abolishment of copyright are often fans who, for example, support their favorite musical groups financially by attending live concerts.5 Their argument is that they discovered their favorite bands only because their music was freely available on the Internet. They are supported by a number of bands who espouse the same viewpoint and suggest that people should be allowed to copy their albums freely.
One argument is that artists supposedly would profit from the abolishment of copyright. But even if you were to find examples in which the revenue of, say, a musical group has increased because they provided their products for free on the Internet, it does not follow that this would apply to all other bands as well. And even if it did apply, this option is available even with copyright law intact. The protection of intellectual property is always optional. Fewer options on the side of the producer cannot lead to higher revenue.
The fact that some creators, for example, music bands, have spoken out against the protection of their own products is not really an argument because the biggest share of the income goes to the publisher (the labels) and not the band. While the publisher earns money only by actually selling albums, the band can profit from any form of publicity because the fame, the worth, of its name increases.
Another point which is usually ignored in an argument is that a market, where copyright is effectively implemented, looks very different. In such a market, producers have to compete using demos, trailers, sample chapters, or sample works. A free copy for you to get the idea what the product is about would almost always be available.
Another common error is not taking into account the many changes in the entertainment industry during the past 30 years. In times past, only a few movies could be produced, whereas today, an enormous array of movies are available. They are all competing for the same limited resource—the time of the consumer. This is most visible in the tendency to use an existing brand name (e.g., a movie title) instead of betting on something new: the costs to build up a brand name have significantly increased because of the competition. Without copyright, if there is not enough money from investors for the initial “hype,” most people would buy copies from third parties at a lower price while the creators received no compensation.
What is the situation for authors and musicians who are very famous? They earn a living mostly from shows, readings, or speeches. The argument states that, due to their uniqueness, these people do not need protection of their intellectual property. But in reality, these people are but the figure-head of a group or company who depend on the success of the marketed character. For example, the creative mind behind the music and the actual performer on stage might not be the same person. It is a group effort and we need to have means to protect the intellectual property of every link in the chain of production.
But even if an artist is able to directly market his products by creating himself as the trademark, what would prevent other people from copying that trademark (the logo, brand name, appearance, etc.) and pose as the artist? Without this protection, the only advantage of the artist over marketing companies and resellers of intellectual property is that the artist is the first person who offered his specific services to others. Because of this, even without copyright, there would be production companies, but their profits would be limited to the short time span between publication and shortly after that. A book or piece of software can quickly be copied and sold in a store for half price.
In the realm of philosophy, opponents project an Utopia where any form of action against this ideal is used as an argument against copyright. The conflict between proponents and opponents is founded in the different personal preferences and psychologies. One group of people prefers an ideal world in their minds while another group of people focusses on results and ignores difficulties with the application.6 Maybe these differences could be compared with the different types of languages in Philosophy for Heroes: Knowledge. My own position is based on the assumption that you should have a right to your own work, no matter if the product is of material or immaterial nature.
In that regard, a frequently cited argument is that copying an immaterial product could not be theft, or that it would be immoral to prevent someone by force from illegally copying intellectual property. Unfortunately, this view is not only popular among people who simply seek to justify their own actions, but also among intellectuals, especially anarchists, and left-leaning libertarians.7
The primary difference between intellectual and “ordinary” property is that ideas are non-corporeal. For example, intellectual property is copyable, and others could come up with the same idea on their own. But this difference alone does not mean that these different types of property should also be treated differently. Both types of property are based on the recognition of the creator’s power over his product. If we do not recognize this power also in terms of property rights, they might exercise their rights for their future products: the creator will go on “strike.”8
In anarchism or libertarianism9, there is nothing on which anything like intellectual property could emerge from. Actions are evaluated only by their means. Any given action is permissible as long as nobody initiates physical force. You create something, and someone else takes it without permission: physical force. You create a story, and someone else copies it without permission: no physical force. In a libertarian society, intellectual property is protected only by individual contracts, not centrally by the state.
Concerning copyright law, Libertarianism attempts to use a political argument (“initiation of force by the government is immoral”) in the more fundamental realm of ethics. Your rights to your own property supposedly should be sacrificed in order to minimize possible rights violations by the state.
This is a fallacy of the stolen concept. You cannot use a more specialized concept (“non-aggression principle”) against a more general concept (“private property”). For example, we cannot argue that we should not go outside simply because we might end up in an accident, as the loss of the possible benefits you might encounter outside of your home outweighs the possible dangers. Likewise, you cannot argue against your right to self-defense in order to protect your assailant.
The problem with the libertarian argument is that it is a purely technical argument. That the government protects corporeal but not non-corporeal property is just circumstance and could conceivably change in the future. Where do we draw the line? What about a government which simply does not have the means to solve murder cases, for example? What about our government, which can solve these crimes but occasionally convicts an innocent citizen?
Due to technical limitations, the government can only in the rarest cases figure out how certain ideas originated. This is the reason that, in reality, it can implement the principle of intellectual property only inadequately in the form of copyright law. But the same applies to all principles. If we take the non-initiation of force to be the overarching principle, we also would have to argue against courts and government in general because false judgments may occur.10
The only two consistent positions in regard to the criticism of intellectual property are either the complete opposition to property rights and the state or simply the critique of the implementation of the intellectual property rights.
Thus, the protection of intellectual property does not necessarily require a copyright. If the necessary technology existed, the government simply would have to trace the origins of the creation of a product. Then it could be clearly judged whether it was a new, but identical creation, or a copy of something existing. Thus, any criticism of intellectual property can be reduced to criticism of its practical implementation. You could only argue that violating intellectual property rights would in principle not be as bad as the consequences of the implementation of copyright.
If we summarize the opposing arguments, it gives a view of the foundation of their philosophy: it is a form of perfectionism or passivity. They prefer a world of apparent “moral purity,” i.e., a system in which you can supposedly claim that you have never supported an “unjust” decision as opposed to supporting a world in which people can actually live. In addition, they see every minor violation as a kind of original sin.11 In this, you move toward an intellectual passivity as you begin to condemn any part of society indiscriminately at any time, instead of weighing up the positive and negative sides. Then, nothing society produces seems to be of any value.12.
The Perfect Crime
Finally, and for further reflection, I present an example that is closely related to the human ideal promoted in this book series13: we should strive for the best possible life and should not be satisfied with less. By this, it is not necessarily meant that we should amass material possessions. Instead of a life of opulence, we should strive for a life of high quality: a harmonious life, a life with the highest possible long-term value.
We all have preferences for different authors, musicians, scientists, etc. and in discussions we sometimes encounter the question of which figure we would like to spend an afternoon with. How much would it be worth to us to read or listen to one last great album, book, etc. by this person?
Looking at it from the other side, imagine a situation in which your favorite artist lives in the neighborhood. He has all his originals there and only occasionally lends them to museums. You can view all the works there for a fee which he invests in the creation of new works. As an egotistical (thinking only in short-term and only about oneself) person, you could now think about breaking into his house and stealing all his works to be able to enjoy them for free on a daily basis. Assuming that you would never be caught for the burglary, why would you not want to do this?
We can even extend this example. Assume that (however we managed it) we became king of the world and now have access to the property of all of humanity.14 If we have placed our personal happiness in life as our highest value and set the pursuit of happiness as our goal, why should we not just exercise this power and acquire all of the property of humanity for ourselves?
Of course, it is true that at the moment of the theft, we would really be like a king. But afterward, we would suddenly face a new reality. The act itself has changed the conditions of the market: we have sent all creators the message that their long-term investments are no longer worth it. So we have traded exactly that which we value the most for a short-term feeling of contentment. All of our heroes would stop producing. It is the same narrative that you will find throughout this book series, the conflict between short-term and long-term thinking. It is like a drug whose effect soon becomes its opposite and which distorts our judgment about the world. The best life possible cannot be found in the quantities you amass, but in the long-term quality of your life.
Another point of view is that each of our purchases is like a vote what future products should look like. When we finance a product, we signal not only to the creator, but to all the participants of the market place that such a product is valued and future investments might be worthwhile for them. If we steal, we achieve exactly the opposite—we proclaim that we do not value the product in question. The market will then move to another direction and the world more and more contradicts our values. The simplest example would be street musicians. Only those will return who are paid. If you do not pay for a piece of music you like, the musician will be replaced by someone who is liked by a paying passerby. Conversely, if you pay for a piece of music only out of courtesy, you will be hearing more songs that you do not like.
The best possible life is a life lived without regrets. What all the riches in the world cannot buy is the ability to turn back the clock. Even if we could freely help ourselves to any of the products of present artists, we still would subvert our ideal future. We cannot support our heroes retroactively. We need to support the products of their mind in the present with a copyright.
To summarize, here are our most important arguments:
“BOTTLENECK” OF PRODUCTION: · Implementation and creation of a community of readers.
VALUE OF A BOOK · Information, wisdom, feelings, perceptions, community, communication.
INVESTMENT IN A BOOK · Investment in a complete process, in the development of a community of ideas.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY · Must be bound to the contents and not the thing itself in order to exclude uninvolved third parties from a contract.
WITHOUT COPYRIGHT PROTECTION · Reduction of the value of media, chaining the customer to services offered alongside the media.
PRACTICAL ARGUMENT · Artists would profit from the abolishment of copyright—only valid if the artist and producer are one and the same person or group and are sufficiently famous.
LIBERTARIAN ARGUMENT · Copyright cannot be implemented without an initiation of force by government; for this reason, the idea and the protection of intellectual property is immoral in libertarianism.
COUNTER-ARGUMENT · Intellectual property is like any other property; every type of property is created through exerting one’s mind. The fact that the government has technical difficulties in protecting it without the initiation of force is not an argument for dismissing this protection entirely.
TWO CONSISTENT POSITIONS · Complete opposition to property rights and the state or critique of the implementation of intellectual property rights.
BASIC CONCEPT OF THE OPPONENTS OF COPYRIGHT · Demand for perfectionism, an all-or-nothing attitude, no assessment of the advantages of central protection of products of the mind.
THE PERFECT CRIME · Unlawful copying is harmful to the actual, ideal world, even if nobody is directly harmed.
Piracy of copyright-protected material is an ongoing problem with all types of media. While most people want to pay for media and support the author’s future work, they can be misled by pirated content, which severs the connection between the reader and the author.
We provide material (e.g., on our website www.lode.de) for free use, as we are convinced that it helps the reader to make an informed purchasing decision. We encourage readers to share this material with others interested in the subject.
On the other hand, we take the protection of our other copyright-protected material very seriously. If you encounter illegal copies of our products in whatever form, please inform us of the location or Internet address immediately so that we can take appropriate action. Please note that we cannot guarantee the quality, correctness, or the completeness of pirated content. If your help leads to a successful removal of pirated material, we will reward you with a free copy of the applicable work. We rely on your help for the protection of our rights and appreciate your investment of time and attention.
Please contact us at [email protected] (anonymously, if desired), ideally with a description and a link to the suspected pirated content.
If you think the contents of this book are of such importance that you feel that you must share them with your friends, please do so; you can freely lend the book to anyone. If you want to present the content of the book to a larger audience, please send us a message at [email protected] We will provide you with support, affordable additional copies, and further material. Let us put our resources and energy together!
Thank you so much for your support; you help to protect the rights of our authors and make it possible to provide you with valuable content in the future.
2This book was created with the help of Jenkins, GitHub, eclipse, overleaf, and LaTeX.
4If the author is already well known, this is less of a problem, as a market for his work already exists. This is also a reason movie sequels became so popular—the brand name is already recognized.
7Left-leaning libertarianism is a political view with the central idea that property should be administered by society in a decentralized manner, while anarchism / anarcho-capitalism simply seeks to have no (central) administration.
9In the following sections, I am referring to both when speaking about libertarianism.
10To be fair, it should be noted here, that anarcho-capitalists actually argue in this fashion.
11The “slippery slope” fallacy: Just because the government violates the rights of one person does not mean that a full-blown dictatorship will result.
12This encapsulation with a concurrent idea of moral purity is an essential part of a cult. We will discuss the psychological foundation and background in the third book of the Philosophy for Heroes series (see Lode ).
14Which is similar to the Internet, in which you have access to copies of most intellectual property.