NationStates Jolt Archive

I am in the process of reworking the NSCL manifesto. I would be grateful for all contributions that those interested in the party would like to make.

I will stick very closely to the original, with only slight modifications in organization and wording. Here is my progress so far:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Constitutional Principles
Defining the nature of society and its duty to the citizen

1. The fundamental goal of a free society should be the preservation of the rights and responsibilities of the individual.

2. To insure the preservation of the individual's rights, the governments power shall be limited to the minimal that is necessary to prevent the encroachment of the individual's rights.

a. The government shall not impose or allow any restrictions upon the individual's right to the free expression of ideas and beliefs.

b. The government shall not impose or allow any restrictions upon the individuals right to information.

c. The government shall not impose or allow any restrictions upon the individuals right to assemble peacefully.

d. Religion is a personal choice and of no concern to the government, therefore government will neither recognize nor restrict religious views.

3. The policies and actions of government shall be undertaken in a way that grants equal utility and equal freedom for all citizens of the society. If ever a conflict arises between these two concepts, priority is given to freedom.

4. All rights shall be allowed equally to all individuals who are capable of understanding and handling the responsibilities that are bound to said rights.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to discuss property rights and other economic issues next.

d. Religion is a personal choice and of no concern to the government, therefore government will neither recognize nor restrict religious views.

How does this work in regard to marriage? Does this mean the government will have no role, or it will only recognize civil marriages, or class all kinds of marriages in to one general, nonreligious grouping?

4. All rights shall be allowed equally to all individuals who are capable of understanding and handling the responsibilities that are bound to said rights.

How is this determined? It seems like a good idea but I'm wondering how we would determine when someone is ready to handle responsibilities.

How does this work in regard to marriage? Does this mean the government will have no role, or it will only recognize civil marriages, or class all kinds of marriages in to one general, nonreligious grouping?

Marriage, were government to offer benefits to couples in anyway, would certainly not have any sort of government assigned religious title. There would be defined government provided benefits of having a civil union, with any religious aspects left completely up to the individual.

I personally oppose any government recognition of marriage of any kind, but it is open to discussion.

How is this determined? It seems like a good idea but I'm wondering how we would determine when someone is ready to handle responsibilities.

That is up in the air also, I suppose. I figure that it will be handled much in the same way as it is presently. It isn't an exact science, but it would be impossible to make an exact science out of judging competency.

5. Economic regulations shall be maintained by the natural competitive forces of the free market.

6. The government shall protect the individual's property rights.

a. Individuals shall retain allodial rights, in that they can convey property rights through inheritance.

b. Government shall have the power of eminent domain only to provide necessary universally-utilizable services to society.

3. Taxation shall fulfill the cost of necessary government services.

a. All individuals shall be taxed an equal percentage of their consumption of the society's production.

b. All benefits or services financed through taxation shall be offered universally.

c. All services that are financed through taxation must be services that are unprofitable to the free market.

d. Government may provide any other legal service, but shall not finance these services through taxation.

bump

I would first like to point out that I share several views with the Classic Liberal party. However I am a staunch supporter of Universal Health Care. Is there any chance that the inclusion of an article that states "the Classic Liberal party defends that citizens should be entitled to universal health care" might be considered?

5. Economic regulations shall be maintained by the natural competitive forces of the free market.



I'm confused. By Classic Liberalism do you mean Libertarianism, or the philosophical definition of Liberalism a la Rawls.

4. All rights shall be allowed equally to all individuals who are capable of understanding and handling the responsibilities that are bound to said rights.

Yeah, I find this just a little too vague. I don't want to slippery slope you, but I find the implications a little frightening. (Who qualifies as undeserving of rights? Retarded people? Stupid people? And if these certain groups don't have rights equal to other groups, what rights exactly do they have? Do they have the right to life and liberty?) I'd prefer something like, "Every human being is endowed with natural rights, including the right to life, liberty, and property."

b. Government shall have the power of eminent domain only to provide necessary universally-utilizable services to society.

I'd prefer to keep the government's scope more narrow. I'd directly quote the Constitution about public use instead because "necessary" can theoretically justify a lot of things.

3. Taxation shall fulfill the cost of necessary government services.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo! :) I was so with you until taxation.

I'm confused. By Classic Liberalism do you mean Libertarianism, or the philosophical definition of Liberalism a la Rawls.

Liberalism in the views of Locke and Smith.

I would first like to point out that I share several views with the Classic Liberal party. However I am a staunch supporter of Universal Health Care. Is there any chance that the inclusion of an article that states "the Classic Liberal party defends that citizens should be entitled to universal health care" might be considered?

No. That's sort of a violation of classical liberal philosophy. Classical liberals don't believe in government interference in the economy, so unless you could voluntarily fund some sort of universal national health care, that'd be in direct contradiction with this manifesto and classical liberalism itself.

Liberalism in the views of Locke and Smith.

Okay. In that case both the taxation and free market stuff work.

No. That's sort of a violation of classical liberal philosophy. Classical liberals don't believe in government interference in the economy, so unless you could voluntarily fund some sort of universal national health care, that'd be in direct contradiction with this manifesto and classical liberalism itself.That's not true. Several prominant liberal parties across the globe that are affiliated with the liberal international, support universal health care. The Canadian liberal party would be the best example.

I would first like to point out that I share several views with the Classic Liberal party. However I am a staunch supporter of Universal Health Care. Is there any chance that the inclusion of an article that states "the Classic Liberal party defends that citizens should be entitled to universal health care" might be considered?

I supported universal healthcare in several party discussions, saying that it was impossible for the healthcare market to remain naturally free. I could not convince the rest of the party, though, so that provision probably will not get included.

Yeah, I find this just a little too vague. I don't want to slippery slope you, but I find the implications a little frightening. (Who qualifies as undeserving of rights? Retarded people? Stupid people? And if these certain groups don't have rights equal to other groups, what rights exactly do they have? Do they have the right to life and liberty?) I'd prefer something like, "Every human being is endowed with natural rights, including the right to life, liberty, and property."

People should not be allowed rights that they are not competent enough to handle the responsibility for. Retarded people can't handle the responsibility of driving, so they cannot be allowed to keep that right. Errors should always be made on the side of freedom, though. If there is doubt, then the individual shall retain the right until they definitely show their inability to handle the responsibility.

As for the last part, that is taken as given, that all are born with rights, and that it is the government's job to protect them. I guess that can be expressed in the document.

I'd prefer to keep the government's scope more narrow. I'd directly quote the Constitution about public use instead because "necessary" can theoretically justify a lot of things.

You are correct that "necessary" is very vague, but I would rather define what necessary means rather than directly quoting the constitution.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo! :) I was so with you until taxation.

What is the problem, do you support self-sufficient government?

That's not true. Several prominant liberal parties across the globe that are affiliated with the liberal international, support universal health care. The Canadian liberal party would be the best example.

This party represents the individualistic side of liberal thinking. That means it resembles the libertarian party more than modern liberals, although Alien Born and I were not libertarian.

As a self-proclaimed classical liberal -- but not a member of the NS party, yet anyway -- I like it.

Vittos Ordination, regarding your last post, what do you see as the differences between libertarianism and classical liberalism? That's a distinction I've never quite been able to see.

2. To insure the preservation of the individual's rights, the governments power shall be limited to the minimal that is necessary to prevent the encroachment of the individual's rights.

a. The government shall not impose or allow any restrictions upon the individual's right to the free expression of ideas and beliefs.
b. The government shall not impose or allow any restrictions upon the individuals right to information.

I'm interested to see how you fit this in with security issues, realistically. Does a citizen have a right to all government information on its counter-terrorist activities? Can a person in authority express the view that, say, all people called Gerald are not only evil, but should be killed. What if someone called Gerald is killed?


c. The government shall not impose or allow any restrictions upon the individuals right to assemble peacefully.

What, even on someone else's land? Or on any government land? I just think it's a bit too broadly stated, as with the others. Broad principles always have caveats. Even for liberals.


5. Economic regulations shall be maintained by the natural competitive forces of the free market.

Can the government not impose competition laws, i.e. laws against cartels and monopolistic abuse? Because such laws promote competition.


a. Individuals shall retain allodial rights, in that they can convey property rights through inheritance.

Can there be no inheritance tax? Because surely if there is to be tax then taking it the point of departure, as it were, infringes least on the property rights of the person that earned the money, so could be said to be the lesser evil.


b. All benefits or services financed through taxation shall be offered universally.

This slightly depends on what the services are, but... Is it right for a government to provide an isolated farmhouse with the same sewage system as a town house? I think not. Or are there to be competing sewage networks run privately?

Perhaps instead of universally it might say 'without discrimination' or something like that.

8. The government shall be responsible for a standing army for use to protect the citizen's rights from external forces.

a. Under no circumstances will conscription be allowed.

b. No discrimination based on race, gender, religion, or sexuality shall be imposed within the ranks of the military.

9. The government shall be responsible for a police force to protect the citizen's rights from internal forces.

a. A national police coordinating body shall be formed, with representation from all areas, to direct the financing and operations of the police.

b. Local communities may institute its own policing as it so desires. In event of conflict between national and local police interests, national police recieves priority.

I supported universal healthcare in several party discussions, saying that it was impossible for the healthcare market to remain naturally free. I could not convince the rest of the party, though, so that provision probably will not get included.Of course health care would have to come through carefull financial planning and a slight tax increase to medium to large sized companies. I will still support this party even though I'm more of a modern social liberal. A slighly left leaning one too.

This party represents the individualistic side of liberal thinking. That means it resembles the libertarian party more than modern liberals, although Alien Born and I were not libertarian.Got it. I'm more of a modern liberal but I will support the classic liberal party for the time being.

As a self-proclaimed classical liberal -- but not a member of the NS party, yet anyway -- I like it.

Vittos Ordination, regarding your last post, what do you see as the differences between libertarianism and classical liberalism? That's a distinction I've never quite been able to see.

The difference is only in scope of viewpoints. Libertarianism did get its founding in the thought of Smith and Locke, while Marx drew a great deal from the thought of Rousseau and Ricardo. (Even though he corrupted a great deal of Ricardo's economic thought.)

Liberalism is mainly about liberty for everyone. There are many different opinions on how to bring about this liberty. So while libertarianism represents a part of classic liberalism, it hardly represents the whole movement.

I'm interested to see how you fit this in with security issues, realistically. Does a citizen have a right to all government information on its counter-terrorist activities? Can a person in authority express the view that, say, all people called Gerald are not only evil, but should be killed. What if someone called Gerald is killed?

The main portion of that said that government had power to step in when individual rights are being encroached. Speech that would cause an eminent danger of encroachment to another's rights would not be allowed.

What, even on someone else's land? Or on any government land? I just think it's a bit too broadly stated, as with the others. Broad principles always have caveats. Even for liberals.

Once again, as addressed in the second principle, the right to assembly extends up until the rights of others are encroached upon. The citizens' right to assemble are indefeasible up until they encroach upon another's property rights.

Can the government not impose competition laws, i.e. laws against cartels and monopolistic abuse? Because such laws promote competition.

If such organizations take up actions that are detrimental to the economic liberty of the participants, then they are no longer abiding by the "natural competitive forces of the free market."

I generally have no problems with monopoly's, and cartels are usually associated with illegal activities already.

Can there be no inheritance tax? Because surely if there is to be tax then taking it the point of departure, as it were, infringes least on the property rights of the person that earned the money, so could be said to be the lesser evil.

A consumption tax would eliminate the need for an inheritance tax.

This slightly depends on what the services are, but... Is it right for a government to provide an isolated farmhouse with the same sewage system as a town house? I think not. Or are there to be competing sewage networks run privately?

This is a difficult part of the manifesto. It has to made general enough to not exclude any situations, yet be specific enough to not create too much confusion.

If sewage systems markets can be free and profitable, then they will be private. If they are not, then they will be relegated to the most local level possible.

The universal part of that does not mean universally equal, it means universal based on utility. In other words, all individuals should get the same needed utility out of a government offered service.

Perhaps instead of universally it might say 'without discrimination' or something like that.

If it would make it more understandable, then I would be glad to.

Liberalism is mainly about liberty for everyone. There are many different opinions on how to bring about this liberty. So while libertarianism represents a part of classic liberalism, it hardly represents the whole movement.

It seems to me that the key difference between political Libertarians (I differentiate between political Libertarianism and Metaphysical Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29)) and Classical Liberalism is the attitude toward government. Classical Liberalism, while acknowledging the danger of excessive government, considers government a positive and required component in establishing and protecting liberty. Political Libertarians, on the other hand, tend to focus on government as the chief danger to human liberty, and thus focus on ways to reduce/eliminate government in order to maximize liberty.

To the Classical Liberal, government is (part of) the solution. To the political Libertarian, government is the problem.

Of course health care would have to come through carefull financial planning and a slight tax increase to medium to large sized companies. I will still support this party even though I'm more of a modern social liberal. A slighly left leaning one too.

By our party standards and classic liberal standards in general, universal healthcare must be paid for universally as well. It would require an increase in taxation to everyone.

I have a feeling you will find yourself increasingly to the left of this party, as I represent the lefternmost edge. But I still encourage you to stay active, you might help me shift support away from complete libertarianism.

It seems to me that the key difference between political Libertarians (I differentiate between political Libertarianism and Metaphysical Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29)) and Classical Liberalism is the attitude toward government. Classical Liberalism, while acknowledging the danger of excessive government, considers government a positive and required component in establishing and protecting liberty. Political Libertarians, on the other hand, tend to focus on government as the chief danger to human liberty, and thus focus on ways to reduce/eliminate government in order to maximize liberty.

To the Classical Liberal, government is (part of) the solution. To the political Libertarian, government is the problem.

Exactly, that is the central external difference between the two. Classic liberals look at a well-run government as a way of protecting liberty, while libertarians look at any government interaction as an infringement on liberty.

The difference is only in scope of viewpoints. Libertarianism did get its founding in the thought of Smith and Locke, while Marx drew a great deal from the thought of Rousseau and Ricardo. (Even though he corrupted a great deal of Ricardo's economic thought.)

Liberalism is mainly about liberty for everyone. There are many different opinions on how to bring about this liberty. So while libertarianism represents a part of classic liberalism, it hardly represents the whole movement.

Gotcha, thanks.

I'm not here to debate the merits of the Party, as I am not a member, but I do have a semantics question:

People should not be allowed rights that they are not competent enough to handle the responsibility for. Retarded people can't handle the responsibility of driving, so they cannot be allowed to keep that right. Errors should always be made on the side of freedom, though. If there is doubt, then the individual shall retain the right until they definitely show their inability to handle the responsibility.Wouldn't driving be a priviledge, and not a right? Couldn't you draw a distinction between priviledges and rights, and have rights that everyone has, and priviledges that people only have if they can handle the responsibility?

I'm not here to debate the merits of the Party, as I am not a member, but I do have a semantics question:

Wouldn't driving be a priviledge, and not a right? Couldn't you draw a distinction between priviledges and rights, and have rights that everyone has, and priviledges that people only have if they can handle the responsibility?

Rights are pretty much abilities. Anything that can be undertaken outside of coercive force is a right. For example, everyone has the right to drive a car, provided that they own a car and there are no forces that have hindered your ability to drive. Blind people, children, retarded people all have, in the absense of government, the right to drive. However, it is their inability to handle the responsibility of driving that requires the government to take that right from them.

Privileges are things that are provided by government. Anything that you rely on government for, and would not have outside of society would be a privilege. Society provided healthcare, for example, would be a privilege. No on has an inherent right to have someone else care for them, to assume that they do would squash the healthcare provider's right to their own labor. The thing about privileges, though, is that they only require responsibility on the part of the government and can be given universally.

So the main difference is that privileges are given by the government, while rights are inherently held, and can only be taken by the government.

Intellectual property seems to me a massive issue for classic liberals. Don't have any and it's difficult to develop capital-intensive knowledge products like medicines. But as soon as you introduce it, you've got a massive problem of monopolies in the market-place, as well as committing the state to enforcement duties that are hugely expenive in both economic and political terms.

Intellectual property seems to me a massive issue for classic liberals. Don't have any and it's difficult to develop capital-intensive knowledge products like medicines. But as soon as you introduce it, you've got a massive problem of monopolies in the market-place, as well as committing the state to enforcement duties that are hugely expenive in both economic and political terms.

Intellectual capital is the result of labor just like any capital, and if we are to respect the individual's right to their own labor, we must respect intellectual capital.

Intellectual capital is the result of labor just like any capital, and if we are to respect the individual's right to their own labor, we must respect intellectual capital.

I can understand your position, but you've assumed away the problem rather than solving it. People produce ideas, but it's nigh on impossible to enforce a trade in them - apart from the fact that it doesn't seem very libertarian to allow control on the actual use of ideas if there's a suspicion they may have once been someone else's. Intelectual Property laws try to do the next best thing by restricting the trade in the derivative products of an idea, but it seems to me there's a tension there for committed libertarians.

I can understand your position, but you've assumed away the problem rather than solving it. People produce ideas, but it's nigh on impossible to enforce a trade in them - apart from the fact that it doesn't seem very libertarian to allow control on the actual use of ideas if there's a suspicion they may have once been someone else's. Intelectual Property laws try to do the next best thing by restricting the trade in the derivative products of an idea, but it seems to me there's a tension there for committed libertarians.

I don't really see the problem here. There is no restriction on the trade of the products, there is a restriction on someone unfairly profiting on the product of someone else's labor.

For example, there is no restriction on the resources put into the products, so if there are two separate processes that take the same resources and produce two completely compatible product, there would be no restriction on either product. So all restrictions are not based on the nature of the product, but the labor included in the process of creating the product.

I don't really see the problem here. There is no restriction on the trade of the products, there is a restriction on someone unfairly profiting on the product of someone else's labor.

For example, there is no restriction on the resources put into the products, so if there are two separate processes that take the same resources and produce two completely compatible product, there would be no restriction on either product. So all restrictions are not based on the nature of the product, but the labor included in the process of creating the product.

So what exactly is the product of the intellectual labour here? If it's the idea itself, I fail to see how you avoid freedom of speech issues, otherwise it seems to me you're stuck with monopolies.

The idea of making something from different resources doesn't really apply to anything you can copyright. I can put a book on a CD and read it on a computer, it's still a book. The question here is can people write plays about the book. Make films of it. Use some of the ideas in it. Where does "unfair profit" stop and "free speech" begin? What about trademarks? If I think your company's evil and make an artwork with your trademark in some unflattering setting, do you get to sue? It, is, after all, a reputation that you might have put a lot of work into building.

Plus your whole idea of patenting the process, instead of the thing produced, is subject to problems of reverse engineering. You could have worked out some that what people realy needed was a device that helped them tie their laces, the mechanics of which were really simple. Your insight wasn't how to make the thing, it was that the world needed this thing. Under your system I can pretty easily find a different way to make it and rob you of the fruits of your labour.

The reason I'm being such a pain about this is that I'm basically attracted to the ideas of Classical Liberalism, but Intellectual Property seems to me to be a big blind spot for the thing. For me it's a state licensed monopoly disguised under the name of property, and as such, I'm realy not sure how to square the two.

So what exactly is the product of the intellectual labour here? If it's the idea itself, I fail to see how you avoid freedom of speech issues, otherwise it seems to me you're stuck with monopolies.

The idea of making something from different resources doesn't really apply to anything you can copyright. I can put a book on a CD and read it on a computer, it's still a book. The question here is can people write plays about the book. Make films of it. Use some of the ideas in it. Where does "unfair profit" stop and "free speech" begin. What about trademarks? If I think your company's evil and make an artwork with your trademark in some unflattering setting, do you get to sue? It, is, after all, a reputation that you might have put a lot of work into building.

Plus your whole idea of patenting the process, instead of the thing produced, is subject to problems of reverse engineering. You could have worked out some that what people realy needed was a device that helped them tie their laces, the mechanics of which were really simple. Your insight wasn't how to make the thing, it was that the world needed this thing. Under your system I can pretty easily find a different way to make it and rob you of the fruits of your labour.

The reason I'm being such a pain about this is that I'm basically attracted to the ideas of Classical Liberalism, but Intellectual Property seems to me to be a big blind spot for the thing. For me it's a state licensed monopoly disguised under the name of property, and as such, I'm realy not sure how to square the two.

Free speech and profiteering can be vaguely determined by the motivation of the producer. If it can be determined that the individual using the intellectual and abstract capital of another did so with the intention of making a portion of the originator's profits, then free speech will be revoked, as it violates the other's property rights. Violation must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before free speech is revoked, however.

While I can see where problems in interpretation can arise, but the point stands:

The government provides the individual with a monopoly over his own wallet, so he must provide him/her with a monopoly over his own ideas. They are both the same thing in economic terms.


(You have raised some issues that I don't have direct issues for, however, and since I have not truly thought this through, I will do so now.)

Again, I might be saying or writing something to make a profit, but does that stop it being free speech? When am I "unfairly" muscling in on your profits, and when am I just making use of your contribution to the general public body of knowledge as part of my act of fre speech.

Also, the wallet-idea analogy gets right to the heart of the problem. The government monopoly on your wallet and on the idea aren't the same because if I "steal" your idea, you've still got it, and if you've told me about it at all, I have in some sense "stolen" it. They couldn't be more different in economic terms, because the idea can be reproduced over and over again at no (or very low) cost, and once it's been produced once, that's the most economicaly efficient thing to do with it (assuming it has some economic value in the first place), whereas to reproduce your wallet I'd have to do some work of my own (or forge money - which would be a whole different set of problems).

Thomas Jefferson says the same thing much better, as well as making a few other good points here: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl220.htm (http://)

It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until wecopied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

Also, the wallet-idea analogy gets right to the heart of the problem. The government monopoly on your wallet and on the idea aren't the same because if I "steal" your idea, you've still got it, and if you've told me about it at all, I have in some sense "stolen" it. They couldn't be more different in economic terms, because the idea can be reproduced over and over again at no (or very low) cost, and once it's been produced once, that's the most economicaly efficient thing to do with it (assuming it has some economic value in the first place), whereas to reproduce your wallet I'd have to do some work of my own (or forge money - which would be a whole different set of problems).

If someone steals your idea, you still have your idea, but it's value is cut in half. It is like someone has gone into your wallet and taken half of its contents, you still have your wallet, but its value is cut by half.

All capital and property rights are based upon the utility of the capital or property. So, by using someone else's intellectual capital, they are effectively negating a portion of the utility of the capital.

Now we seem to be having difficulties defining what exactly constitutes intellectual capital. It is definite that intellectual capital exists and must be protected, but what exactly constitutes intellectual capital? I am struggling with this myself, so I will brainstorm an answer to the Jefferson quote and see if I get any closer.

As a matter of fact, I won't. I can't deny his logic, so I must assume he is right.

Rights are pretty much abilities. Anything that can be undertaken outside of coercive force is a right. For example, everyone has the right to drive a car, provided that they own a car and there are no forces that have hindered your ability to drive. Blind people, children, retarded people all have, in the absense of government, the right to drive. However, it is their inability to handle the responsibility of driving that requires the government to take that right from them.I see. I'm not sure if that's how I would define it, but it's your manifesto. :) Carry on.

I see. I'm not sure if that's how I would define it, but it's your manifesto. :) Carry on.

How would you define a right?