-Patch", demand we fork over money for the "privilege" of using our own gardens as we see fit and shove guns into our faces if we refuse to comply?
And if do not agree that gardening ideas should fall under the state-enforced violent aegis of Trademarks and IP...why is that? And why is it a permissible to do if we are dealing with books, games or stories?
Copyright, IP and TM are just luddite attempts for the equivalent of authorial dinossaurs to maintain a coercive monopoly on fiction (the very concept boggles the mind, one of the times people were victims of violence en masse due to peacefully holding different different opinions than the status quo wanted we called it "The Inquisition").
I can understand it sucks not being able to adapt to the current era and living, intelectualy, in the past, but shoving guns in people's faces because you cannot find a peaceful, profitable, creation and distribution process that is not anti-progress that would make you the miney you wanted is just foul. By that same logic we should destroy all cars and return to using carriages because the newer technology of the combustion engine effectively turned horses mostly obsolete and killed off that market. Of course, the horse breeders back then were not ingenious enough to patent or copyright the concept of "Transportation" or "Vehicle" and thus sue and aggress the incipient car industry into oblivion...and thus keeping their profits under an artificial, retrograde system supported by violence.
Just a note, if you were selling the prints of my painting and passing it off as the *real thing* done by me then we'd have a problem. Because then we are not dealing with fictions like IP and TM and all that; we are dealing with fraud (towards your customers) and identify theft (towards me) which is something very real and serious. If fact both of those are violations of the non-aggression principle and it is ethically permissible to use force to defend against them.
 In fact, I do not know how you could make such a claim given that you didn't know what my definition was as you asked me to provide it. What you did was make an assumption without enough base data and use it to make an affirmation about what you wrongly concluded was my position in these matters.
Beyond that you are going on a tangent, talking apples and oranges so to speak and delving all of a sudden into the material, physical world when the issue at hand were fictional ideas.
If you use my car, which is a non-replicable tangible asset, you are depriving me of its use in very real manner because we can't both drive the same car at the same time to go to different places. That action is a form of aggression that falls under the definition we call "theft".
However If you make copies of my painting as mentioned before, or if I use your idea on how to set up a vegetable patch, in no way, shape or form do any of those actions prevent me from enjoying the use of my painting or your from enjoying the use of your garden.
If you had a Tekumelian "Eye of Car Replication" that could make you a brand-spanking new vehicle exactly like mine out of extra-planar energy by pointing it at my car and pressing the stud...exactly how does that deprive me of enjoying full use of my car?
Of course, the car manufacturer might not be to happy about it because thanks to your superior technology you don't have to fork over immense amounts of cash to buy the cars he builds using now-obsolete methods anymore. He is now a technological dinossaur and he can either adapt to the new tech paradigm or quit the business.
But under the anti-philosophical principles that gave us fictions such as "IP" and "Copyright" what he can do his shove a gun down your throat and force you to pay "royalties" for the "privilege" of replicating a car which belongs to ME, using YOUR technology, know-how, energy, etc.
And if you refuse he can have you put in a cage and expropriate you of assets. And if you forcefully resists you will be mutilated or killed.
Now, how would that make any sense and under what system of values can it be classified as ethical or moral? What is that car manufacturer, if not a bully?
"you may have property "rights" - are these bullying me, because I want to use your car?"
You are committing two logical fallacies in that sentence and am unsure even how to respond because it makes no sense. First you assume that "property rights" exist...there is not such thing. In fact there is no such thing as "rights", they are simply fictional ideas like IP or Trademark. Unlike those they are nice, cozy ideas; but just ideas nonetheless. If you do not agree please show a me a "right".
Second you seem to assume that non-existing, immaterial, fictional "rights" are capable of bullying someone when, by any definition I am aware of, bullying can only be committed by living people upon living people. Even non-sentient animals that attack human beings aren't considered to be "bullying" the person, so I don't see how you can make a serious claim that "rights" (i.e. ideas) by themselves and on their own can engage in the willful initiation of threats and aggression against a human being.
Dealing with the car issue your sentence refers to: If you wanted to use my car without my consent and deprive me of its use then only bully in the equation would be *you*....not an idea.
"Think this one through, please..."
End of reply.Why Marc Leder Believes That This Will Tottenham’s Year
Marc Leder is a very good friend of mine and someone who knows football inside and out. In fact Marc has spent much of his career working with football publications and blogs and, as a Spurs fan, I wanted to pick his brains on how he thought that our season may shape up. To my surprise Marc believes that the coming 2019/20 will be a very good one for Tottenham and he makes a very compelling case.
Stadium
Spurs lost 13 games last year which is why it was so incredible that they were still able to achieve a top 4 position. Much of this, Marc believes, comes down to the fact that they didn’t have a stadium for such a long time, playing in Wembley for almost 3 years meant that Spurs just didn’t have the identity which they wanted. This season however they are going to be back home and they will be able to get better results because of it.
Transfers
Transfer policy at Spurs is something which many fans hate but Marc believes that this year Spurs will finish up having done some good business. Tanguy Ndombele is exactly what Spurs needed and he expects us to get at least Sessegnon and one attacking midfielder through the door before the window slams shut. Marc believes that Spurs are an attractive club who have money to spend. After posting record profits in 2017, covering the payments on the stadium and signing a new £300 million deal with Nike, that Spurs will be able to boost player contracts and bring in some real talent.
Disappointment
Spurs had no right to get to the Champions League final but that is exactly what they managed to achieve last year, and Marc believes that the disappointment of not winning is something which will kick these players on. The players have now had a taste of what it is like to be sat at the top table and that is something which will drive them on in this coming campaign.
League
The league is still just out of reach for Spurs, who aren’t quite yet at the same level of Liverpool or Manchester City. Although they may not win the league, Marc believes that they will push the top 2 hard, and that they can expect to lift domestic trophies and secure a top 4 finish again this season.
Break
This is the first year in the last 2 that the players have had a proper summer break and that is going to pay great dividends for Spurs. Harry Kane, Son and Alli will be back looking well rested and sharp, having had a good break and a solid pre-season with the team. This will have a huge impact on how well Spurs start the season and it could easily give them a solid foundation from which to launch their season from.
Is Marc right about Spurs?You wouldn't think a little bug could be much of a threat, but when it comes to spreading illness to humans, size doesn't factor into the equation. There are large bugs that present no threat at all to humans, such as the grasshopper and the dragonfly. And tiny, blood-eating pests that can torment, like bed bugs and mites. Size also seems to be irrelevant when it comes to which ticks are more dangerous. The most dangerous of all ticks is the deer tick, also referred to as the black legged tick. This is actually one of the smallest ticks, and it is linked to Lyme disease which is, arguably, one of the worst tick-related diseases. Let's take a look at Lyme disease and other diseases spread by ticks, and discuss ways we can reduce the dangers.
According to the CDC, 95% of confirmed Lyme disease cases were reported in only 14 states. Connecticut, Massachusetts, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. And while cases have appeared in all of the United States, even as far as California, Connecticut, and