That's because the politicians and the special interests are the same people. Rich people get themselves into office so they can collaborate with their rich friends in office to form legislation that is sympathetic to their own financial aspirations and business friends. Basically, rich people get into office and vote for laws that make them more money.
No, that's purely inductive reasoning and it's not impossible. Just because nobody has succeeded does not prove that it can't be done. You can't have a voluntary society if your infrastructure still operates on a system that necessitates coercion. A coercive economy requires a coercive societal structure (i.e. government). You need an economy that will allow people the freedom to refuse to cooperate. You can't just throw out the government that ensures everyone participates and cling to an economy that requires everyone to participate. If everyone needs participation from everyone else to get things done, it's inevitable that you'll form a system that ensures nobody can live without contributing to the whole.
To have a truly voluntary society, infrastructure must be put in place so that each member can be self-sufficient. That means decentralizing the means to production so that each and every person can produce for themselves what they need without additional labor from outside sources. But it's more than that, you need to deal with issues of property. For that, there needs to be an abundance of all resources required to satisfy human needs. With an abundance of resources and productive means, cooperative contribution would be entirely voluntary. Some would just live their lives and some would voluntarily assemble to achieve collective goals.
If you can't overcome the limiting interdependence of our current society, any other system is doomed to fail.
Nope, wrong. There is no such thing as intellectual property. There is no language in the US legal code that defines ephemeral things as property. There are only temporary monopolies on the distribution and sale of art and inventions. So I suggest you try again and stop pretending that you know more than a site frequented by lawyers, economists, and tech experts that will tell you the same. There are regulars here that could cite actual legal code so fast, it would make your head spin. I'm just a lay man, but even I know you're full of it.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe
When a privileged minority controls all of the resources and the means to production we need to live, you are property. The only choice you have is which owner you work for. They own your labor because they have the power to keep you from accessing those resources if you refuse to participate in their system. The only other option for those that want to be free, is to live in the wild.
Slavery isn't strictly defined as violent control over another person. Deceit and misdirection can just as easily enslave a person. When you are forced by violent means to labor for another, you know you are enslaved. But when you are born into a system where you must labor for the means to live and are exploited by the owners through debt, fear, and ignorance, you are just as enslaved as if they slapped shackles on your wrists. The only difference is, that you don't see your cage. You don't see your master putting the boot down on you.
Capitalism is a form of slavery just as feudalism was slavery. The kings (owners of the land and means of production) have vassals (CEO's) that are stewards of the king's property and they use lords (managers) to coordinate the serfs (wager earners) who trade their labor to enrich everyone up the chain for the meager means to live. The serfs could not rise above their station and this lead people to seeing such a system as nothing more than slavery.
Today, capitalism operates on same principles, expect for one difference. The serfs can rise to higher economic status, but everything else stays the same. The king still owns the land and means to production and you still work for managers and CEO's that exploit your labor to make them and their bosses rich. People are falsely lead to believe they are free because of that little idea that they can rise from a serf to a king. However, this almost never happens and it certainly can't happen for everyone. If everyone was king, nobody would be. So they replaced socioeconomic destiny with a battle to be the next king. Keep the people distracted with fighting each other over who gets to be king and nobody notices that they are being used as chattel to keep the current kings in the lap of luxury.
I don't believe anyone owes me a living. I'm not advocating that others should give their labor up so that I don't have to, that would be contradictory to my goals. No, what I want is people to be self-reliant and have access to the means of production so that they can provide for themselves the goods they require to live. They should have the freedom to work because they choose to and not because of a mortgage, loans, and bills are compelling them to do so. We are a very technologically advanced society and we could devise a way for people to produce their own goods with very little time and labor put in (automation).
This is good because right now, a lot of human potential is wasted on daily toil to maintain the minimum of existence. When people are applying the majority of their labor to food and shelter, they can't invest it into the science, technology, art, philosophy, academia, and exploration. In other words, they can't participate in the advancement of humanity because they're too busy trying to stay fed and sheltered. This is the 21st century, we shouldn't still be struggling to feed and cloth ourselves. We should be free to pursue higher goals.
"'Renting' real property has great value to both parties."
What does value have to do with it? Absolutely nothing, because value is meaningless. What matters in real life is human needs and available resources. The problem is, property makes it possible to hold those resources for ransom and make people into slaves. Make no mistake about it, we all are slaves. If you have to trade your labor in exchange for the means to live, you are a slave. It's one thing to be at the mercy of nature for food and shelter, it's quite another to be at the mercy of property owners that want to exploit your needs for their own gains.
"Claiming ownership of words, sounds, images, and concepts, and attempting to control their use by others, has nothing to do with the concepts of real property ownership."
It has everything to do with it. It's the same insidious game. Own something, then keep everyone else from having it unless they labor to make someone else rich in order to get some symbolic units of labor to exchange for access to something you simply put borders around. It's a literal walled garden, but it's still just a border that is created in the mind of every person. People put these walls around resources that have been in existence since long before our first hominid ancestors were born and people think that they have the right to claim exclusive ownership over it.
There is one and only one exclusive form of property in this universe and that is our will to choose what we do. There is only one truly scarce resource, time. Everything else can be combined, transformed, and remixed without end. Matter is simply information and like information, it can be manipulated if you have the right tools. Just like the information age gave us the tools to create any content we wished, tools will one day exist to allow us to produce any material items we need by our own will.
It seems people just want to own property so they can sit back and collect rent from people generating actual wealth. If you own something and only rent it out to others so they can make it useful, you're a leech and don't deserve to own it. Rental property and licensing of rights are just a huge drain on the rest of us. They get all the wealth and we do all the work. That sounds like slavery to me. Most slaves had to work for nothing more than the bare minimum needed to live, how's that any different than capitalism? Cue the droves of sheep spouting "Capitalism is great! You're a commie pig looking to free load off of hard working people." No, sorry. I'm not the freeloader, our corporate majority shareholders are.
Oh, the old, "If he has nothing to hide, then he has nothing to fear" chestnut! What a load of shit! If he's innocent he shouldn't have to let them subject him to extradition. Only a complete moron would let that go without a fight. Assenting to the authorities simply to appease their suspicions just invites them to walk over everyone and ignore the fact that innocent people have the right to not be harassed by the law! What if the law were to accuse you of ethereal crimes that you are innocent of? Would you allow them to proceed? Would you let them violate your privacy so they can confirm that you're not a criminal? How would you like it if the police just raided your house at random to do just that? Every time you suggest that people you think are obviously guilty should be subjected to that, you also suggest it be allowed to be done to everyone else, merely upon accusation.
"Well, first, I CAN claim that Dotcom is GUILTY without a court trial. The evidence was all over his site: infringing content plus income from advertising and premium speeds. There's no doubt on that point, kids. It's not as though you and I haven't seen the details."
That's not evidence, that's your fucking opinion! Megaupload is a business and like all businesses, they operate to earn profit. So they find ways to do that. Just because MU makes money doesn't mean that the actions of their customers adjoins MU as an accomplice to infringement. MU is blameless for the actions of their customers. If you want attack and accuse someone of being a dirty fucking pirate, why don't you point that avarice at the people that fucking uploaded that content?
However, the car analogy is often used to point out that there is a used market for every kind of good and that the game industry is not special nor exempt from that fact. Used games impact the market just the same as any other used goods. So they trot out the "A game is not the same as a car!" excuse.
EA can no more complain about used games than Ford can complain about used cars. Each has a second hand market and each has to accept that. Though, software developers everywhere try to get around the right of first sale by claiming that you don't "own" your copy, it's only a license despite the fact that section 109 of the copyright act states that you are permitted to sell the copy you own without authorization. It's really just semantic sophistry. They claim you don't own the software, which is true, but you do own the specific copy and you may sell it granted that you transfer your copy in whole and unedited to the buyer.
Or, they could figure out a business model that let's them secure their compensation before they publish the game. If they made their money that way, it wouldn't matter if they were purchased new, used, or just simply copied for free. Anybody that publishes content that they want to be paid for before making sure they will get paid is a moron and deserves to lose money.