Eliezer opines:
>Under a technoanarchy, buying the machine, or blueprints of the machine,
>or any information about the machine, would require that you agree not
>to build the machine, and require the same contract of anyone to whom
>you disseminate the information, up to and including the information of
>the invention's existence. People who refused to participate would not
>know the invention existed. One could buy insurance if one could not
>make good on damages from the revelation of the invention. This is a
>completely Libertarian solution with pure contractual agreements. It
>also happens to be completely impossible. Imagine trying to conceal the
>existence of an FTL drive from a randomly selected 5% of the population!
This may be a "libertarian solution", but it's not one that's likely to be seriously proposed by a libertarian, because of the obvious fact - as you rightly observe - that it wouldn't work.
Contractual agreements could replace copyright and patent law, but not by the absurd expedient of swearing people to secrecy. There are all sorts of possibilities, fortunately not limited by your imagination, some of which would undoubtedly arise in a free market, assuming enough demand for a solution.
What's a "technoanarchy"?
>Thus the Libertarian solution must be approximated by governmental fiat.
So you concoct an idiotic "solution", label it "*the* libertarian solution", and conclude that "government" force is the only remaining possibility. Pretty amusing. You should've been one of the Marx brothers - maybe Karl.
Dick