>Not really sure how one is supposed to engage with a response that isn't even making an argument and is more of an angry rant that doesn't even focus on the discussion of copyright.
I did you just conveniently chose to ignore it and tries to strawman by not even tackling those said arguments but trying to undermine the basics, but don't worry I'm good at them too.
>The post is basically just the standard "government and regulation evil" and "free market good" rhetoric
It's not just , it's the base for it and tied to it as we are discussing laws that are created and enforced by the government. Not to mention, that you purely argued from government intention perspective without proving how this intention actually plays in real in life which I did, unlike you.
>I'm confused that he's complaining about Statism and government regulation and intervention in economics and property, and "welfare state" when not having any sort of government intervention there or social safety nets would makes things so much worse.
Wrong, look at the high numbers of children growing up without a father because the government finance single mothers. This only became prevalent phenomenon thanks to the welfare state. I suggest you read some of Gertrude Himmelfarb books discussing and comparing Victorian England to the Modern one, discussing the escalation in crimes and kids being born out of wedlock.
>Just look at historical and modern examples of what happens when a company or private individual is not being watched so they don't poison, injure, or kill people while trying to make a profit
In the case of private individual if you live in country which to bear arms, you can defend yourself instead of hoping the police will arrive in time. In the case of a company, you can sue them and get them closed unlike governments agencies who will continue to operate no matter what horrible things they've done. For crying out loud, the recent experimental shots were funded, approved, pushed and enforced by the government! This thing couldn't happen without the back of the government. If you fear an entity with a money, then you should fear even more so an entity with money, arms and no accountability to hold.
>even with those regulations we still have problems with that sort of thing
Which just proves those regulations are useless.
>Corporations can do what ever they want with no government even trying to reign them in? That's how you easily get the sort of dystopian corporate feudalism we see in cyberpunk fiction.
No, they aren't, it's vice versa as we see today that's the direction we're going. Let me teach about the principle of "the invisible hand"; when there is actually free competition and not the shit we have today, it makes sure there wouldn't be monopolies/duopolies/etc or "too big to fail" because if certain company is successful and in certain market, it will invite a new company to compete and take share of that certain market and by that ensuring companies will try their best to provide good service and products for low prices as any new company can compete and try to overdo the other company. This only possible when you have free market and no regulations which makes it hard to establish a new business and enter that certain market as those regulations are in favored and lobbied by big corporations. Furthermore, going back to the discussion about copyright issue, besides the simple fact of corporations lobbying to prolong the copyright and sustain their unjust monopoly, we also see how those corps keep buying other corps or companies solely for their IP and firing the workers of those corps or companies, resulting in greater monopoly, unemployment (which can't be easy solved as there is no free market and welfare system encourages it) and poorer services and products, because again government sponsored monopoly like every monopoly.
>Our systems are flawed and there's a lot of selfish lobbying and corruption, true
Which completely contradicts your argument above. You yourself admitted that the ones who shape the copyright law are the corps and not your benevolent protecting government.
>and I think laws should ideally be designed to protect people from each other and not themselves
Everyone thinks it, the important question is are those laws are necessary and therefore have the impact which follows their intention? Or it's just empty words which results in opposite and negative impact?! "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Again, the case with IP laws has no legs to stand on, because not only is that IP is not real property as it's not tangible and neither scarce which are the conditions that create the need for property rights in the first place. But also, copyright results in hurting actual property rights by limiting one' use to his own property and changing the definition of homesteading in which the property owner isn't the one who was the first to occupy it.
Sound like a utopian commie talk which ignores the reality that doesn't let a flawed theory work in practice.
>but I have a hard time taking any sort of "The system is broken and needs to be removed or replaced" seriously at this point
I think your confusing change done in moderate pace to revolution, we all should aspire to the former one as the French revolution proved to be disastrous.
>It's nowhere near bad enough to require that in most parts of the world
Oh, it already is and it will get worse, USA' debt is now reached the point of no return. There's already recession as we speak and it's just a matter of time until it will become like The Great Depression which by the way was prolonged thanks to government intervention, as usual.
>I've seen so many
Or that you argue some incredibly stupid ones or those who just get acquainted with these ideas because your basic bitch arguments are easy to refute. Do you really think that libertarian intellectuals didn't went through them?! Read a book!
> keyboard warriors
You're also one as you argue in favor of keeping the status quo.
>make that sort of argument and then don't really give any idea on who would build the new government or how that too would not be corrupted over time or wouldn't be something worse
As I've said before, collectivist, I'm not in favor revolution anyway. I have no specific idea about leader, because that something that completely depends on finding the right person which is complex issue for any type regime as it goes beyond ideology, but laws?! That would be easy! You should just have laws to protect only real property, laws that prevent and make it hard for the government to add new laws but make it easier to cancel them, etc. The other main issue is the government should be small and only have army, police, courts and jails, that's pretty much it though fellow AnCaps would argue no even that and rely on small community managing itself like how humanity did for hundreds of years until statism became a thing.
>These people rarely give any indication they would be willing to risk their lives for this sort of revolution and rebuilding the system in that manner either and the ones that do come off as the an example of
Because libertarians aren't retards that are backed by the elite like Antifa. They're fully aware that they're minority and as it is they couldn't pull a revolution which will be succeeded.
>"Until a man is twenty-five, he still thinks, every so often, that under the right circumstances he could be the baddest motherfucker in the world."
What is this dumb quote?!
>I don't see the point with arguing
Yet you're and not in a direct way, you slimey hypocrite.
>with angry revolutionary and "tear down the system" fantasies because the people bringing that up rarely want to have a civil discussion or do anything other than rant about the evils of the world
Strawman and ad-hominem, pat