What simplicio and kodos said. Yes, you may have a point that I shouldn't have linked the blog post at all, nor implied it was a pre-requisite by calling this a follow-up. I did that because of a) the similarity of many points, and b) encouragement from others who had seen it. However, that blog post is not a true pre-requisite; this article does not have any ambiguities that are only cleared up by going to my blog.

Second of all, if you think my position on IP was somehow pre-existing and that I was just rationalizing something I'd believe no matter what ... then wow, you have a lot of learning to do. I used to be just as anti-IP as any other Stephan Kinsella acolyte, and I can cite you posts from a period of at least 5 years, before many gnawing objections kept coming to mind. The blog post explores the intuitions that lead me to find the common anti-IP absolutism so troubling -- specifically, it's similarity to the reasoning of "hey, I've already been rescued, why should I pay?"

I would be glad to take you through ten years of my internet posts to show that IP isn't something I argue for "no matter what", but something that has inspired tremendous soul-searching. And you'll find that most of my postings aren't even arguing for one side or the other, but pointing out problems in specific arguments, without reference to whether the conclusion is nonetheless valid. The merit of, "Hey, I already know your idea now, why should I give you anything?" is something that they can debate whether or not they support IP.

Could you instead share your thoughts on the content I've posted specifically on LW?