(Hat tip Jules Jeffrey)

[Mises; SK]

Now I know why my opinion is different with some others. I pretty much sucked at sharing. I most definitely did not think sharing was "fun." I did not play nice in the sandbox, either.

And you still don't.

Beeswax:

lol...I am an individualist in many ways. Sharing is not one of my stronger attributes.

Wonderful! Very rigorous, actually.

But why the FBI warning?

It's obviously a joke.

The concept of the enjoyment of sharing is rooted in the material and transient. I, personally, do not like to share material items such as, let's say, a favorite reference book. This item has great value to me and, if this item is rare, would incur an expense upon me to replace. However, let's say the ideas within this rare reference book have conceptual knowledge that could serve as a basis to new forms of thought. If people can extract what they read from this book to better themselves, then the ideas have transcended the material value of the book. With each reading, it is not only copied but is transformed and is transforming within others. If the book is too jealously guarded as a material item, then it has lost its purpose. This leads me to understand that I guard the book because it maintains a material value to me; but, the ideas it contains, I share for that is what the pursuit of knowledge requires of me.

Or, maybe I'm just full of crap.

PCDLS:

Tough for you to share the ideas the book contains, because you do not know which ideas are important, or might be important, to a receiver. So the ideas you may transmit from the reference book might have no value at all to a receiver.

However, the ideas can be obtained from another copy of the book. Any ideas I have I choose to share or not.

Dear full of crap, I understand your jealousy (because I share that as well in some cases), but let's highlight the bright side. Money is cheap. Having a good time is priceless. With more people sharing and understanding, you increase the chances of having a good time.

PS: Money isn't always cheap.

Not sharing your stuff is all right even though you might sometimes be called a jerk by some, but violently preventing others from sharing their stuff is not ok.

Samuel:

I would never violently prevent anyone from sharing their stuff so long as it was acquired per John Locke's third natural right:

Estate - everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.

Note that copying is a protected natural right only if copying is granted by gift or trade. Taking a copy without permission meets none of Locke's natural right conditions.

Of course, Locke also apparently said that these rights are violently enforceable, so what do I know?

Note also that these "natural" rights cannot accrue to a business or corporation, only to individuals.

Creation is not an independent source of property rights.

Taking a (pre-existing) copy without its owner's permission would be theft.

Making a copy without permission is something else entirely.