I was actually asking for evidence regarding your claim about the Founders, but that was my fault for not being clear.

I ccept Natural Law. And that's precisely the point. The germain law is "Thou shalt not steal." How can  you steal ideas? And if you cannot steal ideas, then how can you own ideas.

Valiuth has hit the nail on the head. "Can some one own a color if they are the first to blend it, a word if they are the first to speak it, or a note if they are the first to play it? Do you not relinquish your rights to your ideas when you share them, in the same way you relinquish the rights to your property when you give it away?"

Based on what evidence? 

Some of the Founders (I believe Madison?) did talk about ideas as being "property," but mostly in order to justify religious liberty. I would argue that this was not the best argument for religious liberty.  To my knowledge, none of the Founders referred to intellectual property in the context of patents or copyright laws. I may stand correction on that point.

Furthermore, what is the basis for this right--this right of intellectual property? As I said in my post, the problem with this concept is that it has no basis in the law, which is what "rights," so called, are derived from. Rights are derived from and understood by the moral law, civic duties, responsibilities, etc. 

Okay, that's clear. So in this case, I would argue that the author of the book should have a copyright, but not one that has an indefinite end. He deserves compensation for his labor, at least for a time, which is why the Constitution allows temporary copyrights and patents. Does he deserve a permanent copyright--or one that stretches on so long that it has a de facto permanence? That depends on whether you consider ideas to be "property" in the legal sense. See post above. 

What do you mean by "control his creation"? Do you mean prohibiting future copies of the original product? The wording is important. Copyrights don't merely protect against theft. Given enough time, they create a scarcity for an item when there is no natural scarcity (like Disney movies, for example). This arguably is its own form of theft in that it steals both the earning potential of others and the wealth of others. It steals the wealth of others by artificially inflating the price of a product. So the price is higher than it would be, and the beneficiaries are fewer than it would be.

Are you defending government-induced monopolies?

It would seem to apply more to didactic/scholarly works, for sure. Still, doesn't one creative masterpiece often inspire another?

Very true, but why limit yourself to obscure works? Consider how Disney takes their classics "out of the vault" and continues to make a hefty profit on very old movies.

No, you're not.

The problem is in using the term "replacement theology" to describe the first position. The term is misleading.

Used in a more appropriate sense, replacement theology describes a much more radical view, the nearly antisemitic idea that Gentiles have completely replaced Jews in the new covenant--that Jews have no part to play in building God's church. That's not how the term is used in this post, of course, but still, I would guess that using the word "replacement" is why you, and me, and probably others, are loath to identify outright with one of the positions mentioned.

To Schrodinger's Cat: The first view is better described this way: The new covenant fulfills the old covenant promises, but no sharp dichotomy exists between Israel and the Gentile church. To the extent that we are in Christ, we are all one people of God.

Here is a better list of the different views.

So Romney is preferable to Obama. But what comes after Romney?
Will we have Romney, then Ryan, and then the millennium? I don’t
think so. Republicans will do what Republicans do—screw things up. 

I would contest the hidden assumption made by so many conservatives—the assumption that voting for Romney will bring about the best outcome. Oh? 

So here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to vote for true
conservatives, and I’m going to prepare for cultural engagement.
Cultural engagement with whom? Not the Democrats, actually, but with Republicans. I’m preparing to contend with a Republican compromise on gay marriage and/or the newest form of Republican collectivism. Please note how Republicans have presented liberals as the enemies of Medicare, while they are the true friends. Problem is, I don’t want Medicare for my grandchildren. Mark me down as uncooperative.

You may charge me with not being adequately concerned about four more years of Democratic leadership. I would respond that many are not prepared for four more years of Republican leadership, not to mention the long-term consequences of these four years. Oh well. Let us forgive one another.

A few more points.

Obama is terrible. Having him for another four years would be even
more terrible. But how did we get Obama?

Answer: we ended up with Obama because of big government
conservatism—the “compassionate” conservatism of George W. Bush.

Remember how much conservatives loathed Clinton? Now we look back at Clinton with comparative longing, but still, how did we end up with the gross and bad Clinton? Because King George the First raised taxes despite his “read my lips” pledge. Squish conservatism leads to bad liberalism, of necessity. And it does so in two main ways.

First, it does so by initiating the baby steps that become giant
strides once liberals come to power. Let’s be honest--it’s kind of
difficult to oppose the stimulus bailout when you once rallied around
TARP. Second, squishy conservatism doesn’t work. It’s ineffective, it
will fail, and then everyone will nod their heads knowingly and say,
“See, we tried conservatism; now it’s time to call out the government dogs.”

Hence, Republicans tout just enough conservatism to discredit it, but not enough to turn this country around.

I've noticed an interesting trend.

I’ve noticed that those who are most willing to give Romney a pass on all his faults are also those who are most insistent on perfection from voters (measured as willingness to support the GOP candidate). So if on Election Day I vote for conservatives across the board, yet I vote for a candidate other than Romney, then I’ll invoke excoriating criticism from my fellow conservatives. But why? Why is there more negative energy exerted against THAT than Romney himself--for passing Romneycare; for unilaterally enforcing gay marriage in Massachusetts via executive order; for increasing funding to GLSEN; for appointing gay judges to the bench; for criticizing the boy scouts’ stance on gay scoutmasters; for pioneering Cap and Trade with his "Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan"; for supporting the Kyoto Accord; for raising taxes in Massachusetts; for increasing spending by 5.2 million over his governorship; for inserting abortion coverage into Romneycare? And the list goes on.

I’m not a political idealist or a romantic purist. We
live in an imperfect society, and I try to vote in that imperfect way.
So sue me.

I was reading Daniel Larison's blog today, and he linked to this post. He claims that Rahe's argument here "may have been true in late July or early August, but it ceased to be true five or six weeks ago." Larison then charges, "The only reason that someone wouldn't realize this is if he has been carefully ignoring non-Rasmussen polls and clinging to the illusion that only Rasmussen can be trusted."

Response from Rahe?

I love this. This is a true conservative piece. Well done, Diane

I agree with Pat on free trade. The economic argument, or the dollars and cents of the thing, is complicated. Sure, one might argue that a global economy lowers the price of products in America, but that all depends. If the American economy is truly competitive, largely unhampered by monopoly-creating regulation, then the price of goods should be low anyway.

The main and best argument against global free trade, though, emphasizes cultural loss. As Buchanan noted, there will always be some people who are better at things practical than things intellectual. That isn't the result of bad education merely; it's how humans were created--with a wealth of diverse strengths and weaknesses. You are crippling a whole segment of your population, a large segment of your population rather, when you blithely assume your nation will do just fine taking on all the white collar jobs of the world. 

We are not, nor ever will be, a nation consisting only of scholars and scientists. Even if such a country did exist, I would pity its uniform dullness. 

71. I didn't think it was high until I noticed how low most of the other numbers are--on a site where I would expect them to be much higher. 

Yes, that's true. But your safeguard should not be the fact you have a theoretical right (which is open to redefining and a new interpretation), but the fact that the decision making process on these issues is local. 

In its unqualified form, a "right" is something that is inherent to an individual, by nature of being human, that may never be impinged upon by outside institutions or individuals. 

At least, I think that's what most people would consider "natural rights." You can see why I find the term dangerous and (sometimes) pernicious, given my political philosophy. 

In answer to your second question, I could see a local government wanting to limit libel, public obscenity, forms of expression that are overtly sexual, false advertising, mental abuse, etc. The list could go on much longer than this short one. 

The problem for every conservative is when a behemoth State starts restricting speech. But not every conservative believes local limits are necessarily evil.