> I've talked to a thousand people like this and generally they seem immune to logical conversations.

Are you talking about me? Which part of my posts is not "logical"?

> If you are in the 1% who gets a nice fat check thanks to IP laws, hurray for you.

I'm not. Some people are able to hold opinions that don't directly benefit them. Inconceivable, right?

> You can promote the Big Lie all you want, but any smart honest person will figure out eventually that IP is evil from every angle.

That's not even an argument. And you're accusing me of being "immune to logical conversations"?

It is an argument. IP is evil/suboptimal from every angle. What happens when debating people who repeat tired tropes of “a musician won’t get paid” or “we won’t have new medicines” or “copying is stealing” is that you can never satisfy them because they aren’t discussing in good faith. They provide 3 angles, you refute those 3; they provide 3 more; you refute those; et cetera. There is no angle to support IP unless you are in the 1% and support it for selfish interests in maintaining the status quo, or you take the autocratic angle that it is important for a government to have more control over its people. Those are interesting debates to have, but discussing the logic and data about how IP is unjust and bad economics is not, because generally people just regurgitate “the Big Lie”, and it’s a waste of time talking to them. There’s plenty out there refuting any point in favor of IP, and simply thinking from first principles is a fast and simple way to arrive at the truth.

I do apologize for me jumping on you there and assuming bad faith, it’s just that most folks who raise similar points to you are coming from that, but wasn’t fair of me to assume the worst from you. I like your point about holding opinions that go against your own self-interest (being against IP has personally cost me a fortune), and I encourage you to delve more into this issue.