Pacifists don’t believe there’s nothing worth dying for. They believe there’s nothing worth killing for. Can you see a difference?

Naming names adds credibility to a statement. It’s like saying, “Hey! I didn’t just pull these numbers out of my ass.” In the case of this t-shirt, it also says these are real people who died, not just some anonymous statistic. That fact that some of those who died believed they were sacrificing their lives for some lofty ideal doesn’t exclude them from the topic of whether their deaths were necessary.

Nor does it matter that someone’s making money off of it. Profit is as noble a purpose as any there is and it pisses me off every time I hear someone suggest otherwise. There is no single driving force that has brought as much good to the world as the desire to make money. It’s the core motive that brings almost every bit of information about the world to to your eyes and ears every single day. And, as an element of that environment, this T-shirt is as legitimate as the New York Times or a White House press conference.

Far from tacky, the shirt makes a powerful, concise, and effective point which is precisely why it’s attracting so much attention and elevating emotions.

The requirements of Justice can be imposed on individuals without their consent. Judgments are binding to the extent that they’re enforced, regardless of whether the enforcer is a monopoly defense service that imposes itself unjustly upon all and criminalizes perfectly legitimate conduct, or whether it’s a private enforcement organization which has numerous market incentives to keep its customers happy and its service affordable (low-grade warfare is expensive). We would be so lucky if the US government actually had to, you know, keep its constituents happy as a prerequisite to extorting 30% of their income every year.

Are there courts in your version of principled libertarianism for this cause of action? I thought you were the anarcho-capitalist here (based on some previous post I only vaguely recall), meaning no courts — unless the parties decide to contract for what is really just non-binding arbitration. It would be “non-binding” in the sense that everyone just relies on warring private police forces to accomplish their goals (until such time as one private police force sets itself up as the top dog in a particular region, i.e., government), right? The loser in this arbitration must decide whether to pay his warlord to fight the winner’s warlord in order to “appeal” the arbitrator’s judgment.

Okay, maybe I’m drifting off topic here. Back to how truly bad this complaint was: You mentioned legal arguments verses political theory/philosophy arguments and how you are not relying on the former. The complaint mentions a “violation of . . . Federal common law . . . prohibiting the use of a name or likeness of another person for profit . . . .” This is nothing. The big nada. There is no federal common law right of publicity claim. These lawyers are also not relying on the former.

Just for clarification, if I sell soda with the Coke logo on it, and represent that I am in fact selling Coca Cola, I don’t consider myself to have committed any legitimate tort of fraud upon Coca Cola. I do, however, acknowledge that I may have defrauded my customer. Trademark law gives an illegitimate right of action to Coca Cola against fraudulent sellers, where any legitimate right of action would only belong to the defrauded customer. That’s the distinction I recognize between Trademark (which I understand to be illegitimate under any consistent and principled libertarian rights theory), and common law fraud.

Again, that’s not a legal argument. I fully recognize that the government allows companies to enforce Trademark as an Intellectual Privilege. I also agree that preventing consumer confusion is a worthwhile goal - it’s just not a goal that Coca Cola has the right to enforce by coercive means (the legal system being an instrument of violent coercion).

I don’t agree with JJH2’s view of intellectual property,* but I don’t see what’s so wrong with his newspaper analogy. Newspapers — or magazines or books or lots of other things — are usually sold by for-profit enterprises. Your view of the right of publicity (which is the legal term the lawyers didn’t even bother to include in the terrible complaint linked to above) is so broad that it would stifle an enormous amount of speech.

As best I can tell, your view is that anything sold for a profit that somewhere includes the name of an identifiable person requires permission, but for some unspecified reason newspapers are not subject to this rule. Is this your view?

*JJH2 agrees he “can’t fraudulently misrepresent that [he is] you,” and this is a core function of trademark law. Trademark law does indeed provide limited protection for the use of “a combination of letters,” and this protection is routinely described as a form of intellectual property. That trademark owners routinely claim way too much protection doesn’t mean the core functions of trademark law (i.e., preventing passing off and consumer confusion) are not worthwhile.

Don’t be confused. The analogy was not the argument (although honestly, your elaboration that the names “represent specific people” applies even more explicitly to newspaper accounts of peoples’ actions). The argument is that you don’t “own” the combination of letters that make up your name, nor do you “own” third party descriptions of your acts. I am not asserting a LEGAL doctrine - I’m making an argument about constitutes a legitimate “property right.” Because all forms of “intellectual property” interfere with _real property_, ownership of combinations of letters on a page (or t-shirt) have to give. You can’t homestead a combination of alphabetic characters. You can, however, own a T-shirt.

Your newspaper analogy, is so weak, its just not close.

The name on the other hand is not just a random name. These names represent specific people and it is apparent from the context who these people are.

Is political speech still purely political speech if it is sold as a product for profit motives?

Considering he didn’t ask for the blessing of these families, I think he deserves any harassment they care to throw his way.

The “wastes” I was referring to were more about conflicts like the Anglo-Afghan wars or battles like Gallipolli, in which people died pointlessly for no appreciable gain, than about war in general. I’m no pacifist, but I also realize that some wars are no more than a pissing contest between egocentric tyrants (pretty much summing up Iraq) and don’t need to be fought. Some wars, however, do need to happen and you’re correct that in those cases the deaths of soldiers are better labeled as a “shame” rather than a “waste”. Sorry, should have been more clear.

Um… no. Say you do something interesting (a big stretch). Then suppose a newspaper writes a story about what you did, and sells newspapers because of it. Do newspapers owe you a cut?

Of course not. Because you don’t own third party representations of (1) your name or (2) your actions. Your name is not, at least legitimately, your “property.” I can’t fraudulently misrepresent that I am you, the person, but if I wanted, I would have every right to adopt your exact name as my own, just because I liked the sound of it. There’s no such thing as legitimate intellectual property, and certainly no such intellectual property in a combination of letters.

And I’m suing the lawyer for defamation.

Plus, the list of casualties is public record.

Fair enough.