ronigafniThank you guys so much for your answers, begin with I wanted to respond to some of the answers…
1. The point for me is that there is no extra weight given to non-tangible things like turning regular graffiti into racist graffiti , unless I have misunderstood something. A law which doesn’t distinguish between writing a swastika on a holocaust survivors house and drawing a daisy on it is somehow unsettling.
2. I have read Walter Blocks paper on guns and it was the basis of my question. One could theoretically find a defensive use for a massive bomb on planet earth which would allow it but I still feel threatened. His article is specifically why I excluded atom bombs
3. My issue, similar to the issue that caused me discomfort is question 1 is, once I have taken that home video file, couldn’t I do whatever I wanted with it because it is not a scarce resource? Let’s even take it a step further in case I am wrong. Let’s assume that person A had a private file stolen by person B who then gives it on a flash drive to person C. Certainly Hoppe and Kinsella would agree that person C can put it all over the internet, would they not? Or let’s say I hacked into his computer from a satellite location, have I really trespassed on his property? Could I not in that situation also put it up on the internet without violating any laws? If the answer to those questions (and I am not sure it is) are yes, than again, I am uncomfortable.
4/5. I haven’t had time to read through all these incredible links yet. Thanks so much everyone!