The IP argument is so stupid. Like Balko thesis "libertarianism happens to people", IP points-of-view are not rationally argued but rather "happen to people".
Having said that, like J.Neil Schulman, L. Neil's argument boils down to:
a) I have debt/expenses/want to get paid, and
b) I feel very strongly about an inconsistent position.
Having said that, Smith and
Wesson Shaw are on the wrong side of any recognized application of IP - and there's prior precedent involving L. Neil to refer to.
Even if you subscribe to the theory that L. Neil's words and ideas are his even if you buy them from him, he still would not own the application of such, which is what the Shire Society did.
That would be like John Shaw writing a book on making flat screens or film editing and then claiming to own all the flat screens or films that readers may create in the future.
As for prior precedent, there is an organization (hopefully being resurrected as an active organization) called the Western Libertarian Alliance.
Message From Ernest Hancock - ca. 2004
In the early days when we thought of banding together as libertarians without a center, the Western Libertarian Alliance concept of L. Neil [Smith] came to mind and we morphed it.
Several of us spent time defining what it was that we wanted to make clear... and the Philosophy page was born. It was placed on the web and people were given a chance to accept it or not without any thing required other than they said they did. No one could claim that they were or weren't WLA without the validation of others. The philosophy is its own standard and enforcer.
I don't think the WLA (in this form) is exactly what L. Neil would have created. The great thing about the WLA is, everyone gets to be their own leader... and sometimes people go with them. This is why we created just enough structure to make it clear that there wasn't any structure. No leaders, no committees, no board of directors, no mission statement, no platform, no targeted issues other than the desire for freedom, no "official" logo (there [are] at least 3 that we have used in past publications).
The original WLA as I remember was an idea of L. Neil that included Northern Mexico, Western Canada and the Rocky Mountain states in the US. It was part of a story or an idea that the more free parts of all three countries would band together in a union of ???. I don't remember exactly, you'll have to get Neil to explain it. I don't even think it was fully formed in his head anyway.
The WLA is really a product of the aphorisms of L. Neil that you see a bunch of in the quote boxes of the newspaper. The WLA is a product of the minds of at least a dozen people that I can think of off the top of my head with L. Neil as a very big inspiration for. But I think we took his idea and striped it of any remaining structure (except for the structure that makes it clear that there isn't any structure
Once Haggard put up the first page, other WLA pages began to follow. There were at least 3 states that had their own. Another was Texas. But the others lay dormant waiting for.....?
Looking at L. Neil's WLA model you can see way too much structure. We went another path and honored him every chance we got.
There is no central plan for freedom. So you'll start to see all sorts of variations on the WLA and there will be nothing anyone can or should do about it. That is why we created the "Philosophy page" no more, no less... at least for this group. Other variants are expected and even encouraged.
Ernest Hancock
Edit to add: Oh, and Scott Bieser was one of the original signers of the "Covenant of Alliance" with the WLA.