Please explain what you mean by this

” ….. and make it his…. ”

How can he make it “his”? What are the specific actions he needs to undertake to “make” it “his” and keep it that way? That is precisely what I have been explaining and which you have been evading.

The utter ridiculousness and in fact the evil nature of IP will become apparent in this exploration.

Sure, it`s a bolt from the blue and kinda past my bedtime, but it`s not so hard:

The deep roots of “property” are not in principle but in simple competition, physical defense of assets valuable enough to make the effort worthwhile, and in the grudging recognition by others – more willingly offered by those who share bonds of community – that yielding to others` claims may be more productive than challenging them. This is as true for rest of creation as it is for man. While we have developed property to a a very sophisticated degree, at it`s core property remains very much about the Darwinian struggle to survive and prosper, violence, theft and calculations as to when challenging control over an asset is not worth the effort.

To the extent we`re past that, which is quite a ways indeed, property is a social construct that is flexible (though rigidified in various ways, including legislation) and based primarily on practical considerations as to what parameters best engender wealth and respond to shared purposes by minimizing free-for-alls, externalities, free-riding & rent-seeking and facilitating voluntary transactions.

Elinor Ostrom has spent alot of time documenting sophisticated local community property rights, all of which at the end of the day all supported by threats of sanctions and violence against rule breakers and outsiders. http://bit.ly/2caqUr

It`s natural that we feel strongly about what we consider to be ours, but this feeling is a gut one that is not in essence grounded on principles deeper than our sense of fair play and just desserts in a community to which we feel we have bonds of common purpose.

And we have a natural tendency to dress up our shared institutions – such as property rights – in moral precepts.

But we always remain subject to problems of theft, especially so as our bonds of community and shared purpose loosen. Libertarians are absolutely right to keep shining a spotlight on how the state has become an instrument of theft.

As for IP, as specialized knowledge can be quite valuable, it seems quite possible for me to imagine a society that developed IP and enforced it mutually, as a way to minimize high costs for protecting trade secrets.But such rules would not be enforceable against other societies, unless resort is made to government. And it seems clear to me that there are substantial rent-seeking costs now associated with state-granted IP.

To roll things back, just the argument that things out of control and is now grossly abused and counterproductive is good enough for me, but I wish you luck in wielding arguments of principle. That`s the great thing about being a pragmatist.

TT

Ownership only requires an individual to alter a nature given thing, a physical object or an abstraction of it, and make it his. Nothing else.

“In the case of material objects, exclusion does not require initiation of force. With ideas and patterns, however, exclusion necessarily requires initiation of force.”

No. Material or immaterial the same is true. Robinson Crusoe catches a fish and make it his. He may also write a novel and make it his. When Friday enters the picture he may respect and accept reality, that Crusoe owns the fish and novel. or he may aggress against him by taking his fish or copy his novel against Crusoe’s consent.

> Mises wrote Human Action. You copied it without
> his content. Now, are you telling me this is not an
> objective reality?
No. What I’m saying is that there is no objective evidence of the immaterial features of the book being copied. The only thing that you have ascertained is the physical aspects of the copying. And, obviously, from objective point of view, the material aspects of the copy are different than those of the original. From subjective point of view, I agree that the immaterial features have been copied, but only because my brain is able to intepret each of the copies and find similarities, therefore, it appears that way to me.

> Even if we assume there is a probability that you
> yourself actually wrote the same exact book, the
> fact that you actually copied it is a fact. It
> happened.
You misunderstand. I agree that the physical act of copying happened and can be objectively ascertained. But from objective perspective, the book isn’t “the same exact book” as you allege. It is only the same in your mind. There is no objective evidence of the copying happening on the immaterial level, it’s just a matter of interpretation.

> Some third party may need to judge this.
Same misunderstanding.

> The fact that you copied it doesn’t depend on the
> judgement.
The fact that copying of physical aspects occurred doesn’t. But the allegation that the copying of immaterial aspects happened does. There is no objective way of determining that.

> Even if the judgment is that you yourself
> independently wrote it, it is a wrong judgement
> and it is an example of failing to realize reality.
But how do you objectively prove that the immaterial aspectsof the original and the copy are identical? You cannot measure them, you can only interpret them. If left to objective facts, you need to conclude that the material aspects are obviously different.

> Unless you realize A is A …
Again, A is not A, A is B. Or are you claiming that there is no possible way to distinguish between an original and a copy? Your eyes see only one object?

Let’s say I botch the copying process and the copy is garbled beyond any recognition. So is it a copy or not? How do you determine that objectively?

I assume you’d say it is. But then where do you draw the line between causality and ownership? Anything that you do after being explosed to the book can be then be alleged to be copying (because there is a causal relationship). You’d be stuck, unable to move or breath, without any approval from the originator. Since there is no way to objectively draw the line, we conclude this approach is subjective.

So let’s assume that a botched copy it isn’t really a copy. Then, years afterwards, a new machine will be built, able to decipher it. This also proves it’s subjective.

Either way, immaterial aspects of anything are purely subjective, only exist in minds and so does the connection between them and the material aspects of the goods.

Tom: I really am not sure what you are asking. You seem to be rambling in a sort of New Age libertarian “we’re all practical moderates can’t we just get along Rodney king” kind of way, “can’t we just have incremental improvement, kumbaya”.

Maybe I’m misreading you. I just can’t follow this amorphous way of thinking.

” Unless you realize A is A, existence exits, you will have problem understanding me. ”

I realise this completely and hence understand fully well what you are saying. Armed with this understanding, I am saying you are wrong.

For instance, when you say “consent of the owner of an idea or pattern”, you are dead wrong because ideas and patterns can only be
1. originated
2. understood
3. remembered
4. recalled
5. implemented

Ownership requires that the option of exclusion exists in the very nature of the “object” in question.

In the case of material objects, exclusion does not require initiation of force. With ideas and patterns, however, exclusion necessarily requires initiation of force.

Therefore, in a society that recognises the Rights to Life and Liberty as inalienable, material objects can be property while ideas can never be. This does not demean ideas, but is only an identification of their nature and the irrationality of giving them the status of property.

Now, who is failing to understand the meaning of the statements “A is A” and “Existence exists”? You or me?

“No, you yet again fail to understand what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that even if everyone knew all the facts and agreed on them, still evaluation of IP violations is subjective, because the immaterial features depend on the state of one’s mind. I already said it multiple times over a period of almost a year. You keep pushing it into the fact gathering/enforcement area. Reread what I wrote and reevaluate in light of this.”

You have deeper philosophical problem. You deny the fact that reality exists.

Lets say the facts are,

Mises wrote Human Action. You copied it without his content.

Now, are you telling me this is not an objective reality?

Even if we assume there is a probability that you yourself actually wrote the same exact book, the fact that you actually copied it is a fact. It happened.

Some third party may need to judge this. He would face two claims. Either you copied it or you independently wrote.

The fact that you copied it doesn’t depend on the judgement.

Even if the judgment is that you yourself independently wrote it, it is a wrong judgement and it is an example of failing to realize reality.

Unless you realize A is A, existence exits, you will have problem understanding me.

Basically, “property” is simply the name we give to the resources that we are able personally to protect, as well as those which – via sophisticated shared mechanisms that continue to be developed within communities over time – we can protect, plus our recognized share of common assets.

In a state of nature, very little is secure, as most life forms have limited means of securing or maintaining exclusive control over assets. What one predator catches, another often soon steals. Different species have developed different ways of coping with the ongoing struggle, utilizing varying degrees of cunning, speed, strength and cooperation.

Humans have triumphed over the rest of nature because we have found sophisticated ways of balancing individual initiative and moderating intra-group struggle with cooperation, and devised methods to acquire, use and defend resources.

Property has been a key tool, but we can readily see that our “property” has its roots in the ways that our cousin creatures invest energy in marking out territory, fighting (individually or in groups) to protect their young, and growling over bones. At the same time, we can see that animals treat each other as dinner, make calculated decisions as to when to “steal” resources that others are guarding, and as well find advantage in cooperating, both with relatives of their kind and with others.

Our need to defend property from other groups has fed our inbred mutual suspicions of “others”, and our ongoing battles, both for dominance within groups and to acquire the resources held by rival groups, – and has led directly to states.

Bruce Yandle has addressed the ascendance of man through methods such as property to facilitate cooperation and to abate ruinous conflicts over resources; he has an interesting short piece I`ve excerpted here: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/20/bruce-yandle-on-the-tragedy-of-the-commons-the-evolution-of-cooperation-and-property.aspx#

To tie this in more closely with Stephan`s battle with libertarians and others over IP, I note I have further discussed the ways that groups have, in order to strengthen group cohesion and dampen conflict, of developing and inculcating mores; formal religions are obviously just one branch of this tree:

- see my discussion with fundamentalist here: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/08/30/a-few-simple-thoughts-on-the-evolution-of-moral-codes-and-why-we-fight-over-them-and-religion-liberty-and-the-state.aspx

- and my discussions with Gene Callaha and Bob Murphy on whether there are “objective” moral truths, or simply a felt need on their part to find some: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=callahan+moral

These are relevant because they explore not property per se, but our related need to make our property rules stick, by tying them to “sacred postulates” of one kind or another. The problem with this, of course, is that it makes us difficult to abandon what we all pretty much assumed was sacred, like IP. (Of course it also makes even discussing property quite difficult at times.)

TT

” You are confused. You are using all the arguments made previously by every subjectivist collectivist claiming society is made by social contract from Plato to all the way to Rousseau. ”

I said “social context”. I wonder how that means “social contract”. I also wonder who is confused.

Collectivist??? Please explain how you claim my arguments to be collectivist. Failing a proper explanation, I will have to infer that you are engaging in smear and shall stop this discussion right here and now.

p.s. My conception of Rights is precisely as stated by Ayn Rand. Are you going to turn around and call Ayn Rand a collectivist thinker? That would be a very interesting position to take.

> That you can not imagine a perfect world where
> each and every possible aggression against IP can
> be identified and justly dealt with.
No, you yet again fail to understand what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that even if everyone knew all the facts and agreed on them, still evaluation of IP violations is subjective, because the immaterial features depend on the state of one’s mind. I already said it multiple times over a period of almost a year. You keep pushing it into the fact gathering/enforcement area. Reread what I wrote and reevaluate in light of this.

> You are saying, there is no way to prove the rape
> took place in every instance this can happen thus
> we can not say (ethically clasify) this kind of rape
> is wrong.
No ktibuk. What I say is that a causal relationship is a necessary, but not a sufficient, determinant of property violation. If taken to extreme, practically anything that you do after being exposed to an idea is causally related to that exposure (because it wouldn’t have happened without it), but that doesn’t automatically mean you have to ask for permission for doing anything.

> But this doesn’t change the fact that an ethical
> wrong has been done.
Stop with that ethical part. I don’t dispute the normative, only the positive, parts of your claim. I dispute the step before the ethical. I claim that copying cannot be objectively determined based on the facts only. You can only determine whether copying has happened after interpreting the original and the copy, and evaluating the amount of similarities. Which is a subjective thing.

> No, I allege when one person shares any
> information with another there is always a
> contract.
But you also allege the converse implication, which I claim needs to be proven, because it requires a separate logical stop. In math speak:
A => B is not equivalent with B => A
I also claim, in an additional step, that B => A is incorrect. Back to casual language, just because B is exposed to an idea does not mean that there was a contract or that it involves A in any way and certainly doesn’t require that A shares anything towards B.

> But this doesn’t mean a contract creates the IP.
Actually, it does. Since immaterial properties only exist in minds, rights thereupon can only result from contracts.

> A book contains the “meaning of the book” as you
> put it, in its definition.
Meaning is subjective and only exists in minds. It therefore cannot be a part of the book.

> If you separate the essence of the book, the book
> itself, from the physical how are you going to
> differentiate between Human Action and Harry
> Potter?
See previous paragraph. The difference is, on one hand, that the books are different physical entities, and on second hand, their meaning in my mind is different. So actually, you are wrong in your assumption. I never alleged that they are same. On the contrary, I allege the opposite: that two copies of Human Action or Harry Potter, respectively, are objectively different, whereas you allege that they are objectively the same. They are only the same subjectively.

> They are made up, by humans, but they are
> objective.
I think you misunderstand me. I don’t claim that it doesn’t exist in your head, but that it isn’t an integral part of the book. A book in english, for example, has no meaning without the english language. Does it mean english language is also objectively part of the book? What about the meaning of the roman letters, font, cultural context, math, logic, necessary for the book to have any meaning, are they also part of the book?

> You may interpret a book differently but the book
> doesn’t need you, or any second party to exist.
Only its physical aspects. All the other aspects are in mind only.

> Something is either A or it isn’t A, as Aristotle
> would say.
They are not A and A, but A and B. An original and a copy are, objectively, completely separate entities. The connection only exists in people’s heads.

> If you are claiming there is no objective reality (in
> this case about copying) or objective reality can
> not be known to men that is another issue.
Again, I think you miss core argument. There are some things which we can objectively determine, and there are some things which we can’t (and are therefore subjective). We can objectively determine the physical aspect of copying, but we cannot objectively determine the immaterial aspect of the copying, because it is subject to interpretation.

> The rule is simple, you need consent of the
> creator to have access to IP.
This evades the question, or, probably, shows that you don’t understand it. So let me rephrase it: how do you determine that two objects/actions refer to the same immaterial property, even if you have all the possible facts? Causal relationship is ok, but insufficient, as demonstrated above. Beyond that, you only have subjective evaluation.

Again, a summary: the only connection between an original and a copy is in people’s heads, and is therefore subjective. If one wants to be free of subjective evaluations and only make conclusions based on objective facts, one has to conclude that an original and a copy are separate entities. They merely subjectively appear similar to some people.

All you are saying is,

That you can not imagine a perfect world where each and every possible aggression against IP can be identified and justly dealt with.

I am saying, raping a passed out woman without physically damaging anything, is wrong.

You are saying, there is no way to prove the rape took place in every instance this can happen thus we can not say (ethically clasify) this kind of rape is wrong.

And besides what you say isn’t true in real life either. There are more difficulties identifying and remedying wrongs toward IP, say relative to physical property but this doesn’t change the fact a wrong can be done.

I know some people will copy others creations without consent, by reverse engineering and practically nothing can be done. But this doesn’t change the fact that an ethical wrong has been done.

“- You allege that usage of immaterial goods implicates that there is a contract. I disagree, there are cases where there is no contract (or, addressing this from a different perspective, the immaterial good used is a different one, homesteaded separately, so there is no need for a contract).”

No, I allege when one person shares any information with another there is always a contract. Either he is giving away the idea unconditionally as a gift, or there are conditions regarding it. It is the givers responsibility to make clear what the terms are.

But this doesn’t mean a contract creates the IP. IP exists prior to any contract, contracts are a tool used to share. To bring the isolated idea to society. That is why 3rd parties aren’t off the hook.

“You allege that there is a false dichotomy between material and immaterial features of a good. I disagree, see next one.”

Yes. A book contains the “meaning of the book” as you put it, in its definition. Otherwise it would be called a notebook. When people talk about a book they don’t just mean the physical paper, ink and binding. “Human Action” is not something physical, although it definitely always embedded in something physical.

If you separate the essence of the book, the book itself, from the physical how are you going to differentiate between Human Action and Harry Potter?

“- You allege that the immaterial properties of a creation are objective. I disagree, any immaterial property is made up, subjective and has no existence besides interpretation.”

They are made up, by humans, but they are objective. You may interpret a book differently but the book doesn’t need you, or any second party to exist. It only needs the author to exist. In short every IP is part of reality and reality exist.

“- You allege that copying can be objectively determined. I disagree, we can only observe physical attributes and activities and make subjective judgements whether copying occurred.”

Maybe it can be determined by others maybe not. That is not the point. The point is, a copying of the original either takes place or it doesn’t. Something is either A or it isn’t A, as Aristotle would say. These two possible scenarios don’t depend on the perceptions of others. Others would either sense reality (the fact that either copying took place or not) or they may fail to do so.

If you are claiming there is no objective reality (in this case about copying) or objective reality can not be known to men that is another issue.

“- You have not explained how to demarcate immaterial property, I allege that the rules cannot be objectively determined.”

The rule is simple, you need consent of the creator to have access to IP. Ä°t seems pretty objective to me.

> This is given because I gave it as an example.
But the example does not demonstrate the necessary “spread” of property. What we empirically observed is that person B was exposed to a book created by A and created a new book. In certain cases, the books have similar physical characteristics, in certain cases, (e.g. format change, translation), they don’t. How do you know that B “used” A’s book? That is only a subjective interpretation.

> What proof are you looking for?
The proof that the dichotomy is false. You merely state it as an axiom. I claim that it isn’t an axiom, rather a conclusion that needs to be proven. I also claim that the conclusion is wrong.

> These all do not change the fact that Person A
> wrote the book.
I completely agree. However, that person B copies that book isn’t a fact. It’s an interpretation.

> If you share an idea with someone you do it
> based on a contract, …
Treated from this direction, it is correct. However, not from the opposite: if one gets exposed to an idea, that doesn’t necessarily mean that there is an underlying contract. This phenomenon precisely mimics the more broad contract vs. IP issue. I may have an implicit contract with whoever hosts the website, but there is no contract between you and me.

Also, how do you know that the other party is using your idea? You need to interpret their words or actions and try to find similarities.

> And why are you going at great lengths just to
> give an unlikely example?
To persuade you that the immaterial properties only exist in mind, are subjective and not natural at all. Without them, a book is just a physical object and a copy a different physical object.

> I don’t know what you mean by “meaning of a
> book” …
I’m completely suprised by this revelation. What else besides the meaning and the physical attributes is there to a book? Everything besides the physical attributes is just an interpretation, not an objective attribute.

(my absurd example)
> You can only try to prevent some other person to
> copy whatever you created without your consent.
But how do you know that the copying has or hasn’t occurred? The only thing you can do is to compare physical attributes of the objects. Anything else is subjective. How is your claim any more objective than mine?

So, after all this time, let me summarise:

- You allege that usage of immaterial goods implicates that there is a contract. I disagree, there are cases where there is no contract (or, addressing this from a different perspective, the immaterial good used is a different one, homesteaded separately, so there is no need for a contract).
- You allege that there is a false dichotomy between material and immaterial features of a good. I disagree, see next one.
- You allege that the immaterial properties of a creation are objective. I disagree, any immaterial property is made up, subjective and has no existence besides interpretation.
- You allege that copying can be objectively determined. I disagree, we can only observe physical attributes and activities and make subjective judgements whether copying occurred.
- You have not explained how to demarcate immaterial property, I allege that the rules cannot be objectively determined.

To summarise the summary: unless you are able to satisfactorily explain the above, you need to conclude that IP is subjective, and consequences, when applied consistently, lead to absurd outcomes.

If you care to read everything I write and reply to everything, your answers would show your irrationality but you choose to pick and choose the parts you want to reply to. Thus we can not engage in an argument.

“This is not given in any way. Someone else might have written the book too. A book is just a collection of characters, and there is a finite number of possible contents. Surely, the probability that someone else might have written a book with the same content is not zero.”

This is given because I gave it as an example. Someone else might not have written the book, because Person A wrote it. Someone else might write a similar book without any access to the said specific book, but that would be another book. Not the said book.

“You assume that there is no way to use a book without also using the immaterial features that are “behind it”. But there is no way to prove this. The connection between the two only exists in some people’s heads and cannot be empirically observed.”

What proof are you looking for? I gave the example. I say it is true. If you are talking about an actual case and the proof of judgement that is an enforcement issue.

Person A wrote the book. This is the reality. Reality doesn’t depend on you or your decision (or a courts decision). It exists. You may realize it, or you may not realize it. Someone may prove it in court or he may not. Court may give the right verdict or the wrong verdict. These all do not change the fact that Person A wrote the book.

“Let’s apply this way of thinking in another example. I pose a question. I homesteaded it. Because of the inability to distinguish between its physical represenation (being stored somewhere on a disk) and its meaning, I “own” the question.

You reply to it. The reply would have been impossible without the question. The question is not a nature-given free good, but it’s a man made product and an extension of the individual (me, the originator of the question). Therefore, logically, you are only permitted to reply when I allow you. Not only that, but any your subsequent actions that can be causally related to you reading my question require my approval (reading = copying).”

If you share an idea with someone you do it based on a contract, not always a written one but most of the time on a verbal implied contract. You may attach no strings to it and give it away for free, which people mostly do, or you may share it based on a contract. If you tell the conditions before you share and the other accepts it is a valid contract. If you just say it this means you gave it away.

And why are you going at great lengths just to give an unlikely example? Why don’t you base your example on a book, or a movie, or a piece of software? I think I know the reason but I wont say it.

“No, you are completely wrong here (and, historically, you have been incorrectly repeating the same allegation). I am not analysing the ethical rules, merely the logical. How do you prove there is no dichotomy, and how do you demarcate property? The example above showed the absurdity your proposal. If it is not possible to distinguish between a book and “its meaning”, is it possible to distinguish between any objects whose creation was in some way influenced by each other? If an audiobook in a different language represents the same property as the original dead paper book, where does the property actually end?

The point is, the meaning of a book only exists in people’s minds. It is an interpretation, an effect it caused in your brain while you were reading it. Without a mind, it doesn’t exist, and in every mind, it is different.”

I don’t know what you mean by “meaning of a book”, but the book doesn’t need a second party other than the author to exist. If Robinson Crusoe writes a book it exists, whether some other individual ever knows about or not.

“I’ll make a new proposal. Here and now, I am creating an immaterial entity called “qgzxw”. I am also declaring (axiom) that, from that moment on, it is contained in everything that I can think of. Therefore, I own everything I can think of (conclusion).”

You can not declare anything like that. You can only try to prevent some other person to copy whatever you created without your consent.

You are confused. You are using all the arguments made previously by every subjectivist collectivist claiming society is made by social contract from Plato to all the way to Rousseau.

Please reread what you have written and think hard.

> Without him there would be no such book, hence
> there would be no possibility for person B to copy
> it.
This is not given in any way. Someone else might have written the book too. A book is just a collection of characters, and there is a finite number of possible contents. Surely, the probability that someone else might have written a book with the same content is not zero.

> Thus any action taken regarding the book,
> including copying of it, should be dependent on
> the consent of the owner.
You assume that there is no way to use a book without also using the immaterial features that are “behind it”. But there is no way to prove this. The connection between the two only exists in some people’s heads and cannot be empirically observed.

> Yes but this dichotomy of the physical and
> features behind it is a false dichotomy.
You are merely using this as an axiom. In my opinion, you need to prove it.

Let’s apply this way of thinking in another example. I pose a question. I homesteaded it. Because of the inability to distinguish between its physical represenation (being stored somewhere on a disk) and its meaning, I “own” the question.

You reply to it. The reply would have been impossible without the question. The question is not a nature-given free good, but it’s a man made product and an extension of the individual (me, the originator of the question). Therefore, logically, you are only permitted to reply when I allow you. Not only that, but any your subsequent actions that can be causally related to you reading my question require my approval (reading = copying).

> Now in this part you are making the fallacy of
> trying to define ethical rules based on some
> enforcement ability which seems to be quite
> common.
No, you are completely wrong here (and, historically, you have been incorrectly repeating the same allegation). I am not analysing the ethical rules, merely the logical. How do you prove there is no dichotomy, and how do you demarcate property? The example above showed the absurdity your proposal. If it is not possible to distinguish between a book and “its meaning”, is it possible to distinguish between any objects whose creation was in some way influenced by each other? If an audiobook in a different language represents the same property as the original dead paper book, where does the property actually end?

The point is, the meaning of a book only exists in people’s minds. It is an interpretation, an effect it caused in your brain while you were reading it. Without a mind, it doesn’t exist, and in every mind, it is different.

> Similarly can you imagine a world where the
> ownership rights of all the authors and composers
> and even inventors are respected?
As I demonstrated above, given your assumptions, there is no way to objectively demarcate ownership (which is a prerequisite for being able to use the property without violation of rights). Your principles of ownership would stretch their invisible tentacles all over and create a convoluted mess. Therefore, such a world is from practical point of view extremely difficult to live in and from theoretical point of view logically impossible.

I’ll make a new proposal. Here and now, I am creating an immaterial entity called “qgzxw”. I am also declaring (axiom) that, from that moment on, it is contained in everything that I can think of. Therefore, I own everything I can think of (conclusion).

Now try to disprove me.

Cheers,
Peter

“You profess to believe that ideas can be owned. Yet you are either unwilling or unable to define exactly what an idea is.
You talk about individuals “creating” ideas and therefore having a rightful claim over those ideas. Yet I have not once seen you break down the concept of an idea into its constituent parts and demonstrate the prerequisite requirements for the “creation” of a new idea.”

Ä°deas are abstract reflections of the reality around us. Just like tangible things can be altered, so do reflections of reality. Taking a piece of wood and carving it to make a chair, is basically the same process as sensing natural sounds an altering them in your mind in a different pattern. And since every idea must originate from an individual every idea is unique. There may be instances where two people coming up with seemingly same abstraction but since the source, the individual is unique and these ideas are extension of the individual (dependent on them for their existence) they must be handled as unique.

Ideas are owned by people and this is a fact whether you like it or not. If you think of something and do not share it, whatever you think ownership implies, you have it. The problem starts with the social context. “Ought” comes in the picture once some one else comes along and has the possibility, the choice to aggress against this ownership or respect it. This is also true for physical property.

To say, “Well if you want to keep it yours then don’t tell anybody” disregarding what ethics is actually, is the same as saying “well if you want to keep you physical property then go live on an deserted island”. If I am isolated of course there is no way for anyone to aggress against my property, whether physical or not. No one can take the fish Crusoe caught and no one can copy the novel he wrote.

“Every new idea requires that there be older ideas upon which to build. A new idea is nothing more than the extention or combination of previous ideas.”

So does every consumer product. Every automobile producer first needs raw materials like iron ore and rubber. But this doesn’t give the right to automobile producers to just take the previously produced goods at whim. Cant you imagine a situation where someone pays someone for an idea then improves upon it? (This is done constantly in music business where some one pays the creator for the rights to remix or remake) Does he have to steal the original idea? It may seem to increase costs but so does paying for raw materials. And in the long run costs would actually be lowered because there would be more producers. If every auto manufacturer stole its raw materials there wouldn’t be any raw material producers and their actual costs would even be higher.

“You have also failed to consider the premise that a large proportion of human learning occurs through imitation. To grant ownership in ideas is to attempt to prevent human beings from learning and developing. You’ve said before that we need ethical principles based on reality. Imitation is reality. An ethical principle which outlaws imitation is clearly an ethical principle which is not based on reality.”

A similar thing can be said about physical property. Prosperity depends on trade. If there is private property trade would be left to the whims of the owners of the property. So there shouldn’t be any private property. And I am sure some socialist has said it.

Your problem here is, you think by giving the ownership rights to the owners they would all act in some manner you imagine. Even if we all concede to the fact treat IP is legitimate, this doesn’t mean every idea can and will be commercialized. This is not true.

Do parents charge money to their children because they have property rights? Do charity dissapears because property rights are respected? Are free give aways for promotional reasons unheard of in a capitalist society? In short, do you really think every physical property changes hand as a commercial transaction?

“Laws which defy the reality of human nature must eventually collapse. Intellectual property is no exception. You see, to prevent people from using an idea is also to prevent them from extending that idea, or combining it with other ideas. This reduces the number of available ideas in society for people to work with. Clearly the end result must be a stagnation in the rate of the generation of new ideas in society.”

Nobody is talking about preventing people to use an idea. I am talking about preventing the copying of the idea without the consent of the owner. If you come up with an idea, if you wrote your own novel, if you compose your own music, by all means do it. Even if the product is very similar to another’s as long as there is no copying nothing is wrong, and the burden of the proof is always on the accuser.

And again, private property doesn’t not reduce production. On the contrary, production is much more efficient in an environment where private property rights are respected. Both for physical and non physical property.

“You can already see growing evidence of this. In a relatively short time of patent legislation, a complex mine-field of patents has been created. Now businesses have to spend tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees every year to simply avoid getting sued.
The next mine-field to be created will be the copyright mine-field. At some point authors will be too afraid to publish their works in case they accidentally duplicate a passage from an existing book. Once again only those who can afford the exhorbitant legal fees would dare publish. Ultimately, new books will be a very rare thing.”

These are the problems arising from the states intervention in property rights not problems arising from private property itself. Patent laws are the result of the positivist approach to law and an abomination. There are also problems with the copyright laws too.

” They claim since the author doesn’t lose anything when someone copies his work, this means he can not own the novel to begin with. ”

Missed this out in my previous post. You have it all backwards. The argument STARTS by saying that the author cannot own the particular way of stringing words together because it is a pattern (remember, patterns cannot be “owned”), HENCE cannot claim ownership in MY book and HENCE cannot label my act of copying the book as aggression.

” Can’t you see you can not divorce “consent of the owner” from the definition of aggression? ”

Can’t YOU see that you cannot apply the “consent of the owner” doctrine to that which cannot be “owned”?

Ideas can only be originated, not owned. “Ownership” requires the ability to exclude. Ideas, by their very nature, are not amenable to that. Hence, your entire “argument” falls flat.

” If you follow this absurdity to its logical conclusions, some girl being raped when she is unconscious is not a victim of an aggression. ”

Firstly, the girl would be a “flesh and blood” human being, not an idea. Her body would be “her” body.

Secondly, that the girl is unconscious does not mean that her consent has been obtained. She would be in a position where her consent CANNOT be obtained.

So, I wonder how you are imagining that this is not aggression.

” Firstly ethics is not only about social context. ”

But “Rights” do. That’s where you are veering way off course.

” this doesn’t mean these rules are derived from the society ”

Of course they do not. I didn’t say that they do either. That, however, does not mean that “Rights” do not have a “social context” or are valid in anything other than one.

” ethical rules about social conduct is carried over to the social context from isolated individual. ”

Whether on an isolated island or living as a member of a society, Crusoe needs to act. However, there is a critical difference which you are omitting here.

On an isolated island, the only factor limiting his freedom of action is the external natural environment. He is free to modify his environment as he deems fit and is able to. He derives objects of value that enhance his life from this environment. The aim of such actions is the sustenance of his life as well as he can.

On the other hand, while he is in a society, there is another factor limiting his freedom of action – the existence of other living beings like himself, rational animals with a volitional consciousness (who I shall henceforth call “men”) acting like him to sustain their respective lives.

He now recognises an important fact of this reality – that there is a better means of dealing with these other men than that which he would use with all other elements of his living environment. This is simply that by abstaining from the initiation of force against them, he can attain a much higher state of living than he can eke out on his isolated island or by treating the other men as he does every other aspect of his environment.

This condition that he recognises is what he calls the concept “Right”.

A “Right” is a MORAL concept. This means that it is a concept that relates to an individual’s actions and choices and imposes no obligations on others. My morals have no implications for you except when my moral-driven actions have an impact on you.

A “Right” is a moral concept that defines and sanctions man’s freedom of action in a social context (Ayn Rand in her article “Man’s Rights”).

Remove the social context and you would be speaking nonsense by using the term “Rights”.

Crusoe alone on the island has a need to act, for if he fails to, he faces pain, suffering or even death. He is free to act as he chooses and there is no other man to prevent him from acting on his choices.
Enter Friday and he now needs to decide how he is going to define the limits of his freedom of action.

” Or in other words, rights are not established by people to avoid conflicts ”

I agree. Rights do evolve from man’s nature. However, I also add that they are valid and meaningful only in a social context.

” but conflicts arise when one individual disregards natural rights. ”

I agree, but it proves nothing of what you are claiming.

” You are putting the cart in front of the horse. ”

Actually, you are confusing the cart for the horse and vice versa. Before A recognises an existent as my “property”, both parties concerned need to have formed the concept “property”. Thus, by referring to recognition of property before defining the concept in the first place, it is you who are guilty of mixing up the positions of the cart and the horse.

As I have said before, the difference between “possession” and “property” is that the latter is a moral “ought”. That which is in my possession and ought to be so is my property. That which is in your possession but which morally ought to be in my possession is also my property.

” So you concede to the fact that aggression is not about something physical but solely dependent on the consent of the owner. ”

Whenever did I disagree or say anything else? The sole purpose of initiating force against a rational animal with a volitional consciousness is to prevent it from acting as per the judgement of its rational mind. How does this advance your position?

” Regarding IP, the same is true. Copying some authors book without his consent, is an act of aggression whether there is a physical alteration of some physical form or not. ”

How??? Aggression requires the INITIATION OF FORCE. In this case, there is no force.

You are displaying extreme intellectual dishonesty in this particular “argument” of yours. I would be copying not the “author’s book” but MY book. The paper, the ink, the binding… everything that constitutes the physical book… is MINE.

In effect, you are saying that the author own a particular way of stringing together words and that by stringing together words in the same way and profiting from it, I would be engaging in aggression. You have completely exposed yourself and the ridiculousness of your argument.

I think you first need to clarify what constitutes “property” and then try to explain why ideas and patterns can be justifiably called “property”. If I use the definition I have given of “Property” as an “ought”, I am forced to come to the conclusion that ideas and patterns can never be labelled “Property”. Thus, in my book of definitions, “Intellectual Property” is an oxymoron. Your “arguments” do not appear to be convincing enough.