“As I said, the best the IP Socialists can come with is this. You’ve just shot to bits the framework for a capitalist economy – ownership of property, including IP.”

Can you explain to me how respecting private property is socialism? I was under the impression that socialism was a lack of respect of private property.

Such as, making a law that says I cannot do this or that with something of mine.

That’s all I.P. is. Laws that say that this information, which I bought or acquired without coercion or fraud, but not this other information (whether I know the difference or not), I am legally restrained in what I am allowed to legally do with it.

I.P. is socialism, collective control of supposedly private property. Or maybe just Fascism, the “socialism-lite”.

Maybe you should look up those terms before you go accusing others of promoting them.

howard roark’s dynamiting of cortland homes receives warm understanding from objectivists… one can’t be too careful, these days.

One thing no one can deny, is someone had the idea (in my example, the wheel), first. And therein lay the IP. Chronology. The inception of your no-scarcity argument comes after this, but the IP is already created in the process/manufacture.

And I would end by saying, regarding the above, of course, because man has the ability of unique, original thought, and we are debating property, the products of mans mind.

What do you have against the ‘majesty’ of mans mind that you feel it necessary to poke fun at. Was that channeling the hive mind for a moment there?

(Oh, for someone above, I haven’t the time to flick back through: yes, abstract verse abstraction, but I’m sure you’re familiar with the typo.)

Aww, thanks! That means a lot to me.

Just so you guys know: Even when I’m not posting, I still lurk these threads looking for the most intellectually honest people — on both sides of the issue — so I can put together an informal dialogue that will help resolve the debate and avoid the repetition that comes with each IP discussion.

Please, do fill in the details. Until then, the answer to your question is “No.”

Because the IP is a-priori, the scarcity argument is irrelevant.

Yes?

You mean the link in which you talk about cavemen setting up a wheel industry and R&D, if only that had IP protection? To be honest, I can barely type the thought out without succumbing to fits of giggles. (The only thing that makes it less funny is the deadly consequences of your brutish philosophy…)

But, to give you credit, I think that little hypothetical snippet does qualify as a weird sort of argument.

I have said that… I would have no argument with IP dealt with in the private sector…

Plenty of substance…

Are you being serious? Let me spell it out for you: Merely stating your opinion is not an argument. It is not substance. What part of that is difficult to understand?

PS: “The looters argument”! You’re a parody of a parody.

The term they use (ad nauseum, like all their second-hand ideas (heh)) is “floating abstraction.”

Above I have given a link to a thread where I debunk the looters argument of scarcity as denying IP. Given the paramountcy of scarcity (or not) to the argument against IP, I might have thought that was plenty of grist to squeeze through the mill.

I have said that even with those who don’t believe a minarchy and objective law is necessary to freedom, I would have no argument with IP dealt with in the private sector, not by the state, and from that self policing.

Plenty of substance, just no wherewithal or stomach for a debate it would seem.

There’s nothing of substance there to form an opinion about. As usual, you’ve simply stated your views with no argument to back them up. You’ve given no one the slightest reason to agree with you.

“On the plus side, maybe we can devise some kind of game based on how often Mr. Hubbard parrots Randist language.”

I vote for a drinking game. Every time he sounds like Ayn Rand & Nathaniel Branden’s bastard love child, we take a good stiff drink. It would certainly make his posts more… palatable.

Just start at the ‘Right Bala’ heading one third of the way down:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/7285#comment-83773

That is fallacy 5.

That is fallacy 2.

I had just said:

And yes, I believe in the need fo a minarchy, a small state that exists only to, in the classical liberal sense, protect the rights of the individual, and ensure non-initiation of force via objective law, however, I have no problem with IP dealt with in the private sector, and for those fearing big brother, for self policing. If I put a novel online it’s up to me to find and bring to court those copying it: one thing about the Internet is it’s easy to find the file sharing sites. But first my IP has to be recognised, and that I own it.

What’s your opinion on that?

On the plus side, maybe we can devise some kind of game based on how often Mr. Hubbard parrots Randist language.

As I said, the best the IP Socialists can come with is this. You’ve just shot to bits the framework for a capitalist economy – ownership of property, including IP.

And yes, I believe in the need fo a minarchy, a small state that exists only to, in the classical liberal sense, protect the rights of the individual, and ensure non-initiation of force via objective law, however, I have no problem with IP dealt with in the private sector, and for those fearing big brother, for self policing. If I put a novel online it’s up to me to find and bring to court those copying it: one thing about the Internet is it’s easy to find the file sharing sites. But first my IP has to be recognised, and that I own it.

Otherwise the looters take us back to feudal England in the Big Step Backwards.

You are more than welcome to not write your book, if you can imagine no other way to make money from it than to be granted a monopoly by government to be enforced at taxpayer expense.

In fact, if your imagination is so sparse, your book would very likely suck anyway.