So “modifies” only leads to another question, “what kind if modifications are ok?”.

Actually, it doesn’t. Any modification counts. That’s the beauty of my definition, unlike others there is no necessity to determine what extent is relevant.

You feeding my cow grass allows the cow to replenish dead cells with newly generated ones ..

Before that, however, the cow must chew the grass and swallow it, which is a modification too. If the cow does this on its own volition with your permission, then it is not me who is doing the change. If I stick the grass into the cow’s throat however, then it is me. Approximately. It can get complicated. However, before we get into the details: where did this feeding occur? How did the cow get there? These steps preceding the actual feeding must contain arrangements of some sort, which influence the rules of feeding, obviously.

There are other things you might do to the cow where it is less obvious that the cow retains the same properties that you desire of it …

The “desire” part is irrelevant for the presence/absence of modification, it is only relevant to determine, at the next step of the procedure, whether the modification occurred with the owner’s approval or not.

In this case, the (say) milk rearing abilities of the cow are not changed by feeding it…

“Milk rearing abilities” are a derived aspect of the cow rather than the cow itself. Derived aspects are a type of immaterial goods. If you want to be strict with your analysis, they change all the time. It is impossible for the cow to produce exactly the same amount of milk each day.

But this is only as begging the question. When have you “modified” something? You feeding my cow grass allows the cow to replenish dead cells with newly generated ones – the feeding process clearly “modifies” my cow in some sense but the properties I require of the cow (very likely) remain the same as they were before. So “modifies” only leads to another question, “what kind if modifications are ok?”.

There are other things you might do to the cow where it is less obvious that the cow retains the same properties that you desire of it – some framework is required to determine when “modifies” is ok and when it isn’t. And this framework must rest on something more fundamental than property rights if it is not to be circular.

In this case, the (say) milk rearing abilities of the cow are not changed by feeding it – and this is because the modifications move cells to one of the arrangement of that cow that still produces milk. A modification to an arrangement that doesn’t produce milk is what you consider a property violation.

I still don’t know what “property” is if you aren’t allowed to say information or patterns are involved.

Or to ask a question instead, what precisely is the mechanism by which you determine someone violated the rolex trademark – that they sold you a rolex which was not “made” by rolex themselves? What would this mean?

Looks like you are starting to ask the right questions, maybe you can now better understand the anti-IP arguments presented here.

The point of IP opponents is that the violation of an IP-less trademark is fraud that occurs between the copycat (B) and the customer (C), rather than a violation of something the producer of the original (A) owns. It is up to the seller (B) and buyer (C) to determine the scope of the contract, rather than a third party (the producer of the original, A). The fraud occurs when the copycat (B) claims to the buyer (C) that the watch was produced by the original producer (A) even though it wasn’t. It’s like claiming you are selling apples while actually giving your customers rocks. What A can do is to provide simple methods to determine whether the good in question was indeed produced by him, so that copycats have a lower chance of defrauding buyers. If the seller B however does not claim that the good was produced by A, then of course there is no fraud. What he calls the good and how much different it is from the original is, again, completely irrelevant.

The only way to prove intent …

Ah, so the intent is what is worrying you? Then I can put your worries to rest. Intent might be relevant in the legal proceedings to determine appropriate remedy/punishment (which, again, is a completely separate issue), but it is completely irrelevant to the conclusion regarding the presence/absence of rights violation. In the current legal systems for example you have different types of killing, with different punishments: murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide. I don’t necessarily subscribe to a distinction like this, but it serves as an example.

so far I wasn’t able to come up with a completely unambiguous definition of property, but the most approximate (from the point of view suitable for our debate) is probably that if something is your property, others may not modify it against your wishes. I consider the definition you quote (“exclusive control”) lacking, because “control” is too vague.

If you apply my definition to the example with the tea, you might notice that the exact method of killing is irrelevant to the rules. It does not matter what you call the process of gathering DNA and using it to make the tea. The permission to alter (in this example, kill) is absent. Of course, there is the matter of gathering facts and of interpreting them. But that is a separate question, the rules do not change depending on what facts are known to you, only one’s interpretation changes. The “proof” you are looking for is in the ability to determine whether the facts match the rules.

My anti-IP argument however is that the rules of IP theory (as I deduced them, since I don’t actually know of a proper definition of IP from the proponents thereof directly) themselves are too vague and it is impossible to determine whether a specific set of facts match them or not. They depend on arbitrarily dividing causality and similarity into property and non-property. Whether you can determine the facts is of course still necessary to come to a conclusion in a specific case, but that question lies farther on the argument chain. Some people mistakenly interpret my argument as a denial of causality, but, again, that is just conflating the two steps present in the whole procedure.

Or I suppose in fact you would need a licence from the trademark owner to sell anything with the trademark on it. In the event though that an independent expert cannot tell the difference between my copy and a rolex, this would seem a little odd – can I market it under a different trademark which boasts it is literally indistinguishable from a “real” rolex?

“Trademark law ought to be reformed by abolishing the right of trademark “owners” to sue “infringers” (except perhaps as proxy for customers, when consent can be presumed or proved), and treating this as a case of the customer’s right to sue a vendor who defrauds him as to the nature of the good purchased.”

I agree, this is a good idea. But again, the point in the coffee example is that it’s not like rolex watches, which you can compare to an original and so demonstrate the seller violated a trademark purely using an analysis of “property” (ie. scarce economic goods) – the deadly cup of coffee is IDENTICAL whether the precise proportions of ingredients were arrived at by accident or by design.

The only way to prove intent to to show that I went through some kind if process of accessing/copying the dead-coffee drinkers dna – which I can do without violating the drinkers property rights, according to the definition of property above.

Absolute delirium. I can’t even joke (though a dozen are going through my head), it’s all just too weird.

” Can you please explain how you can oppose all aggression, and yet not be a libertarian? ”

I see a fundamental and deep confusion over the concept “definition”. For instance, if I define the concept “man” as “a rational animal” and tomorrow I come across another species that is different in a number of respects but is also a rational animal, do I call it also “man”? That’s how stupid your response is. You are confused about the very role of definitions in our cognitive development. It looks like the definition is everything to you. That can only be called arrested cognitive development.

I am just saying there is more to being a libertarian than just opposing all aggression. For instance, why do you oppose all aggression? My reasons for opposing all aggression could be very different from yours. So, could you please explain the libertarian reasons for abhorrence of all aggression? Links would do. Thanks in advance.

” Because that’s what we are: those who oppose aggression consistently, and on principle. ”

How does the principle become a principle? What is the libertarian reason for upholding this principle?

” Are there any non-scarce things in which there are rights? I’m looking for an example of a right that is not a property rights. ”

I asked the question first. Further, my question is more fundamental. What on earth is a “right”? It is absolutely important that you explain that first before we go on and discuss a right that is not a property right. I have so far asked you for the definition twice and you are still evading it. So, I record my request for the third time. Please define the concept “right”. In particular, how “rights” come to be, how they become a “principle” and how man becomes aware of his “rights”.

It is indeed a wonder that in one part of a post you evade an answer to a straight question and then in another, accuse me of evasion. You are only confirming my earlier accusation of intellectual dishonesty. Stop evading and answer the question straight. Since the answer is important, please do not try to escape any more.

” thanks. you are now a self-ownership favoring libertarian. Congratulations. ”

If this is your way of insulting me and continuing in your evasion, please go ahead. It does not matter the least bit for me. Please answer the questions I have posed in this post.

” you are the one who SHOULD have the right to decide ”

How dumb!! No one else can. Hitting or raping someone or imprisoning someone is not “using the body’ but doing something to the person against the person’s volition; harming the person; endangering the person’s life; The “right to decide” (….. puhleeese….. I am still waiting for the explanation of the concept “right”) is an important trait of what I call volitional consciousness.

” It’s an unconsented to use of–and invasion of–your body. If you give someone permission to kiss you it’s not aggression if they do. If they kiss you after you deny them permission, it is aggression. ”

So in your world, consensual sex is essentially about using the other person’s property (body) with their permission so that you may seek sexual gratification. There is nothing spiritual in it I guess. How interesting!!! What a nice world that must be to live in. (Thank goodness I am not a part of it)

” defining terms is … circular? ”

Yes.If you use the very term that you seek to define as part of your definition. Once again, please define the concept “right”. You are (mis-)using it in this definition making it (the definition) circular. At another level, giving this definition when I am asking you to define “right” is evasion and question-begging.

” If someone wants to have sex with your body, ”

Oof!!! I just saw this statement and was blown away. That someone would then be wanting to have sex with ME and not my body. There is no distinction between the two. Man….. your world sure is scary!!!!!

For the last time, stop evading and answer the straight question on defining the concept “right”. Failure to do so will confirm my accusation of intellectual dishonesty.

“To determine whether this violates property rights requires two things: we must have rules that define property and/or property rights violation, and we need to establish whether the facts in this situation fulfill these criteria.”

Well yes I agree – that’s what I’m trying to do. What are the rules that define property? The definition I just read above was

‘Property may be defined as an exclusive right to control an economic good …; it is the name of a concept that refers to the rights and obligations, privileges and restrictions that govern the relations of man with respect to things of value. People everywhere and at all times desire the possession of things that are necessary for survival or valuable by cultural definition and which, as a result of the demand placed upon them, become scarce. Laws enforced by organized society control the competition for, and guarantee the enjoyment of, these desired things. What is guaranteed to be one’s own is property… [Property rights] confer a direct and immediate authority over a thing.’

The important point about the scenario I described is that if I had murdered someone by getting their genetic information (from a hair they had shed say), making them a cup of coffee (which they asked for and then drank obviously) and then claimed that it was an accident

then

the only way to prove I murdered them would be to prove I went through the PROCESS of “copying” their genetic information. You can’t prove i murdered them by showing that I used “an economic good” that i didn’t have the “exclusive right to control” – because I didn’t.

” Yes, if you oppose all aggression, you are a libertarian. ”

Repeating the same stupid statement does not make it intelligent. All libertarians oppose all aggression. This does not mean that all who oppose all aggression are libertarian. Once again, Logic 101 is what you need.

Can you please explain how you can oppose all aggression, and yet not be a libertarian?

” If you say you are not a libertarian that means you do not oppose all aggression, or that you favor some. ”

Are you trying to say that you cannot oppose all aggression and not be libertarian simultaneously? That’s some stupidity.

Yes. For, to oppose aggression is what it means to be a libertarian.

” I’m asking what aggression you favor. ”

None. How does that make me a libertarian?

Because that’s what we are: those who oppose aggression consistently, and on principle.

” I’m just curious what non-scarce thing you think we have a “right” in. ”

I asked for a definition with the specific condition that it not beg the question or be circular. Asking this question in response to that can only mean that you do not have a definition of the concept “right” and are trying to escape giving one by dragging me into a pointless discussion.

Are there any non-scarce things in which there are rights? I’m looking for an example of a right that is not a property rights.

” You know, but hitting it, raping it, shooting it, putting it in jail. ”

How is any of this “controlling” my body? I see it all as initiating force against me.

It’s an unconsented to use of–and invasion of–your body. If you give someone permission to kiss you it’s not aggression if they do. If they kiss you after you deny them permission, it is aggression. In both cases there is an affect or use of your body; it’s invasion, aggresion, in the cases where permission is denied (denied by whom? why, by you, the owner … of … your… body. self-owner… get it?)

” Ownership is the right to control. Not control itself. ”

Sorry. An important attribute of the concept “ownership” is the right to control.

Yes, that’s what I just said.

” Property may be defined as an exclusive right to control an economic good ”

Circular. Question begging.

defining terms is … circular?

” Make more sense now? Or is this “stupid” too? ”

No. It looks more stupid. Except that I now understand how you got this stupid.

I am so happy that you have learned something today

” This is just petulant evasion. ”

Oh!! Describing things as I perceive them is petulant evasion?

I’m afraid so, Bala. I don’t make the rules–I just enforce ‘em.

” You have a body. Or you “are” a body. Or a “body” is one of your traits–whatever. Who gets to decide who uses it? You, or someone else? It’s a simple question. ”

The answer is simple too. I get to decide.

thanks. you are now a self-ownership favoring libertarian. Congratulations.

But then that is a FACT, not a moral principle. There is no “ought”, only an “is”.

If someone wants to have sex with your body, you are the one who SHOULD have the right to decide. If the legal system gives the right to decide to someone else–your husband, your master, whatever–then you are a slave, and this is a violatoin of your self-ownership rights. Keep trying, I have faith that you can finally understand these elementary points.

No one else can do so without initiating force against me in the first place, i.e., without overcoming my volition, thus violating the fundamental moral principle that no man may initiate force against another.

Or… without using your body without your consent. Which is not permissible … because … you are the one who owns it. Not them. See?

I’m not defining “property” yet. In fact, I’m don’t understand why everyone just automatically thinks that your starting point is a definition of “property” – in fact I think this is the main communication barrier here (and is why it often seems to go around in circles).

Apparently, Rothbard once said that all rights are property rights. I subscribe to this point of view, as I explained elsewhere, as I found other approaches to the philosophy of rights inconsistent or insufficient.To debate the notion of IP without a theory of property is pointless. I mean, really, what is the point of such a musing?

I make someone a cup of coffee and they die. Did I kill them ie. did I violate this person’s “property” rights?

Well, someone does not die because you make a cup of coffee, they need to drink it obviously. To determine whether this violates property rights requires two things: we must have rules that define property and/or property rights violation, and we need to establish whether the facts in this situation fulfill these criteria.

This depends crucially on whether or not I went through a PROCESS of obtaining their genetic code or not – of somehow “copying” their genetic code.

Why does it depend on this? Either I offered him the drink or not. Either the drink killed him or not. Why should the exact procedure be relevant from the point of view of rights?

” Property may be defined as an exclusive right to control an economic good ”

This reminds me of the story of “The five blind men and the elephant”.

” Yes, if you oppose all aggression, you are a libertarian. ”

Repeating the same stupid statement does not make it intelligent. All libertarians oppose all aggression. This does not mean that all who oppose all aggression are libertarian. Once again, Logic 101 is what you need.

” If you say you are not a libertarian that means you do not oppose all aggression, or that you favor some. ”

Are you trying to say that you cannot oppose all aggression and not be libertarian simultaneously? That’s some stupidity.

” I’m asking what aggression you favor. ”

None. How does that make me a libertarian? As I said, repeating stupid statements……

” I’m just curious what non-scarce thing you think we have a “right” in. ”

I asked for a definition with the specific condition that it not beg the question or be circular. Asking this question in response to that can only mean that you do not have a definition of the concept “right” and are trying to escape giving one by dragging me into a pointless discussion.

” You know, but hitting it, raping it, shooting it, putting it in jail. ”

How is any of this “controlling” my body? I see it all as initiating force against me.

” Ownership is the right to control. Not control itself. ”

Sorry. An important attribute of the concept “ownership” is the right to control.

” Property may be defined as an exclusive right to control an economic good ”

Circular. Question begging. Confusing specific (though critical) attributes for the definition.

” “Ownership is the right that confers on a person direct, immediate, and exclusive authority over a thing. The owner of a thing may use, enjoy, and dispose of it within the limits and under the conditions established by law” ”

Circular till you define what a “right” is.

” Make more sense now? Or is this “stupid” too? ”

No. It looks more stupid. Except that I now understand how you got this stupid.

” This is just petulant evasion. ”

Oh!! Describing things as I perceive them is petulant evasion? Define “evasion” and you will see that YOU are the one evading a definition of the concept “right” because you KNOW that your “definition” is circular.

” You have a body. Or you “are” a body. Or a “body” is one of your traits–whatever. Who gets to decide who uses it? You, or someone else? It’s a simple question. ”

The answer is simple too. I get to decide. But then that is a FACT, not a moral principle. There is no “ought”, only an “is”. No one else can do so without initiating force against me in the first place, i.e., without overcoming my volition, thus violating the fundamental moral principle that no man may initiate force against another.

” Libertarians are not afraid to just answer it. ”

It is not about being afraid but about knowing the difference between that which exists (“is”) and that which should (“ought”). You are being stupid enough to get the two thoroughly mixed up.

I didn’t want it to come to this, but you tempt me once too often.

” Libertarians are those who oppose aggression. What aggression to you endorse? ”

Are you always this stupid? I agree that all libertarians oppose aggression. How does that translate into saying that if you are not a libertarian, you endorse some aggression? Or that if you oppose aggression, you are a libertarian, whether you acknowledge it or not? Logic 101 – that’s what you seem to be missing out.

Yes, if you oppose all aggression, you are a libertarian. That’s all we libertarians want. If you say you are not a libertarian that means you do not oppose all aggression, or that you favor some. I’m asking what aggression you favor.

” All rights specify who can use a given scarce resource. ”

Once again, I find it tough to digest the fact that anyone can be this consistently stupid. This is only by YOUR definition. I don’t agree. Puhleese…. Define “right” first without getting circular or begging the question. We can then have a discussion.

” If you don’t think all rights are property rights you think there are rights in non-scarce things. ”

I guess once you step onto the slippery slope of stupidity, there is no stopping. You know all my explanations and how I arrived from the right to life to the conclusion that ideas and patterns cannot be “property”. Please try digging it up and showing me where I went wrong in that. Failing that, you are making a fool of yourself on your own blog.

I’m just curious what non-scarce thing you think we have a “right” in.

” Someone has the right to control your body. ”

Looks like all the slipping hasn’t taken you to the gates of wonderland yet. Since when did control become the same as ownership? Further, how does someone else “control” my body?

You know, but hitting it, raping it, shooting it, putting it in jail.

Ownership is the right to control. Not control itself. See here http://mises.org/daily/3660#ref4 for example:

“As Professor Yiannopoulos explains:
‘Property may be defined as an exclusive right to control an economic good …; it is the name of a concept that refers to the rights and obligations, privileges and restrictions that govern the relations of man with respect to things of value. People everywhere and at all times desire the possession of things that are necessary for survival or valuable by cultural definition and which, as a result of the demand placed upon them, become scarce. Laws enforced by organized society control the competition for, and guarantee the enjoyment of, these desired things. What is guaranteed to be one’s own is property… [Property rights] confer a direct and immediate authority over a thing.’

A.N. Yiannopoulos, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Property (West Group, 4th ed. 2001), §§ 1, 2 (first emphasis in original; remaining emphasis added). See also Louisiana Civil Code, Art. 477 (“Ownership is the right that confers on a person direct, immediate, and exclusive authority over a thing. The owner of a thing may use, enjoy, and dispose of it within the limits and under the conditions established by law”).”

Make more sense now? Or is this “stupid” too?

” If it is not you, who is your owner? ”

“Ownership” is a concept that makes sense ONLY when an alternative is possible. In this case, my body is one of my traits. The concept “I” includes the body and mind. It is in my nature to be autonomous. I do not own myself. I AM myself.

This is just petulant evasion. You have a body. Or you “are” a body. Or a “body” is one of your traits–whatever. Who gets to decide who uses it? You, or someone else? It’s a simple question. Libertarians are not afraid to just answer it.

” I can’t see how you can define property as it is used by the anti-IPers on this site ”

I can’t and I don’t. I find their definition fundamentally flawed. In fact, I think they do not have one at all.

” But I don’t think it good enough ”

It would help to see you explain why you think so.

” – over-simplifying greatly, you or any group of people working together do not have any right to violate the first and second laws of thermodynamics, no matter what anyone says or does or thinks. ”

I think your parallel is inappropriate. You are mixing up natural laws with moral concepts (as I see it, rights are moral concepts).

This is the problem with brain-dead monkeys. Logic appears like religion to them when the thought process goes beyond what they are ready to think of.