Your saying my points have been refuted is quite different from refuting them.

So why do you run away from debates then? This behaviour of yours is thoroughly documented.

This article puts forth that without IP, innovators will be compensated either by crowd-sourcing angel investor funds, or by patronage.

No. The article explains that there are methods of compensating “innovators” that do not require IP. It does not say there are only two. There is an infinite number of business models. I believe I listed a handful of them about two years ago already when I started participating in the debates, I dug out the list now just for you: “deception, dumping, cost accounting, product lifecycle management, marketing, bundling, vendor lock-in, vapourware, trusts”. IP proponents like you insist on the inefficient business models (due to some weird personal biases) and then come up with a fallacious theory to mask their biases.

They are intellectual Communists.

Rather than us being communists, you are a mercantilist. You advocate the forceful elimination of competition on the pretence that this is better for the society.

Correctly, IP proponents on this site want to respect both!

The problem is that a simple logical error, attempting to reconcile two contradictory requirements. Having IP requires giving up of physical property rights in the proportionate amount. IP proponents on this site want to have both.

If your stuff gets stolen, who do you call to try and get it back? Who pays their salary?

If you buy real estate, who do you look to enforce the borders of your plot? Or the zoning laws of the neighborhood you bought it in?

The anti-IP crowd here chronically ignores the fact that without the state, your property rights are reduced to whatever you are capable of personally defending.

No, you read him right. He decides what is a natural right – or not.

Among the many things Kinsella conveniently ignores is that *all property*, and subsequent rights, either has an expiration date or a means to end one’s posession.

With respect to real estate, fail to keep up your taxes and the state seizes it. With respect to other material things, they eventually wear out or are destroyed by accident.

Since IP would have an infinite lifespan, it makes sense from a societal view to give IP rights a limited lifespan.

EDIT: Sorry, I didn’t read closely enough, we seem to be making the same point; neither IP nor “property” are absolute natural rights, rather, they are limited rights which balance several needs.

‘Those bent on destroying IP recognize no value in ideas, and advocate they should be owned by everyone. They are intellectual Communists.’

Quit trying to group people together with BS phrases that essentially mean ‘if you disagree with me then your a communist’.”

You conveniently ignore the “intellectual” portion of that declaration.

” The goal here for many people is to figure out a way that a society can run with the least amount of force and violence possible. Since ‘IP’ is utterly dependent on the use of governmental force then getting rid of ‘big government’ means getting rid of ‘IP’. You cannot have one (IP) without the other (government threats and violence).”

That makes no sense.

If removing force from government is the goal you and the others have, then why focus on IP? It is hardly the biggest issue with regards to government using force.

A much better place to start would be with the unconstitutional use of our military, and/or the unconstitutionality of our monetary system, both of which are responsible for orders of magnitude more pain and suffering than the IP system.

” The attempt by the article is merely to show one possibility of how things can be done through voluntary cooperation instead of extortion.”

To which end it failed.

You only have the patent advantage for the duration of the patent.

Everyone seems to conveniently ignore the fact that IP expires!

And please, don’t bring up Disney. Abuse of IP law is no more an excuse to eliminate IP than abuse of tort law is an excuse to eliminate personal liability.

It’s kinda up to you to prove this.”

No, it’s about definitions. A monopoly is significantly different from private property. A bicycle and a Saturn V are both vehicles, but there is considerable difference between them. Calling IP a monopoly is engaging in the “guilt by association” fallacy.

” ‘When someone creates an invention, e.g. a new invention called the ‘cell phone’, you can buy it or instead continue to use other means to communicate, it’s your choice. There’s no force involved with respect to the consumer.’

That’s a laugh. Of course there is. ”

In this example, is the state threatening the consumer with incarceration for not using a cell phone instead of say, soup cans & string? You either misunderstand, or you are hand-waving.

It’s kinda up to you to prove this.

Because how it works now is absolutely monopoly. Patents, for example, work by you filing paper work and paying the government to give you a monopoly over a idea or concept. Then you can use your monopoly right to go out and sue people that violate your monopoly. It does not matter if they did it on purpose or by accident… It is simply your right at that point to control the activities and products of anybody that infringes on the patent. The effect is completely universal and immediate.

When someone creates an invention, e.g. a new invention called the ‘cell phone’, you can buy it or instead continue to use other means to communicate, it’s your choice. There’s no force involved with respect to the consumer.

That’s a laugh. Of course there is.

Quit trying to group people together with BS phrases that essentially mean ‘if you disagree with me then your a communist’.

The goal here for many people is to figure out a way that a society can run with the least amount of force and violence possible. Since ‘IP’ is utterly dependent on the use of governmental force then getting rid of ‘big government’ means getting rid of ‘IP’. You cannot have one (IP) without the other (government threats and violence).

The attempt by the article is merely to show one possibility of how things can be done through voluntary cooperation instead of extortion.