The issue is size, scale and diversity of the jurisdictions, and how they manage to prevent the need to pull out the codes for an area if you are visiting another town.

The alternative is a “common code of laws” which even Rothbard acknowleged would be necessary.

I catch your drift, here. Let me ask, how do you deal with the issue of “balkanization” in your vision?

It seems that you have all jurisdictions being reduced to the local level, as the largest scale of social organization, and at the individual level, you have the abiltiy to opt out.

How does anyone figure out what the local laws will be, or what to expect form an individual, as one travels from point A to point B?

How do you define “public property”?

How does something become “public” property?

How is your idea different from ancap?

He was discussing government debt. Jefferson said that the borrowings of govt could not morally be passed onto the shoulders of future generations for repayment. Those yet born, or those who were mere children when govt borrowed money had no influence and no power over the decision to borrow. Therefore, he thought, they should not be expected to pay for something they had nothing to do with. The debt should be put aside, unpaid.

Being consistent with application of his principles, it is clear that govt should not be able to borrow at all. The vast majority of people have nothing to do with and no control over such decisions, hence they can hardly be expected to be liable for them. Jefferson knew this and did argue along those lines. Let those who want govt to borrow give the guarantees. Let them be responsible for the repayment. leave everyone else unencumbered.

Sione

Minarchism is not based on the free will and property rights of the people included. It is a form of statism.

Whether this statism includes many regulated areas or not is irrelevant for the question if it is legitimate. Theft is theft whether you take 1000$ or more.

So please answer this: What if someone does not want to accept the territorial monopoly of your government?

“On another thread I read that you believe in state property (you mentioned three property types of which one was state property). I think that says it all.”

Yes. It does.

Sione

How does “public property” evolve? Who is to decide what “public” property is and what not?

Or is minarchism just the same as communism, only on a smaller scale?

Btw you did not really answer any of my questions: What has IP to do with “public” property?

so… you happen to be opposed to the push to add fashion IP protection? Or will you say that there is “good reason” for fashion protection once Congress makes it so, like a good little legal positivist lapdog?

I understand the issue with fashion is one of separating the design element from the useful object, leading to an encroachment into the pubic domain of useful objects.

That rests on a policy objective that is supported by sound reasoning. Is the concept of “good reasons” now prohibited, even if they come from someone you consider a “lap dog”, whatever that means?

As I have said before, mercantilism is always bad, whether in the service of copyright extensions, or other encroachments in the public domain protection policy.

I think this position is supportable for good reasons. And you?

You cannot use fashion as an example any more than you can ideas. Neither are subjects of current laws, for good reasons.

so… you happen to be opposed to the push to add fashion IP protection? Or will you say that there is “good reason” for fashion protection once Congress makes it so, like a good little legal positivist lapdog?

as you undoubtedly know by now, I’ve been a software engineer my whole career. Yet, I cannot recall a situation where my income required that people are prevented from copying the software that I wrote. It is possible that there have been isolated occurrences where people were prevented from copying it, because my career predates my IP opposition and I was not paying attention to it, but even if they existed they would not significantly influence the outcome.

That alone refutes your nonsense.

You are still not actually reading my writing, but at least this is coherent.

I am reading and unlike you I am able to participate in a debate and produce a coherent argument.

You said that if patent length was zero, producers would always be producing for an external economy. I said that regardless of patent length, as long as noone is enslaved, i.e everyone has some rights, for example physical property rights, a part of the outcome of their work is external economy and a part is an internal economy. Therefore, your argument is a non-sequitur. Just like in the previous cases, you made up an empty set (zero length patents = nonexistence of internal economy) and are complaining about it.

I also posted you a question, which, when answered, would refute my argument. Again, just like in other cases, you did not answer it.

Zero is slavery, which will be rejected by producers.

So, if you have the option between performing an action and not performing it, and cannot find a way of profiting from it, it means that noone can? Also, if you think that you can only make an action X profitable if other people are prevented by force from performing action Y, does that justify that force?

It is not necessary that the benefit be zero, only, as Mises says, “for the most part”.

You explain to me how the author will derive the benefits for authorship if mere disclosure severs that ownership.

You cannot use fashion as an example any more than you can ideas. Neither are subjects of current laws, for good reasons.

Assume you are an author with an original manuscript, say a technical manual that was very costly to produce. How do you internalize the benefit in the absence of some IP protection? Give me an example.

How can you insist that without IP producers retain no benefit from their inventions/creations? Can you even conceive of a single example in which a person created something and got absolutely nothing for it? That means they got not $1 in sales, no increased fame, no increased expertise or skill, nor even any personal satisfaction out of creating. If any one of the benefits above applies the producer is not limited to an “external economy”, they are benefiting personally from their actions, even if not to the extent you deem appropriate.

There is no need for an elaborate set of ad hoc laws and rules to internalize positive externalities… producers are perfectly capable of finding a way to benefit from their production without IP, as they have done before IP and as they have continued to do today in IP free areas like fashion.

Wrong. Property rights apply to everyone. Not only within a “social jurisdiction”.
If people allow others to use their property and call that communal so be it.
But there is no such thing as “social jurisdiction” which decides what is right and what is wrong. Your standing has nothing to do with libertarianism if you put property right on a relative level.

Regarding Coase: His theorem is not about what is right or wrong but about what he deems efficient. Do not mix those both parts.