Yes, but “unless the misprepresentation is blatant” is just another arbitrary line to be drawn.

Isn’t it, however, up to the buyer to determine whether the misinterpretation is blatant, and are not the opinions of other people irrelevant? Isn’t that what subjective means in the first place?

Why couldn’t the fake store use the word “genuine”?

Yes, why? Maybe because they are in China and would use a different word instead?

You would have to establish a rule about that.

Yes, and the rule is whether from the perspective of the buyer, the seller misrepresented to him the nature of the good to such an extent that he would not have bought it if he was informed correctly.

That rule is trademarks.

This injects a new party into the debate: the owner of the trademark. Why is it relevant, Wildberry? Another plug in the dam of nonsense?

That is the function of trademarks, to “advertise” what is “genuine”.

Why is it than that trademarks establish the holder of the trademark, rather than the buyer, as the victim?

What we can say, I think, is that all IP rules, patents, copyrights, and trademarks, are rules against use without consent,

Oh yes, we’re back now to my accusation that you are basing your claims on the fact that the author does not like what the copiers are doing.

and such consent is attributable to an owner of something which is being used.
Assuming your conclusion, Wildberry.

Your general approach is to deny that such ownership can or should exist.

Ah, so by taking the moral upper ground, you magically eliminate all the logical contradictions that you have piled up? Fascinating. You should write a book about this and label it “Demagoguery for dummies”.

I have come to the position that you cannot actually state that conclusion without being inconsistent with other principles of libertarian property rights theory you also hold to be true.

I have extensively documented that it is you who pile up contradiction upon contradiction and seem not to be bothered by it. And I have not even made the claim that this is related to libertarianism.

Why the stubborn refusal to engage in a debate? Why all the mirrors and smoke? Is that all you’ve got?

We can argue about what the defaults ought to be regarding caveat emptor. But the point is that issue concerns fraud, not IP: a concrete person defrauded by a particular seller; and this has nothing to do with the third party company whose name was used by the defrauder. That company is a third party, not the victim of the tort of fraud.

I do not disagree that fraud is a distinct legal concept from trademarks. They are not mutually exclusive. If your focus is merely on the transaction between the seller and the buyer, there is a distinguishable act of fraud that can be identified.

Moreover, my point is that in reality the problem you posit is not a serious one. If for whatever reason the default line was drawn regarding caveat emptor so that the customer has no fraud claim unless the misprepresentation is blatant then in that case it’s easy for the genuine Apple stores to advertize that they are genuine and for consumers to easily tell. For those that really care, all they have to do is find out whether the store is making the standard representations that demonstrate that it is genuine–if they are not, the customer is aware it’s a fake store, or just doesn’t care.

Yes, but “unless the misprepresentation is blatant” is just another arbitrary line to be drawn. Why couldn’t the fake store use the word “genuine”? You would have to establish a rule about that. That rule is trademarks. That is the function of trademarks, to “advertise” what is “genuine”. It is simple. It requires that stores refrain from using marks that are identified with an origin (or affiliation) that is not “genuine”.

In any case the fraud issue is not the basis for IP nor can it be, nor is it what IP advocates are getting at. They want to outlaw copying that is non-fraudulent. So yapping about fraud is just a dishonest red herring.

You, of all people, should not be blurring the distinctions between copyrights and trademarks, neither of which necessarily have to involve fraud against the consumer. So yapping about me yapping about fraud is slightly…slightly…dishonest? But as you correctly observe, dishonesty does not necessarily rise to the threshold of fraud.

What we can say, I think, is that all IP rules, patents, copyrights, and trademarks, are rules against use without consent, and such consent is attributable to an owner of something which is being used. Your general approach is to deny that such ownership can or should exist. However, I have come to the position that you cannot actually state that conclusion without being inconsistent with other principles of libertarian property rights theory you also hold to be true. That is what makes our exchanges interesting.

@Stephan Kinsella July 25, 2011 at 12:24 pm

Reports are the Chinese state has just closed down the fake apple stores. Thank God we have the benevolent mass-murdering commie criminal state to protect us from people selling things to people in voluntary transactions.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still doing the right thing.

We can argue about what the defaults ought to be regarding caveat emptor. But the point is that issue concerns fraud, not IP: a concrete person defrauded by a particular seller; and this has nothing to do with the third party company whose name was used by the defrauder. That company is a third party, not the victim of the tort of fraud.

Moreover, my point is that in reality the problem you posit is not a serious one. If for whatever reason the default line was drawn regarding caveat emptor so that the customer has no fraud claim unless the misprepresentation is blatant then in that case it’s easy for the genuine Apple stores to advertize that they are genuine and for consumers to easily tell. For those that really care, all they have to do is find out whether the store is making the standard representations that demonstrate that it is genuine–if they are not, the customer is aware it’s a fake store, or just doesn’t care.

In any case the fraud issue is not the basis for IP nor can it be, nor is it what IP advocates are getting at. They want to outlaw copying that is non-fraudulent. So yapping about fraud is just a dishonest red herring.

Isn’t providing a service to someone a form of labor as opposed to an exchange of goods?

Maybe you are an honest person, but this statement isn’t:

Thing is, one shouldn’t expect people to value things that you value and more importantly shouldn’t use force to prevent others from using ideas, knowledge etc. with their own property.

First, I don’t recall anyone saying that anyone SHOULD expect what you say about valuing things.

Second, who is preventing the “use” of ideas, knowledge, etc? The only use I think is up for debate is copying; that is, making an exact copy of an original which you do not own outright, and using it to make a copy for yourself, and enjoying the benefits of the origianl without respecting private property rights. You do not support such a concept in any other realm of property rights, yet you seem to think it is OK for IP.

I have challenged opponents to show how you can get to this conclusion without violating the very principles you hold to be “libertarian”. You cannot do that, because it cannot be done.

Care to give it a shot?

By this logic, we shoud all have our own gas spectrograph if we take medicine, because it is up to us to detect fraud before we pop it in our mouth?

I know about caveat emptor and all, but what is wrong with a requirement that merchants represent the origin of their products, and their affiliation with the advertised company logo, honestly? Is there something “unlibertarian” about that concept?

The key phase in the first quote is “for them”, meaning that a “product that can be gratuitously enjoyed by everybody” breaks the private property principle of output from privately owned means, and input from the right to exclusive use of private property.

There is no “breakage”. You can almost never prevent a benefit to fall upon people who do not own the source of the benefit. Mises merely chose to concentrate on a specific aspect of human action, in my opinion, misleadingly, but in essence not necessarily incorrect. You are however drawing incorrect conclusions.

in recognition that external benefits are not avoidable, in relation to his earlier discussion of economic calculation

You are arbitrarily merging unrelated claims. Mises argued that these are separate questions, rather than, as you are attempting to portray it, one being the conclusion of the other. You can’t have it both ways. Either externalities are a valid argument for redistribution of property rights, and then there is no reason to handle IP differently than other exteranlities. Or they are not a valid argument, and then IP would have to follow from other assumptions.

What does “causality extends to infinity” have to do with the case Mises is making?

It demonstrates that he arbitrarily picked an aspect of human action and used it as an example. Again, in essence he is not incorrect but it’s prone to misrepresentation and, of course, does not prove anything.

The legal concept here is “actual” and “proximate cause” as I have explained many times.

This is not an explanation. This is just a rhetorical trick. You have failed to explain how to distinguish between the two, and furthermore, you are referring to positive law, which is from economic point of view an invalid argument.

You prefer the logical principles of necessary and sufficient causation.

Exactly. And, you have repeatedly refused to address my objections which show to inconsistencies in your application of these.

I don’t think you are so stupid as to not realize that the closer one gets to infinity, the less relevant the causality, and the closer to the actual cause, the more relevant.

Of course. The difference is quantitative, rather than qualitative. But that does not prevent you from drawing qualitative distinctions between “relevant” and “irrelevant” causality. This makes your argument incoherent.

To do so is to either miss the point, which makes you stupid (and there is no cure for stupid) or dishonest for trying to create a diversion from the essential point of the argument.

The one dishonest is you. Your whole argument depends on the ability to divide causality into “relevant” and “irrelevant”. This distinction, according to you, not only results in different legal, but also economic rules. You utterly fail to explain how that is supposed to work, furthermore, you avoid even confirming that this is an accurate representation of your position.

You are making an irrelevant point. Relevance means the tendency of one thing being true making it more likely that a second thing is true.

On the contrary. You are making the assumption that a specific business model should be profitable, and challenge me to provide an example that this does not require a specific assignment of property rights. This is a logical fallacy.

You are arguing that because some business plans do not involve the principles of IP, then the principle of IP must be invalid.

No. I am arguing that if you assume your conclusion (that specific business models must be profitable), you are committing a logical fallacy.

So you don’t say it is, and you don’t say it isn’t, but you argue nonetheless?

I counter specific arguments based on their logical aspects, not based upon their ethical value. Even if IP was “legitimate”, that still would not absolve you from providing a logically correct argument for its support. Your attempts to divert this into a discourse about ethics is moot. Ethics does not trump logic.

Forgive me for assuming that he is thinking specifically of “intellection creation” which is the general concept for the “intellectual” part of “Intellectual Property”.

He said that this is the extreme case. He did not say he’s going to make an exception, on the contrary, he rejected such a notion. Your argument is erroneous.

Not that you have it, what is your argument against his argument?

My argument is, like I said several times, that there is nothing IP-specific about this. External economies are omnipresent and to choose IP as “extreme example” or something that deserves an exception has no praxeological nor empirical backing.

Then why does he say “The extreme case of external economies…” and why does he put “production” in quotes to include “the intellectual groundwork of every kind of processing and constructing”?

He simply did not think it through. He thought it’s an extreme example. It isn’t. The agrarian sector, for example, supports all the other sectors. Without it, we would have no industry, services or information sectors. This easily outdwarfs the scope of IP. Yet for some reason, you are not arguing that these externalities are relevant in this case. That makes your argument inconsistent.

And why does he start the second from last paragraph on page 658 with “patents and copyrights” if he is not thinking specifically of IP?

You have still failed to explain where he is saying that an exception should be made for IP.

I thought not, but what else is new?

So what is it then?

Where did he say anything about “unprofitable venues”? How about a link to that one?

Here is the quote:

A project P is unprofitable when and because consumers prefer the satisfaction expected from the realization of some other projects to the satisfaction expected from the realization of P. The realization of P would withdraw capital and labor from the realization of some other projects for which the demand of the consumers is more urgent. The layman and the pseudo-economist fail to recognize this fact. They stubbornly refuse to notice the scarcity of the factors of production. As they see it, P could be realized without any cost at all, i.e., without foregoing any other satisfaction. It is merely the wantonness of the profit system that prevents the nation from enjoying gratuitously the pleasures expected from P.

So put up or shut up.

So, when you avoid questions and avoid explaining what specifically is wrong with your opponents’ arguments, and I object, then it’s somehow my fault?

producers who find they are producing, for the most part, external economies, don’t choose to continue to do that voluntarily; they reallocate their resources

There are many examples of products that create external economies, and would not be profitable without the producers being able to get paid based on these external economies. Why is IP any different?

without the property rights secured by IP rights, producers who produce economic intellectual works will not do it, because it is a road to serfdom. It doesn’t pay.

First of all, you have provided no empirical evidence, nor theoretical backing to support your position that this (reduced production) would indeed be the consequence. Furthermore, even if it was, so what? Unless you make the assumption that such production is desirable (which I “accused” you of earlier), your argument is pointless. And if you do make that argument, then, as Mises said, it’s praxeologically invalid.

Would you continue to be the proprietor of Surdix if you couldn’t get paid?

Ah, but I do get paid, because I did not build my business model on the assumption that I should be paid based on the externalities which I have no control of. You have failed to explain that your argument represents a systematic “deficiency” of the lack of IP, rather than being merely a consequence of unprofitable business models.

How do you make your living?

I sell services.

That is not your position.

Where’s your evidence?

You don’t have a position I guess.

You don’t have a position. If you had, you would have presented it already, and answered questions about it.

A summary:
Where is your evidence that lack of IP has a detrimental effect on “intellectual creation”? Where is your evidence that you are presenting a systematic deficiency, rather than a result of unprofitable business models (which has, per se, nothing to do with “intellectual creation”)? What is your justification that even if lack of IP did have a detrimental effect on “intellectual creation”, this is a valid reason for its inception? Last but not least, how do you define IP (considering that you claim it is distinguishable from causality as such)?

Mises used similar phrases in two places:
What they produce is for them entirely or almost entirely external economies.
and
It has merely to stress the point that this is a problem of delimitation of property rights and that with the abolition of patents and copyrights authors and inventors would for the most part be producers of external economies.
If you think that the difference is relevant, what is it? If you think it isn’t, why do you mention it?

Peter, if you think you understand what he means, then why do you try to use this in some way that is not consistent with what he is trying to explain?

The key phase in the first quote is “for them”, meaning that a “product that can be gratuitously enjoyed by everybody” breaks the private property principle of output from privately owned means, and input from the right to exclusive use of private property. Is that what you mean? This is the counter-argument to “ideas are free” line of reasoning.

In the second, he says “for the most part” in recognition that external benefits are not avoidable, in relation to his earlier discussion of economic calculation. So given his assertion, what is your position? For example:

Since causality extends to infinity, apart from some unrealistic cases, it is unavoidable that some benefits will fall to people other than the owner. My argument, rather then being idiotic, is the logical conclusion. I have challenged you in the past to disprove this, but you ignored it.

What does “causality extends to infinity” have to do with the case Mises is making? Just answer that question, and it will be clear where you stand with everyone and I can hold you to it later when you try to stay on the fence.

The legal concept here is “actual” and “proximate cause” as I have explained many times. You prefer the logical principles of necessary and sufficient causation. I don’t think you are so stupid as to not realize that the closer one gets to infinity, the less relevant the causality, and the closer to the actual cause, the more relevant. You can talk about the fact that butterfly wings in Brazil are causally related to hurricanes in the Atlantic if you want to, but I don’t and Mises doesn’t. To do so is to either miss the point, which makes you stupid (and there is no cure for stupid) or dishonest for trying to create a diversion from the essential point of the argument.

“A lawyer makes his living from “mental labor” without IP. So what? If a lawyer writes a book, though, he needs IP or you will rip him off. See the difference?”

You are begging the question. Some business plans are profitable, some are not. If you choose the one that is unprofitable, that only demonstrates that you were unable to correctly assess the future. From the point of view of property rights, it per se does not mean anything.

So? You are making an irrelevant point. Relevance means the tendency of one thing being true making it more likely that a second thing is true.

You are arguing that because some business plans do not involve the principles of IP, then the principle of IP must be invalid. Does that sound relevant to you? You are arguing that a bad business plan is unprofitable, so that must “prove” that IP is not necessary? Stupid or ignorant, take your pick.

“Self-aggrandizing aside, so you say that IP is legitimate?”

No.

Did you look up “aggrandizing”? So you don’t say it is, and you don’t say it isn’t, but you argue nonetheless? What a waste of wattage you are.

I take a stand at the side of logic, rather than stupidity and emotion, like you do.

Ooooo. Peter is on the “side” of logic and I am stupid and emotional. That is really an piercingly intelligent comment. I’m crushed.

“Externalities cannot be entirely eliminated, thus Mises choice of words “for the most part.”

This would only make sense if IP addressed this “for the most part” specifically, for which you provide neither empirical evidence nor theoretical backing.

I am referring you to Mises’s argument. He starts this section with the following words”

The External Economies of Intellectual Creation

Forgive me for assuming that he is thinking specifically of “intellection creation” which is the general concept for the “intellectual” part of “Intellectual Property”. Gee, you really got me there…

If property rights are not secured for the producers (or creators) of intellectual goods, the producers are, “for the most part producers of external economies”. Could it be any more clear? Not that you have it, what is your argument against his argument? Do you have one, or do you just want to be part of the circle jerk?

“If you are going to have the balls to assert that Mises is making a false argument, then also grow the balls to try and prove it.”

You are misrepresenting my argument. My argument was not that the producers of IP are not, for the most part, producing external economies without IP, but that almost all producers of anything in all practically relevant systems do that.

That is your argument? Then why does he say “The extreme case of external economies…” and why does he put “production” in quotes to include “the intellectual groundwork of every kind of processing and constructing”? And why does he start the second from last paragraph on page 658 with “patents and copyrights” if he is not thinking specifically of IP?

You are not being honest, but what else is new?

“Would you like to provide a link and exact quotation to that effect?”

So, the whole point of Mises’ chapter on externalities is not the argument that the existence of externalities is an invalid justification for enforcing production of unprofitable venues? What is it then?

I thought not, but what else is new?

Where did he say anything about “unprofitable venues”? How about a link to that one? I suspect you would prefer to just keep making things up.

“Who knows what you are saying here?”

Apparently, everyone except you.

Really? Have you taken a poll? I would like to see your questions and your sample. Somehow I think you are in the minority of the general population, but I suspect your poll doesn’t reflect that reality. So put up or shut up.

“Who, do you imagine, is “enforcing the production of goods”?”

So, your argument is not that the authors should be given rights at the cost of copiers in order for the author’s production to be stimulated? Because if not, then your whole argument falls apart.

Do you actually have the cojones to answer a direct question? That would be novel. Have you heard of low T?

My argument, as if you don’t know, is that producers who find they are producing, for the most part, external economies, don’t choose to continue to do that voluntarily; they reallocate their resources. So yes, most definitely, I concur with Mises, that intellectual creation is an extreme case of how, without the property rights secured by IP rights, producers who produce economic intellectual works will not do it, because it is a road to serfdom. It doesn’t pay. They cannot recover their investment. It is a bad business plan. It sucks to work and not get paid.

Would you continue to be the proprietor of Surdix if you couldn’t get paid? That is not a principle limited to IP, it is a general economic principles consistent with AET. I’m on the side of AET, not some nonsensical “argument” that doesn’t state what exactly it is arguing for or against.

“It depends. What a stupid question.”

On the contrary, it demonstrates that you are wrong.

I guess in some ways, stupid questions imply that everyone else must be wrong without explaining or understanding why. That is what makes them stupid. Thank you for confirming that.

“If they are depending on IP rights to do it, then yes.”

Begging the question again.

I guess just plain statements like this one can be stupid too.

“If they are merely selling their labor, then no.”

“How do you sell your labour?”

How do you make your living?

If you want make this point, pick some activity that depends on property rights in IP.

Circular reasoning.

Stupid lack of reasoning.

“Another meaninglessly vague and ambiguous question, so the answer is yes and no but probably more no that yes.”

On the contrary, it explains that you contradict yourself. All the “extensions” of rights that IP produces must be offset by the costs of other people’s rights. Can you show an example where this is not the case?

That question is like the Mad Hatter asking someone to prove he is not crazy and then arguing with whatever they say. That would be a hard argument to win. Better to just drink tea.

“It appears that you do not grasp the distinction between external costs and external economies,”

And your proof is?

You ask stupid questions and make stupid statements, like t his one. You say nothing of any importance or relevance. But you can’t stop talking…

“much like you didn’t grasp the distinctions being made in the easement discussions.

Where’s the evidence?

Read your own posts. You may be the only person who can understand what you mean, but you can’t explain it. I know someone who spends their days on the corner talking to themselves. You remind me of that person. They are better when they take their medicine.

“since you don’t grasp what an externality is, apparently, I can’t assume whether you are talking about external costs or economies

Where is the evidence that I don’t understand and you do? In all the months you have been here, you continue to avoid answers and producing an intelligible explanation of your position.

She also repeats herself a lot. That is another symptom that she hasn’t taken her meds.

I don’t know what an “exotic case” is,

I explained it in the past. If you run away from debate and then claim you don’t remember, that only underscores your disingenuity.

I remember now. I call this the “butterfly in Brazil” argument. Very unpersuasive.

“I certainly don’t know what your position is”

My position has from the beginning been the same: your arguments are self-contradictory and/or vague. You do not seem to be bothered by this though.

That is not your position. That is our opinion about my position. You don’t have a position I guess. You have a fantasy that you are asking really, really smart questions and showing everyone how intelligent you are by saying that anyone you choose to troll is being “self-contradictory and/or vague”. I don’t think you have the faintest idea what a real conversation would be like. At least, I have never seen any evidence that you do.

“And I certainly have not idea what YOU mean when you say an “economic argument”.”:

Why is the argument for redistribution due to externalities valid for IP, but not for other externalities?

Have some more tea. Take your meds. You are blabbering to yourself.

“Other than that, I really think we are communicating.”

No, we are not. You are avoiding again.

Failure to recognize sarcasm, that’s another symptom.

Have you found new tricks yet or are you going to continue boring me?

Heavens me! Off with their heads!

First, I believe the phrase was “for the most part” not “almost entirely”.

Mises used similar phrases in two places:

What they produce is for them entirely or almost entirely external economies.

and

It has merely to stress the point that this is a problem of delimitation of property rights and that with the abolition of patents and copyrights authors and inventors would for the most part be producers of external economies.

If you think that the difference is relevant, what is it? If you think it isn’t, why do you mention it?

Second, this “other hand” is idiotic. If you own something and don’t benefit from its use or sale, you do not benefit from owning it. To claim otherwise, as you seem to be doing, is idiotic.

Since causality extends to infinity, apart from some unrealistic cases, it is unavoidable that some benefits will fall to people other than the owner. My argument, rather then being idiotic, is the logical conclusion. I have challenged you in the past to disprove this, but you ignored it.

“A lawyer makes his living from “mental labor” without IP. So what? If a lawyer writes a book, though, he needs IP or you will rip him off. See the difference?”

You are begging the question. Some business plans are profitable, some are not. If you choose the one that is unprofitable, that only demonstrates that you were unable to correctly assess the future. From the point of view of property rights, it per se does not mean anything.

Self-aggrandizing aside, so you say that IP is legitimate?

No.

Take a stand!

I take a stand at the side of logic, rather than stupidity and emotion, like you do.

Externalities cannot be entirely eliminated, thus Mises choice of words “for the most part”.

This would only make sense if IP addressed this “for the most part” specifically, for which you provide neither empirical evidence nor theoretical backing.

If you are going to have the balls to assert that Mises is making a false argument, then also grow the balls to try and prove it.

You are misrepresenting my argument. My argument was not that the producers of IP are not, for the most part, producing external economies without IP, but that almost all producers of anything in all practically relevant systems do that.

Would you like to provide a link and exact quotation to that effect?

So, the whole point of Mises’ chapter on externalities is not the argument that the existence of externalities is an invalid justification for enforcing production of unprofitable venues? What is it then?

Who knows what you are saying here?

Apparently, everyone except you.

Who, do you imagine, is “enforcing the production of goods”?

So, your argument is not that the authors should be given rights at the cost of copiers in order for the author’s production to be stimulated? Because if not, then your whole argument falls apart.

It depends. What a stupid question.

On the contrary, it demonstrates that you are wrong.

If they are depending on IP rights to do it, then yes.

Begging the question again.

If they are merely selling their labor, then no.

How do you sell your labour?

If you want make this point, pick some activity that depends on property rights in IP.

Circular reasoning.

Another meaninglessly vague and ambiguous question, so the answer is yes and no but probably more no that yes.

On the contrary, it explains that you contradict yourself. All the “extensions” of rights that IP produces must be offset by the costs of other people’s rights. Can you show an example where this is not the case?

It appears that you do not grasp the distinction between external costs and external economies,

And your proof is?

much like you didn’t grasp the distinctions being made in the easement discussions.

Where’s the evidence?

since you don’t grasp what an externality is, apparently, I can’t assume whether you are talking about external costs or economies

Where is the evidence that I don’t understand and you do? In all the months you have been here, you continue to avoid answers and producing an intelligible explanation of your position.

I don’t know what an “exotic case” is,

I explained it in the past. If you run away from debate and then claim you don’t remember, that only underscores your disingenuity.

I certainly don’t know what your position is

My position has from the beginning been the same: your arguments are self-contradictory and/or vague. You do not seem to be bothered by this though.

And I certainly have not idea what YOU mean when you say an “economic argument”.

Why is the argument for redistribution due to externalities valid for IP, but not for other externalities?

Other than that, I really think we are communicating.

No, we are not. You are avoiding again.

Have you found new tricks yet or are you going to continue boring me?

So, on one hand, you claim that without IP, “producers of IP” will be producing almost entirely for external economies. On the other hand, you are denying that it is difficult or impossible for “producers of IP” to earn money from their “production of IP”. You contradict yourself.

With all due respect, this is a stupid comment.

First, I believe the phrase was “for the most part” not “almost entirely”. You have no right to take liberties with what I or Mises may have actually said. I notice that you could provide no link to an exact quote of mine or Mises. Go figure.

Second, this “other hand” is idiotic. If you own something and don’t benefit from its use or sale, you do not benefit from owning it. To claim otherwise, as you seem to be doing, is idiotic.

“A lawyer makes his living from “mental labor” without IP. So what? If a lawyer writes a book, though, he needs IP or you will rip him off. See the difference?”

The difference is blindingly obvious to anybody but IP-fetishists. Both are business models that make certain assumptions about property rights. If the assumptions are erroneous, then the profit does not materialise and the entrepreneur suffers a loss. There is nothing IP-specific to this, and is exactly in accordance with free markets and private property.

This is so stupid I don’t even know how to respond. What does “if the assumptions are erroneous” mean? What are “certain assumptions”? Are you actually trying to say something here? Take it from me, it is not “blindingly obvious”. I would guess it would depend on the meaning of the words you use, which is, to be generous, stupefyingly vague and ambiguous.

(your quotations)

You are wrong. I did not say that my argument proves that “IP is illegitimate”, rather that your assumptions regarding externalities are wrong. I make very specific arguments. You’re just smoke and mirrors. In fact I do not recall ever saying that IP is illegitimate. That sounds like a normative statement and I try to avoid those. I try to stick to the claims that the pro-IP position is self-contradictory and vague, of which you are an excellent example.

Self-aggrandizing aside, so you say that IP is legitimate? Take a stand! Anything else is just posturing for reasons that can only be ultimately embarrassing to you.

“I didn’t make any implicit assumptions, they were painfully explicit.”

You made the assumption, copied from Mises, that without IP, some people will producing almost entirely for externalities, and from this you derive that the externalities should be eliminated. I refuted this flow of argumentation several times over, only to be met by your ignorance. Repeating a false statement does not make it true. It makes it boring. So stop boring me. You need a new act in your show.

It was not an assumption; it was an assertion with reference to Mises. Externalities cannot be entirely eliminated, thus Mises choice of words “for the most part”. If you would have read the context, you would see (giving you the benefit of the doubt) that he discusses this very point in the context of the individual actor’s calculation of costs v. benefit.

If you are going to have the balls to assert that Mises is making a false argument, then also grow the balls to try and prove it. Instead you choose intellectual masturbation of some perverse form that apparently involves Socrates and Perry Mason.

“A refutation would be to select an example that DOES depend on IP, and then use that example to show why Mises, and humble little me who happens to agree with his arguments, are both wrong. That would be a refutation.”

Mises said that the existence of externalities is not a valid reason to conclude that the product that is thus prevented from being produced should be produced. That is the refutation.

Would you like to provide a link and exact quotation to that effect? Otherwise, admit that you don’t really know what you are talking about. I believe I actually know what you are referring to, and he said no such thing. But if you think he did, then prove it.

So, did Mises say or not that the existence of externalities is an invalid justification for enforcing the production of goods that would not be produced without them?

Who knows what you are saying here? Who, do you imagine, is “enforcing the production of goods”? What goods “would not be produced without them (externalities?)”? Speak English.

Is it not true that IP producers do not need IP to earn money?

It depends. What a stupid question. If they are depending on IP rights to do it, then yes. If they are merely selling their labor, then no. I thought I already said this. If you want make this point, pick some activity that depends on property rights in IP.

Is it not true that IP is just a redistributive policy?

Another meaninglessly vague and ambiguous question, so the answer is yes and no but probably more no that yes.

Is it not true than that this invalidates the argument for externalities, because all benefits must be offset by costs?

It appears that you do not grasp the distinction between external costs and external economies, much like you didn’t grasp the distinctions being made in the easement discussions. But of course, that doesn’t stop you from trying to play Perry Mason.

Is it not true that externalities are, apart from exotic cases which do not correspond to either of our positions, unavoidable, and therefore you cannot arbitrarily select one type of them for an economic argument?

Look Perry, since you don’t grasp what an externality is, apparently, I can’t assume whether you are talking about external costs or economies. I don’t know what an “exotic case” is, and I certainly don’t know what your position is, since you seem to consider yourself above the fray. I don’t know how you “arbitrarily select” something, even lottery numbers. According to Mises, every actor has his own personal reasons for his actions.

And I certainly have not idea what YOU mean when you say an “economic argument”.

Other than that, I really think we are communicating.

So…your argument is that people should not labor to produce useful ideas because it’s fundamentally wrong to expect compensation for doing it?

I am not arguing about what should or should not be. I am merely pointing out to logical errors my opponents commit, such as making arbitrary assumptions.

This is a very funny thing to say when you’re making the argument that nobody should be paid for non-physical labor.

First of all, that is not my argument. Second of all, you are presenting the labour theory of value, i.e. that because you work, someone should pay you. Others have dealt with LTV more eloquently than I can. Third, if you want to be precise, there is no such thing as “non-physical labour”, since all action is manifested in a physical change of the world.

As you well know, I never said such a thing, but if you can provide a quote, I’ll address it.

So, on one hand, you claim that without IP, “producers of IP” will be producing almost entirely for external economies. On the other hand, you are denying that it is difficult or impossible for “producers of IP” to earn money from their “production of IP”. You contradict yourself.

A lawyer makes his living from “mental labor” without IP. So what? If a lawyer writes a book, though, he needs IP or you will rip him off. See the difference?

The difference is blindingly obvious to anybody but IP-fetishists. Both are business models that make certain assumptions about property rights. If the assumptions are erroneous, then the profit does not materialise and the entrepreneur suffers a loss. There is nothing IP-specific to this, and is exactly in accordance with free markets and private property.

(your quotations)

You are wrong. I did not say that my argument proves that “IP is illegitimate”, rather that your assumptions regarding externalities are wrong. I make very specific arguments. You’re just smoke and mirrors. In fact I do not recall ever saying that IP is illegitimate. That sounds like a normative statement and I try to avoid those. I try to stick to the claims that the pro-IP position is self-contradictory and vague, of which you are an excellent example.

I didn’t make any implicit assumptions, they were painfully explicit.

You made the assumption, copied from Mises, that without IP, some people will producing almost entirely for externalities, and from this you derive that the externalities should be eliminated. I refuted this flow of argumentation several times over, only to be met by your ignorance. Repeating a false statement does not make it true. It makes it boring. So stop boring me. You need a new act in your show.

A refutation would be to select an example that DOES depend on IP, and then use that example to show why Mises, and humble little me who happens to agree with his arguments, are both wrong. That would be a refutation.

Mises said that the existence of externalities is not a valid reason to conclude that the product that is thus prevented from being produced should be produced. That is the refutation.

So, did Mises say or not that the existence of externalities is an invalid justification for enforcing the production of goods that would not be produced without them? Is it not true that IP producers do not need IP to earn money? Is it not true that IP is just a redistributive policy? Is it not true than that this invalidates the argument for externalities, because all benefits must be offset by costs? Is it not true that externalities are, apart from exotic cases which do not correspond to either of our positions, unavoidable, and therefore you cannot arbitrarily select one type of them for an economic argument?

Thing is, one shouldn’t expect people to value things that you value and more importantly shouldn’t use force to prevent others from using ideas, knowledge etc. with their own property.

As you well know, I never said such a thing, but if you can provide a quote, I’ll address it.

A lawyer makes his living from “mental labor” without IP. So what? If a lawyer writes a book, though, he needs IP or you will rip him off. See the difference?

Where did I say what you claim I say?

http://blog.mises.org/17767/intellectual-property-advocates-hate-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-794359

http://blog.mises.org/17767/intellectual-property-advocates-hate-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-794463

Are you denying that your argument for IP is the existence of external economies without IP?

No.

Are you denying that my counterexample refutes your implicit assumption that this is a systematic issue, rather than a consequence of specific business models?

Yes. I didn’t make any implicit assumptions, they were painfully explicit. It is an economic problem that you, Kinsella, nor anyone else that I know of, have not addressed. You have refuted nothing, but then again, it’s never too late.

A refutation would be to select an example that DOES depend on IP, and then use that example to show why Mises, and humble little me who happens to agree with his arguments, are both wrong. That would be a refutation.

Have a nice day.

Still, the customer did not have a “authentic” Apple® experience and therefore you see the emotional response from some of the customer. The purchase of a product is often a very emotional experience and for others utilitarian experience.

What this practice has show that some customers don’t like to be fooled or tricked into a purchase even if it’s authentic.