1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/21423/asc-broadcast-coming-up/

ASC broadcast coming up

March 9, 2012 by

The ASC 2012 Rothbard Memorial Lecture will be broadcast via Ustream today at 4:30 pm Central Time.  David Howden will be discussing Fractional Reserve Free Banking.

{ 12 comments }

Hollis Cockburn March 10, 2012 at 8:14 pm

My son is now an ‘entrepreneur.’ It is precisely what you’re called once you do not have a job.
When in doubt, mumble; much more trouble, delegate; much more charge, ponder.

sette March 20, 2012 at 4:00 am

Paymn

Kid Salami March 22, 2012 at 9:03 am

Peter

This does not invalidate my argument.

You don’t have an “argument”, you have definitions. That’s it.

I did not say that the violator needs to enter into a contract with the alleged victim. But as long as he is using other people’s property (which is almost impossible to avoid), he needs to enter into a contract with the owner of this property, which might be accompanied by arbitrary restrictions. And this owner can be in a contractual relationship with someone else, and so on, until the chain arrives at the alleged victim. This scenario is hypothetically possible.

What’s with the “hypothetically”? I fully agree this “scenario is hypothetically possible” and I fully support your right to lobby for such a world – I just don’t think it has ever happened or will ever sustain an advanced division of labour society because the results will simply not be what the people want, and so question whether it is in fact “practically” possible and is in accordance with the wishes of the market participants. You using the word “hypothetically” suggests even you don’t really believe this. And as you have precisely zero evidence for people wanting to live in your world, and in fact proudly proclaim that none is needed, your inability to admit that reasonable people can disagree with you on this is somewhat ridiculous, to say the least.

And you can clarify your points instead of complaining how I’m being unjust to you.

I’m not at all interested in you being unjust or not to me, only in you not talking nonsense. Your comment earlier about temperature being an “emergent” property really gave away the farm – it is as far from being “emergent” as can be – you clearly have no idea what emergence is and so have no idea what I’m talking about, yet want to “falsify” me. Rather like someone “falsifying” a builder of an engine for letting heat escape to the cold sink rather than re-use it, or someone “falsifying” a fridge builder for not powering a heat engine with the heat that comes out and thereby making the fridge more efficient – you can’t always falsify something you don’t understand.

I confront specific arguments.

Unlike my unspecific ones – I guess all I do is take your words and show how they contradict each other. Sorry – I’ll have to have a think how I can be more specific.

You want me to defend a statement without the context of its validity…. This is of course impossible.

Now it needs context? What luck that there is some other reason you don’t have to answer after the other reasons you gave me for avoiding the question for so long. And gimme a break – you’ve said it to EVRY SINGLE PERSON who came on here advocating IP. And I’m just pointing out that it squashes debate, it doesn’t further it.

I would like to remind you that I explicitly said several times that other consistent positions are possible

Yes, but your “contradicts physical property” counter-argument to a proposed IP system contradicts this.

http://blog.mises.org/16319/the-origins-of-libertarian-ip-abolitionism/#comment-771521
“And since all media is already covered by physical property rights, MCP needs to either contradict it or be irrelevant. Confront it.”
[note that I already pointed out this was nonsense at the time]

http://blog.mises.org/15867/the-fight-against-intellectual-property/#comment-763169
“Paradoxically, that proves my point that IP contradicts physical property, because without IP, media are already owned by someone.”

Kid Salami March 22, 2012 at 10:14 am

Peter

This does not invalidate my argument.

You don’t have an “argument”, you have definitions. That’s it.

I did not say that the violator needs to enter into a contract with the alleged victim. But as long as he is using other people’s property (which is almost impossible to avoid), he needs to enter into a contract with the owner of this property, which might be accompanied by arbitrary restrictions. And this owner can be in a contractual relationship with someone else, and so on, until the chain arrives at the alleged victim. This scenario is hypothetically possible.

What’s with the “hypothetically”? I fully agree this “scenario is hypothetically possible” and I fully support your right to lobby for such a world – I just don’t think it has ever happened or will ever sustain an advanced division of labour society because the results will simply not be what the people want, and so question whether it is in fact “practically” possible and is in accordance with the wishes of the market participants. You using the word “hypothetically” suggests even you don’t really believe this. And as you have precisely zero evidence for people wanting to live in your world, and in fact proudly proclaim that none is needed, your inability to admit that reasonable people can disagree with you on this is somewhat ridiculous, to say the least.

And you can clarify your points instead of complaining how I’m being unjust to you.

I’m not at all interested in you being unjust or not to me, only in you not talking nonsense. Your comment earlier about temperature being an “emergent” property really gave away the farm – it is as far from being “emergent” as can be – you clearly have no idea what emergence is and so have no idea what I’m talking about, yet want to “falsify” me. Rather like someone “falsifying” a builder of an engine for letting heat escape to the cold sink rather than re-use it, or someone “falsifying” a fridge builder for not powering a heat engine with the heat that comes out and thereby making the fridge more efficient – you can’t always falsify something you don’t understand.

I confront specific arguments.

Unlike my unspecific ones – I guess all I do is take your words and show how they contradict each other. Sorry – I’ll have to have a think how I can be more specific.

You want me to defend a statement without the context of its validity…. This is of course impossible.

Now it needs context? What luck that there is some other reason you don’t have to answer after the other reasons you gave me for avoiding the question for so long. And gimme a break – you’ve said it to EVRY SINGLE PERSON who came on here advocating IP. And I’m just pointing out that it squashes debate, it doesn’t further it.

I would like to remind you that I explicitly said several times that other consistent positions are possible

Yes, but your “contradicts physical property” counter-argument to a proposed IP system contradicts this – you rule out systems on the basis that they “contradict physical property” even though you now admit that the system I propose, for example, is self-consistent. You defend by saying my system is all contracts and so doesn’t contradict the NAP – but this is simply conjecture on your part that people, anywhere, ever, want to live in this kind world.

Kid Salami March 22, 2012 at 10:15 am

http://blog.mises.org/16319/the-origins-of-libertarian-ip-abolitionism/#comment-771521

“And since all media is already covered by physical property rights, MCP needs to either contradict it or be irrelevant. Confront it.”

[note that I already pointed out this was nonsense at the time]

Kid Salami March 22, 2012 at 10:15 am

http://blog.mises.org/15867/the-fight-against-intellectual-property/#comment-763169

“Paradoxically, that proves my point that IP contradicts physical property, because without IP, media are already owned by someone.”

Kid Salami March 22, 2012 at 10:16 am

blog.mises.org/16319/the-origins-of-libertarian-ip-abolitionism/#comment-771521

“And since all media is already covered by physical property rights, MCP needs to either contradict it or be irrelevant. Confront it.”
[note that I already pointed out this was nonsense at the time]

blog.mises.org/15867/the-fight-against-intellectual-property/#comment-763169

“Paradoxically, that proves my point that IP contradicts physical property, because without IP, media are already owned by someone.”

Kid Salami March 22, 2012 at 10:17 am

the-origins-of-libertarian-ip-abolitionism/#comment-771521

“And since all media is already covered by physical property rights, MCP needs to either contradict it or be irrelevant. Confront it.”
[note that I already pointed out this was nonsense at the time]

the-fight-against-intellectual-property/#comment-763169

“Paradoxically, that proves my point that IP contradicts physical property, because without IP, media are already owned by someone.”

Kid Salami March 22, 2012 at 10:17 am

the-origins-of-libertarian-ip-abolitionism

“And since all media is already covered by physical property rights, MCP needs to either contradict it or be irrelevant. Confront it.”

[note that I already pointed out this was nonsense at the time]

the-fight-against-intellectual-property

“Paradoxically, that proves my point that IP contradicts physical property, because without IP, media are already owned by someone.”

Peter Surda March 22, 2012 at 12:17 pm

Kid Salami,

Both Schulman (link 1) and Stranger (link 2) claim that IP (or logorights) are an addition to, rather than rearrangement of, rights in physical goods, and build their arguments on providing some sort of justification for the validity of this addition, completely missing the erroneous premise.

Read Stranger’s “The economic principles of intellectual property and the fallacies of intellectual communism” or Schulman’s Logorights article. It is plainly evident that they are oblivious to the fact that the only thing their proposals can logically do is to rearrange rights to physical goods. They both think that without IP, there would be some common property, and they attempt to justify why this should be private property instead. You already admitted that you agree with me (and Kinsella etc) that this is an erroneous assumption. As Bastiat would say, they do not see the unseen. As Mises would say, they do not comprehend the fundament of human action.

I just don’t think it has ever happened or will ever sustain an advanced division of labour society because the results will simply not be what the people want…

First of all, you provide no evidence that this is not what people want. Second of all, even if they did want it, their presentation throughout the years shows that they cannot even define their position coherently. So regardless of their wants they cannot achieve contradictory goals simultaneously.

And as you have precisely zero evidence for people wanting to live in your world, and in fact proudly proclaim that none is needed,

I am merely analysing the logical composition of claims. Furthermore, I explicitly said several times that more than one consistent position is possible. I even as time progressed attempted to refrain from normative statements altogether. So your objection is pointless. I do not claim that people would want to live in “my world”, but that, for the vast majority of them, their attempts to build a world based on their ideas would fail, since they pursue contradictory goals. Similarly as people attempting to build communism would fail, not because they want to live in capitalism, but because communism doesn’t work.

And gimme a break – you’ve said it to EVRY SINGLE PERSON who came on here advocating IP.

Because every single person (except for you), made the same error as aforementioned Stranger & Schulman. You’re the only one that comprehends this and for this you have my respect. But you still persists on convincing me of something that I consider somewhere between irrelevant and unsubstantiated.

Yes, but your “contradicts physical property” counter-argument to a proposed IP system contradicts this – you rule out systems on the basis that they “contradict physical property” even though you now admit that the system I propose, for example, is self-consistent.

However, as explained above, my argument is only valid within the framework of the assumptions my opponents are making. I still don’t understand why you complain to me rather than them. You admit they are wrong. If you desire IP so much, why not work with them to fix their errors, rather than try to persuade me?

You defend by saying my system is all contracts and so doesn’t contradict the NAP – but this is simply conjecture on your part that people, anywhere, ever, want to live in this kind world.

Actually, no, I do not claim that anybody would want to live in a NAP world. I’m merely claiming that the vast majority of presented alternatives is logically erroneous. You’re the one claiming that they wouldn’t or that this would cause problems, but, in my opinion, do not want to provide sufficient logical or empirical evidence for it. While that obviously does not disprove your conclusion, it just explains where you should direct your efforts.

Please remember that your own quasi-pro-IP position is wildly different from anything I have heard any other IP proponent. Why do you think that your position is more viable, when you disagree with both IP proponents AND IP opponents? The disagreement that I might, for example, have with Kinsella (e.g. EM waves), pales in comparison with the disagreement you have with the IP proponents.

Kid Salami March 24, 2012 at 10:48 am

Peter – bit pushed for time. one thing though.

“Both Schulman (link 1) and Stranger (link 2) claim that IP (or logorights) are an addition to, rather than rearrangement of, rights”

The problem here is this. You admit there can be other self-consistent positions. By ruling out their position solely on the basis that it “contradicts physical property” or whatever, you implicitly assume things – the threads that I am pulling on.

I believe I have described a system that is self-consistent and includes an illegal act X of copying stuff in the copyright registry, via a common law process operating in a certain jurisdiction that i agree people must have agreed to either directly or indirectly.

So, this statement isnt enough to rule out my system => it not necessarily sufficient to rule out any system. You would have to explcitly determine the properties of the proposed system in order to see if it is sufficient or not. I suggest that you didn’t do that, you just said their system “cotradicts physical property” and therefore is bunk, and I say this argument is nonsense.

Peter Surda March 24, 2012 at 3:01 pm

Kid Salami,

I believe I have described a system that is self-consistent and includes an illegal act X of copying stuff in the copyright registry, via a common law process operating in a certain jurisdiction that i agree people must have agreed to either directly or indirectly.

And I believe that I agreed that this is possible.

it not necessarily sufficient to rule out any system.

Correct. Additional assumptions are necessary, and I believed to have shown that in cases such as Stranger or Schulman, they are present.

Again, I can just reiterate that you should complain to them and not me.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: