By the way, Steve Jobs is gone now. Tim Cook may or may not have picked up on Steve’s V-50 type incites, so don’t just go jumping into Apple stock.

< Quinces [old Red Rooster], in Jerome AZ. New owner is Vlad.>>

No. He is saying that even if you wanted to take Bill’s money, in exchange for your believing the moon is made of cheese, you could not do it honestly, because, after you took the money, you would still continue not to believe the moon was made of cheese. Ergo, your belief about the cheese content of the moon is not completely in your control. You cannot simply will yourself to believe anything.

This is unlike the raising of your arm, where you could will your arm to be raised, and then legitimately take his money for doing so.

Peter, I have no expectations that this exchange has much meaning for either of us, or that you will be coherent about much said here. For example, what does this mean, and why the Sherlock Holmes, “Aha!” ?

I am not expecting you to approach the debate seriously, I’m just participating out of habit and to expose your nonsense to others.

Did you use the words “reallocates rights”?

You are again mixing two aspects of the problem. From the perspective of an IP opponent, you are reallocating rights. Although in a different framework, it is not necessary that the rights are reallocated, but you or any IP proponent have yet to formulate such a framework in a coherent manner.

Before a child is born, are there unallocated rights? After she is born, are rights re-allocated?

There is no logical reason why the birth of the child should signify any unallocated rights. Rights cover transformations of physical objects and assign them to actors. A newborn child does not act, nor does the birth create a new physical object. In fact, all the matter and energy in universe is given: throughout the lifetime of the universe, nothing is “created”, as eloquently pointed out by Carl Sagan: If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.

The baby evolves from the body parts of their parents, at no point is there a scarce resource which did not exist before. It is merely a transformation of preexisting scarce resources. So there is no new unallocated scarce resource. Most babies (apart from sick etc) at some stage begin to act, and at some stage it becomes apparent that they are in control of their body. At that time, rights can be assigned to them. Please note that I did not say must, only can.

There is no particular reason why any of the situations or actions prior to the baby starting to act should have any effect on property rights. Most people put some time between the conception and the birth as the moment when the baby is assigned rights, but there is no logical reason for this. Furthermore, as elaborated above, the first rights that can be assigned to the baby (the rights to its own body) need to be transferred from the parents.

The attempted analogy with IP fails because there is no new rights assignee: there is always only the author and the copier. The invention itself does not act. Furthermore, similarly with the baby, there is no reason why the act of invention and/or, your favourite, the act of disclosure, should have any effect on rights in the first place. Both of these acts are merely alterations of physical objects.

In the absence of IP, rights are not allocated to IP.

This description is misleading. It’s just a new word to describe a specific assignment of rights in physical objects. Again, there is no particular reason why IP should be considered relevant and an infinite number of other interpretations of physical objects not.

Since they cannot be misallocated if they are not allocated, they are unallocated.

I already explained to you that reinterpreting a phenomenon from a different perspective does not create a new phenomenon. You went as far as denying the very basics of logic.

You’re doing the very thing you denied doing, rapidly shifting between “misallocated” and “unallocated”.

Do you fail to understand what A2 is? Yes, I think so.

On the contrary, you try to constantly muddle what A2 is. You’re using metaphors, double entendres and if all else fails, rejection of logic and finally ridicule and ignorance.

At the moment a baby is born, do other people lose some rights?

See above.

Wheeee!

I’m glad you’re enjoying yourself. Although I would prefer you debated rather than played with yourself, I guess you prefer it the way it is.

You are a contradiction.

An empty assertion without a reference.

Why ask me when you already know it comes from “sacrifice”?

You are making contradictory claims. I’m asking you to clarify it. Instead of doing this, you deflect.

You provide all the evidence needed.

In other words, you don’t have it. You imagined it, just like the fast majority of your claims.

Economic utilitarianism is about means and ends. That requires a different argument; one that includes the problem of external economies.

First of all, the alleged connection is simply not there, it’s another one of your imaginations. Furthermore, I already refuted your invocation of external economies, and you ignored it.

How do things look to you from your low moral vantage point?

I take an amoral stance. Unlike many other people, I do not hold the opinion that dogmatism and appeal to emotions is a suitable method of scientific discourse.

Your assertion that it “consistently addresses all conflicts” was demolished by Kid Salami.

Kid Salami pointed out that more than one possible solution exists and I agreed with him.

Your use of language is so sloppy and ambiguous, who knows what you are really trying to say sometimes?

Apparently, you’re the only one having this problem. You “solve” it by not taking it seriously.

Who “grants” these rights?

According to you, the state. According to me, noone.

Now homesteading only grants “at least some rights”?

I clearly specified that this is the position of IP proponents.

I thought it was the ONLY way to allocate rights?

You somehow arrive to the position that when I explain what IP proponents think, their thinking represents my position.

“Then again, an atom bomb could be used to address all conflicts. Not that I am saying that is the best way, but it certainly addresses them.” That is your argument…??!

Fail one: An atomic bomb is not a methodological framework. It’s an object.
Fail two: An explosion does not explain which of mutually exclusive situations is in accordance with the framework. It merely makes one of them impossible and therefore addresses an entirely different question.
Fail three: Even if we accepted the explosion as a valid approach, it still does not explain which last man standing is the “correct” one.
Fail four: The approach ignores the possibility of existence of beings immune to nuclear blasts.

In the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy book series, there is a character that intends to kill everyone in the universe, in alphabetical order. Might I suggest that he be a more appropriate conversation partner than me?

Cheers.

“If this represents your understanding of our form of government in the U.S., then probably not. We live in a republic; a constitutional representative democracy.”

I’ve actually heard about this. We have a constitution, and because of it, we are free, because it limits the authority of the central government in Washington. And also we have the checks and balances of three distinct branches of the federal government. This limits the executive severely. Some believe all of this. Not me, much. I think the US is essentially a democracy with a high sounding, but impotent label of “republic”.

Me: “In any case, via this process, a powerful minority gain control over the majority mainly through what a libertarian (a distinct minority) would claim is an entirely criminal means and institution – the state.”

“Sloganeering worthy of the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters.”

You must think what I am saying is quite absurd. We are very far apart then.

Me: “If this is the case, is it still true that “the affected parties for the most part, have agreed that the rule is just. It is justified by the common values and ends that are shared by those people”? ”

“I’ll try to help you; “rule” like in a specific law or moral code, not “rule” like a dictator.”

Thanks. Let’s be specific: We have a federal “rule” that the selling of dope to voluntary buyers, is a bad thing and justly punishable by fines or imprisonment. I claim this “law” or legislation is unjust, and immoral. What do you think?

Me: “Is this system just because it is popular? If not, how do you know? What is the logic that gets you to the understanding that what is popular is not necessarily just? Or do you ever get there?”

“System” of laws, not “system” of rule. But I have no idea what you are saying.” You tell me why justice and “popularity” and “justice” tend to converge?”

To answer, I’ll continue with my example: Do you think drug laws are popular? Do you think they are just? I think they are popular. I don’t think they are just. They are criminal. Perhaps you can think of laws you think are both unjust and popular. Why do such laws prevail? Because they are popular or because they are just? How do we know if they are unjust, if they are popular? I presume you agree some popular laws are unjust.

”
Someone famous said something like “No minority can rule over the majority for long, if their rule was not fundamentally popular.”
”
I subscribe to this as well.

” Rules that provide justice to most people in most circumstances are perceived as mostly “just”, don’t you agree?”

I think this is question begging. I would agree that rules that are popular may well be popularly perceived to be just. But I am saying they are often, in reality unjust. That is my point. Popular legislation does not imply justice. Do you agree?

” Since not all legal systems produce the expected or desired results,”
Me: Isn’t it a matter of perspective whether this is true or not?

“Depending on what you mean by “perspective” but yes. Results are a matter of interpretation.”

So if a person does time for selling drugs to a voluntary buyer, the question is, can this be correctly viewed as a just result, or merely a result that is popularly but incorrectly viewed as just. Is justice merely in the eye of the majority of beholders.

Me: “Do you really know that our legislators or those who pull their strings do not intend those things which we the voter or subjects, view to be merely some “unintended consequence”, or random act of stupidity by that legislator?”

“Yes, I think this is true. Laws happen not because legislators don’t have a clue. They happen because it satisfies their constituents, who give them what they want: power and privilege. To the extent “we the people” are not the constituents of the legislators, we will get screwed. That is a statement of the problem, not of the solution.”

It’s the inevitable outcome of statism. The privileged and elite minority will always control the state. It is poetic justice when the greedy and envious majority, who look to the state to initiate violence on their behalf against some minority, then get skewered when the state turns around and bites them.

“it is possible to argue whether a given means of achieving specific ends are “better” or “worse” than other means.”

Me: Assuming those who orchestrate the ends had the same intentions as the supposed ones on behalf of whom they orchestrated the ends for. Right?

“I know what you mean, but let me try to clean this up a bit. A law is popular because it is promoted by the ends it is meant to achieve. However, the law itself may designate means that do not actually result in the accomplishment of those ends. Whether that is because legislators collude with special interests who understand what ends the means will achieve, or instead the means were believed to be the way to get the desired ends, doesn’t matter as to results. It may matter as to remedy. Different medicine for different ailments is called for.”

In the above paragraph, is there a concession that some popular legislation may be unjust?

“You cannot discuss a mathematic formula by relying of poetry. Likewise, you cannot discuss the economics of law by avoiding both legal doctrine and economic analysis. Avoiding that discussion in the terms of that knowledge system, is a full-time job for Kinsella. My hobby is to try to encourage him back into the ring.”

Me: Heh!

“You liked that? Poetic, wasn’t it?”

Me: ” I guess, therefore, I think libertarians, for starters, really do need to get a firm theoretical grip on just exactly what problem the libertarian concept of property solves and how.”

“You are right about this, but few have been successful in this regard.”

Me again: Fair to say. But i still take them over their criminally minded statist counterparts, any day.

“Ideological sloganeering.”

Them’s a pair of intellectual sounding words, mister.

Me: Do you subscribe to the idea that first use generally represents best claim to use?

“Yes. It is the Rule of Capture in standard property law. It is the first property rule you learn in law school. It is like addition is the first rule of arithmetic. It is not calculus. There are certain problems that cannot be solved with addition only.”

Yes will do. The rest sounds like …. ” and no.”

Me: Nope.

“You are deprived. The main character sells musical instruments to the town, collects their money, and then disappears. That is, he does not entertain customer complaints.”

Sounds like market failure. Was the moral of the story that they needed a state to get justice.

Me: This is why I think libertarians really do need to get a firm theoretical grip on just exactly what problem the libertarian concept of property solves and how. In so doing, they could more easily distinguish between legislation that is just, and that which perpetuates injustice. And they could evaluate IP based on a first principles understanding of justice, rather than by blindly assuming that brighter minds have already prevailed on the subject in the past.”

“You are making valid point, but then muck it up at the end. You are confusing “justice” with “means that accomplish desired ends”. Justice is a system that rests on ethics. Utilitarian analysis is an economic problem, and the economics of law looks at how the given law serves as means to specified ends.”

I don’t think i am confusing anything. Justice in practice may only be man’s crude attempt at achieving the ideal we think of as justice, but at the base of it, there is ideal justice. And that justice is arrived at via theory that we both are able to grapple with. Should we both intend to.

“I am not saying that brighter minds have already thought about this so not to bother thinking it over. That is dumb.”

Good.

” I am saying that brighter minds have already thought about this and are present analysis should at least comprehend the knowledge that already exists on the subject.”

It is sometimes necessary, and perhaps often interesting to see how ideas in the past got muddled up. But it is not always a necessary exercise to correct these ideas. IP is like that. We can work with first principles to establish a correct theory of property, which encompasses a correct view on IP.

” This is how the scientific method operates; past knowledge is incorporated with new methods and facts, and the science advances. This is also a way to describe the history of common law. It is an evolution in the accumulation of knowledge. The longer the history, the more knowledge we have to incorporate into our analysis, and the more sophisticated our analysis should be.”

I think we can always learn more about the past, and therefore, our knowledge of it can never be complete. But when we understand enough of the theory surrounding a theoretical topic such as property, we can come down on one side or the other of the issue, without withholding judgment until we read another volume covering more of the history of the subject.

Me: Whatever problems you have with Kinsella’s brand of libertarianism, and his take on IP, you will have the same with me. Our views are very similar, even if we have a different style of expressing them.”

“I respect your loyalty, but lemmings are very loyal, too. There is a downside. Think for yourself, it won’t hurt you.”

I will have to ask Stephan if thinking for myself will hurt me or not. But seriously, do you feel a need to disagree with everyone, even those you agree with – to avoid that loyal-lemming-like feeling?

I’m not surprised you have written on the subject already. You are nothing if not prolific. I will check them out.

It is only you statists who believe in statutes at all.

You are splitting hairs. What does “A common of code of laws” mean in Rothbard’s words?

Point out where I said this please.

Which means: the right to do anyting that does not invade the borders of others’ owned scarce resources (“property”).

http://blog.mises.org/5442/galambos-and-other-nuts/comment-page-2/#comment-803852

Do I misunderstand you? Isn’t this the grand simplifying rule of strict liability?

Co-ownership is not ad hoc but is a result of the right of contract and the fact of cooperative (joint) action.

Co-ownership is something you made up to deal withthe problems of easements and servitudes with homesteading. Did you invent it before using it here?

http://blog.mises.org/17398/intellectual-property-rights-as-negative-servitudes/comment-page-1/#comment-789526

I don’t know if i am following you or not. Today we live in a popular social democracy, where people vote and people legislate.

If this represents your understanding of our form of government in the U.S., then probably not. We live in a republic; a constitutional representative democracy.

In any case, via this process, a powerful minority gain control over the majority mainly through what a libertarian (a distinct minority) would claim is an entirely criminal means and institution – the state.

Sloganeering worthy of the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters.

If this is the case, is it still true that “the affected parties for the most part, have agreed that the rule is just. It is justified by the common values and ends that are shared by those people”?

I’ll try to help you; “rule” like in a specific law or moral code, not “rule” like a dictator.

Is this system just because it is popular? If not, how do you know? What is the logic that gets you to the understanding that what is popular is not necessarily just? Or do you ever get there?

“System” of laws, not “system” of rule. But I have no idea what you are saying. You tell me why justice and “popularity” and “justice” tend to converge? Someone famous said something like “No minority can rule over the majority for long, if their rule was not fundamentally popular.” Rules that provide justice to most people in most circumstances are perceived as mostly “just”, don’t you agree?

” Since not all legal systems produce the expected or desired results,”

Isn’t it a matter of perspective whether this is true or not?

Depending on what you mean by “perspective” but yes. Results are a matter of interpretation.

Do you really know that our legislators or those who pull their strings do not intend those things which we the voter or subjects, view to be merely some “unintended consequence”, or random act of stupidity by that legislator?

Yes, I think this is true. Laws happen not because legislators don’t have a clue. They happen because it satisfies their constituents, who give them what they want: power and privilege. To the extent “we the people” are not the constituents of the legislators, we will get screwed. That is a statement of the problem, not of the solution.

“it is possible to argue whether a given means of achieving specific ends are “better” or “worse” than other means.”

Assuming those who orchestrate the ends had the same intentions as the supposed ones on behalf of whom they orchestrated the ends for. Right?

I know what you mean, but let me try to clean this up a bit. A law is popular because it is promoted by the ends it is meant to achieve. However, the law itself may designate means that do not actually result in the accomplishment of those ends. Whether that is because legislators collude with special interests who understand what ends the means will achieve, or instead the means were believed to be the way to get the desired ends, doesn’t matter as to results. It may matter as to remedy. Different medicine for different ailments is called for.

“You cannot discuss a mathematic formula by relying of poetry. Likewise, you cannot discuss the economics of law by avoiding both legal doctrine and economic analysis. Avoiding that discussion in the terms of that knowledge system, is a full-time job for Kinsella. My hobby is to try to encourage him back into the ring.”

Heh!

You liked that? Poetic, wasn’t it?

Me: ” I guess, therefore, I think libertarians, for starters, really do need to get a firm theoretical grip on just exactly what problem the libertarian concept of property solves and how.”

“You are right about this, but few have been successful in this regard.”

Fair to say. But i still take them over their criminally minded statist counterparts, any day.

Ideological sloganeering.

Do you subscribe to the idea that first use generally represents best claim to use?

Yes. It is the Rule of Capture in standard property law. It is the first property rule you learn in law school. It is like addition is the first rule of arithmetic. It is not calculus. There are certain problems that cannot be solved with addition only.

Nope.

You are deprived. The main character sells musical instruments to the town, collects their money, and then disappears. That is, he does not entertain customer complaints.

This is why I think libertarians really do need to get a firm theoretical grip on just exactly what problem the libertarian concept of property solves and how. In so doing, they could more easily distinguish between legislation that is just, and that which perpetuates injustice. And they could evaluate IP based on a first principles understanding of justice, rather than by blindly assuming that brighter minds have already prevailed on the subject in the past.

You are making valid point, but then muck it up at the end. You are confusing “justice” with “means that accomplish desired ends”. Justice is a system that rests on ethics. Utilitarian analysis is an economic problem, and the economics of law looks at how the given law serves as means to specified ends.

I am not saying that brighter minds have already thought about this so not to bother thinking it over. That is dumb. I am saying that brighter minds have already thought about this and are present analysis should at least comprehend the knowledge that already exists on the subject. This is how the scientific method operates; past knowledge is incorporated with new methods and facts, and the science advances. This is also a way to describe the history of common law. It is an evolution in the accumulation of knowledge. The longer the history, the more knowledge we have to incorporate into our analysis, and the more sophisticated our analysis should be.

Whatever problems you have with Kinsella’s brand of libertarianism, and his take on IP, you will have the same with me. Our views are very similar, even if we have a different style of expressing them.

I respect your loyalty, but lemmings are very loyal, too. There is a downside. Think for yourself, it won’t hurt you.

Well, we have Van Dun who thinks you do. And you’re both lawyers, so I think you should both know what it means. Is he wrong?

I have already laid out where I disagree with my friend Frank, in http://mises.org/journals/jls/18_2/18_2_3.pdf

And I laid out my views on strict liability in http://blog.mises.org/10572/the-libertarian-approach-to-negligence-tort-and-strict-liability-wergeld-and-partial-wergeld/

You are free to read them.

I think it means liability without a defense; it is a rule based assignment of liability that is presumed under a qualifying fact. It does not require a finding of culpability by intent, etc.

Anyone who read my cAusation piece will not say this of me. http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_4_7.pdf

For example, statutory rape applies if one of the parties to sex is of minority age, despite the existence of any other facts; even if she lied about her age for example.

It is only you statists who believe in statutes at all.

Your NAP principle imposes strict liability on trespassers, and likewise assumes that the fact that a trespass has occurred is absolutely ascertainable in all situations, regardless of any other facts.

Point out where I said this please. In my right theory I explicitly advert to the relevance of intent and proportionality. http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf

Proponents make up ad hoc patches, like co-ownership, to shore things up. Is that about it?

Co-ownership is not ad hoc but is a result of the right of contract and the fact of cooperative (joint) action.

In your post you talk about A copying B, but blithely ignoring that patent law doe snot require copying for A to be liable. You are so confused.

I was talking about patent IP law.

Well, since you didn’t use the word patent anywhere, how am I supposed to know what you are thinking?

You document your invention, register it with the government, and then pay the proper fees to the proper government official and then that gives you the right to sue anybody else for their actions if the government decides those actions infringe on what you documented.

You document your title to land, register it with the government, pay the proper fees to the government official, and then that gives you the right to sue anybody else for their actions if the government decides those actions infringe on what you documented.

This is horrible and must be stopped!!!

Except that IP laws directly contradict self-ownership. If you patent a novel way to use a shovel then that gives you the right to use the government’s guns to control the actions of anybody else that happens to use their own shovel in that novel manner.

Your ignorance of patent law is showing. This is the way you want to suppose things are so you can easily oppose such a ridiculous concept. Your assumptions smuggled into your language, like “use their own shovel” and “happens to use” belie the reality of patent law.

With patents when you document your idea that gives you the right to control the actions of other people who happen to have the same idea.

In all but the limited case of independent co-invention, this is irrelevant. This kind of problem exists in other areas of social institutions, like contracts as well. When things happen, or are claimed to have happened simultaneously in a way that affects the assignment of rights and liabilities, rules arise to address them. The problems of offer/acceptance/revocation in contracts law is one simple example. Copying in copyright law is another. What about simultaneous claims of homesteading to the same resource? Couldn’t ever happen?

It does not matter if they copied your idea, know about your idea, any of your products, your patent, or even the patent system. If they use that idea you have documented then that gives you the right to do such things as extract payments or get injunctions against them. IP has been used to remove products from store shelves and close factories.

Yes, and product liability laws have also been used to remove products from the shelves. Do you really think you are making some kind of anti-IP argument here? Bombs have been used to vaporize entire factories. Do facts matter at all to you?

One would of hoped you would of seen this contradiction a very long time ago.

And now comes the ideological slogans. Don’t bother that you have not made a case. You know the answer because your conclusion is informed by your ideology. Have you heard of Reverend Moon? You two would get along fine. How about Stalin? He didn’t care about facts either.

But you still refuse to acknowledge it. So that leaves….

Yes, this must be it. Have you heard of the witch trials? If you admit you are a witch, you get burned at the stake. If you deny it, you get burned at the stake. It was a handy tool in the hands of ideologues, I’m sure. There is no chance that an accused would unfairly escape “justice”.

“So, let me ask you, have YOU really thought about what I’ve said, or are you just knee-jerking your foregone conclusions?”

Yawn.

Thought so.

Let’s see…Blah, blah, blah…then…
“Your argument, which is even more ignorant than Kinsella’s is superficial, is that the homesteading principle “locks up” all possible manifestations of the concept of property, and so if you “add” IP to the mix, all other rights have to
move over, as if this is the final word on whether they do or should.”

You misrepresent my argument. My argument isn’t that such an allocation is just or necessary, merely that it consistently addresses all conflicts. Furthermore, I cannot recall an IP proponent that denies that the act of homesteading grants at least some rights.

Your assertion that it “consistently addresses all conflicts” was demolished by Kid Salami. What a hoot that you would still be clinging to such a ridiculous position.

Your use of language is so sloppy and ambiguous, who knows what you are really trying to say sometimes? Who “grants” these rights? Now homesteading only grants “at least some rights”? I thought it was the ONLY way to allocate rights? Homesteading and birth. That’s all you need to “address all conflicts”.

“Then again, an atom bomb could be used to address all conflicts. Not that I am saying that is the best way, but it certainly addresses them.” That is your argument…??!

Peter, I have no expectations that this exchange has much meaning for either of us, or that you will be coherent about much said here. For example, what does this mean, and why the Sherlock Holmes, “Aha!” ?

Aha, but what do they distribute? The social status of manipulating physical objects.

“your use of “re” simply assumes a priori that the copier had rights at some point, which are LATER reallocated.”

I do not assume this.

Did you use the words “reallocates rights”?

It follows from the concept of property rights in physical objects that IP proponents subscribe to. Most of the IP proponents make the claim that in the absence of IP, there are unallocated rights. Just off the top of my head, Stranger and Schulman. Stranger paradoxically refutes himself right away and is merely oblivious to it.

Before a child is born, are there unallocated rights? After she is born, are rights re-allocated?

You are a different case. You mix two types of claims: that in the absence of IP, rights are misallocated, and that in the absence of IP, rights are unallocated. You rapidly shift between those two in the hope that your opponents will miss it.

My claim is this, not that you are paying attention: In the absence of IP, rights are not allocated to IP. Since they cannot be misallocated if they are not allocated, they are unallocated. Follow? I wouldn’t want you to miss anything.

It is not false. It merely does not correspond to your preferences. But that’s not an argument, on the contrary, it underscores that you deny that the copier has rights in the first place, and that the author has them instead.

OK, let’s try this. Assumption 1: NO IP; Assumption 2: IP.

Under Assumption 1 (A1), the copier has rights to copy anything and everything, no exceptions. Under A2, he does not. The number and nature of uses has not changed. In A1 no rights of use are allocated to IP. Under A2, some are.

Are you denying that A2 is a possibility? I don’t think so. Do you fail to understand what A2 is? Yes, I think so. Therefore, you cannot engage in a discussion about the consequences of A2 as a means to some specific ends. Instead you are fascinated with turning A1 and A2 over in your mouth and trying to “falsify” them. You are in a time sink. Maybe a time warp, too.

“IP rights, specifically copyright, arise at the moment of expression and fixation by an original author.”

As I explained and Stephan too, the only way this can have any effect whatsoever if this simultaneously means that at the moment of fixation, other people lose some rights. There is no way around this. You yourself admit that there is no gap.

Let me be charitable. At the moment a baby is born, do other people lose some rights? By your logic, there is no way around this. Yet there is no gap in rights before she is born, and there is no gap afterwards. How is this possible? Wheeee!

“At that point in time, the copier has no rights to claim.”

So where does IP come from then since you admit that there is no gap for it to address? It need to come by sacrificing other people’s rights. You contradict yourself.

You are a contradiction. Why ask me when you already know it comes from “sacrifice”? Is that why the Aztecs sacrificed virgins, to create IP?

I have been explaining this, also to you, over the course of almost a year, and you’ve been ignoring it. Suddenly it’s a surprise to you.

I said “astounded”. Nothing you say surprises me anymore.

“You understand utilitarianism less than you understand legal concepts.”

You provide no evidence for your claims.

I don’t need to. You provide all the evidence needed.

The topic of Danny’s articles is unrelated to my arguments.

Yes, this is true, especially when you use the word “utilitarian”.

You have failed to explain what the fallacy is.

Oh, sorry. You seem to think that the argument is about cost/benefit, which should be determined on the bases of some kind of empirical data that no one has or can get. You think it is a matter of “more” benefit is better at “less” cost. This is stupid.

Economic utilitarianism is about means and ends. That requires a different argument; one that includes the problem of external economies. Better?

Again, you present no arguments and no responses. Instead you present cheap tricks and assert the moral high ground.

How do things look to you from your low moral vantage point?

It has already been conceded by IP’s most vocal opponent, Mr. Kinsella, that an origianl manuscript, which is a “document” recording the expression originated by its author, (the subject matter of copyright law) is unequivically owned by the author.

I was talking about patent IP law.

You document your invention, register it with the government, and then pay the proper fees to the proper government official and then that gives you the right to sue anybody else for their actions if the government decides those actions infringe on what you documented.

1. I believe that self-ownership and prperty rights as very important.

Except that IP laws directly contradict self-ownership. If you patent a novel way to use a shovel then that gives you the right to use the government’s guns to control the actions of anybody else that happens to use their own shovel in that novel manner.

With patents when you document your idea that gives you the right to control the actions of other people who happen to have the same idea. It does not matter if they copied your idea, know about your idea, any of your products, your patent, or even the patent system. If they use that idea you have documented then that gives you the right to do such things as extract payments or get injunctions against them. IP has been used to remove products from store shelves and close factories.

2. I have thought about it, studied it, and written about it “very deeply”.

One would of hoped you would of seen this contradiction a very long time ago.

But you still refuse to acknowledge it. So that leaves….

3. I am not delusional and am using simple, plain English.

Hrmm….

Yet I come to the opposite conclusion. So, let me ask you, have YOU really thought about what I’ve said, or are you just knee-jerking your foregone conclusions?

Yawn.

Well, we have Van Dun who thinks you do. And you’re both lawyers, so I think you should both know what it means. Is he wrong?

I think it means liability without a defense; it is a rule based assignment of liability that is presumed under a qualifying fact. It does not require a finding of culpability by intent, etc.

For example, statutory rape applies if one of the parties to sex is of minority age, despite the existence of any other facts; even if she lied about her age for example.

Your NAP principle imposes strict liability on trespassers, and likewise assumes that the fact that a trespass has occurred is absolutely ascertainable in all situations, regardless of any other facts. It assumes a perfectly obvious and ascertainable definition of property to the exclusion of all others, while ignoring problems that arise when it is applied to the real world complexities. Proponents make up ad hoc patches, like co-ownership, to shore things up. Is that about it?

You are the one who used the definition of copying in this thread; you know the one you made up? http://blog.mises.org/5442/galambos-and-other-nuts/comment-page-2/#comment-803730

And now you want to lecture me about the details of patent law as if you scored some death blow?

You are right; you have no reason to believe that you are capable of any form of rational discourse with the likes of me. There certainly is no evidence of such a thing here…

See Van Dun. Strict liability rules are inadequate as a libertarian definition of liberty.

I have never assumed “strict liability.” I don’t think this term means what you think it menas.

If you want to have a legitimate argument

Sure, I do, but have no reason to think it’s possible with the likes of you.

In your example, A was acting 50 years before B. How was he copying again? This is a Back To The Future premise?

He was not. Do you realize the patent law you support does NOT REQUIRE COPYING? HELLOOOOOOO

Yes, this covers all scenarios – everything. Except, erm, for those properties which you “co-own” with people, where you share the same border – you know, the “E” word. Are they just edge cases? According to this guy for example

“The law relating to covenants, easements and ‘profits à prendre’ over land is a relatively complex area given that such rights are common – the Land Registry has suggested that nearly two thirds of properties have some sort of easement over them and nearly 80 per cent have a covenant of some sort.”

Never mind, just keep trotting out the same tired mantras and everything will be fine eh? Maybe I should try it.