You are a liar. Rothbard was one of the greatest libertarians, a true anarcho-capitalist, but he supported copyright. And why he supported it? Well, it comes straight from private property rights.

If you own something (fully controlling services that can be derived from your good) – you have an absolute right to determine the price for different kinds of use of your good or you can restrict unwanted use.

As far as idiotic examples of “Pro wrestler suing rapper over hand gesture” goes – the fact that some idiot sues someone does not prove anything about copyrights and trademarks, which is supported by true, intelligent libertarians. I don’t know why such nonsense is allowed on this blog… People sue people for stupid things, but mentally healthy individuals do not spend so much time on that.

Why do supposedly free market libertarians think that the almighty government must come in and create monopolies for recipe writers? The recipe writers stand on the shoulders of giants, why grant them a monopoly?

If you found some way to keep the sweat from your body and the CO2 from your lungs, assuming that you can prove that it’s yours, yep, it’s your property. I don’t know if there’s any way you can wrest an exchange value out of it, but it is your property, if you decide to keep it.

Of course, this definition opens up some possibilities that can be ludicrous, especially for situations corresponding to times when we use the possessive case. Correctly analyze such “cases” may require a Heideggeresque level of pedantry.

BTW: if the interest of precision, I note (parenthetically) that the costs of production of the property are solely borne by the producer, at the margin.

OK, but I am keen to follow up on this some time. I’ve been interested in seeing whether a case can be made for the pro-IP position. I tried to form an argument to the positive without success. It was a surprise to see that not only is it a difficult task but that it may not be possible at all.

Sione

PS Exhaling CO2 requires one produce the CO2 and that costs of production are incurred. Similarly producing sweat requires that costs are bourne by the producer. Is the assumption of costs of production a key attribute that defines what is property?

Lots of ideas are not used as factors of production, though, or even as exchange goods. Economics has little to say about ideas that are not used in either way.

As you noted, though, an idea that is considered “productive” is merely a factor of production, as of now, and, at least presumptively, will always be. Ideas are attributes of either people or “idea machines.” Even a “pure idea” has to be put in some form accessible to at least one person’s sense perception.

—–

Unfortunately, Sione, I would need a lot more space to complete my thoughts in this vein, so I’ll have to call it a day right now.

Ideas are not scarce. They are common. Every person has many of them. What is scarce is the actual property that must be mobilised and employed in order to undertake actions according to ideas an individual or individuals may have come up with.

To make the case for “IP” one would need to demonstrate that it is indeed a form of property. I have yet to see that accomplished. It is not a trivial undertaking. How would you propose to attempt it?

Sione

Live and learn…

Speaking of rocket science, what about the dispute potential for who discovered what (uncopyrightable or unpatentable) idea? There have been disputes in this area, even though no dollars have been at stake.

In terms of the creation of it, IP is scarce. It is scarce because action is required to come up with it, just as a certain amount of action is actually required to learn it – hence, my point about pedagogy. The fact that the production of many IP works result in a dead loss for the creator implies that there were costs in creating it. Losses don’t occur without costs.

Your theory opens up a gaping hole with respect to availability of property, as well. You should put your lawyer’s hat on again, Steve, and sketch out a defense strategy for someone charged with fraudulent conversion, a defendant whose basic defense is, “Stole it? He didn’t even know it was gone! I might-of lived high on the hog a little, but that guy checked back and all of his money was where it was – all of it. How could he go about blaming me for something he didn’t lose?” Try using your own theory of IP to construct a valid defense for this particular fellow, assuming that he did nick some of the complainant’s money but returned it before the complainant knew any funds were missing – meaning, from the standpoint of the complainant, no money of his was unavailable to him when he (specifically) wanted it. (With respect to checking the balance, he wanted to know that it was all available for his use – i.e., that none of it was stolen.)

You have never presented your theory of IP so it could be examined, evaluated, tested and verified. You’ve been challenged to do this and yet every time you run away and hide behind excuses and polemic. Interesting how each time you’ve came up with some half-arse argument or a position you can actually be held to, you are debunked and disgraced. Yet here you go again.

You never debunked Dr Kinsella. He debunked you (more than once). Yet you lie about it. Is that all you are? Are lies all you have to offer? If so, how about buzzing off. You have nothing of value to contribute. Go talk to yourself.

Alternatively, you could present your grand theory of IP and illumunate the World with your knowledge. Come on then, or are you a coward as well as dishonest.

Sione

What does one thing have to do with the other?

From the viewpoint of a legal positivist there is nothing intrinsically problematic with many (if not all) legal stances against liberty. It is meaningless to criticize any law’s legitimacy or goodness outside of its context.

Fortunately, Austrians in the ‘natural law’ school of thought do not share this problem. It is, in fact, possible and legitimate to praise liberty absolutely rather than coincidentally. IP rights are a great example of this.

Farmers sue airplanes for trespassing: another example of how property rights are enslavement.

Try something that hasn’t been debunked a trillion times, Stephan.

I have read Machlup’s, Hayek’s and Mises writings about patents and copyrights and noticed that they all were very carefull about this issue. So carefull in fact that you cant find any a priori based sound argument for or against them.

From legal positivist viewpoint IP is not a problem; since state says something is property it can make it so. Another thing altogether is that if people will obey this restriction on their activities.

Plus: the learning of an idea also requires thought and effort. If IP is illegitimate, then why are property rights in teaching services, which (if beneficial) reduce the amount of thought and effort needed to learn an idea, not illegitimate? Pedagogical methods and techniques are a kind of IP too. Does this imply that they should not be property, either?