Oh, and can you give specific examples of me being an ass?

I may have made 2 mistakes in this comment thread by continuing, but I’ll be sure to forget about responding to Person’s flaming in any way in the future. I should have listened to my own advice only a few posts into this.

Even then, no. “IP is invalid” would be an *implication* of a principle, not the principle itself. And it’s not as widely-accepted as you claim, if M. Friedman, Rand, and (see below) Rothbard accept some form of IP.

Rothbard, of course, grounded his theory of copyright explicitly in property rights and contract, since he didn’t buy the argument that ideas could be owned.

What does it matter if he specifically believed that “ideas can be owned” or not; he supports of the *substance* of “idea ownership” that its supporters want.

Me:Where have you dealt with it?

You: Posted by DC … [Hint: It ultimately has to do with scarcity. You are assuming debatable conclusions from a different argument and are presuming these to be a valid objection to this one.]

*sigh*

I knew your attention span wasn’t very long, but you had to go and prove it again. Let’s go back and find out what the “it” in “dealt with it” refers to. Here’s my post that describes the “it”:

It would be just as absurd — given what he posted — to describe “not enforcing property rights in a factory” as “breaking” something, as it would be to describe “not enforcing patents in an invention” as breaking something. That was the point, which has still eluded you.

Now, how do any of your posts address that? They don’t!

This bit makes me think that you haven’t yet gotten my point, nor the reason why Kinsella made that blog post. Do you still think that the blog was an argument attacking the validity of intellectual property?

Have you settled on what you think Kinsella was trying to prove?

I though it was clear from the beginning that my posts in no way depended on what Kinsella was trying to prove, just that his reasoning was inconsistent. “Breaking” a patent is just like “breaking” a property right; the only difference is which you like. “Breaking” is therefore a neutral term to use, and doesn’t warrant Stephan’s mockery.

It’s not a “basic” libertarian world view, if many libertarians don’t accept it.

It’s the line of thought expressed in Mises, Rothbard, Walter Block, Hoppe, Roderick Long, . . .okay, I’m sorry. I’ll look for a 100%, unanimous, all-in-this-together agreement next time before saying that an idea is a basic notion in the philosophy. Let me rephrase: “Kinsella assumes one of the most common principles in libertarian philosophy in this blog post.” Better?

Keep in mind that many libertarians who seem OK with IP practices like copyright (most famously Rothbard) don’t actually think that “intellectual property rights” exist. Rothbard, of course, grounded his theory of copyright explicitly in property rights and contract, since he didn’t buy the argument that ideas could be owned.

Where have you dealt with it?

Posted by DC at June 14, 2007 11:06 AM
Posted by DC at June 14, 2007 3:01 PM
Posted by DC at June 14, 2007 2:02 PM

[Hint: It ultimately has to do with scarcity. You are assuming debatable conclusions from a different argument and are presuming these to be a valid objection to this one.]

You already admitted you spent the whole time assuming your conclusion, but that’s “okay” because this is a libertarian web site.

This bit makes me think that you haven’t yet gotten my point, nor the reason why Kinsella made that blog post. Do you still think that the blog was an argument attacking the validity of intellectual property?

Also known as a basic libertarian world view, with the latter claim predicating the first.

It’s not a “basic” libertarian world view, if many libertarians don’t accept it.

This is rhetorical, since this point hasn’t eluded me: I (and others) have highlighted it above and dealt with it.

Where have you dealt with it? Be specific. You already admitted you spent the whole time assuming your conclusion, but that’s “okay” because this is a libertarian web site.

DC:Your critique showed that Kinsella committed the crime of assuming a libertarian philosophy before commenting on current events

Person: No, he assumed “IP rights are invalid, physical property rights aren’t”.

Also known as a basic libertarian world view, with the latter claim predicating the first.

That’s not the same thing. It would be just as absurd — given what he posted — to describe “not enforcing property rights in a factory” as “breaking” something, as it would be to describe “not enforcing patents in an invention” as breaking something. That was the point, which has still eluded you.

This is rhetorical, since this point hasn’t eluded me: I (and others) have highlighted it above and dealt with it. Moving beyond this assertion would be a step forward. If you feel comfortable where you are, asserting victory and my ignorance, feel free to stay there, though. I’m not here to rock conceptual boats.

No, I was showing the absurtity of his argument, regardless of his ultimate intent.

Your critique showed that Kinsella committed the crime of assuming a libertarian philosophy before commenting on current events

No, he assumed “IP rights are invalid, physical property rights aren’t”. That’s not the same thing. It would be just as absurd — given what he posted — to describe “not enforcing property rights in a factory” as “breaking” something, as it would be to describe “not enforcing patents in an invention” as breaking something. That was the point, which has still eluded you.

Btw, this attempt to save face by acting like it’s the same calling that bothers you the most … isn’t lost on anyone. Get over yourself. You’re upset that you didn’t understand a simple point, revelled in your ignorance, and someone called you on it. We deserve better.

Your argument relied on making the point that the way Kinsella used “rights” was objectionable. I was merely pointing out that yours was a presumptive tactic, as Kinsella wasn’t even pretending to give a proof text for the validity or invalidity of IP within the scope of this blog post.

Your critique showed that Kinsella committed the crime of assuming a libertarian philosophy before commenting on current events; that’s all. (You did do a good job of showing this, by the way).

And, as I said before, name calling and excessive posturing aren’t my cup of tea. I stuck around a bit before; I won’t be doing so this time. Goodbye.

You’re not very bright, are you? My “assertions” were “asserting” the exact same things Kinsella said, except in a different context, showing his assertions’ weakness. Are you just now learning this?

Reasons? I saw presumptuous assertions, and assertions that failed as persuasive critiques.

Kinsella’s post is not argumentative, it is not creative, it is not ground-breaking … what is it supposed to be?

These are all value judgments, arguable in both directions, and ultimately in the eye of the beholder. Remember that this is just a blog, after all. . .

If you are saying that this blog is only about an absurd case of the application IP rights, then it is clear that you only need grant the assumption that IP is invalid (again, to be expected on a libertarian blog) to see how this instance is simply absurd. Or you could use common sense intuition to see the government’s equivocation.

Or, it’s possible that you are claiming that Kinsella is trying to show the invalidity of IP with this blog, using absurdity as evidence. In other words, that he’s making an argument as to the nature of rights. In this case, the assumptions of the counterargument are to blame for the confusion.

In either case, as long as one realizes that this isn’t Kinsella’s proof-text against IP rights, the blog seems to escape your original criticism that he’s using “rights” in a way that you disagree with.

When you’ve got that whole deal patched up, then maybe I can take you seriously — or Stephan.

Ever got the feeling you should just … give up?

Kevin_B.: Nah, I don’t think that was it or he would have hinted something like that.

Wanna try that one again?

That’s a bad assumption. Kinsella’s post shows an absurdity that follows from the government’s handling of IP rights (in this case, language).

Pointing out the fact that he’s relying on an assumption to make this point is only relevant if removing the assumption takes away the linch pin of the post.