you really are ktibuk, and you really should do your homework. “stairway to heaven” 1971 has a guitar riff almost identical to “taurus” (spirit:1968).
rolling stones “stole” chuck berry’s ip. beach boys “surfin’ usa” vs chuck berry’s “sweet little sixteen”, blah, blah, blah.

All you have to understand and accept is that there is a natural connection between producing something and owning it. Scarcity/non scarcity or tangibility/intangibility can not sever this link.

If you want scenarios that really cause problems, then look around.

We all know, for example, that Led Zeppelin created “Stairway to Heaven.” They produced it. Without them the song wouldn’t exist. And they have every right to own it. Ease of reproduction cannot sever the link between them and the song.

Furthermore, no one else could and does claim they made the song. Anti-IP people only CLAIM that they have a right to the song. They CLAIM they are entitled to the product of Led Zeppelin. As if the song fell out of the sky, as if it was a free gift of nature.

This is parasitism, and it is clearly wrong.

You don’t need to try to find difficult situations, exceptions to try to test a theory. There are difficult situations regarding tangible property.

For example two people survive a boat accident and while they float on the sea they see an unowned raft. According to property theory the first one that gets in the raft and homesteads it owns it. And this means he can deny the other entry to the boat which means certain death to the other. Does this scenario negate property rights? No.

All you have to understand and accept is that there is a natural connection between producing something and owning it. Scarcity/non scarcity or tangibility/intangibility can not sever this link.

If you want scenarios that really cause problems look around.

For example we all know Led Zeppelin created “Stairway to Heaven”. They produced it. Without them the song wouldn’t exist. And they have every right to own it. Ease of reproduction can not sever the link between them and the song.

And no one else could and does claim they made the song. Anti IP people only claim they have a right to the song. They claim they are entitled to the product of Led Zeppelin. As if the song fell out of the sky, as if it was a free gift of nature.

This is parasitism. And it is clearly wrong.

Since I learned of the idea of ‘ideas are property’ from you, I take it you would claim the right to use violence against me for producing written products based on this idea. I don’t think I’ll be revealing my address any time soon.

True

“However if a third caveman living near one of the 2 wheel idea originators, sees the wheel, and then makes his own copy, he has committed an aggression against both of the 2 originators.”

Partially true. He has committed aggression against only the one who he has copied from. Since he didn’t have any access to the other persons work the other person can not claim aggression.

“However, the 2 originators have the burden of using caveman lawyers to show something was ‘copied’ from the them. And if they succeed in showing that something was copied from them, they have the right to use violence against the third caveman to stop him from this wheel copying behavior. The reason I say ‘something’ was copied, is because I’m not sure exactly what can’t be ‘copied.’ Is it the idea in any form such as mental, the idea in particular forms such as written/cave art, or the does ‘copying’ mean ‘the right of wheel manufacturing behavior’ or all of the above?”

Whoever thinks he was aggressed against have to prove it in a court of law. And yes if one proves he was aggressed against he has a right to compensation and use violence to this effect. And that something is the idea in general identification terms. This idea may be many things. Technology, novels, songs, software. Anything that is created by some individual.

“Also, since it appears you are claiming to argue from a natural law basis, what is the natural law procedure for determining who has ‘copied’ from who, and how does that arise from the first principles of natural law? Is thinking an idea enough to own it? Or must one speak it publicly? Or must one manufacture a written record or product from the idea?”

He whoever homesteads property owns it. This is the natural law. According to Lockean homesteading, whoever mixes his labor with a natural resource owns it. When it comes to scarce resources there is also a need for the “first comer” principle but when it comes to ideas, since they can be homesteaded by different individuals independently first comer is meaningless thus unnecessary.

But by procedure, if you mean technically proving, this would be handled in court.

“Btw, I suspect you are violating my claim on the idea of ‘ideas are property’ by making written products based on this idea. I am clearly the first person to copyright this idea.”

If you can prove that I copied any idea of “yours” without your consent, that means I did violate your rights. But for an idea to be “yours”, either you must have homesteaded the idea, or bought it (or received exclusively as a gift) from a rightful owner. There are also ideas by our forefathers that were given away for free as gifts. Like language, mathematics, philosophy, etc. Some were given away for charity, some for glory and some because transaction costs were high.

Not every idea has to be a part of an economics exchange just as tangible property.

However if a third caveman living near one of the 2 wheel idea originators, sees the wheel, and then makes his own copy, he has committed an aggression against both of the 2 originators.

However, the 2 originators have the burden of using caveman lawyers to show something was ‘copied’ from the them. And if they succeed in showing that something was copied from them, they have the right to use violence against the third caveman to stop him from this wheel copying behavior. The reason I say ‘something’ was copied, is because I’m not sure exactly what can’t be ‘copied.’ Is it the idea in any form such as mental, the idea in particular forms such as written/cave art, or the does ‘copying’ mean ‘the right of wheel manufacturing behavior’ or all of the above?

Also, since it appears you are claiming to argue from a natural law basis, what is the natural law procedure for determining who has ‘copied’ from who, and how does that arise from the first principles of natural law? Is thinking an idea enough to own it? Or must one speak it publicly? Or must one manufacture a written record or product from the idea?

Btw, I suspect you are violating my claim on the idea of ‘ideas are property’ by making written products based on this idea. I am clearly the first person to copyright this idea.

“According to this logic other people can put me in idea bondage by declaring certain ideas to be their homesteaded property. Well I hereby declare that the idea of ideas as property belongs to me. This idea is (c) 2009 Joe. If anyone makes use of this idea on this thread without my permission first, I will call the cops.”

See, I get frustrated because people although they quote, try to answer without thinking one bit on it.

Please, pretty please first try to understand what other people are trying to say before you jump in and put words in their mouths.

No Joe,

According to this logic people can not put you in bondage. If A homesteads an idea, he may own it but he may NOT stop you from homesteading the same idea yourself. He can just stop you from “copying”.

Lets say you invented the wheel. You own it. Someone else on the other side of the planet may invent it too and he owns it. The problem is aggression, copying without the consent of the owner. And yes, the accuser bears the burden of proof that copying took place.

And if there is any violence involved on behalf of an IP owner it is self defense against aggression, thus ethical.

“All I am saying is ideas can be homesteaded by anyone and who ever homesteads an idea is the owner of that idea. And copying without consent of the owner is aggression. How hard is this for you to understand. Do you need me to write a little slower so you can comprehend?”

According to this logic other people can put me in idea bondage by declaring certain ideas to be their homesteaded property. Well I hereby declare that the idea of ideas as property belongs to me. This idea is (c) 2009 Joe. If anyone makes use of this idea on this thread without my permission first, I will call the cops.

Actually, I’m calling YOU out for appealing to authority. That’s why I said this:

“Your calculation argument was a sham all along. Until recently, you had been trying to con people into believing that it was Mises’ argument. When confronted with Mises’ actual words, however, you finally backed down. And while conceding defeat you gave a FALSE definition of a basic economics term in order to salvage whatever remained of your fading credibility.”

And this:

“Stop using Mises’ name to give your posts a veneer of credibility. Start taking responsibility for your own ideas by admitting that they are your own and NOT Mises’.”

Nice try though

What you are trying to do is to “appeal to authority” which is actually a logical fallacy. I suggest you research “logical fallacies” in wikipedia too.

Mises wasn’t a God, and he probably didn’t have something to say for every possible situation.

But he introduced a method to deal with socialism. It is called the calculation argument. He personally dealt with “socialism” where factors of all production is socialized, in other words not privately owned but owned by society.

But this method can also be applied to IP problem. Which Silas and I did. I also acknowledge Mises with this method, because well, it is his.

You have no argument against this because you are not intellectually equipped but you keep appealing to authority.

If you have anything to say about the argument itself please do. Otherwise you have nothing to add to the argument.

I checked your definition of “free goods” on wikipedia and confirmed my suspicion that you were WRONG. But that wasn’t enough, so I checked it in “Human Action” which reconfirmed that you were WRONG. That makes you either ignorant or a liar. Pick one.

Mises NEVER said that the abolition of copyright WAS socialism or would LEAD to socialism. If that is YOUR contention, you are at odds with Mises.

If you want to claim that Mises wasn’t foresighted enough to consider the implications of technological progress and/or that your brilliant mind has surpassed his, you are free to do so.

I never claimed Mises handled the IP question with his calculation argument. He handled socialism in general and demolished it handily.

I said, Mises’ general calculation argument can be applied to IP problem. Which Silas and I have done. See, some people dont just memorize and quote past thinkers, but try to understand theit methods and apply them to other places.

If you knew anything about Mises, calculation problem and economics for that matter, before jumping into arguments about IP you would have known this.

But still if this argument helped you to that path of learning I am glad. But I suggest you start reading original material and try to understand the issues instead of running to wikipedia when you confront something you dont know.

“It is much easier to deploy the calculation argument and watch people like you to run away.”

Your calculation argument was a sham all along. Until recently, you had been trying to con people into believing that it was Mises’ argument. When confronted with Mises’ actual words, however, you finally backed down. And while conceding defeat you gave a FALSE definition of a basic economics term in order to salvage whatever remained of your fading credibility.

If anyone on this thread is a liar, it is YOU.

“You also seem unable to recognize how inane your argument is, when you continually resort to question-begging. Do you know what it means to beg the question, and why it’s an illegitimate argumentative tactic? E.g., “You just claim that you are entitled to other peoples product and you keep repeating this like spoiled children in a toy store.”

See, you are here assuming what you want to prove by classifying the patterns at issue as owned “products.” Uhm, that’s the question, ktibuk.”

Let me address this fallacy too. I am not assuming my conclusion and my claim is not begging any questions.

The question is will the individual own what he produces or not.

You may deny this, you may not see a link between producing something and owning it, and being a socialist you may claim the product should be owned by the society.

But you may not deny the fact that the product is in fact produced by one individual as opposed to being a nature given free good like “air”.

So I repeat.

“You just claim that you are entitled to other peoples PRODUCT and you keep repeating this like spoiled children in a toy store.”

or let me rephrase it and dumb it down for you.

“You just claim you that you are entitled to the products created by other people and you keep repeating this like spoiled children in a toy store”

Also about the calculation argument.

Yes I use that too, but always separately. The reason I do this is it is very hard to argue with people on ethical grounds if they lacking any ethical standards.

It is much easier to deploy the calculation argument and watch people like you to run away.

“It’s not nitpicking to point out that IP has not and could not evolve on the free market any more than a tax code or Americans with Disabilities Act could.”

This is just an assertion without any proof. I claim just the opposite. Without the state IP could be better protected and it would cost much less.

“See my comments here, here, and in my Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society. And legislation is clearly incompatible with libertarianism, just as the state is. So it’s not “nitpicking” at all. You advocate something that can only be imposed by state diktat; you advocate state legislation, central planning. You dare to say here, in this den of libertarians, that pointing this out is nitpicking? You dare to show up here and call us socialists?”

You people try to use legislation to attack theory. At least this post is about that. Current legislation may have problems, this doesn’t mean you need to abolish private intellectual property. Just as legislative problems regarding tangible property back in the day want a reason to abolish all property.

“You call Jeff and others socialist. We call you socialist. Who is right? Who is right is the person with the proper view of property rights. Who is wrong is the one who is advocating infringement of property rights.”

Exactly.

“By advocating IP you ARE advocating that person A gain a right to tell person B how B can use property B already homesteaded and owned”

No I am NOT, and since you know my opinions on this matter, this is not a result of a misunderstanding but an outright lie.

All I am saying is ideas can be homesteaded by anyone and who ever homesteads an idea is the owner of that idea. And copying without consent of the owner is aggression. How hard is this for you to understand. Do you need me to write a little slower so you can comprehend?

“After IP, A can veto some uses. Your IP scheme has redistributed property rights from its first user and owner, to some third party A who was not its homesteader. This is what socialists and thieves do, ktibuk: they take, partly or completely, the property of others. They steal.”

You keep lying. My “IP scheme” has nothing to do with what you dishonestly attribute to me. There is no redistribution and there is no stealing. You are the one who claims you are entitled to someone else’s product just like a parasite. You claim a product of an individual, can not be owned by him and should freely be enjoyed by the society.

“What? Say what? come again? Do you not see how full of fertilizer this reasoning is? In the face of the hallowed, glorious, and unimpeachable Lockean homesteading rule that underpins all libertarianism, and all society and civilization–and the concomitant rule that the owner of property is now its owner until he voluntarily reliquishes it–that is, that the current or prior claimant to land always of necessity has a better claim to it than any late-comer.”

You are the one who denies the most essential part of the Lockean homesteading. You throw away “mixing your labor” and keep only “first comer” and you have the nerve to accuse me?

You throw out the individual, the producer. He is nothing to you. And of course all you are left with is socialism.

You sir, are a liar. You have no courage or backbone to take my arguments as they are and argue against them, but you first misrepresent them to your comfort and attack you straw man. Because you are intellectually weak.

You are intellectually threatened by sound arguments, because this “IP socialism” garbage is what defines you. Without this you would be just another errand boy for the Mises Inst.

Many socialists would make this exact same argument, although I’m not arguing against it or calling you a socialist. This is a libertarian concept. However, even in socialism personal property can exist, and the rules about the owner’s control over that property are also similar to libertarinism.

My point here is that the concept of ownership is compatible with both systems if the process of acquisition is viewed as justified within the rules of that system.

Where socialism fails in this regard is integrating over time. This requires a concept like homesteading that determines initial allocations – and under socialism these must somehow allow everyone to share in the profits from unclaimed land. This of course leads to notions such as wealth redistribution to account for new people being born. So while personal property may exist and may even be respected in the same way that it is under capitalism at any frozen point in time, it is ultimately subject to the tyranny of the majority, as is the product of each person’s labor. This is one way in which socialism is self-contradictory.

The assumption of Austrian property rights that I don’t see as self-evident is that unclaimed land belongs to nobody. I believe it is right, but I think that this judgement requires some external set of ethics to validate it.

I know the arguments against utilitarianism, and I’m not defending it outright. I certainly don’t think there are any quantative aggregations that could be used to measure some bogus “utility” of a society.

My position would be more along the lines of Negative Utilitarianism. I would define the only “goal” as: “Minimize unnecessary infringement on personal liberty.”

I think this statement is consistent with the Libertarian position and could be applied fairly universally. It requires a definition of personal liberty, but this is self-evident.

So unless the very foundations of civilization are at stake, I don’t see the need to impose arbitrary laws. In fact, I think it’s morally wrong. If I had to choose between personal property and personal liberty, I would choose liberty. But Libertarianism shows us that the two complement and reinforce each other.

With regard to unclaimed land, the austrian view ultimately prevents personal liberty infringements and has the side benefit of allowing civilization to flourish.

This is just my take on it. If there are other approaches to validating this assumption, I would be happy to hear them.

I think an important concept here is considering what “the fruits of one’s labor” means. For Robinson Crusoe, this is straightforward – he enjoys full control over everything he creates. Likewise for an author who writes a journal for his own enjoyment.

However, when you trade these goods you are necessarily giving up control over these goods in exchange for control over other goods.

As I’ve said here and elsewhere, a consensual contract at the point of sale could rightfully allow you to preserve some of your control over a good that you have traded, but this may affect the price that you get in exchange. This provides the means to protect your idea and allows you, not some collective or state, to decide the value of this protection.

“Common law established the legal base for property and property rights based on Natural Law. IP is entirely artificial and had no sound philosophical base – it is entirely a government grant.”

So it is lie that during Feudalism property rights were abused? The legislation back then didn’t give privileges to certain aristocrats? Anyone could obtain property and exchange it freely? You have to study some history kid.

You are the one that is being dishonest by nitpicking through my posts and respond to the ones you want.

It’s not nitpicking to point out that IP has not and could not evolve on the free market any more than a tax code or Americans with Disabilities Act could. See my comments here, here, and in my Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society. And legislation is clearly incompatible with libertarianism, just as the state is. So it’s not “nitpicking” at all. You advocate something that can only be imposed by state diktat; you advocate state legislation, central planning. You dare to say here, in this den of libertarians, that pointing this out is nitpicking? You dare to show up here and call us socialists?

You call Jeff and others socialist. We call you socialist. Who is right? Who is right is the person with the proper view of property rights. Who is wrong is the one who is advocating infringement of property rights. Well, let’s see. By advocating IP you ARE advocating that person A gain a right to tell person B how B can use property B already homesteaded and owned. Before your IP rule, B had the right to use his property as he saw fit. After IP, A can veto some uses. Your IP scheme has redistributed property rights from its first user and owner, to some third party A who was not its homesteader. This is what socialists and thieves do, ktibuk: they take, partly or completely, the property of others. They steal. Unlike the more honest private criminals (see Spooner’s great quote about the highwayman being morally superior to the government, as quoted here), the more visible, smooth, oily, and institutional ones try to hide their theft, masquerade its true nature, and come up with rationalizations that confuse their victims and the onlooking public. But it’s all the same: you have some looters coming up with a reason for stealing someone’s property. Even a typical socialist is more honest: he takes it because he wants it, he needs it, he wants to give it to the poor, or to the state so it can do its thang. But you? Your rationale is this one: A thought of a way to use his own property, so that gives him a right to own part of B’s property.

What? Say what? come again? Do you not see how full of fertilizer this reasoning is? In the face of the hallowed, glorious, and unimpeachable Lockean homesteading rule that underpins all libertarianism, and all society and civilization–and the concomitant rule that the owner of property is now its owner until he voluntarily reliquishes it–that is, that the current or prior claimant to land always of necessity has a better claim to it than any late-comer.

In the face of these proud, beautiful principles that all sane men, certainly all those educated in basic economics and who are not monsteres–and all libertarians–recognize and cherish–you want to mar them, to add another that undercuts them–you want to say, “yeah, all that–except if A thinks of a way to use his own property, right, he gets the right to stop B from doin’ it too!”

This is nothing but the latest, state-aided manifestation of the sickening and common desire to stop people from competing with you. If I open up a supermarket chain with nice wide aisles, open 24/7, yeah, they’ll outcompete the local mom and pops. Until, of course, the mom and pops start emulating the things the chain is doing that is drawing away customers. This is exactly what competition is–emulation and imitation (and improvement) in a constant battle for market share… all the while, the improvements and innovations spread and benefit all. Yes, sure, the chain would like to stop the local stores from opening 24/7 and having wide aisles. We know why tey want to. We know also why Apple is happy to have patents it can use to stomp competition for its iPhone.

This is disgusting, man at his worst; it’s not libertarian. It’s sickening to see an allege libertairna advocating this socialist claptrap and claiming opponents of it are the socialists. That’s really rich.

You also seem unable to recognize how inane your argument is, when you continually resort to question-begging. Do you know what it means to beg the question, and why it’s an illegitimate argumentative tactic? E.g., “You just claim that you are entitled to other peoples product and you keep repeating this like spoiled children in a toy store.”

See, you are here assuming what you want to prove by classifying the patterns at issue as owned “products.” Uhm, that’s the question, ktibuk.

And finally, out of desperation and ever-changing tactics, you are now dredging up Silas’s inane, cibbed argument about IP being needed because of the calculation problem. Give it a rest, will you? You are beaten, handily; slink back and rethink.

Take the Utilitarianist argument against slavery – free labour is more cost-effective than slavery. Does that mean slavery should be reinstated when free labour loses its competitve edge? Shouldn’t slavery be wrong, period?

Or – more guns equal less crime. If certain parts of the world show more guns equals more crime, does that mean it mean banning gun ownership is a good thing? Or should responsible gun owners not be punished by the crimes of irresponsible gun owners regardless of how rare honest gun owners are?