Land claims are an example of intellectual property.
Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized—and the corresponding fields of law.[1] While these rights are not actually property rights, the term "Property" is used because they resemble property rights in many ways. Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.
Land ownership is intangible. It is defined by lines on a map. Owning land is different from owning dirt. I can move a pile of dirt to a new place and it is still mine. But you can't move a land claim to a new place. It exists only in the mind. It is purely IP.
Dead wrong. Land is a right to scarce material goods, in this case customarily defined boundries of rock, dirt and plants that happen to be on the surface of the Earth. :Land is no more special or strange than a chunk of tin mined out of the ground or a tshirt; the fact that it happens to be shaped into a curved shell around the planet Earth changes nothing and it is the sheerest absurdity to pretend any different therein pertains.
The fact that wind and rain shift the specific composition is irrelevant, since this happens on chunks of ground you already own you have a presumption of right over any new materials that stray over it.
Maybe some Georgist cranks and government schmucks are dumb enough to think that land is some floating geometrical shape, but that has nothing to do with propertarian theory.
Guess what? All property is intellectual.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Yeah, by that definition all property is intellectual, Autalykos is right :D
But since land is physical, it has boundaries (even though, they should be agreed upon by two parties), while IP has no boundaries AT ALL (no pro-IP person has even defined them, no one has accepted the challenge on Kinsella's blog), so it is safe to assume, that IP is simply bunk. It can only survive (partly) with contracts.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
If land is no different than a piece of metal or a t-shirt, then I should be able to carry it from one place to another. All property is movable; a terrritorial claim to land is not. It is purely a concept.
Land is a right to scarce material goods, in this case customarily defined boundries of rock, dirt and plants that happen to be on the surface of the Earth.
You make my point. You say that land is a right. A right is an intagable idea. It exists only in the mind.
No it isn't. The definition clearly applies only to intagable assests.
Property is not a right, it is a function of liberties; property bounds are created by right when two people agree to arbitration or resolve a dispute amongst themselves by some norm.
Rights are contract, nothing but contract; liberty and property are a function of the logic of law; you can break the law if you please but it is not some floating abstraction. It develops from the very meaning of society; if you want to go be an animal go ahead but don't expect me to cry if you are shot like an animal.
dude6935:If land is no different than a piece of metal or a t-shirt, then I should be able to carry it from one place to another.
Why can't you?
dude6935:All property is movable
Where the hell did you get that definition?
As the above user pointed out, why can't you?
dude6935:If land is no different than a piece of metal or a t-shirt, then I should be able to carry it from one place to another. All property is movable; a terrritorial claim to land is not. It is purely a concept.
Is a farm movable or immovable, in your view?
All property is purely a concept. Prove me wrong.
dude6935:You make my point. You say that land is a right. A right is an intagable idea. It exists only in the mind.
Hence all property exists only in the mind.
dude6935:No it isn't. The definition clearly applies only to intagable assests.
How is land not tangible? Just because you can't move something doesn't mean you can't touch it.
A better point is that most land is set up wherein two people can occupy it at the same time, meaning it's a non-competitive good. By this I mean a territorial claim; say 40 acres. Two people can occupy 40 acres at the same time, even work it in two different manners (one farms, one runs a windmill [or even a windmill farm]. The thing your not getting about his argument is he is talking about territorial claims, not the land in itself (hence he said "I can pick up the dirt and move it, but not the claim to that spot of land).
Also if you're saying ALL property is intellectual:
All property is intellectual
Intellectual property is bogus
All property is bogus.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
dude6935:If land is no different than a piece of metal or a t-shirt, then I should be able to carry it from one place to another. All property is movable; a terrritorial claim to land is not. It is purely a concept. Is a farm movable or immovable, in your view? All property is purely a concept. Prove me wrong.
A farm is moveable. It is tangable.
Property is a concept. But the things we regard as property are not.
Land is space. Within that space there are tangible things. Like dirt or rocks. The space is purely a concept. Additionally, the boundaries are purely conceptual. You can't go to a store and buy a box of boundaries.
Property: something owned or possessed. So I should be able to carry it around (have it in my possession).
As the above user pointed out, why can't you (move it)?
You can move dirt or rocks. But you can't move imaginary boundaries, except in your mind.
The whole arguement against intellectual property is that reproducing it takes nothing from the owner. Not that it merely exists as a concept. It's that the concept is infinitely repeatable at zero cost to the original "owner".
However, boundaries in space do not represent infinitely reproduceable or abundant goods. They represents a limited, bounded area.
Better not get out of bed in the morning then! Cause I'm takin' it after you leave! Are you making the "personal property is ok, buy PRIVATE property is evil" arguement?
dude6935:Property: something owned or possessed. So I should be able to carry it around (have it in my possession)
"Property: something owned or possessed" So...uh...why can't I own land again?
The whole argument against intellectual property is that reproducing it takes nothing from the owner.
Occupying otherwise unoccupied space takes nothing from the 'owner' either.
I am saying you should be able to move property. Not that you lose claim to it when you walk away. I am not making an argument against private property. I am arguing that space isn't property.
I also believe that unimproved earth is not property. Of course the homesteading principle already agrees with this.
Autolykos: Guess what? All property is intellectual.
This, essentially. The OP's epiphany has discovered nothing, and proves nothing. Furthermore, the IP debate, proper, is referring to an instance of super-abundance. Land is not superabundant.
And still yet! Land can be moved, reshaped, ect... Contrary to the OP, land is tangible. So unfortunately this whole thread is a joke, and quite frankly I am shocked that so many of you have been tricked into it's reasoning. Autolykos said it best.
dude6935:A farm is moveable. It is tangable.
Really? I can just pick up a farm and carry it somewhere else?
dude6935:Property is a concept. But the things we regard as property are not.
Really? "T-shirt", "dirt", "box", "rock", etc. aren't concepts?
dude6935:Land is space. Within that space there are tangible things. Like dirt or rocks. The space is purely a concept. Additionally, the boundaries are purely conceptual. You can't go to a store and buy a box of boundaries.
Not all space is land, though. How do you differentiate land-space from non-land-space?
Strictly speaking, even people are concepts. All of the atoms that are in your body now came from somewhere else years ago (if not sooner). There is no real "you", "me", or "anyone else".
dude6935:You can move dirt or rocks. But you can't move imaginary boundaries, except in your mind.
What if the boundaries aren't imaginary?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Also if you're saying ALL property is intellectual: All property is intellectual Intellectual property is bogus All property is bogus.
Strictly speaking, this contains an equivocation, namely over the meaning of "intellectual property".
I kno Just throwin a funny out there.
Autolykos: Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Also if you're saying ALL property is intellectual: All property is intellectual Intellectual property is bogus All property is bogus. Strictly speaking, this contains an equivocation, namely over the meaning of "intellectual property".
Meanwhile, when tasked with the responsibility of providing an example of a world where property didn't exist, all they do is regurgitate the same definition of property while using a different name.
Equivocation is definately the name of the game here. Because an instance of abuse that involved property is cited, all instances of property are now somehow evil(Fallacy of Compisition). Individual occupation of scarce resources over time can never be eliminated, and because of that some variant of property will inevitably emerge regardless, you simply cannot escape the consequences that praxeology presents you. The equivilent is citing automobile's as being evil, since they are associated with so many deaths. We should abolish the automobile and our world would be infiinetely better.
How long does one man trick himself with this line of reasoning, before actually critically analyzing the holes he continues to ignore?
EDIT:
One should take care not to confuse the moral advocacy of "property" from the economic advocacy. Equivocating the two, especially on a Mises forum, just makes you look economically ignorant.
Humans must occupy scarce resources over time in an attempt to achieve some sort of satisfaction. Praxeology 101. Single occupancy of scarce resources will not go away simply by pretending that the single occupancy isn't occuring, or doesn't exist. It's just an example of living in denial of realty. The trick accomplished by employing different words which make it sound like the single occupancy isn't occuring.
It's incredibly mind blowing and I am utterly flabbergasted as to how someone could try and refute that.
dude6935: A farm is moveable. It is tangable. Really? I can just pick up a farm and carry it somewhere else? Yes. Why can't you? dude6935: Property is a concept. But the things we regard as property are not. Really? "T-shirt", "dirt", "box", "rock", etc. aren't concepts? Not just concepts no. They are also real things. dude6935: Land is space. Within that space there are tangible things. Like dirt or rocks. The space is purely a concept. Additionally, the boundaries are purely conceptual. You can't go to a store and buy a box of boundaries. Not all space is land, though. How do you differentiate land-space from non-land-space? Irrelevant. There is no need to make that distinction. The important distinction is between space and matter. Strictly speaking, even people are concepts. Irrelevant. dude6935: You can move dirt or rocks. But you can't move imaginary boundaries, except in your mind. What if the boundaries aren't imaginary? Boundaries are imaginary by definition. Meanwhile, when tasked with the responsibility of providing an example of a world where property didn't exist, all they do is regurgitate the same definition of property while using a different name. I'm sorry, when did this happen? And why is 'a world where property doesn't exist' even relevant to the topic? And still yet! Land can be moved, reshaped, ect... You are conflating matter and space. You can't move a lot. A lot is a spacial concept. Your claim is to a static place. Within that space there is matter. If you move the matter, you still have a lot. If I build a building that overhangs your lot, you will probably see that as a violation of your property. | Post Points: 50
dude6935: A farm is moveable. It is tangable. Really? I can just pick up a farm and carry it somewhere else?
Yes. Why can't you?
dude6935: Property is a concept. But the things we regard as property are not. Really? "T-shirt", "dirt", "box", "rock", etc. aren't concepts?
dude6935: Property is a concept. But the things we regard as property are not.
Not just concepts no. They are also real things.
dude6935: Land is space. Within that space there are tangible things. Like dirt or rocks. The space is purely a concept. Additionally, the boundaries are purely conceptual. You can't go to a store and buy a box of boundaries. Not all space is land, though. How do you differentiate land-space from non-land-space?
dude6935: Land is space. Within that space there are tangible things. Like dirt or rocks. The space is purely a concept. Additionally, the boundaries are purely conceptual. You can't go to a store and buy a box of boundaries.
Irrelevant. There is no need to make that distinction. The important distinction is between space and matter.
Strictly speaking, even people are concepts.
dude6935: You can move dirt or rocks. But you can't move imaginary boundaries, except in your mind. What if the boundaries aren't imaginary?
dude6935: You can move dirt or rocks. But you can't move imaginary boundaries, except in your mind.
Boundaries are imaginary by definition.
I'm sorry, when did this happen? And why is 'a world where property doesn't exist' even relevant to the topic?
And still yet! Land can be moved, reshaped, ect...
You are conflating matter and space. You can't move a lot. A lot is a spacial concept. Your claim is to a static place. Within that space there is matter. If you move the matter, you still have a lot. If I build a building that overhangs your lot, you will probably see that as a violation of your property.
Equivocation is definately the name of the game here. Because an instance of abuse that involved property is cited, all instances of property are now somehow evil(Fallacy of Compisition).
I'd say you're definitely right on equivocation, but that isn't an example of the fallacy of composition; it's more like a non-sequitur combined with abusus non tollit usum (abuse does not exclude proper usage). In this case, it doesn't follow that because some property has been used improperly, that therefore the institution of property is improper in and of itself.
dude6935: Autolykos:I can just pick up a farm and carry it somewhere else? Yes. Why can't you?
Autolykos:I can just pick up a farm and carry it somewhere else?
How do you think a farm could be picked up and moved, exactly?
dude6935: Autolykos:"T-shirt", "dirt", "box", "rock", etc. aren't concepts? Not just concepts no. They are also real things.
Autolykos:"T-shirt", "dirt", "box", "rock", etc. aren't concepts?
What is a "real thing", exactly? Hint: I'd say that apparently even atoms aren't "real things".
dude6935: Autolykos:How do you differentiate land-space from non-land-space? Irrelevant. There is no need to make that distinction. The important distinction is between space and matter.
Autolykos:How do you differentiate land-space from non-land-space?
So then why not title the thread "Space is Intellectual Property"? Both the title and your OP suggest that you're singling out land at least as a distinct type of space.
dude6935: Autolykos:Strictly speaking, even people are concepts. Irrelevant.
Autolykos:Strictly speaking, even people are concepts.
Irrelevant.
How is that irrelevant?
dude6935:Boundaries are imaginary by definition.
You mean they're imaginary by your definition. None of us are obligated to go along with your definition.
Anyways, so you'd say that a fence isn't a boundary, for example? Since it's tangible?
dude6935: Not just concepts no. They are also real things.
Land is a scarce good, and is not "just a concept" and is also a "real thing." I would recommend reading Hoppe. I know he has written a lot about the subject, but this is just an article I found quickly. Relevant to land use is where he talks about the Garden of Eden and standing room:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe7.html
dude6935: Your claim is to a static place. Within that space there is matter. If you move the matter, you still have a lot. If I build a building that overhangs your lot, you will probably see that as a violation of your property.
Your claim is to a static place. Within that space there is matter. If you move the matter, you still have a lot. If I build a building that overhangs your lot, you will probably see that as a violation of your property.
Not saying that this is what you advocate, but you might want to read up on the Ad Coelem Doctrine. That is the view that you can own a cone shape from the center of the Earth all the way to space. Most people (wrongly) believe that that is a correct view of property.
This article by Rothbard covers that:
http://mises.org/daily/2120#10
If a farm is composed of matter, it can be moved.
A real thing is matter. Atoms are matter.
The title could easily be space is IP. We just don't think of claiming space.
We aren't talking about people or concepts per se. We are talking about ownership of the intangible.
A fence is a physical thing. It is only a boundary in your mind.
People are talking about equivocation but know one has said where this takes place.
My position is that ownership of space is IP because it is an intangible asset.
I also assert that a land claim is a spacial claim.
If there is equivocation here, I don't know where it is.
I invent a car and sell it to someone. The idea of a car is intellectual property. The car itself is property. The question is whether one is should be allowed a monopoly on the idea or on the concrete manifestation of that idea. Land is not intellectual property, it is property. As your definition demonstrates, land is not intellectual property; rather, intellectual property is like land.:
While these rights are not actually property rights, the term "Property" is used because they resemble property rights in many ways.
dude6935: My position is that ownership of space is IP because it is an intangible asset.
Land/Water/Space is not intangible, it is tangible, and it is scarce.
You are equivocating "space" with "land." Land is the material on the surface of the Earth. Tangible.
MrSchnapps:I'd say you're definitely right on equivocation, but that isn't an example of the fallacy of composition; it's more like a non-sequitur combined with abusus non tollit usum (abuse does not exclude proper usage)
This is misleading of me. I was referring to Epicurus's position that property is somehow bogus. The concept that property is righteous or evil, bogus or not bogus, is non-sensical as far as economics is concerned. It is akin to weighing the moral value of a stone. Property just is. The fallacy that epicurus commits is as follows. If he is capable in mental excercise, to construct a situation where property could appear to be exploitive, then property as whole must be evil. He, among many others Austrians included, confuse the moral advocacy of property, with the economic advocacy of property.
Fallacy of composition still might not be the best explanation of what he is doing, but ultimately I am pointing out his un-reasonable position when he says, "All property is bogus". It is akin to stating that all "Scarcity is bogus" or all "Rocks are bogus".
The concept of intangibility does not rest alone on the trait of mobility. Furthermore calling land intillectual property is entirely immaterial to the praxeological problems at hand. Some objects are super-abundant, others are not and require economization.
Unless you can show how land and natural resources are now superabundant then this whole thread is a complete waste of time. It's also a massive derail from the actual IP debate, as it's dragging people down a number of red-herrings, and mis-understandings about the nature of property itself.
What is your definition of super-abundant? Books and songs aren't infinitely abundant. So apparently finite things can be super-abundant too.
Land, in terms of soil and rock, is absolutely tangible. No argument here.
Space is intangible. I don't think that is debatable.
Saying that a claim to land is a spacial claim is not equivocation. That it a valid argument. Equivocation is the misleading use of a word with more than one meaning.
Land use can still be economized without viewing it as property. All you would have to do is contract with people to vacate an area you want to use, then you use it. But unused land would be free to use.
The objection to IP is that my use of an idea doesn't hurt the owner of the idea. This is also true of land since using unused land doesn't hurt anyone. You won't be able to use occupied land because it will already have property on it and is protected by a separate concept. A property right to land is just redundant unless you think raw land can be owned. Since homesteading is the only accepted way to gain ownership of land, raw land can't be owned because it has never been worked.
I think a land claim is an intangible spacial claim. If you think a land claim is a claim to matter and not space, we are at an impasse. Please don't confuse opposition with ignorance. One can disagree while understanding the opposing position.
Books /= the ideas which lead to printing of books. You are deeply confused. However, this is a silly thread and I will cease to feed trolls.
I didn't mean physical books.... I am obviously talking about the idea. I have been talking about ideas this whole thread. The idea in a book is not infinitely abundant. It only exists on a finite number of pages and in a finite number of minds.
dude6935:What is your definition of super-abundant? Books and songs aren't infinitely abundant
Books and songs are most definately super-abundant. I don't need a property right to sing Michael Jackson songs to myself. On the other hand I can't sing to myself land.
You might be able to argue that the production of books and songs are scarce, but once produced there is no limiting factor of each object. What makes it super-abundant is our ability to cheaply replicate the pattern at a near infinite amount. It is theoretically possible for each person on planet earth to have the same Michael Jackson CD. Each listening to it's music, and no one infringing on any one else's phsycical property.
It is, on the other hand, not possible for everyone to have the exact same vein segment of ore in a mine.
Land use can still be economized without viewing it as property. All you would have to do is contract with people to vacate an area you want to use, then you use it.
The economy can be an economy without property. All you have to do is just let it function exactly as it did before with property, but remove property from the dictionary and call it something else.
Oh wait, I see what you did here. Nothing.
But unused land would be free to use.
Unused land is free, go homestead it. There are literally thousands of square miles of unclaimed land on earth. Some of it very rich in resource. Go claim some. I should know, I lived in area's where sitting was still prevelent. Some of the most lush places on earth are unclaimed.
dude6935:Saying that a claim to land is a spacial claim is not equivocation. That it a valid argument. Equivocation is the misleading use of a word with more than one meaning.
Yes it is.
dude6935:The objection to IP is that my use of an idea doesn't hurt the owner of the idea.
Which is why I said that this has nothing to do with land. And further proof that this whole thread is entirely disjointed about a number of various topics.
dude6935:This is also true of land since using unused land doesn't hurt anyone.
Except when two parties want to hold the same parcel of land, at the same exact time. A problem that doesn't occur with IP as it is immediately replicable. Whereas, land cannot simply be replicated instantaneously, on demand, to any neighbor. We cannot instantaneously replicate a vein segment to your mine.
The very problem with IP, and the whole reason that it has its own defination beyond just simply "property" is because of the very fact that it is immediately replicable on demand. Whereas property is not. Thas is the problem that the powers-that be seek to address by fabricating IP into existence, where realy no property exists at all. Otherwise it wouldn't need to be called IP, it could just be called property. But it's not property, so it's not called property. :)
Honestly my friend, have you not given this any thought at all?
dude, you may find this thread (Information as Property) helpful. There I attempted to establish an analogy between property (with ownership allocation and boundary demarcation of such) in the (1) physical (spatial) universe and (2) information universe.
Z.
dude6935:If a farm is composed of matter, it can be moved.
Okay, so who says land isn't composed of matter?
dude6935:A real thing is matter. Atoms are matter.
But atoms per se don't exist except within our minds. "Atom" is a concept.
dude6935:The title could easily be space is IP. We just don't think of claiming space.
Are you sure? Why not?
dude6935:We aren't talking about people or concepts per se. We are talking about ownership of the intangible.
But... concepts are intangible?
Let me ask you this: can something intangible be scarce? That is, can something intangible nevertheless be used by only one person at a time?
dude6935:A fence is a physical thing. It is only a boundary in your mind.
It's also only a fence in my mind. External reality has no concept of "fence".
dude6935: I didn't mean physical books.... I am obviously talking about the idea. I have been talking about ideas this whole thread. The idea in a book is not infinitely abundant. It only exists on a finite number of pages and in a finite number of minds.
you have more serious problems than I thought. You don't even udnerstand IP. I think it's time for me too to leave this thread.
The guy is obviously trolling.
If you think I am trolling, just leave the tread. You don't have to be here. I don't want to talk to people who don't want to talk to me.
You might be able to argue that the production of books and songs are scarce,
That was my point. You can't sing a song or read a book if it only exists in a distant place. You must hear a song before you can sing it.
Songs just aren't super-abundant; that is why I have to download them or buy a CD. The terminology doesn't seem apt to me. I asked for your definition of super-abundant, but none has been offered. Maybe you want to make them super-abundant, but they aren't that today.
No that isn't possible, but that mine is something that a person built. It is one thing to build a mine and say it is yours. It is another to build a mine and say the mountain is yours. That is my problem with the popular homesteading view. Building a thing in one place gives you claim to earth nearby. And the amount of earth you can claim (the "technological unit") is decided by some court somewhere.
Why can't we just build things where nothing has been built before and call it a day? If some property already sits on earth, contract with the owner to free the earth so that a new thing can be built. That is a totally legitimate two party contract. It doesn't require some ambiguous homesteading process that requires arbitration to define it on a case by case basis.
There is a difference between treating land as property and contracting with people to vacate it. Treating land as property allows it to be kept totally out of use and at the exclusion of people who would use it. Contracting with people to move means that land will always be in use or free to use.
Unused land is free, go homestead it.
I can't build on unoccupied land today. It is owned. AFAIK, there is no unclaimed land in the US.
Autolykos, a lot (a land claim) has matter in it, but it a spacial construct.
Atoms do exist in absentia of our minds.
Yes, intangible things can be scarce. I am not saying that land isn't scarce.
A fence is a thing that a person made. That makes it property. Its function exists only in the mind.
Does no one think claiming a lot is a claim of space? If not, there is no point going around and around here.
Thanks for the link, Z.