Stephen Kinsella (and others) makes an argument against intellectual property (IP). http://library.mises.org/media/Mises%20University%202009/Intellectual%20Property%20and%20Libertarianism%20Stephan%20Kinsella.mp4 [1] see @ 7:25 for his (incomplete) definition of property rights [2] see @ 13:40 Kinsella accepts homesteading and defines property rights through it. [3] see @ 16:24 Kinsella defines copyright (I note below that this does not differentiate copyright from defenses of property by the state). This is also where he makes the argument I'm talking about. The argument is paraphrased as follows. IP should be opposed because IP infringes on property rights. Define IP as copyright and/or patents. I am only considering ONLY this PARTICULAR argument here and not passing judgment on whether IP is legitimate or not or on his other arguments against it. Some clarification and definitions are needed to analyze his statement.
I think people will generally agree with the definition I've provided. If you don't please correct me. However keep in mind that the rest of what I say may be true despite any corrections or alterations in the definition, so please check before making the correction.
Local Definition (Libertarian): For convenience I refer to libertarian in this discussion as someone who believes property rights are absolute, should never be violated. This definition has no relevance to the argument, if you doubt this, just substitute libertarian="property rights absolutist". Now I will start with the obvious. It must be true that either IP is a property right or it isn't. Kinsella is arguing something and any argument has a claim. So in lieu of this let's see what Kinsella is claiming. Since it isn't explicit we can deduce his claim.
So I must conclude that no libertarian should be convinced by this PARTICULAR argument by Kinsella against IP. At best it is merely an illustrative example of the bad effects of the illegitimate right of IP on legitimate property rights. The illegitimacy of IP he shows through other arguments. The confusion here arises from the implicit misunderstanding of the recursive definition of property rights. Any property right limits the sphere of influence of posessors of other property rights. Kinsella is using "conflict" as something that limits your use of property rights. If a new right comes into existence, they can still "do as they please", but they have to limit their actions to those that will not violate the newly created right. The simplest example of this is when someone homesteads a piece of land by planting a tree on it, so now another person cannot use their property to plant a tree in the same place. Whereas before the homesteading everyone would have been able to plant a tree in that place. Hence the perceived "conflict". Kinsella is using the definition of "conflict" as something that limits your use of property rights. That is a bad definition of the concept, since it would at least include homesteaded property rights. So if we accept that definition of "conflict" we cannot maintain homesteading as giving rise to property rights. In fact it is hard to think how anything can give rise to property rights given that definition of "conflict". See [3] where he makes the same grave error by defining copyright as a state imposed limitation on how A can use his own property. In a libertarian society there would be by definition of property rights many such occurrences of limitations on how A can use his property. When the state defends the property of B they are necessarily imposing limitations on how A can use his own property and his own body. (For sake of credit, Godd2 on the mises chat gave me the crux of what I said here, but any errors are solely mine) Please don't reply with things like "IP is not a legitimate property right because...", I am not arguing about that here and it is logically irrelevant to the discussion. I am just talking about the argument Kinsella uses and others have came up with or repeated to me. Here's my view on IP in brief in case you question my motives: The whole point of homesteading is that you homestead a use. And infringement only happens when someone interferes with your use. With information there is no interference if I decide to use the information, because you can still do exactly the same things you could before. There are no damages and hence no victim and no action is warranted. That's really the end of the story for me. That's what differentiates copyright and IP in general with property rights, and not its conflict with property rights.
Property must be scarce. Intellectual Property IS NOT SCARCE.
Bogart: Property must be scarce. Intellectual Property IS NOT SCARCE.
This is very very dissappointing. You have not bothered to read anything that I have said!
NOTE: Your link is broken, so I can only comment on what I remember about Kinsella's arguments, not about the one's in the link.
DerpStatis: Some clarification and definitions are needed to analyze his statement. Definition (Property Rights:Mine, and possibly Kinsella's second definition) A property right is a right to do as you please with property as long as you don't infringe/violate/conflict with other existing property rights. Since this is a recursive definition we must define what infringe/violate/conflict with means and whether property rights exist at all. I will use the homesteading theory here to prove the existence. And from that we obtain the characteristic that property rights exist for a given use. A "violation" means a physical invasion/physical trespass/physical interference with that use by virtue of which the homesteading occurred. I think people will generally agree with the definition I've provided. If you don't please correct me. However keep in mind that the rest of what I say may be true despite any corrections or alterations in the definition, so please check before making the correction.
Some clarification and definitions are needed to analyze his statement.
First, property rights don't "exist" in the sense that you are using the term "exist". You don't "prove" the existence of property rights, unless you are talking about describing the property rights in a given society, which you are not doing. Second, if you are going to analyze someone's argument, use their definitions, not yours. If you don't use their definitions, you are not analyzing their argument.
DerpStatis: Definition (Property Rights:Kinsella first definition) Kinsella provides a different definition that says property rights are rights to exclusive control. This definition is incomplete. From video we can deduce that control means having ultimate judgment on how to use the property. However, implicitly we have to acknowledge that some uses may not be "just". Those are exactly the ones that infringe/violate/conflict with other's exercise of their own control. We must have such clauses in the definitions because we must accept that rights cannot conflict with each other (by definition they cannot, but this is a separate discussion). Kinsella accepts that property rights cannot conflict with each other since that is the crux of his argument. So substitute "control" with "do as you please" and add the limiting provision and you get back the definition I supplied above. I am using my definition because I think that's the one that most people accept. If you think it isn't equivalent to Kinsella's please point it out, while keeping in mind that the rest of what I say will hold even if I use his definition.
Definition (Property Rights:Kinsella first definition) Kinsella provides a different definition that says property rights are rights to exclusive control. This definition is incomplete. From video we can deduce that control means having ultimate judgment on how to use the property. However, implicitly we have to acknowledge that some uses may not be "just". Those are exactly the ones that infringe/violate/conflict with other's exercise of their own control. We must have such clauses in the definitions because we must accept that rights cannot conflict with each other (by definition they cannot, but this is a separate discussion). Kinsella accepts that property rights cannot conflict with each other since that is the crux of his argument. So substitute "control" with "do as you please" and add the limiting provision and you get back the definition I supplied above. I am using my definition because I think that's the one that most people accept. If you think it isn't equivalent to Kinsella's please point it out, while keeping in mind that the rest of what I say will hold even if I use his definition.
Kinsella's definition is fine. Also, do not substitute control for "do as you please". That is not the standard definition of control, which I'm assuming Kinsella is using. Some uses may not be "just", but that doesn't change Kinsella's definition of property rights. All that means is his definition allows for some property rights to not be considered just. I think that is a useful definition, as it allows us to differentiate between just (or rightful) property and unjust (or wrongful) property.
You might not be okay with that definition, but it seems that is what Kinsella is using, and I'm certainly comfortable with that definition.
DerpStatis: Local Definition (Libertarian): For convenience I refer to libertarian in this discussion as someone who believes property rights are absolute, should never be violated. This definition has no relevance to the argument, if you doubt this, just substitute libertarian="property rights absolutist".
Local Definition (Libertarian): For convenience I refer to libertarian in this discussion as someone who believes property rights are absolute, should never be violated. This definition has no relevance to the argument, if you doubt this, just substitute libertarian="property rights absolutist".
If it has no relevance to your argument, then don't define it. I certainly don't like that definition of libertarian, and it doesn't seem to describe a number of people on this board either.
DerpStatis: Case1 (his claim is that IP is not a property right AND it conflicts with property rights) In this case he must prove that IP is not a property right and he does provide arguments for that elsewhere. The purpose of such a claim is not clear to me. For libertarians that don't think IP is a property right this is irrelevant and a good illustration. With libertarians holding the view that IP is a property right, he will have to argue some other way. With non-libertarians this won't work either, because an infringement of property rights may be warranted, so he must argue why such an infringement is wrong. (Because of the nature of the IP debate, I tend to think Kinsella is trying to mostly convince other libertarians)
Case1 (his claim is that IP is not a property right AND it conflicts with property rights) In this case he must prove that IP is not a property right and he does provide arguments for that elsewhere. The purpose of such a claim is not clear to me. For libertarians that don't think IP is a property right this is irrelevant and a good illustration. With libertarians holding the view that IP is a property right, he will have to argue some other way. With non-libertarians this won't work either, because an infringement of property rights may be warranted, so he must argue why such an infringement is wrong. (Because of the nature of the IP debate, I tend to think Kinsella is trying to mostly convince other libertarians)
If he provided no argument, then maybe he expected the audience to already be familiar with his arguments against IP.
DerpStatis: Case2 (his claim is that IF IP is a property right then we can show a contradiction.) If a contradiction is there, this should convince libertarians to drop the view that IP is a property right. In my view this is more likely what he is claiming. And if you watch the video after [3], he is clearly engaging in proof by contradiction or reductio ad absurdum. So the proof of this MUST go as follows (MUST because we are dealing with logic) We MUST assume that IP is a property right and show that this leads to a negation of another assumption or result. That is by definition a proof by contradiction or equivalently a proof by contrapositive. The "other result" for Kinsella in this case is that a property right is infringed upon/violated/conflicted with. This contradiction cannot occur, because if IP is a property right, then by definition it cannot conflict/infringe/violate other property rights.-
Case2 (his claim is that IF IP is a property right then we can show a contradiction.) If a contradiction is there, this should convince libertarians to drop the view that IP is a property right. In my view this is more likely what he is claiming. And if you watch the video after [3], he is clearly engaging in proof by contradiction or reductio ad absurdum. So the proof of this MUST go as follows (MUST because we are dealing with logic) We MUST assume that IP is a property right and show that this leads to a negation of another assumption or result. That is by definition a proof by contradiction or equivalently a proof by contrapositive. The "other result" for Kinsella in this case is that a property right is infringed upon/violated/conflicted with. This contradiction cannot occur, because if IP is a property right, then by definition it cannot conflict/infringe/violate other property rights.-
Again, I cannot view the link, but your critique is inadequate. One of the main problems with IP is that it makes claims to other people's property. If I patent the design of a chair, what that means is that you may not create that same shape with your wood and your tools. I am making a claim to what you can do with your property. I am excluding you from using your property. That is the contradiction with IP and property rights.
gotlucky , I just pasted the link into my browser and it was fine.
Unfortunately none of you comments were helpful to me. You seem to be attacking my exposition, but not the substance of my claims and disecting irrelevant aspects of my argument. You are not engaging me, just trying to block any discussion of the logic of the matter. Your response is an attack rather than a constructive critique. Your response fits a pattern that I would like to avoid. I did not spend my time writing this critique to deal with beligerence.
I understand that definitions are important. If I chose to use a slightly different defintion, it wasn't without reason. I cannot explain every single aspect of my argument. The least you can do is give me the benefit of the doubt. I used that definition because I have argued against this in other venues where that was the whole premise of the discussion. I do not use Kinsella's first definition because it is not complete in my opinion. I can rephrase the whole discussion using his definition if you would like me to.
The "existence" is merely a theoretical construct, I am not implying anything about metaphysics, the premises are not mine, but ones that are agreed upon particularly by Kinsella. When you define something, you must prove that it exists, otherwise there is no meaning in the definition. Property rights exists in the theoretical construct of Kinsella, they arise through homesteading. That is all I am saying, please do not twist every one of my words.
Please watch the video and do not speculate about its contents before you judge me. And try to discuss the logic of my argument rather than blinding dismissing it.
Your comment "I am making a claim to what you can do with your property." shows you have refused to understood anything that I have said. Everyone that owns property is making such a claim.
IP doesn't generate more inventions anyway, according to various PRO-IP people.
Secondly, various countries have scraped IP laws with no negative impact in prescription drugs, etc.
Reality thinks highly of Kinsella.
h.k.: IP doesn't generate more inventions anyway, according to various PRO-IP people. Secondly, various countries have scraped IP laws with no negative impact in prescription drugs, etc. Reality thinks highly of Kinsella.
I agree with you, but I am not discussing the merits of IP here. I'm just pointing out that this particular argument that he uses does not work. That's all. I think highly of Kinsella also.
DerpStatis: h.k.: IP doesn't generate more inventions anyway, according to various PRO-IP people. Secondly, various countries have scraped IP laws with no negative impact in prescription drugs, etc. Reality thinks highly of Kinsella. I agree with you, but I am not discussing the merits of IP here. I'm just pointing out that this particular argument that he uses does not work. That's all. I think highly of Kinsella also.
Ah
I see what you mean now, my mistake.
Although honestly it is very easy to see what he meant, since I'm an Austrian. Non-austrians would be confused possibly.
All he has to do is add a handful of words and his argument is sound.
Ah I see what you mean now, my mistake. Although honestly it is very easy to see what he meant, since I'm an Austrian. Non-austrians would be confused possibly. All he has to do is add a handful of words and his argument is sound.
I'm operating on that premise, but it seems to me he cannot make the conflict argument, since other (legitimate) property rights have the same properties w.r.t. other property rights. I've tried to be as rigorous as possible on this.
DerpStatis: Ah I see what you mean now, my mistake. Although honestly it is very easy to see what he meant, since I'm an Austrian. Non-austrians would be confused possibly. All he has to do is add a handful of words and his argument is sound. I'm operating on that premise, but it seems to me he cannot make the conflict argument, since other (legitimate) property rights have the same properties w.r.t. other property rights. I've tried to be as rigorous as possible on this.
Yes I agree with your argument, he did not clarify his point well enough. Sometimes authors make mistakes, but all they have to do is add in a few words here and there.
It was my browser (Chrome). I had to use IE to get it to work. Go figure.
I was not hostile...anyway, your exposition was weak for the already stated reasons. As for the logic, you are not even responding to my points...namely that you are not even characterizing Kinsella's argument correctly. I was able to watch the video, and guess what? I have confirmed that you have mischarcterized Kinsella's arguments and statements.
Go figure, apparently I'm more familiar with his arguments than you are.
No. You have not extended to me the benefit of the doubt, so I will most certainly not extend it to you. Your definitions were not Kinsella's definitions. Therefore, you were not describing Kinsella's argument. So yes, I would like to you rephrase the whole discussion using Kinsella's definitions, or at least accurately describe his arguments.
You are too sensitive. You will not last here long if you get this defensive over any critique of your posts.
Yeah. I watched the first 20 minutes, which is what you talked about. Like I said, you do not accurately portray Kinsella's arguments. Not only that, but my last point which you conveniently dismissed was the same as Kinsella's. Did you watch the video?
Okay. I honestly can't tell if you are trolling us or not.
h.k.
If you have time, can you write down briefly what you think he should have said.
Or what you think his actual idea is.
Thanks.
gotlucky,
I am not "too sensitive", I just don't have time for this. You are clearly here for a differnt purpose than me. And judging from the discussion so far I don't think I can gain anything from communication with you. Maybe I'm wrong , but my time is precious and I don't have time to find out.
Forgive me if I misjudge you, but I cannot respond further. Thank you for your input.
DerpStatis,
For your convenience, I will repost my critique:
gotlucky: Again, I cannot view the link, but your critique is inadequate. One of the main problems with IP is that it makes claims to other people's property. If I patent the design of a chair, what that means is that you may not create that same shape with your wood and your tools. I am making a claim to what you can do with your property. I am excluding you from using your property. That is the contradiction with IP and property rights. This was Kinsella's argument. Not only did you misprepresent this argument in your OP, you dismissed it in your response to me. That you are dismissing it demonstrates that you are not here for honest purposes. If you want to evade this point, so be it. But it will be abundantly clear that you are attempting to troll the members of this forum. LibertyHQ and its awesome forum. | Post Points: 20
DerpStatis: h.k. If you have time, can you write down briefly what you think he should have said. Or what you think his actual idea is. Thanks.
I read your interpretation of what he said, if that is true, then I see your point.
I'm a bit too lazy to watch the actual video though. So I shouldn't comment. :]
@h.k.
DerpStatis misrepresented Kinsella. The example I gave prior to watching the video was almost identical. Instead of using "wood and tools" as an example, Kinsella used "ink and paper". The logic of the argument was the same. This can be viewed starting a little after the 16:00 mark. DerpStatis has twice misrepresented Kinsella's argument, so I suspect he his trolling us.
h.k.: I read your interpretation of what he said, if that is true, then I see your point. I'm a bit too lazy to watch the actual video though. So I shouldn't comment. :]
Sure, I understand :)
gotlucky: One of the main problems with IP is that it makes claims to other people's property. If I patent the design of a chair, what that means is that you may not create that same shape with your wood and your tools. I am making a claim to what you can do with your property. I am excluding you from using your property. That is the contradiction with IP and property rights. This is a non-argument. If (you assume, for the sake of argument that) IP rights are property rights, then you doing certain things with your (physical) property could come in conflict with the (IP) property rights of someone else. You cannot freely launch your fist into someone's face, either, as that would put you in conflict with his property rights to his own face. So, the fact that this person would be "making a claim to what you can do with your property" (fist) does not invalidate his property rights to his face. The IP debate is (or should be) solely about whether IP rights are property rights or not. An "objective" (a priori) answer to this question does not exist, IMO. | Post Points: 20
One of the main problems with IP is that it makes claims to other people's property. If I patent the design of a chair, what that means is that you may not create that same shape with your wood and your tools. I am making a claim to what you can do with your property. I am excluding you from using your property. That is the contradiction with IP and property rights.
z1235,
I see what you are saying, but I think there is a crucial difference between hitting somebody and arranging some ink and paper (as Kinsella stated) or wood (as I stated). If I hit your face, then I am taking my property (my fist) and trespassing against your property (your face). But if I arrange my property (blocks of wood) in some particular way (into a specific design of a chair), then suddenly I have violated your property? What exactly is my crime? Unlike hitting your face, it's not trespass. My crime is arranging my property into some configuration.
In the case of hitting your face, I am using my property to trespass against your property. In the case of building a chair, I am using my property and you are claiming that I have violated your IP. The contradiction is that we are both making simultaneous claims as to how to use my property. In the case of trespass, you are not claiming to own my property, but that is the case in IP. In the case of trespass, you are excluding me from entering your property. In the case of IP, you are excluding me from configuring my property on my property. I'm not trespassing or otherwise controlling property of yours.
We can't both own the same property (unless it's a joint ownership, but that's not the claim with IP). That's the contradiction with IP. We both make claims to own the same property, and only one of us can actually be the owner.
gotlucky, if (you assume that) IP rights are property rights, then the manner in which you use your physical property could collide with (trespass over) the (IP) property rights of someone else -- just like the manner in which you use your fist could do the same with respect to someone else's face.
Property rights evolved as means towards the desirable end of peaceful conflict resolution. We are the descendents of the people who strongly preferred not to have fists launched into their faces. If, in a free society, enough people strongly prefer that original patterns (of numbers, words, sounds, or images) which they have created are not to be used by others without their permission, then property rights in IP would also evolve. If not, they won't. The beauty of freedom is that it is unpredictable and uncontrollable by any one entity or dogma.
z1235: gotlucky, if (you assume that) IP rights are property rights, then the manner in which you use your physical property could collide with (trespass over) the (IP) property rights of someone else -- just like the manner in which you use your fist could do the same with respect to someone else's face.
There is no trespassing on IP. There is IP infringement, which is an entirely different concept. Trespassing is a physical violation of (real) property. IP infringement is literally just breaking the law, which, in the case of IP, is breaking a statute. Also, IP is not property. It's called property, but it is not property in the same way that you don't own your reputation. We can say and enact statutes that say you own your reputation, but it doesn't make it so. All that sort of law says is that you have the right to punish someone for damaging your reputation, but your reputation only exists in the minds of everyone but yourself.
So yes, you can have a "property right" to punish someone for damaging your reputation, but that doesn't mean they are damaging your property. It means that you have the right to exclude others from using their property in some specific fashion. That's what IP is. It's a metaphor for property but it isn't property. Sure, you can "own" a poem, but what that translates to is that you now have the right to exclude others from using their property to recreate that poem. When others recreate that poem, it does not mean that suddenly they have trespassed on your property.
All rights are property rights, but that doesn't mean that the poem you right is your "property". It's an idea. It only exists in people's minds or when it has a physical manifestation in actual property. Copyrights and patents state that you own the idea, and that if anyone creates a physical manifestation of this idea, they are violating your property. This is the contradiction. It is saying that you both simultaneously own the same good without joint ownership. I may own the paper and ink, but if I configure them in such a way that they are the same as your copyrighted poem, now you own it. Except that I own it too. And we can't both own it.
So sure, the state says that your ownership supercedes my ownership, so in effect there really is only one owner, and that's you. But the state doesn't say that I am to transfer my physical property of paper and ink to you. It says that I am to destroy it or change it somehow. But in the process, the state still acknowledges that the paper and ink are mine, but they also acknowledge that it is yours. That's why it is a contradiction. The idea of IP is a contradiction.
That was Kinsella's argument in that case, but it is not his only or even his main argument against IP. It was only one thing to consider out of all of what he knows about IP. In practice there cannot be a contradiction, because whoever has the right of exclusion is the owner in the eyes of the law (right or wrong), but that was not Kinsella's point. His point was that there cannot be two simultaneous owners of the same object (excluding joint ownership, which was not mentioned in that section of the talk), and that is precisely what the arguments for IP allow: IP acknowledges two owners in theory even if it doesn't in practice.
z1235: Property rights evolved as means towards the desirable end of peaceful conflict resolution. We are the descendents of the people who strongly preferred not to have fists launched into their faces. If, in a free society, enough people strongly prefer that original patterns (of numbers, words, sounds, or images) which they have created are not to be used by others without their permission, then property rights in IP would also evolve. If not, they won't. The beauty of freedom is that it is unpredictable and uncontrollable by any one entity or dogma.
I agree with this. I only add that I find it highly unlikely that IP as it exists today would exist in a free society. I base this off of the fact that IP as it exists today is a product of the state, whereas common law and customary law systems did not have IP in a way that resembles statutory IP at all.
DerpStatis: - Definition (Property Rights:Mine, and possibly Kinsella's second definition) A property right is a right to do as you please with property as long as you don't infringe/violate/conflict with other existing property rights. Since this is a recursive definition we must define what infringe/violate/conflict with means and whether property rights exist at all. I will use the homesteading theory here to prove the existence. And from that we obtain the characteristic that property rights exist for a given use. A "violation" means a physical invasion/physical trespass/physical interference with that use by virtue of which the homesteading occurred.
- Definition (Property Rights:Mine, and possibly Kinsella's second definition)
A property right is a right to do as you please with property as long as you don't infringe/violate/conflict with other existing property rights.
Since this is a recursive definition we must define what infringe/violate/conflict with means and whether property rights exist at all. I will use the homesteading theory here to prove the existence. And from that we obtain the characteristic that property rights exist for a given use.
A "violation" means a physical invasion/physical trespass/physical interference with that use by virtue of which the homesteading occurred.
When you say "whether property rights exist at all", are you talking about external (i.e. outside of the mind) physical existence? If so, then I'd say that neither property rights nor any other rights have any such existence at all.
DerpStatis: The confusion here arises from the implicit misunderstanding of the recursive definition of property rights. Any property right limits the sphere of influence of posessors of other property rights. Kinsella is using "conflict" as something that limits your use of property rights. If a new right comes into existence, they can still "do as they please", but they have to limit their actions to those that will not violate the newly created right. The simplest example of this is when someone homesteads a piece of land by planting a tree on it, so now another person cannot use their property to plant a tree in the same place. Whereas before the homesteading everyone would have been able to plant a tree in that place. Hence the perceived "conflict".
The confusion here arises from the implicit misunderstanding of the recursive definition of property rights.
Any property right limits the sphere of influence of posessors of other property rights.
Kinsella is using "conflict" as something that limits your use of property rights.
If a new right comes into existence, they can still "do as they please", but they have to limit their actions to those that will not violate the newly created right.
The simplest example of this is when someone homesteads a piece of land by planting a tree on it, so now another person cannot use their property to plant a tree in the same place.
Whereas before the homesteading everyone would have been able to plant a tree in that place. Hence the perceived "conflict".
As I see it, there's no conflict of rights when someone homesteads something. The right to homestead means to me the right to use (i.e. undertake an action with) something that no one has ever used before. Therefore, other people's homesteading rights aren't curtailed when one person homesteads something, as once he homesteads it, it's no longer something that no one has ever used before.
DerpStatis: Here's my view on IP in brief in case you question my motives: The whole point of homesteading is that you homestead a use. And infringement only happens when someone interferes with your use. With information there is no interference if I decide to use the information, because you can still do exactly the same things you could before. There are no damages and hence no victim and no action is warranted. That's really the end of the story for me. That's what differentiates copyright and IP in general with property rights, and not its conflict with property rights.
Here's my view on IP in brief in case you question my motives:
The whole point of homesteading is that you homestead a use.
And infringement only happens when someone interferes with your use.
With information there is no interference if I decide to use the information, because you can still do exactly the same things you could before. There are no damages and hence no victim and no action is warranted.
That's really the end of the story for me. That's what differentiates copyright and IP in general with property rights, and not its conflict with property rights.
I'll raise you an even better argument: The notion of "intellectual property" requires a sleight-of-hand change in the definition of "use" to include the results of actions undertaken with/over things as well as the actions themselves. As I see it, this is the only way to make logical sense of an IP proponent's claim that someone else is interfering with his use of his IP. His argument is typically that other people copying his ideas, even if they give him attribution for them, prevents certain (anticipated) outcomes for him, namely making certain amounts of profit from the ideas. It's therefore logically inconsistent to define "use" this way when arguing for IP rights but to define "use" the other way when arguing for other property rights.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos: As I see it, there's no conflict of rights when someone homesteads something. The right to homestead means to me the right to use (i.e. undertake an action with) something that no one has ever used before. Therefore, other people's homesteading rights aren't curtailed when one person homesteads something, as once he homesteads it, it's no longer something that no one has ever used before.
I agree with you. By definition there cannot be any conflict.
DerpStatis: I'll raise you an even better argument: The notion of "intellectual property" requires a sleight-of-hand change in the definition of "use" to include the results of actions undertaken with/over things as well as the actions themselves. As I see it, this is the only way to make logical sense of an IP proponent's claim that someone else is interfering with his use of his IP. His argument is typically that other people copying his ideas, even if they give him attribution for them, prevents certain (anticipated) outcomes for him, namely making certain amounts of profit from the ideas. It's therefore logically inconsistent to define "use" this way when arguing for IP rights but to define "use" the other way when arguing for other property rights.
I'll raise you another agreement. I think this also boils down to the distinction between an effect and an actual physical invasion. Ultimately one thing to note is that IP proponents would like to extend so called interference or aggression to include bringing about a reduction in benefits to the inventor/creator.
z1235: gotlucky, if (you assume that) IP rights are property rights, then the manner in which you use your physical property could collide with (trespass over) the (IP) property rights of someone else -- just like the manner in which you use your fist could do the same with respect to someone else's face. Property rights evolved as means towards the desirable end of peaceful conflict resolution. We are the descendents of the people who strongly preferred not to have fists launched into their faces. If, in a free society, enough people strongly prefer that original patterns (of numbers, words, sounds, or images) which they have created are not to be used by others without their permission, then property rights in IP would also evolve. If not, they won't. The beauty of freedom is that it is unpredictable and uncontrollable by any one entity or dogma.
z1235 , this is the basic idea and it is easy to understand in two sentences. But some people have a hard time understanding why Kinsella's argument must proceed along the lines "if (you assume that) IP rights are property rights" in order for it to have any meaning. Unfortunately to explain that you need to open yourself up to knitpicking.
As to your second point, I've tried to argue that IP is very different from other property right with respect to being "means towards the desirable end of peaceful conflict resolution". Because the level of harm done by violated "IP rights" is not in the same category as a physical invasion or interference with someone's actions. It is very indirect and can only affect subjective values. So in that respect it is like someone saying something that diminishes your reputation. Of course this says nothing about whether people will follow this logic, and ultimately everything is correct in your second paragraph.
Autolykos,
I don't know about you, but I find it very interesting that DerpStatis came back to the thread in order to complain about "knitpicking". There's nothing quite like complaining about being asked to be logically consistent, eh?
gotlucky: Autolykos, I don't know about you, but I find it very interesting that DerpStatis came back to the thread in order to complain about "knitpicking". There's nothing quite like complaining about being asked to be logically consistent, eh?
gotlucky, this is my thread and one of the few I am following, I did not "come back" from anywhere. When I have a thought I comment. I'm trying to ignore you. I was actually not referring to you when I said I am opening myself to knitpicking. I have some arguments going on with other people than you and I have some experience with these things that tells me any time you write anything in the form of a chain of definitions and result you will open yourself to knitpicking. However, if you aren't rigorous, then you invite illogical arguments. So I was not at all thinking about you when I said that. I am not going to claim you were knitpicking.
I'd like to ask you to refrain from trying to damage my reputation for whatever reason. Your last comment proves nothing about the logic or content of what I was saying and is solely ad hominem. As far as I can discern it was probably implying that I somehow am dodging something or not smart enough to be logically consistent. You don't need to divine such things, they are irrelevant, unless you just want to damage me personally. Judging from your number of points on here, you probably command a sizeable amount of influence to be able to achieve something in this regard.
I've read some of your other posts on other threads and you seem to come out angry and dismissive. You seem disrespectful at times because of this. I find this very interesting and I'm curious what compells you to act this way given that noone is acting like this toward you. I don't get see these types of responses from many others, and I wasn't expecting them here. If something is bothering you let me know and I'll try to address it. I'd like you to "lay off" my case so we don't have to talk to each other anymore. That means I'd like you to agree that we don't address each other's comments or talk about each other. I really don't want to spend any more time dealing with you.
I'm actually asking you this as a favor. Sound reasonable?
DerpStatis: I'd like to ask you to refrain from trying to damage my reputation for whatever reason.
I'd like to ask you to refrain from trying to damage my reputation for whatever reason.
DerpStatis: I've read some of your other posts on other threads and you seem to come out angry and dismissive.
I've read some of your other posts on other threads and you seem to come out angry and dismissive.
Maybe you should try practicing what you preach. Perhaps you didn't read your first post to me:
DerpStatis: Unfortunately none of you comments were helpful to me. You seem to be attacking my exposition, but not the substance of my claims and disecting irrelevant aspects of my argument. You are not engaging me, just trying to block any discussion of the logic of the matter. Your response is an attack rather than a constructive critique. Your response fits a pattern that I would like to avoid. I did not spend my time writing this critique to deal with beligerence.
This was not the case of my first post to you. If you want to ignore me, so be it. But if you are going to act as if I started this whole dismissive and insulting attitude, then I will call you out on it.
DerpStatis: Your last comment proves nothing about the logic or content of what I was saying and is solely ad hominem. As far as I can discern it was probably implying that I somehow am dodging something or not smart enough to be logically consistent.
Your last comment proves nothing about the logic or content of what I was saying and is solely ad hominem. As far as I can discern it was probably implying that I somehow am dodging something or not smart enough to be logically consistent.
There's no need for me to criticize your argument in each of my posts when you have refused to respond to my criticisms from the very beginning. So, yes, you are dodging.
DerpStatis: I find this very interesting and I'm curious what compells you to act this way given that noone is acting like this toward you.
I find this very interesting and I'm curious what compells you to act this way given that noone is acting like this toward you.
I get along with most people on this forum, thank you very much. For some reason, though, people who like to be dishonest have a problem with me. Go figure.
You know what? Since I'm such a nice guy, I'm going to walk through my first post, just for you, DerpStatis:
gotlucky: NOTE: Your link is broken, so I can only comment on what I remember about Kinsella's arguments, not about the one's in the link. DerpStatis: Some clarification and definitions are needed to analyze his statement. Definition (Property Rights:Mine, and possibly Kinsella's second definition) A property right is a right to do as you please with property as long as you don't infringe/violate/conflict with other existing property rights. Since this is a recursive definition we must define what infringe/violate/conflict with means and whether property rights exist at all. I will use the homesteading theory here to prove the existence. And from that we obtain the characteristic that property rights exist for a given use. A "violation" means a physical invasion/physical trespass/physical interference with that use by virtue of which the homesteading occurred. I think people will generally agree with the definition I've provided. If you don't please correct me. However keep in mind that the rest of what I say may be true despite any corrections or alterations in the definition, so please check before making the correction. First, property rights don't "exist" in the sense that you are using the term "exist". You don't "prove" the existence of property rights, unless you are talking about describing the property rights in a given society, which you are not doing. Second, if you are going to analyze someone's argument, use their definitions, not yours. If you don't use their definitions, you are not analyzing their argument. DerpStatis: Definition (Property Rights:Kinsella first definition) Kinsella provides a different definition that says property rights are rights to exclusive control. This definition is incomplete. From video we can deduce that control means having ultimate judgment on how to use the property. However, implicitly we have to acknowledge that some uses may not be "just". Those are exactly the ones that infringe/violate/conflict with other's exercise of their own control. We must have such clauses in the definitions because we must accept that rights cannot conflict with each other (by definition they cannot, but this is a separate discussion). Kinsella accepts that property rights cannot conflict with each other since that is the crux of his argument. So substitute "control" with "do as you please" and add the limiting provision and you get back the definition I supplied above. I am using my definition because I think that's the one that most people accept. If you think it isn't equivalent to Kinsella's please point it out, while keeping in mind that the rest of what I say will hold even if I use his definition. Kinsella's definition is fine. Also, do not substitute control for "do as you please". That is not the standard definition of control, which I'm assuming Kinsella is using. Some uses may not be "just", but that doesn't change Kinsella's definition of property rights. All that means is his definition allows for some property rights to not be considered just. I think that is a useful definition, as it allows us to differentiate between just (or rightful) property and unjust (or wrongful) property. You might not be okay with that definition, but it seems that is what Kinsella is using, and I'm certainly comfortable with that definition. DerpStatis: Local Definition (Libertarian): For convenience I refer to libertarian in this discussion as someone who believes property rights are absolute, should never be violated. This definition has no relevance to the argument, if you doubt this, just substitute libertarian="property rights absolutist". If it has no relevance to your argument, then don't define it. I certainly don't like that definition of libertarian, and it doesn't seem to describe a number of people on this board either. DerpStatis: Case1 (his claim is that IP is not a property right AND it conflicts with property rights) In this case he must prove that IP is not a property right and he does provide arguments for that elsewhere. The purpose of such a claim is not clear to me. For libertarians that don't think IP is a property right this is irrelevant and a good illustration. With libertarians holding the view that IP is a property right, he will have to argue some other way. With non-libertarians this won't work either, because an infringement of property rights may be warranted, so he must argue why such an infringement is wrong. (Because of the nature of the IP debate, I tend to think Kinsella is trying to mostly convince other libertarians) If he provided no argument, then maybe he expected the audience to already be familiar with his arguments against IP. DerpStatis: Case2 (his claim is that IF IP is a property right then we can show a contradiction.) If a contradiction is there, this should convince libertarians to drop the view that IP is a property right. In my view this is more likely what he is claiming. And if you watch the video after [3], he is clearly engaging in proof by contradiction or reductio ad absurdum. So the proof of this MUST go as follows (MUST because we are dealing with logic) We MUST assume that IP is a property right and show that this leads to a negation of another assumption or result. That is by definition a proof by contradiction or equivalently a proof by contrapositive. The "other result" for Kinsella in this case is that a property right is infringed upon/violated/conflicted with. This contradiction cannot occur, because if IP is a property right, then by definition it cannot conflict/infringe/violate other property rights.- Again, I cannot view the link, but your critique is inadequate. One of the main problems with IP is that it makes claims to other people's property. If I patent the design of a chair, what that means is that you may not create that same shape with your wood and your tools. I am making a claim to what you can do with your property. I am excluding you from using your property. That is the contradiction with IP and property rights.
Almost my entire post was in direct response to requests you made. My last paragraph was my critique of your critique. Only z1235 has engaged me on this point. You have not. Instead, you decided that the requests you made in your OP shouldn't apply if someone were to actually take you up on them.
gotlucky, you are absolutely right about everything. I have misjudged you and I take back everything I have said about you. You have much more experience than me on here and I was mistaken to characterize you in any way.
However, I'd like to know if we have an agreement. Do you agree to ignore my posts and not discuss me in posts to others (as long as I do the same)?
I would greatly appreciate that, so please let me know.