-
Stranger: All I asked for was link to an actual text penned by Hoppe refuting Rothbard' intellectual property work. I did not accuse anyone of anything except failing to provide this. Whatever guilt you may feel for this failure is entirely your own making. good. I am glad you are not getting incivil and accusing me of dishonesty. As for text, I
-
bluelines976, "You know, more LvMI staff should post on the forums. It puts a smile on me face!" I assume you're referring to me--thanks! But to be clear, I'm not Mises Staff. But I know what you mean. :)
-
"Where's the proof? Your word has no value." Stranger, how dare you accuse me of dishonesty. This is typical of IP fascists. I am one of his closest confidantes, supporters, friends; I run his site and his PFS site; I edited the festschrift for him; I am the worlds' biggest Hoppean. Who would know if not for me? In the previous post
-
Stranger, "It is not relevant. You are merely engaging in the fallacy of the immateriality of information, which Hoppe would not." I am not appealing to authority, you are: but you are in fact wrong. Hoppe agrees wtih me 100% on IP and most everything else (and vice-versa), and has told me so explicitly; and it is clear from his corpus of
-
Stranger, First, almost every modern Rothbardian I know is against IP--Hoppe, Huelsmann, DiLorenzo, Tucker, Rockwell, and so on. Second, Rothbard himself was opposed to both patent and modern copyright. The only thing he was in favor of was some *contractual* copyright notion. He was a bit confused about how far this would get you, which is understandable
-
Brother Onar: Actually it was *I* who pointed out the obvious outrage of the Amazon patent in this debate. But seriously? Is *this* what you are going to nail me on? That I have the ability to be critical of a system I am in favor of? Would you rather I react in the way that so many anti-IP people do: to *defend* obviously outrageous and insane consequences
-
Somewhere on this thread, Onar (I think) stated that all the anti-IP people are just greedy punks who want to get things for free and are trying to come up with jsutifications for it to not feel guilty or to excuse their immoral behavior (does anyone konw where this post was?). Anyway this is blatantly untrue. There may be elements of truth to this
-
Onar: "Let me add that I think it is way too easy to obtain patents on something, especially in the united states. Remember the one-click-buy Amazon patent? A disgrace. It's no wonder that it doesn't take long for others to reinvent something when the bar is set this low for patentability. Generally this is a sign of sickness, that something
-
Brother Omar is being torn up over here: http://blog.mises.org/14286/can-moral-rights-expire-by-law/#comment-732533 It’s not semantic. See my post The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not on Property Right and IP and Aggression as Limits on Property Rights: How They Differ . What you denigrate as “material” is the standard
-
Onar Am: "I tend to agree that the founders of a proper state are morally entitled to something akin to royalties for a certain period." hahha, he admits my argument is right. hahahahhaha