-
"Even if they could be homesteaded, my use of an idea does not limit another's use of it. So, everyone is acting peacefully. If you enforce intellectual property rights, you give the proprieter the right to attack non-aggressive non-intrusive agents. That's true. I agree with the argument that it makes no sense to make non-scarce entities
-
Got an example of libertarian property rights creating a "moral" (legal?) restriction which has no bearing at all with an individual interfering with the physical integrity of another person or their property? It doesn't matter that all libertarian property rights all "have bearing" with individuals interfering the physical integrity
-
It's still not the same type of restriction. Property rights create moral restrictions; that is to say, they don't physically prevent anybody from doing anything in the material world. They simply declare certain actions to be immoral. Existence, on the other hand, is a physical phenomenon. It might physically prohibit you from acting in a certain
-
I understand that distinction. But I don't think Kinsella can mean that by liberty and still remain logically consistent. Intellectual property in no way limits "liberty within the realms of non-aggression" because to use the existing tangible property in a way that violates intellectual property rights would be considered aggression.
-
Not really. By merely existing I place no restriction on what you may do with, say, your baseball bat. Only if I claim a right to exist and forbid you from extinguishing my existence by using your baseball bat to transform me into a bloody pulp.
-
There's a question that's been bugging me about libertarian property rights theory for some time now, and I couldn't quite figure out how to formulate it until yesterday when I was reading Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property." Kinsella says, [W]hat is the harm in. . .recognizing [intellectual] property? The problem is