-
nskinsella wrote the following post at Sat, Oct 23 2010 11:26 AM: David, "I'm still not finding any explanation yet as to why or how Rothbard is mistaken." See the Contract vs. Reserved Rights section of my Against IP. I go into it in detail. http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications/#againstip Thanks Mr. Kinsella. I read your explanation
-
CSJtheory wrote the following post at Fri, Oct 22 2010 11:35 PM: Good points and research David. As far as the 3rd party issue... Assuming the original work of authorship qualifies for property protections, similar to the way copyright is treated... Morally: Once a 3rd party is made aware they acquired illegitimately derived property (however the means
-
Okay, for a moment I thought Onar had signed off. While this overall discussion has been very helpful for me, his frequent Ad Hominem arguments have not been productive. Now I'm getting closer to a solid position here, but I still have a few gaps I would like help to fill in. Going back to the simple case of an author who wants to sell his book
-
I am still on the fence on this issue. I reread the Rothbard position and would like to better understand the objections. Let's put aside the idea of patents for now, just help me focus on copyrights alone. We can probably all agree that most printed books have more value than a bundle of paper and ink. I suppose some may argue about the where this
-
I also came across this gem from Page 160, Property Freedom & Society, Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe Chapter 18: A Note on Intellectual Property and Externalities by Hardy Bouillon Summary: The alleged collision between the two rights (material property rights and intellectual property rights) seems to rest on a misinterpretation of intellectual
-
Interesting and a bit surprising. Thanks for sharing. We find that the freest states in the country are New Hampshire, Colorado , and South Dakota, which together achieve a virtual tie for first place. All three states feature low taxes and government spending and middling levels of regulation and paternalism. I am surprised because we are surely sliding
-
Onar Åm wrote: I have no idea how you've managed to do so, but after dozens of replies and mentions of my name you manage to spell it wrongly. Please accept my apology, I meant no disrespect. I have corrected the mistake. Please understand I am an equal opportunity misspeller; I also misspelled Mr. Kinsella's name in an earlier post too
-
According to Onar, an original thought worthy of the classification of property must satisfy the three basic characteristics below: Original, i.e. not "common knowledge" (if many people know it, it can not be original and it can not be property) Scarce, i.e. it must be non-obvious, the result of genuine effort (it can not come in dream, it
-
Onar Åm wrote the following post at Wed, Oct 20 2010 3:03 AM: Normally I try to be flexible with my opponents' terms and their semantics. I don't try to quibble when a different word than expected is used (e.g. "threshold" instead of "boundary") as long as the meaning conveyed is appropriate, but in this case I must
-
Onar, You responded to a fallacious farmer analogy above, I like the analogy presented by a one of the contributors here with growing grop. In growing a crop a farmer is using three resources that are renewable and virtually unlimited: water( rain), light (sun) and CO2 (air). Why shouldn't people be allowed to freely take the crop from the farmer