GilesStratton: liberty student: Keep those logical fallacies coming Max! Just drop it. Max is wrong, but to the extent that you believe contractual obligations regarding the use of property are contrary to libertarianism, so are you.
liberty student: Keep those logical fallacies coming Max!
Just drop it. Max is wrong, but to the extent that you believe contractual obligations regarding the use of property are contrary to libertarianism, so are you.
giles ,be fair, LS is not wrong, he is merely emphasising that the contractual obligations must regard the use of 'actual' property, and not 'fantasy' property. Intellecctual property would fall into that category
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
GilesStratton:but to the extent that you believe contractual obligations regarding the use of property are contrary to libertarianism, so are you
Strawman. Now see, there you go making a fool of yourself. And I warned you too. I mean, why even bother to warn you, if you're just going to go off and do it anyway?
liberty student: No. The discussion is and was whether or not ownership of a non-good can be contracted.
No. The discussion is and was whether or not ownership of a non-good can be contracted.
All things can be contracted, and should be enforced through relative ownership. With your example of the sky, person A may enter into a binding contract with person B to have ownership of the sky (and let's say that it can't be looked upon without the owners approval)... Through homesteading and in reality, neither A nor B have exclusive property of the sky - BUT, the contract will put into effect the dismissal of B's property rights of the sky and relative to B, A owns the sky - but from the view of A he relatively co-owns the sky with everyone else, excluding B who has given up his "piece of the sky". In this way, contracts are relative, and need make no rational sense to anyone besides those agreeing to the terms.
Maxliberty:The point is that at the moment I decide to communicate my idea to another person I have the right to contractually obligate the other person so that they are restricted in how they use the information/idea.
Why? Contracts refer to the exchange of tangible goods, this "idea" is exactly that, not a tangible good. It's not sufficient to merely tell me, as that amounts to nothing but a promise.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
liberty student: GilesStratton:but to the extent that you believe contractual obligations regarding the use of property are contrary to libertarianism, so are you Strawman. Now see, there you go making a fool of yourself. And I warned you too. I mean, why even bother to warn you, if you're just going to go off and do it anyway?
If I'd said that you believe that it would be a strawman, I didn't.
So clarify, if I own a good can I sell it to you on the basis that you will only use it in certain ways?
Maxliberty:You are just making a pointless distinction between at what point the idea gets communicated. Your arguement is that if the idea is only in my head then its not property but if I write the idea down on a piece of paper then it becomes property. The point is that at the moment I decide to communicate my idea to another person I have the right to contractually obligate the other person so that they are restricted in how they use the information/idea. That's it, that is all IP protection is about. So if I have the ability to obligate the other person in exchange for sharing the idea I am for all practical purposes the owner of that idea in that moment.
wrong. the idea is never property. the piece of paper that might come to have a pattern on it, is always property before and after pattern added.
Whether or not you are communicating an idea, or before or after you do, you have the right to enter into contracts with people over how they themselves will behave. This will not involve Intellectual Property, as by definition Intellectual Property does not exist. so if it involves some key ingredient you feel is missing, you best find another name for it, cause IP isnt it.
JackSkylark: liberty student: No. The discussion is and was whether or not ownership of a non-good can be contracted. All things can be contracted, and should be enforced through relative ownership. With your example of the sky, person A may enter into a binding contract with person B to have ownership of the sky (and let's say that it can't be looked upon without the owners approval)... Through homesteading and in reality, neither A nor B have exclusive property of the sky - BUT, the contract will put into effect the dismissal of B's property rights of the sky and relative to B, A owns the sky - but from the view of A he relatively co-owns the sky with everyone else, excluding B who has given up his "piece of the sky". In this way, contracts are relative, and need make no rational sense to anyone besides those agreeing to the terms.
No it doesn't. It's a nonsensical contract. It's void.
Why must contracts refer only to the exchange of tangible goods? I create a blueprint of an invention so that I can show a company that may be interested in buying it from me, why am I unable to contract them into not disclosing or acting upon the information I show them (since the idea contained within the blueprint is obviously not a tangible good, but an idea)?
GilesStratton:So clarify, if I own a good can I sell it to you on the basis that you will only use it in certain ways?
I believe so. I know there was discussions on this regarding home owner associations and I never really considered it.
But again, it's not relevant to the discussion, we're talking about IP, which is non-property, which I have stated many times, is a condition that must be satisfied prior to being able to make a contract to limit or transfer ownership.
JackSkylark:All things can be contracted, and should be enforced through relative ownership. With your example of the sky, person A may enter into a binding contract with person B to have ownership of the sky (and let's say that it can't be looked upon without the owners approval)... Through homesteading and in reality, neither A nor B have exclusive property of the sky - BUT, the contract will put into effect the dismissal of B's property rights of the sky and relative to B, A owns the sky - but from the view of A he relatively co-owns the sky with everyone else, excluding B who has given up his "piece of the sky". In this way, contracts are relative, and need make no rational sense to anyone besides those agreeing to the terms.
its not true that all things can be contracted. you cant contract someone to have certain feeling on tuesdays, ; also you cant contract someone to do something that would breach a 3rd parties rights, eg. hire a contract killer to knock off some innocent party.
you can contract legitamate behaviour, that is all.
as for the sky, you want to claim that A can contract with B that B 'owns' the sky. but then you claim that this doesnt mean that he owns the sky, but something else, that A promises not to behave in ways which would interfere with B's use of the sky. so tell me what good came of the nonsense of pretending that B owned the sky in the original conract. why not just have a contract that says. despite B not owning the sky, A will agree to defer to B in all matters regarding the sky and to not interfere with B's use of they sky.
it is wrong to introduce 'ownership' in the sky example.
lets talk pain people./
JackSkylark: Why must contracts refer only to the exchange of tangible goods? I create a blueprint of an invention so that I can show a company that may be interested in buying it from me, why am I unable to contract them into not disclosing or acting upon the information I show them (since the idea contained within the blueprint is obviously not a tangible good, but an idea)?
Because that's their purpose, perhaps?
To answer your question, yes, you may contract that. Not that the contract refers to an idea though, but the paper you're giving them.
GilesStratton: Maxliberty:The point is that at the moment I decide to communicate my idea to another person I have the right to contractually obligate the other person so that they are restricted in how they use the information/idea. Why? Contracts refer to the exchange of tangible goods, this "idea" is exactly that, not a tangible good. It's not sufficient to merely tell me, as that amounts to nothing but a promise.
Is a contract where one party agrees ot provide an idea to the other in exchange for money not a valid contract. If i took your money then didn't provide the idea wouldn't I be in breech? Or is that contract void because the idea is not a good by your definition?
JackSkylark:Why must contracts refer only to the exchange of tangible goods? I create a blueprint of an invention so that I can show a company that may be interested in buying it from me, why am I unable to contract them into not disclosing or acting upon the information I show them (since the idea contained within the blueprint is obviously not a tangible good, but an idea)?
Well, you could contract them. You could have them sign a NDA. But someone on the other side of the world could come up with the same invention. How can you enforce a contract for a NDA against me, if Jackie Chan from Cambodia tells me about his identical invention?
You couldn't. You would be unable to satisfy the burden of proof that I gave up your invention and not his.
Again, property has to be scarce. It can only have one owner at a time. It doesn't matter if it took you 30 years or 30 seconds to come up with an idea, there is no scarcity of ideas or the ability to discover them, unless everyone else is under contract or becomes brain dead.
liberty student: GilesStratton:So clarify, if I own a good can I sell it to you on the basis that you will only use it in certain ways? I believe so. I know there was discussions on this regarding home owner associations and I never really considered it. But again, it's not relevant to the discussion, we're talking about IP, which is non-property, which I have stated many times, is a condition that must be satisfied prior to being able to make a contract to limit or transfer ownership.
IP isn't relevant here, IP is a statist intervention. I'm talking about legitimate contracts regarding tangible property. In this case, selling you a CD on the grounds that you don't lend that CD to your friend for him to copy it. This has nothing to do with IP, just that actions you take. I don't need to presume ownership of any ideas, just the CD, implicit is also the presumption that you own your body.
JackSkylark:why am I unable to contract them into not disclosing or acting upon the information I show them (since the idea contained within the blueprint is obviously not a tangible good, but an idea)?
why cant you just do this, without claiming property over the idea in question. here you posed the scenario without mentioning propoerty. you offered perfectly proper possible contracts which enforce the physical behaviour of acting parties. you didnt need property concept to do that. so jettison IP.
Maxliberty:Or is that contract void because the idea is not a good by your definition?
Not an economic good. I can pay you for the right to breathe, doesn't mean you own the air...
Maxliberty: Is a contract where one party agrees ot provide an idea to the other in exchange for money not a valid contract. If i took your money then didn't provide the idea wouldn't I be in breech? Or is that contract void because the idea is not a good by your definition?
your agreeing to perfom a physical act. the act of communicating an idea. try to do this non-physically. not possible. its a physical act. If you took the money and failed to perform the act that you promised to do , you would indeed be in breech.
GilesStratton: JackSkylark: Why must contracts refer only to the exchange of tangible goods? I create a blueprint of an invention so that I can show a company that may be interested in buying it from me, why am I unable to contract them into not disclosing or acting upon the information I show them (since the idea contained within the blueprint is obviously not a tangible good, but an idea)? Because that's their purpose, perhaps? To answer your question, yes, you may contract that. Not that the contract refers to an idea though, but the paper you're giving them.
Again, your making needless distinctions. The blueprint in my head is nothing but the same blueprint on a piece of paper is now property. For practical purposes the distinction is irrelevant. I can see why a lot of so called Austrians are lost on this issue.
nirgrahamUK: Whether or not you are communicating an idea, or before or after you do, you have the right to enter into contracts with people over how they themselves will behave. This will not involve Intellectual Property, as by definition Intellectual Property does not exist. so if it involves some key ingredient you feel is missing, you best find another name for it, cause IP isnt it.
What constitutes a contract in your eyes? Must I meet with you face to face, draw up a sheet of paper lay out my terms and then we both sign with a quill pen? Or, can there be a contract published at the beginning of a book, i.e. "you agree by opening this book and reading the pages herein that the arrangement of words and ideas contained are the sole property of the author, and you may not reproduce them in any way"? Or, can a contract be said to be an end-user license agreement (for instance, you must agree to the contract before you can use the product)?
Maxliberty:Again, your making needless distinctions. The blueprint in my head is nothing but the same blueprint on a piece of paper is now property. For practical purposes the distinction is irrelevant. I can see why a lot of so called Austrians are lost on this issue.
Now, MaxLiberty, what does economics teach us about human action?
you are failing to make an important distinction. between things that can have the label 'property' attached to them, and for this to be proper. and between things that cant be called property, (on pain of contradiction)
why dont you want to let go of your pet contradiction?
GilesStratton: Maxliberty:Or is that contract void because the idea is not a good by your definition? Not an economic good. I can pay you for the right to breathe, doesn't mean you own the air...
Just to be clear, you are saying that this contract would not be enforceable? Is that right?
GilesStratton: Because that's their purpose, perhaps? To answer your question, yes, you may contract that. Not that the contract refers to an idea though, but the paper you're giving them.
rubbish... i may then leave with my piece of paper, but I am unable to dictate what they can and cannot do with the idea? Max is right to say that you are confusing the issue.
JackSkylark:What constitutes a contract in your eyes? Must I meet with you face to face, draw up a sheet of paper lay out my terms and then we both sign with a quill pen? Or, can there be a contract published at the beginning of a book, i.e. "you agree by opening this book and reading the pages herein that the arrangement of words and ideas contained are the sole property of the author, and you may not reproduce them in any way"? Or, can a contract be said to be an end-user license agreement (for instance, you must agree to the contract before you can use the product)?
i think this would be fine to go into on another thread, but it doesnt seem to address whether there is sense to the word combination 'intellectual property' or not. which has become the hot topic on this thread.
GilesStratton:This has nothing to do with IP
Indeed, which is why I'm not much interested in discussing it right now. Start a new thread. I don't want to involve a property debate with Max's indefensible position on IP. I'm not even sure we disagree with each other, which is why I warned you against assuming you knew my argument based on how Max framed it.
Cheers.
JackSkylark:rubbish... i may then leave with my piece of paper, but I am unable to dictate what they can and cannot do with the idea? Max is right to say that you are confusing the issue.
Can you contract to control someone's mind? Can you own their thoughts, even by contract?
nirgrahamUK: Maxliberty:Again, your making needless distinctions. The blueprint in my head is nothing but the same blueprint on a piece of paper is now property. For practical purposes the distinction is irrelevant. I can see why a lot of so called Austrians are lost on this issue. you are failing to make an important distinction. between things that can have the label 'property' attached to them, and for this to be proper. and between things that cant be called property, (on pain of contradiction) why dont you want to let go of your pet contradiction?
What I am saying is that as a practical application only ideas that are shared are relevant to the discussion. For ideas to be shared there has to be a medium of sharing the idea whether this is written or spoken. It is at the moment of sharing the idea that we are discussing. Ideas never shared or manifested in some physical form are not relevant to the discussion. So your distinction is pointless.
Maxliberty: nirgrahamUK: Maxliberty:Again, your making needless distinctions. The blueprint in my head is nothing but the same blueprint on a piece of paper is now property. For practical purposes the distinction is irrelevant. I can see why a lot of so called Austrians are lost on this issue. you are failing to make an important distinction. between things that can have the label 'property' attached to them, and for this to be proper. and between things that cant be called property, (on pain of contradiction) why dont you want to let go of your pet contradiction? What I am saying is that as a practical application only ideas that are shared are relevant to the discussion. For ideas to be shared there has to be a medium of sharing the idea whether this is written or spoken. It is at the moment of sharing the idea that we are discussing. Ideas never shared or manifested in some physical form are not relevant to the discussion. So your distinction is pointless.
you didnt mention the word property in your answer. which makes you appear silly
liberty student: JackSkylark:rubbish... i may then leave with my piece of paper, but I am unable to dictate what they can and cannot do with the idea? Max is right to say that you are confusing the issue. Can you contract to control someone's mind? Can you own their thoughts, even by contract?
Gutless, where do you get this stuff from. No one has suggested anything even close.
Maxliberty: liberty student: JackSkylark:rubbish... i may then leave with my piece of paper, but I am unable to dictate what they can and cannot do with the idea? Max is right to say that you are confusing the issue. Can you contract to control someone's mind? Can you own their thoughts, even by contract? Gutless, where do you get this stuff from. No one has suggested anything even close.
it has been suggested earlier in this thread, maybe it was Jack who said it, that 'all things' could be contracted. that would seem to be wide enough to cover mind control and thoughts etc. So thats probably where he got it from. And i havent yet seen all that mucch that seperates your from Jack on this topic
What they can do with their idea is besides the point. What they can do with their body is the issue. And what they may not do is use their body to convey the idea.
The piece of paper is an economic good, the idea isn't.
liberty student: GilesStratton:This has nothing to do with IP Indeed, which is why I'm not much interested in discussing it right now. Start a new thread. I don't want to involve a property debate with Max's indefensible position on IP. I'm not even sure we disagree with each other, which is why I warned you against assuming you knew my argument based on how Max framed it. Cheers.
And I apologise.
Maxliberty: GilesStratton: Maxliberty:Or is that contract void because the idea is not a good by your definition? Not an economic good. I can pay you for the right to breathe, doesn't mean you own the air... Just to be clear, you are saying that this contract would not be enforceable? Is that right?
Whether or not it would be enforcable is besides the point. But no, it shouldn't be to get back to the issue.
GilesStratton:And I apologise.
No worries.
If both parties agree to one party thinking only what the other party tells them to think, why can't they do that? There would still be the burden of proof on the one claiming that the other did not fulfill his role in the contract.
But that is not what I am suggesting in my blueprint example, instead I am talking about contracting the disallowance of taking action based upon knowledge that I will impart as a result of entering into this contract.
JackSkylark:But that is not what I am suggesting in my blueprint example, instead I am talking about contracting the disallowance of taking action based upon knowledge that I will impart as a result of entering into this contract.
ok, but you are shying away from saying wether its IP is a useful concept to have to answer such questions and indeed whether there is any sense to IP at all. because perhaps what you are now thinking about does not concern IP (as it couldnt)
JackSkylark:If both parties agree to one party thinking only what the other party tells them to think, why can't they do that? There would still be the burden of proof on the one claiming that the other did not fulfill his role in the contract.
Think of it this way. I can make a forward contract with you telling you that in a year I will purchase good X from you for $25, because that refers to tangible property. I can not, however, tell you that at the specified date you will value the good at that much...
Then we are arguing semantics, I would define IP protection as any measure to limit the supply of of a good subject to the temporal scarcity disconnect.
you would be wrong, bcause you would be using contradictory concepts.
GilesStratton: Think of it this way. I can make a forward contract with you telling you that in a year I will purchase good X from you for $25, because that refers to tangible property. I can not, however, tell you that at the specified date you will value the good at that much...
Yes, we can. If you agree to value a good at a certain amount at a certain time, then you must (to the best of your ability) try to meet that obligation. If you do not truly value that item at that price, then you sure as hell not show it, since the burden of proof rests on the one who would claim you did not fulfill your duties you agreed to in the contract.