nirgrahamUK:I dont necessarily agree with Rothbard about everything.
I wish more people would reason things out for themselves instead of always going to Rothbard as an authority. Rothbard was not perfect.
i heard he was anti-zemitix
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
tonyfernandez:It seemed to me like they were saying that any company should be able to use the though (like the tracks) without having to pay for it.
It seems to me like what you are saying is that if a company builds a set of tracks between two locations that no other company can build a competing a line because the original company owns the idea of building tracks between those locations.
You brought up Intellectual property but you've refused to actually talk about it.
Peace
liberty student: Charles Anthony:You can make a contract for anything you want. It's not possible to enforce. Unless you think you can prove intent without action.
Charles Anthony:You can make a contract for anything you want.
It's not possible to enforce. Unless you think you can prove intent without action.
Also, you are making a very severe error. Namely, you are demanding that proving intent is a necessary condition in libertarian law. It is not. Furthermore, you are making a conceptual error too. Namely, that proving intent is even possible.
liberty student: Charles Anthony:As long as nobody is forced to step on your land, you can prohibit violations of "intellectual" property without violating the non-aggression principle. All you have to do is post a sign that says: "Violators of such and such laws are prohibited entry." Just replace "such and such" with copyright nonsense and you have perfectly libertarian intellectual "property" law. Again, sure you can, but you can't prove what is or is not a violation.
Charles Anthony:As long as nobody is forced to step on your land, you can prohibit violations of "intellectual" property without violating the non-aggression principle. All you have to do is post a sign that says: "Violators of such and such laws are prohibited entry." Just replace "such and such" with copyright nonsense and you have perfectly libertarian intellectual "property" law.
Again, sure you can, but you can't prove what is or is not a violation.
liberty student: If someone watches you make a sandwich, is that an intellectual property violation?
liberty student: Can you prove their eyes saw it? Can you prove that their brain accumulated it? Understood it? It's nonsense. Might as well put up a sign that said, "Happiness not allowed."
It's nonsense. Might as well put up a sign that said, "Happiness not allowed."
I am saying that every single person PRIOR TO ENTERING the land agrees to the terms. The terms just happen to include a prohibition against anybody who violates intellectual "property" or copyright laws or some other nonsense. This is no different from a person entering into a contract and agreeing to the terms of a private defense or security agency. "Can you prove their eyes saw it?" is an irrelevent question because the terms of the agreement will stipulate how or who will arbitrate disputes.
Forgive me, LS, for being presumptuous but I am looking at your far-fetched apples and oranges example -- I think you are expecting the practice of law to be more objective than it can ever be. At its very finest, all law is arbitrary and subjective in practice. Even determining property lines is ultimately subjective.
Charles Anthony: liberty student: Charles Anthony:You can make a contract for anything you want. It's not possible to enforce. Unless you think you can prove intent without action. Wrong. You can enforce your law on your land simply by expelling somebody. You do not have to provide any reason after you tell the person to leave.
That's fine, but it's not proof of a violation of contract.
Charles Anthony:Also, you are making a very severe error. Namely, you are demanding that proving intent is a necessary condition in libertarian law. It is not. Furthermore, you are making a conceptual error too. Namely, that proving intent is even possible.
On the contrary, you are making the conceptual error. I don't think you can prove intent for theft of intellectual property by someone on your property. In fact, I'm not even sure you could prove it by action.
Charles Anthony:It could be if you define it that way. So long as the sign says: "No watching me make a sandwich allowed." before anybody enters, all is contractual. There could also be fine print at the bottom that says: "Our lawyers call such an act an Intellectual Property violation." It really does not matter.
You're being pedantic.
Charles Anthony: liberty student: Can you prove their eyes saw it? Can you prove that their brain accumulated it? Understood it? It's nonsense. Might as well put up a sign that said, "Happiness not allowed." You are changing the goal posts. I understand fully that we are dealing with metaphysics. You seem to fail to understand that all judgements are subjective anyway.
I am not changing the goalposts. First you speak of contract, then you change the goalposts to say a property owner can expel anyone at anytime. But this doesn't address any nonsense IP definition you claimed could be contracted.
Yes, you can contract anything. But that doesn't mean that whatever is put into a contract is enforceable or rational. Contracts do not shape reality.
I didn't read the rest of your response. What a waste of our time.
liberty student:That's fine, but it's not proof of a violation of contract.
Here is what I think:
If you create an idea, you are free to transfer it to anyone you want or keep it to yourself, just like any physical property. You are also free to transfer it with conditions under a contract. Are not: "I'll tell you something cool if you give me a dollar," "I'll tell you something cool if you don't tell people what you just saw me doing," and "I'll tell you something cool if you don't tell it to anyone else" all valid contracts? The same would go for printed materials. As long as the condition is explicitly stated, there should be no problem with intellectual property rights.
I think the inventor has the final word on how long it should last. If they say, "I will sell you this book provided you do not reprint it until 2030" and the person buys it, the consumer has agreed to the contract. If they state "I will sell you this book provided you never reprint it" to everyone who buys it, the book will become extinct if the publisher (who we assume has a sole contract for printing) went out of business or stopped printing it, which is a HUGE determent for infinite copyrights, and something no serious author with something important to say would agree upon.
That's my two cents. Comments welcome.
Mingy Jongo:If you create an idea, you are free to transfer it to anyone you want or keep it to yourself, just like any physical property. You are also free to transfer it with conditions under a contract. Are not: "I'll tell you something cool if you give me a dollar," "I'll tell you something cool if you don't tell people what you just saw me doing," and "I'll tell you something cool if you don't tell it to anyone else" all valid contracts? The same would go for printed materials. As long as the condition is explicitly stated, there should be no problem with intellectual property rights.
What if someone else creates the same idea?
Mingy Jongo:I think the inventor has the final word on how long it should last. If they say, "I will sell you this book provided you do not reprint it until 2030" and the person buys it, the consumer has agreed to the contract. If they state "I will sell you this book provided you never reprint it" to everyone who buys it, the book will become extinct if the publisher (who we assume has a sole contract for printing) went out of business or stopped printing it, which is a HUGE determent for infinite copyrights, and something no serious author with something important to say would agree upon
Ideas are not property. They have no scarcity. The entire notion of intellectual property is a government legal fiction. In the natural world we all learn by observation of the manifestations of other people's ideas. Great writers could not write without language, their books could not be published without the knowledge to market and to produce. They could not be taken to market without the idea of the wheel, of internal combustion, of electricity.
I'd advise checking out Stephan Kinsella's media files on the main Mises site.
If someone came up with the same idea, then I would say they can do whatever they want with it. If one said "do not copy" and the other said "go ahead and spread it around," that's too bad for the first person. Imagine if two people make two pizzas with the same exact ingredients and one person says they will only sell it to you if you don't share and the other says go ahead and share it. It is the same thing. As long as there was no violation of contracts, and therefore no coercion, in getting the idea everything is hunky dory.
I flatly disagree with the second statement. Ideas may not be property, but they can be used as a service. Movie companies pay people to create ideas for films, and that takes time and effort. In an anarchist society, why would that change?
EDIT: Added pizza example.
EDIT 2: Added property/service clairifacation.
Also, my examples are valid no matter if ideas are property or not. Can you explain how "I'll tell you a story if you run to that tree and back" and "I'll give you a great idea if you don't tell anyone about it" are different?
liberty student: I didn't read the rest of your response. What a waste of our time.
OooOOooo Moderator fight!
So, Charles, all law is subjective? There is "practically speaking" no objective reality? Libertarian dispute resolution requires no proof?
Mingy Jongo:If one said "do not copy" and the other said "go ahead and spread it around," that's too bad for the first person.
Right, because ideas are not scarce.
Mingy Jongo:I flatly disagree with the second statement. Ideas may not be property, but they can be used as a service.
So you don't disagree. You're just trying to create an exception.
Mingy Jongo:Movie companies pay people to create ideas for films, and that takes time and effort.
Walking up a hill takes time and effort, does that mean I own walking up a hill?
Mingy Jongo:In an anarchist society, why would that change?
Up thread I mentioned I really don't want to re-hash the last 4 or 5 threads on IP for everyone who comes to these discussions. I would suggest you read what has been discussed before, rather than expecting me to repost what I have already written. I'm not trying to be short, but my time is finite.
There is a wealth of information here on IP. Sink your teeth into it. You could spend a couple weeks just studying the IP position.
I agree that you can not own ideas. I'm just wondering why that means it is OK to break perfectly valid contracts that involve transmission of them. You can not own actions, either, but agreeing to pay someone to do a goofy dance and then not paying after they do so is a broken contract that the dancer can validly demand restitution from.
From Against Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella:
As should be apparent, copyright and patent seek to prevent the owners of tangible property—scarce resources— from using their own property as they see fit. For example, they are prohibited, under patent law, from practicing patented methods, using their own property, or from shaping their own property into patented devices, even if they independently invent the method or device. (55)
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Mingy Jongo: I agree that you can not own ideas. I'm just wondering why that means it is OK to break perfectly valid contracts that involve transmission of them. You can not own actions, either, but agreeing to pay someone to do a goofy dance and then not paying after they do so is a broken contract that the dancer can validly demand restitution from.
What does any of that have to do with IP as defined and practiced in the USA?
Daniel: Mingy Jongo: I agree that you can not own ideas. I'm just wondering why that means it is OK to break perfectly valid contracts that involve transmission of them. You can not own actions, either, but agreeing to pay someone to do a goofy dance and then not paying after they do so is a broken contract that the dancer can validly demand restitution from. What does any of that have to do with IP as defined and practiced in the USA?
I think I just got confused between ideas as legal property (invalid) and ideas as services (valid).
The libertarian arbitration of disputes does not require any proof.
How so? It certainly does if the process is to be deemed respectable.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: The libertarian arbitration of disputes does not require any proof. How so? It certainly does if the process is to be deemed respectable.
What does respect have to do with any of this? Keynes received a lot respect while he was alive (and even now) yet he was wrong as hell.
Wow, a new shocker from this site. Firms are only as good as their reputations - so what makes you think reputation (and consequently respectability) is not relevant here? A firm that does not even bother in dealing with proof in arbitration is no better than my neighbour trying to play judge in disputes between us, and will not be taken seriously. I'm not sure what Charles Anthony means, hence I asked for clarification, because proof matters insofar as a firm's reputation as a respectable arbiter does - meaning, a lot.
How is it relevant to "libertarian arbitration of disputes"? Keynes receives a lot of respect from tens of thousands of mainstream economists, but does that mean he is correct or that we should use his remedies to cure our economy?
whats so hard to understand? under the circumstance that you and I agree that if we get into dispute we would take our problem to judge J..., are we both likely to agree to go to to J1 for whom there is greater evidence of competence or or J2 for which there is not? (or evidence that j2 is positively a bad judge)
Daniel: How is it relevant to "libertarian arbitration of disputes"? Keynes receives a lot of respect from tens of thousands of mainstream economists, but does that mean he is correct or that we should use his remedies to cure our economy?
That's not what Irenicus was talking about. Your example is completely irrelevant.
Well, no objective proof is required because none can be provided
All judgements are necessarily subjective, and so their only "objective" value is in the fact that either the judge or the judgement is accepted by both the accuser and accused.
But Irenicus is correct - those courts which will be most frequently used will be those which are most meticulous and most often correct/fair.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Oh. Ooooooh. I see.
Thedesolateone:Well, no objective proof is required because none can be provided All judgements are necessarily subjective, and so their only "objective" value is in the fact that either the judge or the judgement is accepted by both the accuser and accused.
Jon Irenicus: Charles Anthony:The libertarian arbitration of disputes does not require any proof. How so? It certainly does if the process is to be deemed respectable.
Charles Anthony:The libertarian arbitration of disputes does not require any proof.
Once every party in the dispute agrees on an arbitrator, it really does not matter how the arbitrator arrived at his decision. That and the fact that there is no such thing as real proof. There can only be convincing arguments and substantiation but never any real objective proof.
Stephanie Bond:So, Charles, all law is subjective? There is "practically speaking" no objective reality? Libertarian dispute resolution requires no proof?
That is not to say that we can not treat things or principles as objective truths.
Jon Irenicus: A firm that does not even bother in dealing with proof in arbitration is no better than my neighbour trying to play judge in disputes between us, and will not be taken seriously. I'm not sure what Charles Anthony means, hence I asked for clarification, because proof matters insofar as a firm's reputation as a respectable arbiter does - meaning, a lot.
Even if God came down and provided The Proof(tm), whether you realize it or not you would still be stuck with the physical reality that every sentient being faces: your own perception. So, objective reality can certainly exist however, you, as an individual, will always appreciate it through your own senses. Your senses are subjective. Thus, in a practical sense, reality is always and everywhere subjective -- unless of course you are God.