The difference between the Rolex example and the publisher using a story example is that -
In the rolex example the guy gives money for the watch, so when it turns out to be a fraud he is the victim of theft.
But when the contract doesnt involve exchange of physical goods, then breaking the contract doesnt mean aggression against property.
I think we’re going in circles here. We can’t have a property rights violation without property, and IP is not property.
IP is the state license to control what other people do with their property (prohibition against copying for example).
Yes and thats the point! The publisher promising not to use the writers book without further agreement is not an enforcable contract because no aggression has taken place if he breaks the contract.
Seriously, my brain hurts. You are going to drive me to drink coffee. [;)]
I’m not sure I agree with that. You don’t need aggression to constitute a contract. We were debating if you could have aggression without property.
I am quite sure you can contract action. Or are you saying I can’t contract a firm to clean my house? Or to guard my property?
COntracting action works when breaking the contract means theft, ie service company turning out to be the thief 'coz he took the money of the buyer of the service without the buyers consent(where consent is defined by the contract).
But if either side walks away from the contract before exchange of physical goods(like money or service) is made, then breaking the contract is not an act of aggression, but a victimless crime, no aggression means no victim.
And how is this different from contracting against sharing an idea? Answer: It isn’t.
That would again depend upon the terms of the agreement. Failure to comply (inappropriate action) can also have contracted costs.
BTW, there is no such thing as a victimless crime.
Please don’t appeal to Rothbard. You haven’t made a solid point yet. We’ve just been playing semantic games.
I know. That is my argument! But you are saying I can’t contract someone not to take it and that is false. I can contract action.
I think you totally misunderstand my position on this topic. No one is claiming that there is aggression. No one is claiming that the contract breaker should be punished in a criminal sense. The contract outlines the consequences of agreeing to an action and not fulfilling the contract. It has nothing whatsoever to do with aggression, nor have I claimed that it did.
Again, you’re talking past me on some tangent. I can contract someone to guard my home for money, and we can write in the contract, the consequences of non-performance. I can contract someone to be my spouse, with a clear consequence of breaking that contract, being the handling of property after the relationship has ended. I can contract someone to teach me tae kwon do, and if they don’t provide the lesson, they must make good based on the consequences they agreed to in the contract.
And likewise, I can contract with someone to protect my IP, or my person, or my secret, and if they fail, there is a consequence. When they agree to the contract, they agree that the action and the consequence are reasonable and binding. Yes, I understand the point that people can pay their way out of a contract when breaking it. Well, people can also pay their way out of property violations. The consequence of stealing your shoes isn’t death or imprisonment in any rational society. And contracts allow us to agree in advance upon interaction by explaining the expectations, boundaries, terms and consequences of said interaction.
If I have still not understood you, you should start providing examples of valid and invalid contracts per your reasoning.
A non sequitur that has absolutely nothing to do with my statement; in fact, I don’t even think that I spoke about the state, and property rights.
you can plausably maintain that a libertarian society will not arise.
but to assume a libertarian society, and then say that it would be possible for that society to be rampant with widespread property abuses, is to contradict ones premise. i.e. where are the libertarians?
You are essentially defining a “libertarian society” by its results not by its construction, but it is fully possible that a society organized completely by libertarian policies, which is what I would contend is truly a “libertarian society”, is an environment of rampant property abuses. The premises of a “libertarian society” is the libertarian policies that construct, rather than the results of its organization. If we follow the latter definition then the USSR was not truly a socialist society because it failed to yield socialist results.
ok, i kinda see your angle.
USSR did not achieve what a sociliast would regard as socialist results, (even though we see that they are socialist results !) despite socialist policies enacted, and despite socialist actions performed.
but what libertarian policies and actions will not lead to libertarian results? where will the initiations of aggressions come from if they are not policiy, and if they are avoided in action, i.e. so where will the spectacular fail come from?
in other words. socialists can act socialist all they want, yet they wont calculate, their society will break down, their policy of a bureocrat class to make the rules will undermine any pretention at political egalitarianism, and ultimately of the economic egalitarianism. plus there will be misery and suffering. but this will all stem from the premise of a large body of individuals acting socialistically.
whats the equivalent nightmare scenario for libertarians acting libertarianly?
Just another argument from ignorance.
We do not have apodictic certainty that a libertarian society will result in libertarian results; I’m not even arguing that it will be so, but I am asserting that we lack apodictic certainty - we all must admit that there is a slight possibility that we are wrong.
Good question, but we need not have knowledge of what would be a libertarian nightmare scenario for there to be one.
ok then, so it was pedantism and not a substantive argument
It is an argument against claiming any view of how society will exactly function apodictically. The type of society is irrelevant.
i agree with what you are saying about apodictic truth. it may have been a red herring in this context though, since i have not witnessed anyone claiming such things apodictically, they have been claiming it is a true by the relative strength of argument for it, as considered over the merits of the arguments which seek to demonstrate its falsity, or its indeterminancy.
you know. beyond a reasonable doubt. not beyond a philosophic doubt…
do you understand this perspective?
//Nir Graham seeking common ground.\
[Y] I don’t know the timeline, but I’m inclined to agree with you here.
You’re the old man by the way. I’m way younger than you - by one year I think.[:P]
I would love to have a peek at it, even if that means shaking my wooden cane as I see a bigger emergence when I’m 110 yrs.old.[sn]
lamin. it’s a simple contingent proposition. A libertarian society will not happen or a libertarian society will happen. They both are true. Now the more precise questioning is “possibility”. And when the facts are looked at, then the facts incline that it will happen more than it will not happen. This is based on truth, but I know you go down the rabbit hole that truth can’t be measured true and all that illogic jazz so I’ll let you string out your embarrassing enterprise