Well no, but didn’t someone give me those ideas? It’s a little more ambiguous, but isn’t typing on the internet using ideas that I’ve created myself and ideas that people have given to me?
Btw, do you have permission to use the Dodgers logo as your avatar?
Who decides what you should and should not be allowed to do?
You tell me. Did they give you the ideas? Did you copy what you saw someone else doing? Did the person who “gave you” the ideas have title to give the ideas, or were they a thief?
I’m talking about the knowledge of typing. Which characters you strike in which order. Whose idea was language? Who owns it? How did you gain use of it? Are you a thief?
Ideas are not property friend.
I don’t think this is correct to say. But you might have to clarify what you mean. Are you stating that ideas are not economic goods because they are not physical objects, or some such combination of terms you used. Or are you making multiple statements, each independent of the other?
Anyways, will interpret them as if they are independent.
-
Ideas are not physical objects. In this you are correct.
-
They are economic goods, reference Mises and Rothbard - they must be economized in their creation and for calculation - but they are not economized in their use.
-
I would argue that ideas can be owned - as all things must be owned in order to justify use and jurisdiction. But the idea is owned on the individual level, in the same manner that there may be an infinite physical good that does not need to be economized, but I can claim ownership over a single portion of that infinite good. I have created a heterogeneous distinction (a non-infinite good) from a homogenous stock (in this case, some infinite good).
If you can. You won’t have any legal recourse if someone learns it though, whether it be independant or through other means. If you write down the idea and he steals the paper and profits, you have recourse for trespass and theft of property (the paper) but that is all.
Ideas are not scarce goods, therefore property rights are not only unnecessary but would be unethical. How do you defend original appropriation when there is no appropriation taking place? It’s not an issue.
But there is appropriation taking place, people claim ownership of information and ideas all the time. By this, I do not mean the ownership of the general idea (as in exclusive right), but of the specific manifestation as known to the individual.
In general most ideas are, in fact, scarse. It is for this reason that we have teachers and inventors - prior to full knowledge the idea can be demanded but not infinite in supply.
Secondly, property rights are required for justification of action - if I did not posess property rights over the intangable idea I would not be justified in using it.
You can own the right to use an idea, but this does not imply that you have the right to exclude others from using the idea, because they do not prevent you from using the idea. With physical property, the right to use it requires also the right to exclude others from using it, because other people using the property prevents you from using it. This is what we mean when we say that ideas are “not scarce.”
I don’t see scarcity of the idea “cool”. I don’t see a scarcity of ideas that already exist.
Simple: the physical territory over which the claims are being made and defended is the important difference.
You can defend a physical property claim without coercing anybody. You simply put up a sign that says: “This is mine. Trespassers will be shot.” You can also hire a security company to handle your defense. Ultimately, you bear the costs of your defense.
However, in our current state of affairs, intellectual “property” claims include coercion over people whilest on their own property. You also pay taxes to fund a bloated legal system that arbitrates esoteric disputes between intellectual “property” claimants. If all of those claimants had to pay a truly free market cost of their arbitration, it is highly unlikely that anybody would bother. The disputes are really that ridiculous sometimes and expensive.
So, basically, you should think of it this way: Without a tax-payer subsidized legal system, how can an intellectual “property” claimant defend his claim outside of his own territory???
The person who owns the land upon which you are standing.
See, you can have intellectual “property” law and still be consistent with the non-aggression principle. You just can only have it respected on your own land and by the people who visit/rent your property. Outside of that, you will have to negotiate.
Because:
-
There’s no such thing as intellectual property.
-
Property must be tangible.
-
You an own X and Y and make Z from them, but you can’t own the process–there’s no substance to it.
But not with objective reality.
You can’t contract thoughts, only actions. This is one of those cases where we don’t need to go to the NAP.
I am speaking on a much more fundamental principal than general idea exclusion. But, you are right in what you have said. But, specifically, I can exclude others from the individual idea that I have ownership of. This could be thought of a jurisdiction of the individual mind. But if someone has the same idea, they are in complete ownership of their individual concepts.
Where this leads to, after the metaphysical aspect of property in intangables, is the justification for jurisdiction outside of the individual. Property in general. It is here that Rothbard’s concept of the “inventors copyright” comes fully in to play. If you will remember, in MES he advocates a copyright by contract. It is through this that there can be jurisdiction for exclusion outside of self.
It must be noted that I define property as jurisdiction related to action.
You are kidding, right?
You may not realize this but we act upon reality based on our perception. As objective as reality may be, we are acting upon it subjectively in practice. So, in a practical sense, objective reality does not exist. Everything is subjective – even physical property law.
You can make a contract for anything you want. 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.
I dont necessarily agree with Rothbard about everything. anyhow, im pretty sure he would hold consistently with his ‘property title transfer’ theory of contract.
so for example, if rothbard copyrights MES and sells it to me as a book under the proviso that I not reproduce it, and i pay him 10$ and so he gives me the book. If I reproduce the book, and sell 1000 copies at 1$ each making 1000$, I would owe rothbard not money, but the book he had sold me, so I would hand it over. I would then spend my time reading my own copy of MES
Rothbard states the exact opposite in MES.
its a big book what page should i turn to
Internet is seriuz bizness
Just because we claim to be eating an orange, doesn’t change the fact it is an apple.
It’s not possible to enforce. Unless you think you can prove intent without action.
Again, sure you can, but you can’t prove what is or is not a violation. If someone watches you make a sandwich, is that an intellectual property violation? 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.”