Land claims are an example of intellectual property.
Land ownership is intangible. It is defined by lines on a map. Owning land is different from owning dirt. I can move a pile of dirt to a new place and it is still mine. But you can’t move a land claim to a new place. It exists only in the mind. It is purely IP.
Dead wrong. Land is a right to scarce material goods, in this case customarily defined boundries of rock, dirt and plants that happen to be on the surface of the Earth. :Land is no more special or strange than a chunk of tin mined out of the ground or a tshirt; the fact that it happens to be shaped into a curved shell around the planet Earth changes nothing and it is the sheerest absurdity to pretend any different therein pertains.
The fact that wind and rain shift the specific composition is irrelevant, since this happens on chunks of ground you already own you have a presumption of right over any new materials that stray over it.
Maybe some Georgist cranks and government schmucks are dumb enough to think that land is some floating geometrical shape, but that has nothing to do with propertarian theory.
Guess what? All property is intellectual.
Yeah, by that definition all property is intellectual, Autalykos is right 
But since land is physical, it has boundaries (even though, they should be agreed upon by two parties), while IP has no boundaries AT ALL (no pro-IP person has even defined them, no one has accepted the challenge on Kinsella’s blog), so it is safe to assume, that IP is simply bunk. It can only survive (partly) with contracts.
If land is no different than a piece of metal or a t-shirt, then I should be able to carry it from one place to another. All property is movable; a terrritorial claim to land is not. It is purely a concept.
You make my point. You say that land is a right. A right is an intagable idea. It exists only in the mind.
No it isn’t. The definition clearly applies only to intagable assests.
Property is not a right, it is a function of liberties; property bounds are created by right when two people agree to arbitration or resolve a dispute amongst themselves by some norm.
Rights are contract, nothing but contract; liberty and property are a function of the logic of law; you can break the law if you please but it is not some floating abstraction. It develops from the very meaning of society; if you want to go be an animal go ahead but don’t expect me to cry if you are shot like an animal.
Why can’t you?
Where the hell did you get that definition?
As the above user pointed out, why can’t you?
Is a farm movable or immovable, in your view?
All property is purely a concept. Prove me wrong.
Hence all property exists only in the mind.
How is land not tangible? Just because you can’t move something doesn’t mean you can’t touch it.
A better point is that most land is set up wherein two people can occupy it at the same time, meaning it’s a non-competitive good. By this I mean a territorial claim; say 40 acres. Two people can occupy 40 acres at the same time, even work it in two different manners (one farms, one runs a windmill [or even a windmill farm]. The thing your not getting about his argument is he is talking about territorial claims, not the land in itself (hence he said "I can pick up the dirt and move it, but not the claim to that spot of land).
Also if you’re saying ALL property is intellectual:
All property is intellectual
Intellectual property is bogus
All property is bogus.
A farm is moveable. It is tangable.
Property is a concept. But the things we regard as property are not.
Land is space. Within that space there are tangible things. Like dirt or rocks. The space is purely a concept. Additionally, the boundaries are purely conceptual. You can’t go to a store and buy a box of boundaries.
Property: something owned or possessed. So I should be able to carry it around (have it in my possession).
You can move dirt or rocks. But you can’t move imaginary boundaries, except in your mind.
The whole arguement against intellectual property is that reproducing it takes nothing from the owner. Not that it merely exists as a concept. It’s that the concept is infinitely repeatable at zero cost to the original “owner”.
However, boundaries in space do not represent infinitely reproduceable or abundant goods. They represents a limited, bounded area.
Better not get out of bed in the morning then! Cause I’m takin’ it after you leave! Are you making the “personal property is ok, buy PRIVATE property is evil” arguement?
“Property: something owned or possessed” So…uh…why can’t I own land again?
Occupying otherwise unoccupied space takes nothing from the ‘owner’ either.
I am saying you should be able to move property. Not that you lose claim to it when you walk away. I am not making an argument against private property. I am arguing that space isn’t property.
I also believe that unimproved earth is not property. Of course the homesteading principle already agrees with this.
This, essentially. The OP’s epiphany has discovered nothing, and proves nothing. Furthermore, the IP debate, proper, is referring to an instance of super-abundance. Land is not superabundant.
And still yet! Land can be moved, reshaped, ect… Contrary to the OP, land is tangible. So unfortunately this whole thread is a joke, and quite frankly I am shocked that so many of you have been tricked into it’s reasoning. Autolykos said it best.
Really? I can just pick up a farm and carry it somewhere else?
Really? “T-shirt”, “dirt”, “box”, “rock”, etc. aren’t concepts?
Not all space is land, though. How do you differentiate land-space from non-land-space?
Strictly speaking, even people are concepts. All of the atoms that are in your body now came from somewhere else years ago (if not sooner). There is no real “you”, “me”, or “anyone else”.
What if the boundaries aren’t imaginary?
Strictly speaking, this contains an equivocation, namely over the meaning of “intellectual property”.
Strictly speaking, this contains an equivocation, namely over the meaning of “intellectual property”.
I kno Just throwin a funny out there.
Meanwhile, when tasked with the responsibility of providing an example of a world where property didn’t exist, all they do is regurgitate the same definition of property while using a different name.
Equivocation is definately the name of the game here. Because an instance of abuse that involved property is cited, all instances of property are now somehow evil(Fallacy of Compisition). Individual occupation of scarce resources over time can never be eliminated, and because of that some variant of property will inevitably emerge regardless, you simply cannot escape the consequences that praxeology presents you. The equivilent is citing automobile’s as being evil, since they are associated with so many deaths. We should abolish the automobile and our world would be infiinetely better.
How long does one man trick himself with this line of reasoning, before actually critically analyzing the holes he continues to ignore?
EDIT:
One should take care not to confuse the moral advocacy of “property” from the economic advocacy. Equivocating the two, especially on a Mises forum, just makes you look economically ignorant.
Humans must occupy scarce resources over time in an attempt to achieve some sort of satisfaction. Praxeology 101. Single occupancy of scarce resources will not go away simply by pretending that the single occupancy isn’t occuring, or doesn’t exist. It’s just an example of living in denial of realty. The trick accomplished by employing different words which make it sound like the single occupancy isn’t occuring.
It’s incredibly mind blowing and I am utterly flabbergasted as to how someone could try and refute that.
Yes. Why can’t you?
Not just concepts no. They are also real things.
Irrelevant. There is no need to make that distinction. The important distinction is between space and matter.
Irrelevant.
Boundaries are imaginary by definition.
I’m sorry, when did this happen? And why is ‘a world where property doesn’t exist’ even relevant to the topic?
You are conflating matter and space. You can’t move a lot. A lot is a spacial concept. Your claim is to a static place. Within that space there is matter. If you move the matter, you still have a lot. If I build a building that overhangs your lot, you will probably see that as a violation of your property.