I’d say you’re definitely right on equivocation, but that isn’t an example of the fallacy of composition; it’s more like a non-sequitur combined with abusus non tollit usum (abuse does not exclude proper usage). In this case, it doesn’t follow that because some property has been used improperly, that therefore the institution of property is improper in and of itself.
Property: something owned or possessed. So I should be able to carry it around (have it in my possession).
You kind of shoe-horned in the should part.
To possess is to control - both the movable (rocks) and immovable (lines on a map) are controllable.
How do you think a farm could be picked up and moved, exactly?
What is a “real thing”, exactly? Hint: I’d say that apparently even atoms aren’t “real things”.
So then why not title the thread “Space is Intellectual Property”? Both the title and your OP suggest that you’re singling out land at least as a distinct type of space.
How is that irrelevant?
You mean they’re imaginary by your definition. None of us are obligated to go along with your definition.
Anyways, so you’d say that a fence isn’t a boundary, for example? Since it’s tangible?
Land is a scarce good, and is not “just a concept” and is also a “real thing.” I would recommend reading Hoppe. I know he has written a lot about the subject, but this is just an article I found quickly. Relevant to land use is where he talks about the Garden of Eden and standing room:
Not saying that this is what you advocate, but you might want to read up on the Ad Coelem Doctrine. That is the view that you can own a cone shape from the center of the Earth all the way to space. Most people (wrongly) believe that that is a correct view of property.
This article by Rothbard covers that:
If a farm is composed of matter, it can be moved.
A real thing is matter. Atoms are matter.
The title could easily be space is IP. We just don’t think of claiming space.
We aren’t talking about people or concepts per se. We are talking about ownership of the intangible.
A fence is a physical thing. It is only a boundary in your mind.
People are talking about equivocation but know one has said where this takes place.
My position is that ownership of space is IP because it is an intangible asset.
I also assert that a land claim is a spacial claim.
If there is equivocation here, I don’t know where it is.
I invent a car and sell it to someone. The idea of a car is intellectual property. The car itself is property. The question is whether one is should be allowed a monopoly on the idea or on the concrete manifestation of that idea. Land is not intellectual property, it is property. As your definition demonstrates, land is not intellectual property; rather, intellectual property is like land.:
While these rights are not actually property rights, the term “Property” is used because they resemble property rights in many ways.
Land/Water/Space is not intangible, it is tangible, and it is scarce.
You are equivocating “space” with “land.” Land is the material on the surface of the Earth. Tangible.
This is misleading of me. I was referring to Epicurus’s position that property is somehow bogus. The concept that property is righteous or evil, bogus or not bogus, is non-sensical as far as economics is concerned. It is akin to weighing the moral value of a stone. Property just is. The fallacy that epicurus commits is as follows. If he is capable in mental excercise, to construct a situation where property could appear to be exploitive, then property as whole must be evil. He, among many others Austrians included, confuse the moral advocacy of property, with the economic advocacy of property.
Fallacy of composition still might not be the best explanation of what he is doing, but ultimately I am pointing out his un-reasonable position when he says, “All property is bogus”. It is akin to stating that all “Scarcity is bogus” or all “Rocks are bogus”.
The concept of intangibility does not rest alone on the trait of mobility. Furthermore calling land intillectual property is entirely immaterial to the praxeological problems at hand. Some objects are super-abundant, others are not and require economization.
Unless you can show how land and natural resources are now superabundant then this whole thread is a complete waste of time. It’s also a massive derail from the actual IP debate, as it’s dragging people down a number of red-herrings, and mis-understandings about the nature of property itself.
What is your definition of super-abundant? Books and songs aren’t infinitely abundant. So apparently finite things can be super-abundant too.
Land, in terms of soil and rock, is absolutely tangible. No argument here.
Space is intangible. I don’t think that is debatable.
Saying that a claim to land is a spacial claim is not equivocation. That it a valid argument. Equivocation is the misleading use of a word with more than one meaning.
Land use can still be economized without viewing it as property. All you would have to do is contract with people to vacate an area you want to use, then you use it. But unused land would be free to use.
The objection to IP is that my use of an idea doesn’t hurt the owner of the idea. This is also true of land since using unused land doesn’t hurt anyone. You won’t be able to use occupied land because it will already have property on it and is protected by a separate concept. A property right to land is just redundant unless you think raw land can be owned. Since homesteading is the only accepted way to gain ownership of land, raw land can’t be owned because it has never been worked.
I think a land claim is an intangible spacial claim. If you think a land claim is a claim to matter and not space, we are at an impasse. Please don’t confuse opposition with ignorance. One can disagree while understanding the opposing position.
Books /= the ideas which lead to printing of books. You are deeply confused. However, this is a silly thread and I will cease to feed trolls.
I didn’t mean physical books… I am obviously talking about the idea. I have been talking about ideas this whole thread. The idea in a book is not infinitely abundant. It only exists on a finite number of pages and in a finite number of minds.
Books and songs are most definately super-abundant. I don’t need a property right to sing Michael Jackson songs to myself. On the other hand I can’t sing to myself land.
You might be able to argue that the production of books and songs are scarce, but once produced there is no limiting factor of each object. What makes it super-abundant is our ability to cheaply replicate the pattern at a near infinite amount. It is theoretically possible for each person on planet earth to have the same Michael Jackson CD. Each listening to it’s music, and no one infringing on any one else’s phsycical property.
It is, on the other hand, not possible for everyone to have the exact same vein segment of ore in a mine.
The economy can be an economy without property. All you have to do is just let it function exactly as it did before with property, but remove property from the dictionary and call it something else.
Oh wait, I see what you did here. Nothing.
Unused land is free, go homestead it. There are literally thousands of square miles of unclaimed land on earth. Some of it very rich in resource. Go claim some. I should know, I lived in area’s where sitting was still prevelent. Some of the most lush places on earth are unclaimed.
Yes it is.
Which is why I said that this has nothing to do with land. And further proof that this whole thread is entirely disjointed about a number of various topics.
Except when two parties want to hold the same parcel of land, at the same exact time. A problem that doesn’t occur with IP as it is immediately replicable. Whereas, land cannot simply be replicated instantaneously, on demand, to any neighbor. We cannot instantaneously replicate a vein segment to your mine.
The very problem with IP, and the whole reason that it has its own defination beyond just simply “property” is because of the very fact that it is immediately replicable on demand. Whereas property is not. Thas is the problem that the powers-that be seek to address by fabricating IP into existence, where realy no property exists at all. Otherwise it wouldn’t need to be called IP, it could just be called property. But it’s not property, so it’s not called property. 
Honestly my friend, have you not given this any thought at all?
dude, you may find this thread (Information as Property) helpful. There I attempted to establish an analogy between property (with ownership allocation and boundary demarcation of such) in the (1) physical (spatial) universe and (2) information universe.
Z.
Okay, so who says land isn’t composed of matter?
But atoms per se don’t exist except within our minds. “Atom” is a concept.
Are you sure? Why not?
But… concepts are intangible?
Let me ask you this: can something intangible be scarce? That is, can something intangible nevertheless be used by only one person at a time?
It’s also only a fence in my mind. External reality has no concept of “fence”.
you have more serious problems than I thought. You don’t even udnerstand IP. I think it’s time for me too to leave this thread.
The guy is obviously trolling.
If you think I am trolling, just leave the tread. You don’t have to be here. I don’t want to talk to people who don’t want to talk to me.
That was my point. You can’t sing a song or read a book if it only exists in a distant place. You must hear a song before you can sing it.
Songs just aren’t super-abundant; that is why I have to download them or buy a CD. The terminology doesn’t seem apt to me. I asked for your definition of super-abundant, but none has been offered. Maybe you want to make them super-abundant, but they aren’t that today.
No that isn’t possible, but that mine is something that a person built. It is one thing to build a mine and say it is yours. It is another to build a mine and say the mountain is yours. That is my problem with the popular homesteading view. Building a thing in one place gives you claim to earth nearby. And the amount of earth you can claim (the “technological unit”) is decided by some court somewhere.
Why can’t we just build things where nothing has been built before and call it a day? If some property already sits on earth, contract with the owner to free the earth so that a new thing can be built. That is a totally legitimate two party contract. It doesn’t require some ambiguous homesteading process that requires arbitration to define it on a case by case basis.
There is a difference between treating land as property and contracting with people to vacate it. Treating land as property allows it to be kept totally out of use and at the exclusion of people who would use it. Contracting with people to move means that land will always be in use or free to use.
I can’t build on unoccupied land today. It is owned. AFAIK, there is no unclaimed land in the US.
Autolykos, a lot (a land claim) has matter in it, but it a spacial construct.
Atoms do exist in absentia of our minds.
Yes, intangible things can be scarce. I am not saying that land isn’t scarce.
A fence is a thing that a person made. That makes it property. Its function exists only in the mind.
Does no one think claiming a lot is a claim of space? If not, there is no point going around and around here.
Thanks for the link, Z.