Hahahaha.
yes. your claim is comic.
How can I do anything but laugh when you ask me if a deliberate act is deliberate?
Is A, A? A is A.
yes. i deliberately receive what was there to be received. and the crime is what? deliberately being awake to the universe?
Make that argument in front of a judge, he’ll die of laughter. Maybe your case will get annuled.
I’m not copying man! I’m deliberately aware to the universe! It’s true man!
Your evasion is not fooling anyone.
I suppose a Judge is likely to throw me in jail for my camera receiving images of policemen at work. as if that was a crime.
So i learnt today you have a lot in common with Judges who are State Functionaries, maybe not so much libertarian judges…
Strawman and irrelevant, the usual intellectual communist tactics as always.
They are the same. in both cases my camera deliberately receives what is there to be received.
so why do you think receiving one image is a crime, and receiving another image is not a crime? is it because your book is magic? i have the right to see light reflecting on your book, understand it, ruminate over it, but not use my own material to reproduce the image. and this obligation is on me why? because i deliberately saw what was there to be seen?
Maybe Stranger and I should time out her for a sec. I’d like to get some input from people on whether I am so wayyyyy off.
Did I strawman? was I irrelevant?
Appeal to public opinion, another obvious logical fallacy.
What do you think this is, amateur hour?
?
lol. you think that asking for input (Without declaring that the input would prove anything) constitutes a logical fallacy?
If you are reading your own writing, which you suppose to be your “intellectual property”, do you now suppose to “own” every ray of light which reflects off it? If not, I do not see why you suppose the harvest of those rays of light to be a crime.
Which is still monopoly.
How can you not grasp this simple set of phrases?
You have continually proposed monopoly. That is what IP is. The ability to not only exclude people from your property, but to gain privilege over the property of others. If I I have a notebook, you claim I may not write what I want to in it. You claim that I may only write that which I can gain permission to write, with my labour, on my land, in my notebook. That is the most damaging power in an industrial society, where industrialization and the creation/deployment of capital goods rests upon the ability to (1) control your own property and materials, and (2) to utilize patterns already designed, and to create minor improvements on the margins, so as to be competitive.
I have spent thousands of words and weeks of time, trying to explain to you that the reason you are on the wrong side of so many Austrians, is because you are inadvertently (?) arguing for the state and against the free market.
The refuge of rascals in this debate is to claim that IP is property. But even if that was true (which it demonstrably is not) at best you have a property conflict when someone wishes to replicate a pattern you claim to own exclusively, as though every pattern is not a derivation of another pattern, but that is another gaping hole in the IP sinking ship.
To say that copyright trumps physical control of property I have homesteaded from nature, means that you’re rejecting homesteading as the origin of property titles.
You go on some bizarre tangents, like claiming Michael Bloomberg the fascist is some sort of natural elite, but this IP stuff has me amazed, because you’re rejecting the market for the state, rejecting anarchism for Objectivism, and denying the very theory you use to define the property titles of physical goods. Maybe you are on the verge of launching some exciting new version of Objectivist-Hoppeanism, but all I see here is the outcome of a synthesis of a lot of bad ideas.
And it certainly doesn’t help you as you continue to shift your justification for copyright here and on the Mises blog, at times contradicting yourself, that you simply can’t be the big enough man to say, “Gee, I was wrong to call Jeff Tucker a communist and attack Kinsella’s motives, seems I wasn’t quite seeing the whole picture on IP.”
Legal positivism. Great. Tell me: why do you believe the jews should have gone quietly to the gas chambers? Why do you believe the blacks should have shut up and just sat at the back of the bus? You have to believe those too, in the face of your use of legal positivism.
Despite the fact that you hate me to such an extent as to spell it out over many paragraphs, you still do not have an argument against the legitimacy of intellectual property.
I don’t want to be on the right side of the Austrians. I want the Austrians to be on the right side.
Quote Rothbard: Hatred is my muse. Of course, he also recognized and defended the economic value of copyright.
excellent point
That’s not quoting Rothbard. For a man with so much “hate”, he sure seemed like a jovial bloke. Btw, don’t bother quoting “do you hate the state?”, go read “Why Be Libertarian?” instead.
If he was alive to have read Kinsella’s piece and advancement in IP, he would have applauded and approved with glee (posted video of this and similar comment on these forums somewhere). Quote life long friend Walter Block.
And… He wasn’t infallible - Quote Rothbard.
For the original poster.
Market monopolies are not monopolies at all but firms really good at meeting consumer demand. Most true monopolies require state assistance to sustain themselves. They need coercion to have a lasting monopoly. In a free market a lasting market monopoly would only exist by consistently being the most efficient most desired producer. Thats exactly what we want out of a market, efficient desirable producers.
Oh if only he were alive, then surely your utter brilliance would change his mind about the nature of intellectual economics, a subject he knew nothing about.
Is a myth/chimaera/fiction/statist bogeyman.