And here is why you consistently contradict yourself and the debate continues. You say you agree with Giles and then say nope you can’t have a contract like that by creating some completely absurd unrelated scenario. Are you equating buying the sky with selling a song or blueprints to a building?
Keep running and hiding gutless.
well, im glad it didnt. forgive me for believing Max had overstated his case. in that regard he is unimpeachable. of course, his beliefe that there exists IntellectualProperty is absurd. i wonder why he even offered the example if it shed no light on whether he is right or wrong to claim that IP makes sense. IT seems he wasted my time with it.
Correct, because refuting it was far more difficult.
No, that’s a strawman, I don’t have to own any words, or collection of words to make a contract saying that if you buy my goods you can show them to others. Only the good in question. Unless, you believe that I have to own the sky to make a bet that if it is sunny tomorrow you owe me 5 Euro.
You’re not arguing with MaxLiberty now, so I don’t care.
The fact of the matter is that if I own an apple I can sell you the apple on the condition that you don’t eat it. Silly you for signing the contract, but it’s my right to do so.
The problem is that your fantasy definition of what IP is, is not what the market defintion of IP is. Which is why you are unable to deal with real world scenarios.
You could make things easier for yourself, you know that right?
hi max, of course physical items can be property, and physical acts/behaviours can be contracted.
yet, ideas cant be property.
you are accusing me of having a fantasy definition of some Oxymoron, and you argue that it differs from the market definition of that Oxymoron.
well, its an oxymoron, its self contradictory. its a squarecircle.
Nor need they be.
If a businessman can make a business model without using IP, than the whole discussion about whether or not IP is property is a moot question. Because one lone example is enough to prove that people will earn money in a world without IP. All it need are entrepenuers who will replicate the lone businessman and change it and adapt it to their situtation.
Even if 99% of artists thinks they will really starve without IP and they actually do. We shouldn’t prop up their business because clearly they sucks at entrepeneurship. If the market in fact doesn’t want those goods in the absence of IP, than it shouldn’t be produced.
The IP supporters of course disbelieve any working business model because they alway thought every “what if” scenerios despite the numerous examples throughout history and present history. They alway think there is some scenerio that warrant “IP”. This is very much like asking an anarchist to explain how anarchy will deal with every possible “what if” scenerios. Sooner or later it will emerges into “what if that thug have bigger guns than everybody”.
We should also know that IP is actually a propogranda term. IP consists of patents, trademarks, and copyright, which have totally different rules and apply to different things.
NDA, non-compete agreements, DRM, copyright, patent and all these tools are clearly unneccessary for the success of the entrepeneurs as some were able to thrive without these tools anyway. It is not even central to Coca Cola’s survival because clearly I will pay for a preminum for the coke brand.
Entrepeneurs may indeed believe these tools help them, so these tools have some values on the market. However it is not the same thing as working or even making a positive outcome on their business.
In reality, as I and many others can atest, IP and other tools are just a bunch of cargo cult. There are far more dangerous and real risk to face in runnning an enterprise.
The government nor anyone should not penalize the hardworking entrepeneurs who did not use any of these tools to win their place in the business world. Patents and other monopoly privilleges make these entrepneurs’ survival ability perilious at the benefit of losers who probably can’t sell candys on the free market, much less produce goods that people actually want.
tell that to Max !
That’s about the 10th time you have made an argumentum ad populum. It’s a logical fallacy.
This is it in a nutshell. Max believes the majority opinion dictates reality, that A is not A. A is whatever the market wants it to be.
But whatever, the dude is a troll. No sense in feeding him further.
MaxLiberty is a big boy, he can make up his own mind.
There is no practical distinction. You have made an intellectual distinction because you have read it in a book somewhere. The market does not care what your intellectual wording is nor does it care what you think. The physical manifestation of the idea is what people are discussing when they discuss IP not the idea in your head. Do you really think that when people discuss IP in the case of music that they are referring to the song in the persons head, or the song that has been written or communicated in some way. Even the state protected IP requires some physical manifestation of the idea before it can be acknowledged. It is the physical manifesation of the idea that is the issue with relation to IP, thats all there is.
How would one know what the idea was if there was not a physical manifestation to communicate the idea?
there is no practical distinction between something ‘x’ being property and ‘x’ not beingproperty. thanks Max. learn something new everyday.
say to someone “listen buddy, there is no practical distinction between that house being property(.. your property), and it not being your property; watch me drive this bulldozer through that house thats not anyones property”
oh wait, on second thoughts…
No the point is gutless, is that you have created an artificial definition that virtually no one else is using.
dude, we reject the incoherent label that virtually ‘everyone’ is using.
when people define ‘society’ to be ’ the super organism which is composed of us and has its own characteristics’
we reject their definition and choose something logically coherent like ‘society’ = ’ the set of atomistic individuals underconsidereation’
mainstream definitions arent always coherent, and shouldnt always be used. IP is an excellent example of bad language that needs be jettisoned. bad language that tells a lie over how to properly think through the issues. please join us in shedding this false concept.
Virtually no one is using Austrian economics either. Your point is?
Oh yeah, Argumentum ad populum. Keep those logical fallacies coming Max!
You are just making a pointless distinction between at what point the idea gets communicated. Your arguement is that if the idea is only in my head then its not property but if I write the idea down on a piece of paper then it becomes property. The point is that at the moment I decide to communicate my idea to another person I have the right to contractually obligate the other person so that they are restricted in how they use the information/idea. That’s it, that is all IP protection is about. So if I have the ability to obligate the other person in exchange for sharing the idea I am for all practical purposes the owner of that idea in that moment.
Just drop it. Max is wrong, but to the extent that you believe contractual obligations regarding the use of property are contrary to libertarianism, so are you.