On the Ownership of Ideas

[CorporateGhost]

Honestly, for me, the concept of property of ideas is absurd and is not comparable to the concept of self ownership.

Self-ownership doesn’t mean ownership of your ideas,it means ownership of your brain,witch is physically a part of your body.Being the owner of your brain doesn’t imply ownership of ideas, just like being the owner of your body doesn’t imply that you own the clothes you use to cover it (you could’ve borrow or stole them).

Ideas are not scarce, even if they’re no share, because the concepts behind an idea, exist independently of the fact that someone had the idea.Take for example gravity.The concept existed since before Newton formulated his theory,just because he was the first to grasp it, doesn’t mean the he could’ve had legitimately claimed the ownership of gravity, and ultimately all new inventions and ideas are based on previously existing concepts,since we,as humans can only rearrange the existing world.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@JackSkylark

So you would argue that on a free market, equality in ideas will be posessed by all members of the economy?

I would argue that you’re creating a strawman. Please stop.

[JackSkylark]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@JackSkylark

So you would argue that on a free market, equality in ideas will be posessed by all members of the economy?

I would argue that you’re creating a strawman. Please stop.

Forgive me if I was misrepresenting your position. I am trying to determine your meaning behind saying you take issue with “the concept of artificial scarcity”. I assumed (apparently I was wrong) that you were taking issue with the concept of relative scarcity that I presented at the beginning of this thread.

[JackSkylark]

@CorporateGhost

Ideas are not scarce, even if they’re no share, because the concepts behind an idea, exist independently of the fact that someone had the idea.

Then are you arguing for a platonistic world of form and ideas, apart from physical reality? Secondly, Newton did not create he merely discovered (though he did create the literature which published the discovery).

Once again, I argue that it would be impossible to apply a natural rights (ethical) framework to anything if the subjective mechanism that “does the owning” was not owned by the original economic actor to begin with. This is why property over self, when futher deduced, must “entail direct property over the mind”.

[CorporateGhost]

@JackSkylark

Then are you arguing for a platonistic world of form and ideas, apart from physical reality?

No, on the contrary, what I’m saying is that physical reality an its concepts(i.e. gravity) exist independently of whether if they are grasped by someone or not, and also owning your mind doesn’t imply ownership of ideas.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@JackSkylark

Forgive me if I was misrepresenting your position. I am trying to determine your meaning behind saying you take issue with “the concept of artificial scarcity”.

It’s not a difficult concept. Please stop being obtuse and conflating that each individual has his or her own thoughts with IP. The two are not the same. If you knew anything at all in the first place about IP, you wouldn’t make such an obvious and amatuerish mistake.

[Skeptik]

@JackSkylark

There can only be three theories of self ownership (as stated by Rothbard) that justify mans actions. 1) The individual possesses full ownership over his own self, over his mind, over his will, and his actions. 2) A theory of universal or equal ownership by all acting members (i.e. communism). 3) or Ownership by a few, i.e. a ruling class.

You forgot:

4. Ownership by none.

I don’t believe in self-ownership. Convince me if you’re able, and interested.

(Feel free to PM me if this is too much like a derail.)

[JackSkylark]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@JackSkylark

Forgive me if I was misrepresenting your position. I am trying to determine your meaning behind saying you take issue with “the concept of artificial scarcity”.

It’s not a difficult concept. Please stop being obtuse and conflating that each individual has his or her own thoughts with IP. The two are not the same. If you knew anything at all in the first place about IP, you wouldn’t make such an obvious and amatuerish mistake.

You do not understand my position, all I am pointing out is that ownership of ideas (in the area of the mind) is a necessary component of self ownership. If you want to take me up on some particular point, I encourage you to do that.

But as of now, I would go so far as to say that you are debating falisciously by calling attention away from the argument and towards calling me ignorant and asserting my reasoning is “amatuerish”.

[JackSkylark]

@Skeptik

You forgot:

4. Ownership by none.

I don’t believe in self-ownership. Convince me if you’re able, and interested.

(Feel free to PM me if this is too much like a derail.)

I would argue that ownership by none is incompatable with a justification for action in general. But, I would like to hear more of your position.

[JackSkylark]

@CorporateGhost

No, on the contrary, what I’m saying is that physical reality an its concepts(i.e. gravity) exist independently of whether if they are grasped by someone or not, and also owning your mind doesn’t imply ownership of ideas.

What, is your definition of the mind?

Also, it could be argued that there are large differences between the area of discovery and of invention, whereas one is a creation.

[liberty_student]

If you must own your ideas as part of owning yourself, then how can you argue for IP? An idea in someone else’s mind must necessarily be a part of their self ownership.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@JackSkylark

You do not understand my position

Actually, I do. So we own our thoughts–big deal! So what? Where are you going with this if not IP? And if you don’t have a point, I suggest being silent.

[Skeptik]

@JackSkylark

@Skeptik

You forgot:

4. Ownership by none.

I don’t believe in self-ownership. Convince me if you’re able, and interested.

(Feel free to PM me if this is too much like a derail.)

I would argue that ownership by none is incompatable with a justification for action in general. But, I would like to hear more of your position.

That is my position: people tell me I own myself; I don’t believe it.

Your argument appears to be an appeal to consequence (without self-ownership, there’d be no justification for action; I want to be able to justify action, so I believe in self-ownership); is this accurate, and is it the extent of your argument?

[JackSkylark]

@liberty student

If you must own your ideas as part of owning yourself, then how can you argue for IP? An idea in someone else’s mind must necessarily be a part of their self ownership.

Good to see you, Liberty Student. I’m glad you brought this point up, since this finally gets down to the fundamental issue. When I started with the notion that you must “own your ideas as part of owning yourself”, I was working with the idea of original appropriation of ideas as inherent within self ownership. Beyond the scope of self, everyone else has same ownership of mind (at original appropriation).

But, from this, I don’t see why later ideas can not be demanded (relative scarcity) and then purchased or contracted. What I am arguing is that, in general, specific ideas are not non scarce goods. Although, related to self, once that idea is in the mind it becomes a condition of human welfare and does not need to be economized (in the individual aspect). But related to the person not in posession, the non-scarce good is scarce, and is thus an economic good and not a condition of general welfare - it is a factor in human action.

[Spideynw]

@JackSkylark

Ah, so you reject the whole second half of my argument? In reference to relative scarcity, you say ownership can not be contracted?

No, I am saying things that involve copyrights, patents, or trademarks would not be contracted.

[liberty_student]

@JackSkylark

Good to see you, Liberty Student.

I was reading but abstaining. It was nice to see some others involved, plus KoB always makes threads fun.

I’ll continue abstaining. There is little to gain from circular arguments.

[JackSkylark]

@Skeptik

That is my position: people tell me I own myself; I don’t believe it.

Your argument appears to be an appeal to consequence (without self-ownership, there’d be no justification for action; I want to be able to justify action, so I believe in self-ownership); is this accurate, and is it the extent of your argument?

In a first case (without going into philosophy), I would point towards Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s argument that an individual is caught in a contradiction by arguing against self-ownership, since the one arguing implicitly agrees that the opposing position has a right to disagree. I’ll have to find the article Hoppe says this, but it’s on Mises.org somewhere.

[JackSkylark]

@Spideynw

No, I am saying things that involve copyrights, patents, or trademarks would not be contracted.

Would not, or could not?

[kiba]

@JackSkylark

I meant by “dishonest trick of forced analogies”, the problem of limiting selected empirical examples as well as arguing on the basis of consumer utility without actually defining the model or proof of such.

Secondly, my main issue is that they exhibit a complete disregard for property in contracts (example ‘licensing restrictions’ Chapter 10 pg.11), although they waver in their abolitionist spirit once it comes to GNU (a strange reversal from a non-contradictory standpoint). The use of the analogy of slavery to a contract limiting action seems totally absurd from a libertarian standpoint. Their call for the eradication of certain company sided (non-governmental enforced) measures and contracts was deplorable, and ventured slightly into Marxian expropriation theory.

Once again, I don’t want the debate to become a question of consumer satisfaction, but of ethics and property. So, I would rather you start another topic if you would like to continue this line of questioning.

You must have read them differently than I do.

They see no problem with NDA as far as consequences goes(it isn’t that harmful) and I certainly did not see that they support GNU GPL in itself. They support the consequences that the GPL brought.

As for limited selected evidence, this is as far as you go. If Against Intellectual Monopoly examples didn’t convince you, no amount of evidence will be. I knew many proponent of IP screams that this business model only work for “big guys” or “small guys” or “middle guys”, or they keep changing the goal goal around. As a veteran of these IP debates, I knew them all.

[Skeptik]

@JackSkylark

@Skeptik

That is my position: people tell me I own myself; I don’t believe it.

Your argument appears to be an appeal to consequence (without self-ownership, there’d be no justification for action; I want to be able to justify action, so I believe in self-ownership); is this accurate, and is it the extent of your argument?

In a first case (without going into philosophy), I would point towards Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s argument that an individual is caught in a contradiction by arguing against self-ownership, since the one arguing implicitly agrees that the opposing position has a right to disagree. I’ll have to find the article Hoppe says this, but it’s on Mises.org somewhere.

Thanks, but no need, I’ve heard the argument. It doesn’t do anything for self-ownership. It says something about rights, but that something is backwards (as most rights-talk is). The opposition doesn’t need a “right” to disagree; the arguer would need a right to force agreement (assuming that were possible).