Stephen Kinsella's argument that IP conflicts with property rights should be disregarded.

[gotlucky]

@z1235

gotlucky, if (you assume that) IP rights are property rights, then the manner in which you use your physical property could collide with (trespass over) the (IP) property rights of someone else – just like the manner in which you use your fist could do the same with respect to someone else’s face.

There is no trespassing on IP. There is IP infringement, which is an entirely different concept. Trespassing is a physical violation of (real) property. IP infringement is literally just breaking the law, which, in the case of IP, is breaking a statute. Also, IP is not property. It’s called property, but it is not property in the same way that you don’t own your reputation. We can say and enact statutes that say you own your reputation, but it doesn’t make it so. All that sort of law says is that you have the right to punish someone for damaging your reputation, but your reputation only exists in the minds of everyone but yourself.

So yes, you can have a “property right” to punish someone for damaging your reputation, but that doesn’t mean they are damaging your property. It means that you have the right to exclude others from using their property in some specific fashion. That’s what IP is. It’s a metaphor for property but it isn’t property. Sure, you can “own” a poem, but what that translates to is that you now have the right to exclude others from using their property to recreate that poem. When others recreate that poem, it does not mean that suddenly they have trespassed on your property.

All rights are property rights, but that doesn’t mean that the poem you right is your “property”. It’s an idea. It only exists in people’s minds or when it has a physical manifestation in actual property. Copyrights and patents state that you own the idea, and that if anyone creates a physical manifestation of this idea, they are violating your property. This is the contradiction. It is saying that you both simultaneously own the same good without joint ownership. I may own the paper and ink, but if I configure them in such a way that they are the same as your copyrighted poem, now you own it. Except that I own it too. And we can’t both own it.

So sure, the state says that your ownership supercedes my ownership, so in effect there really is only one owner, and that’s you. But the state doesn’t say that I am to transfer my physical property of paper and ink to you. It says that I am to destroy it or change it somehow. But in the process, the state still acknowledges that the paper and ink are mine, but they also acknowledge that it is yours. That’s why it is a contradiction. The idea of IP is a contradiction.

That was Kinsella’s argument in that case, but it is not his only or even his main argument against IP. It was only one thing to consider out of all of what he knows about IP. In practice there cannot be a contradiction, because whoever has the right of exclusion is the owner in the eyes of the law (right or wrong), but that was not Kinsella’s point. His point was that there cannot be two simultaneous owners of the same object (excluding joint ownership, which was not mentioned in that section of the talk), and that is precisely what the arguments for IP allow: IP acknowledges two owners in theory even if it doesn’t in practice.

@z1235

Property rights evolved as means towards the desirable end of peaceful conflict resolution. We are the descendents of the people who strongly preferred not to have fists launched into their faces. If, in a free society, enough people strongly prefer that original patterns (of numbers, words, sounds, or images) which they have created are not to be used by others without their permission, then property rights in IP would also evolve. If not, they won’t. The beauty of freedom is that it is unpredictable and uncontrollable by any one entity or dogma.

I agree with this. I only add that I find it highly unlikely that IP as it exists today would exist in a free society. I base this off of the fact that IP as it exists today is a product of the state, whereas common law and customary law systems did not have IP in a way that resembles statutory IP at all.

[Autolykos]

@DerpStatis

• Definition (Property Rights:Mine, and possibly Kinsella’s second definition)

A property right is a right to do as you please with property as long as you don’t infringe/violate/conflict with other existing property rights.

Since this is a recursive definition we must define what infringe/violate/conflict with means and whether property rights exist at all. I will use the homesteading theory here to prove the existence. And from that we obtain the characteristic that property rights exist for a given use.

A “violation” means a physical invasion/physical trespass/physical interference with that use by virtue of which the homesteading occurred.

When you say “whether property rights exist at all”, are you talking about external (i.e. outside of the mind) physical existence? If so, then I’d say that neither property rights nor any other rights have any such existence at all.

@DerpStatis

The confusion here arises from the implicit misunderstanding of the recursive definition of property rights.

Any property right limits the sphere of influence of posessors of other property rights.

Kinsella is using “conflict” as something that limits your use of property rights.

If a new right comes into existence, they can still “do as they please”, but they have to limit their actions to those that will not violate the newly created right.

The simplest example of this is when someone homesteads a piece of land by planting a tree on it, so now another person cannot use their property to plant a tree in the same place.

Whereas before the homesteading everyone would have been able to plant a tree in that place. Hence the perceived “conflict”.

As I see it, there’s no conflict of rights when someone homesteads something. The right to homestead means to me the right to use (i.e. undertake an action with) something that no one has ever used before. Therefore, other people’s homesteading rights aren’t curtailed when one person homesteads something, as once he homesteads it, it’s no longer something that no one has ever used before.

@DerpStatis

Here’s my view on IP in brief in case you question my motives:

The whole point of homesteading is that you homestead a use.

And infringement only happens when someone interferes with your use.

With information there is no interference if I decide to use the information, because you can still do exactly the same things you could before. There are no damages and hence no victim and no action is warranted.

That’s really the end of the story for me. That’s what differentiates copyright and IP in general with property rights, and not its conflict with property rights.

I’ll raise you an even better argument: The notion of “intellectual property” requires a sleight-of-hand change in the definition of “use” to include the results of actions undertaken with/over things as well as the actions themselves. As I see it, this is the only way to make logical sense of an IP proponent’s claim that someone else is interfering with his use of his IP. His argument is typically that other people copying his ideas, even if they give him attribution for them, prevents certain (anticipated) outcomes for him, namely making certain amounts of profit from the ideas. It’s therefore logically inconsistent to define “use” this way when arguing for IP rights but to define “use” the other way when arguing for other property rights.

[DerpStatis]

@Autolykos

As I see it, there’s no conflict of rights when someone homesteads something. The right to homestead means to me the right to use (i.e. undertake an action with) something that no one has ever used before. Therefore, other people’s homesteading rights aren’t curtailed when one person homesteads something, as once he homesteads it, it’s no longer something that no one has ever used before.

I agree with you. By definition there cannot be any conflict.

@DerpStatis

I’ll raise you an even better argument: The notion of “intellectual property” requires a sleight-of-hand change in the definition of “use” to include the results of actions undertaken with/over things as well as the actions themselves. As I see it, this is the only way to make logical sense of an IP proponent’s claim that someone else is interfering with his use of his IP. His argument is typically that other people copying his ideas, even if they give him attribution for them, prevents certain (anticipated) outcomes for him, namely making certain amounts of profit from the ideas. It’s therefore logically inconsistent to define “use” this way when arguing for IP rights but to define “use” the other way when arguing for other property rights.

I’ll raise you another agreement. I think this also boils down to the distinction between an effect and an actual physical invasion. Ultimately one thing to note is that IP proponents would like to extend so called interference or aggression to include bringing about a reduction in benefits to the inventor/creator.

[DerpStatis]

@z1235

gotlucky, if (you assume that) IP rights are property rights, then the manner in which you use your physical property could collide with (trespass over) the (IP) property rights of someone else – just like the manner in which you use your fist could do the same with respect to someone else’s face.

Property rights evolved as means towards the desirable end of peaceful conflict resolution. We are the descendents of the people who strongly preferred not to have fists launched into their faces. If, in a free society, enough people strongly prefer that original patterns (of numbers, words, sounds, or images) which they have created are not to be used by others without their permission, then property rights in IP would also evolve. If not, they won’t. The beauty of freedom is that it is unpredictable and uncontrollable by any one entity or dogma.

z1235 , this is the basic idea and it is easy to understand in two sentences. But some people have a hard time understanding why Kinsella’s argument must proceed along the lines “if (you assume that) IP rights are property rights” in order for it to have any meaning. Unfortunately to explain that you need to open yourself up to knitpicking.

As to your second point, I’ve tried to argue that IP is very different from other property right with respect to being “means towards the desirable end of peaceful conflict resolution”. Because the level of harm done by violated “IP rights” is not in the same category as a physical invasion or interference with someone’s actions. It is very indirect and can only affect subjective values. So in that respect it is like someone saying something that diminishes your reputation. Of course this says nothing about whether people will follow this logic, and ultimately everything is correct in your second paragraph.

[gotlucky]

Autolykos,

I don’t know about you, but I find it very interesting that DerpStatis came back to the thread in order to complain about “knitpicking”. There’s nothing quite like complaining about being asked to be logically consistent, eh?

[DerpStatis]

@gotlucky

Autolykos,

I don’t know about you, but I find it very interesting that DerpStatis came back to the thread in order to complain about “knitpicking”. There’s nothing quite like complaining about being asked to be logically consistent, eh?

gotlucky, this is my thread and one of the few I am following, I did not “come back” from anywhere. When I have a thought I comment. I’m trying to ignore you. I was actually not referring to you when I said I am opening myself to knitpicking. I have some arguments going on with other people than you and I have some experience with these things that tells me any time you write anything in the form of a chain of definitions and result you will open yourself to knitpicking. However, if you aren’t rigorous, then you invite illogical arguments. So I was not at all thinking about you when I said that. I am not going to claim you were knitpicking.

I’d like to ask you to refrain from trying to damage my reputation for whatever reason. Your last comment proves nothing about the logic or content of what I was saying and is solely ad hominem. As far as I can discern it was probably implying that I somehow am dodging something or not smart enough to be logically consistent. You don’t need to divine such things, they are irrelevant, unless you just want to damage me personally. Judging from your number of points on here, you probably command a sizeable amount of influence to be able to achieve something in this regard.

I’ve read some of your other posts on other threads and you seem to come out angry and dismissive. You seem disrespectful at times because of this. I find this very interesting and I’m curious what compells you to act this way given that noone is acting like this toward you. I don’t get see these types of responses from many others, and I wasn’t expecting them here. If something is bothering you let me know and I’ll try to address it. I’d like you to “lay off” my case so we don’t have to talk to each other anymore. That means I’d like you to agree that we don’t address each other’s comments or talk about each other. I really don’t want to spend any more time dealing with you.

I’m actually asking you this as a favor. Sound reasonable?

[gotlucky]

@DerpStatis

I’d like to ask you to refrain from trying to damage my reputation for whatever reason.

@DerpStatis

I’ve read some of your other posts on other threads and you seem to come out angry and dismissive.

Maybe you should try practicing what you preach. Perhaps you didn’t read your first post to me:

@DerpStatis

Unfortunately none of you comments were helpful to me. You seem to be attacking my exposition, but not the substance of my claims and disecting irrelevant aspects of my argument. You are not engaging me, just trying to block any discussion of the logic of the matter. Your response is an attack rather than a constructive critique. Your response fits a pattern that I would like to avoid. I did not spend my time writing this critique to deal with beligerence.

This was not the case of my first post to you. If you want to ignore me, so be it. But if you are going to act as if I started this whole dismissive and insulting attitude, then I will call you out on it.

@DerpStatis

Your last comment proves nothing about the logic or content of what I was saying and is solely ad hominem. As far as I can discern it was probably implying that I somehow am dodging something or not smart enough to be logically consistent.

There’s no need for me to criticize your argument in each of my posts when you have refused to respond to my criticisms from the very beginning. So, yes, you are dodging.

@DerpStatis

I find this very interesting and I’m curious what compells you to act this way given that noone is acting like this toward you.

I get along with most people on this forum, thank you very much. For some reason, though, people who like to be dishonest have a problem with me. Go figure.

[gotlucky]

You know what? Since I’m such a nice guy, I’m going to walk through my first post, just for you, DerpStatis:

@gotlucky

NOTE: Your link is broken, so I can only comment on what I remember about Kinsella’s arguments, not about the one’s in the link.

@DerpStatis

Some clarification and definitions are needed to analyze his statement.

• Definition (Property Rights:Mine, and possibly Kinsella’s second definition)

  A property right is a right to do as you please with property as long as you don’t infringe/violate/conflict with other existing property rights.

  Since this is a recursive definition we must define what infringe/violate/conflict with means and whether property rights exist at all.
  I will use the homesteading theory here to prove the existence. And from that we obtain the characteristic that property rights exist for a given use.
  A “violation” means a physical invasion/physical trespass/physical interference with that use by virtue of which the homesteading occurred.

I think people will generally agree with the definition I’ve provided. If you don’t please correct me.
However keep in mind that the rest of what I say may be true despite any corrections or alterations in the definition, so please check before making the correction.

First, property rights don’t “exist” in the sense that you are using the term “exist”. You don’t “prove” the existence of property rights, unless you are talking about describing the property rights in a given society, which you are not doing. Second, if you are going to analyze someone’s argument, use their definitions, not yours. If you don’t use their definitions, you are not analyzing their argument.

@DerpStatis

Definition (Property Rights:Kinsella first definition)
Kinsella provides a different definition that says property rights are rights to exclusive control.
This definition is incomplete.
From video we can deduce that control means having ultimate judgment on how to use the property.
However, implicitly we have to acknowledge that some uses may not be “just”. Those are exactly the ones that infringe/violate/conflict with other’s exercise of their own control.
We must have such clauses in the definitions because we must accept that rights cannot conflict with each other (by definition they cannot, but this is a separate discussion).
Kinsella accepts that property rights cannot conflict with each other since that is the crux of his argument.
So substitute “control” with “do as you please” and add the limiting provision and you get back the definition I supplied above.
I am using my definition because I think that’s the one that most people accept.
If you think it isn’t equivalent to Kinsella’s please point it out, while keeping in mind that the rest of what I say will hold even if I use his definition.

Kinsella’s definition is fine. Also, do not substitute control for “do as you please”. That is not the standard definition of control, which I’m assuming Kinsella is using. Some uses may not be “just”, but that doesn’t change Kinsella’s definition of property rights. All that means is his definition allows for some property rights to not be considered just. I think that is a useful definition, as it allows us to differentiate between just (or rightful) property and unjust (or wrongful) property.

You might not be okay with that definition, but it seems that is what Kinsella is using, and I’m certainly comfortable with that definition.

@DerpStatis

Local Definition (Libertarian):
For convenience I refer to libertarian in this discussion as someone who believes property rights are absolute, should never be violated.
This definition has no relevance to the argument, if you doubt this, just substitute libertarian=“property rights absolutist”.

If it has no relevance to your argument, then don’t define it. I certainly don’t like that definition of libertarian, and it doesn’t seem to describe a number of people on this board either.

@DerpStatis

Case1 (his claim is that IP is not a property right AND it conflicts with property rights)
In this case he must prove that IP is not a property right and he does provide arguments for that elsewhere.
The purpose of such a claim is not clear to me.

For libertarians that don’t think IP is a property right this is irrelevant and a good illustration.
With libertarians holding the view that IP is a property right, he will have to argue some other way.
With non-libertarians this won’t work either, because an infringement of property rights may be warranted, so he must argue why such an infringement is wrong.
(Because of the nature of the IP debate, I tend to think Kinsella is trying to mostly convince other libertarians)

If he provided no argument, then maybe he expected the audience to already be familiar with his arguments against IP.

@DerpStatis

Case2 (his claim is that IF IP is a property right then we can show a contradiction.)

If a contradiction is there, this should convince libertarians to drop the view that IP is a property right.
In my view this is more likely what he is claiming.
And if you watch the video after [3], he is clearly engaging in proof by contradiction or reductio ad absurdum.

So the proof of this MUST go as follows (MUST because we are dealing with logic)
We MUST assume that IP is a property right and show that this leads to a negation of another assumption or result.
That is by definition a proof by contradiction or equivalently a proof by contrapositive.

The “other result” for Kinsella in this case is that a property right is infringed upon/violated/conflicted with.

This contradiction cannot occur, because if IP is a property right, then by definition it cannot conflict/infringe/violate other property rights.-

Again, I cannot view the link, but your critique is inadequate. One of the main problems with IP is that it makes claims to other people’s property. If I patent the design of a chair, what that means is that you may not create that same shape with your wood and your tools. I am making a claim to what you can do with your property. I am excluding you from using your property. That is the contradiction with IP and property rights.

Almost my entire post was in direct response to requests you made. My last paragraph was my critique of your critique. Only z1235 has engaged me on this point. You have not. Instead, you decided that the requests you made in your OP shouldn’t apply if someone were to actually take you up on them.

[DerpStatis]

gotlucky, you are absolutely right about everything. I have misjudged you and I take back everything I have said about you. You have much more experience than me on here and I was mistaken to characterize you in any way.

However, I’d like to know if we have an agreement. Do you agree to ignore my posts and not discuss me in posts to others (as long as I do the same)?

I would greatly appreciate that, so please let me know.