Yeah - scarcity isn’t finite quantities, but less quantities than required to meet human desires.
As far as monkeys and Shakespeare, I think Stranger is right that they would not reproduce it. We’re talking about monkeys, people. Envision infinite varieties of gibberish, on and on forever.
it boggles your mind only because infinity boggles the mind. strange things happen when you play with infinity.
If information was scarce we wouldn’t need positive law to restrict it’s cheap reproduction. It’s rationization would occur naturally on it’s own through it’s own consumption. Unfortunately this never happens as it is not scarce. How ironic of an argument otherwise.
Not really. For example, take this infinite set {a, aa, aaa, aaaa, … infinite a’s}. There is only one character used, but there are infinite possible strings. Obviously, we don’t need to expand this series out to infinity and search the results for a match to Shakespeare - there won’t be one.
Simply because something is “infinite” does not mean it must encapsulate everything. For example, there are infinite real numbers between 0 and 1, but this is obviously not the complete set of real numbers. Thus, the monkeys can produce infinite varieties of unique gibberish forever, yet none would ever be similar to Shakespeare.
If they are not scarce, then why does the teenager prevent her siblings from using her connection when she needs it?
This is just another nonsensical attempt at finding a loophole. It has achieved nothing but the total obfuscation of property theory.
That’s an example of a set with countably infinite elements. The set of all possible pieces of English writing is also countable.
Here’s how the set starts:
a, b, c, d, e…
Further down:
aa, ab, ac, ad…
The set of all programs uses ASCII characters, and even those are infinite, but countably infinite. This means that because monkeys didn’t produce everything, it doesn’t mean that they couldn’t produce some specific thing.
Thats not a reflection of the scarcity of information but of time, and the costs incrued by other forms of mediums, like cable internet. This doesn’t in any way mean that information is scarce, it may mean cable is scarce though. It’s more likely she’s getting kicked off for chatting with some boyfriend too long. [:)]
Still there was nothing nonsensical nor was it any type of loophole that Lilburne pointed out. The conflation here is saying that because cable internet is scarce than information must be scarce, ignoring the literally hundreds of other types of media thats out there, even some that are free.
Yes, but the question we are debating is whether it should happen (whether that means consequentialist should or normative should, you’ve got to argue at least one of them).
You know while I’m thinking about this - saying that you own some media and therefore derive the right that no one reproduce the information on said media, including derivative copies, and that no contract is necessary…would this not apply not simply to digital media but EVERYTHING. For instance, pictures of my person or any of my property. This could also be liberally applied to text descriptions as well.
^^ Exactly. That’s where IP logic leads.
Certainly the phenomenon of paparazzi is caused by public property. Without it they would be expelled from any premises where they can harass private persons.
I initially thought about that too. But paparazzi can take photos of individuals on their own private property, from some other private property. And unowned property isn’t necessarily public property. (Not saying I’m pro-paparazzi…)
It makes you wonder what exactly the right to privacy is. Why do some works blur out faces, trademarks, etc. when they don’t get permission to use them, when others thrive on this? Why is there even a limit to blurring faces and trademarks, they are still derivative works - moreover, there are many aspects of their person and property that are left unblurred.
What about satellites…Google Earth?
What if the paparazzi bought the house next to Lady Gaga?
“Author’s note: I am compiling in this thread a list of all the fallacies invoked against intellectual property rights. I would greatly appreciate if one of the authoritative members of forum involved in the Mises Institute were to promote this to a full Mises.org story, thus confirming the institute’s dedication to honest intellectual debate in the tradition of the Austrian school of economics,”
I mean, this is so priceless. An Internet troll’s quest for legitimacy! I want to totally own the rights to making that film!
Well, for doing all this work, I’ve been repeatedly called a troll, and now Kinsella has called me a “newb”. This has led to me to the realization that he is a child and I’ve been wasting my time arguing with him.
Thanks for the support of those who voted this thread up. You’ve shown that honest argument is still a principle upheld by the majority of Mises Institute members.
As an aside, you straw manned Kinsella.
Though I cannot speak for everyone else, I am assuming that the trollish behavior comments were not referring to the original well laid out post, but to subsequent posts, their manners and methods.
shrug
Where did Kinsella call you a “newb”? I can’t find it anywhere.
it was on the Buddy Holly blog comments.
By far the most impressive work you have produced is somehow getting people to take you seriously. You refer to all this work, where you write a lengthy post, and then when people question it you literally reply by typing, “fallacy #2”. Yet as hard as it may be for you to comprehend, just because you wrote a lengthy post, does not mean that lengthy post is fact or the viewpoint that it expresses is true. I must claim a degree of ignorance here, because after getting to Fallacy #4 where you compare copying to inflation of fiat money, and go on to evoke Mises while you unbelievably butcher the concept of money and its function and attempt to equate it as being synonymous with ideas…wow. I mean good god that’s so gross.
Anyways, phenomenal troll job, I also love and respect the victim type position you pull in regard to being called a troll and newb while simultaneously crafting an argument which contains purposefully designed inflammatory language in the title “intellectual communism” and taking every chance you can get to respond to arguments and criticisms by referring to the authors as communist. One might point out that the argument is over the definition of property and whether or not ideas, media etc. fall under this definition of property and thus are entitled to the full scope of property rights, but that would probably be a waste of time as you would then not be able to regard all those who disagree with you as communists.
But seriously, how is there anything posted in this thread besides eviscerating your inflation of money supply = copying argument.