Just write to Block it willbe a lot faster than us digging up sources, unless Stephan is around and wants to confirm.
Stephan has very carefully worked through Rothbard’s position. If you are remotely familiar with SK’s work (which is in the commons of course) you would know this. There are very few (if any) LvMI Austrians who share Rothbard’s position on copyright anymore.
Just write to Block it willbe a lot faster than us digging up sources, unless Stephan is around and wants to confirm.
Stephan has very carefully worked through Rothbard’s position. If you are remotely familiar with SK’s work (which is in the commons of course) you would know this. There are very few (if any) LvMI Austrians who share Rothbard’s position on copyright anymore.
I cannot read more than a paragraph of Stefan Kinsella without losing my literacy.
It should be very simple to link to us all a text penned by Hoppe where he refutes Rothbardian intellectual property. I do not know of any such texts, and so we must all assume that they are pure fabulation of the intellectual communists, perhaps caused by the influence of hallucinogenic drugs.
Out of magnanimity, I will even propose a compromise. If you cannot find any text of Hoppe refuting Rothbardian intellectual property, then you still have the chance to explain how, using any of Hoppe’s property ethics texts, it follows that one can own privacy in a house but that there is an exception for intellectual property.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block163.html The paragraph beginning “I don’t have too much to say about chapter 10”
Heres some Hoppe:
First, while every person, at least in principle, can have full control
over whether or not his actions cause the physical characteristics of
something to change and hence can also have full control over
whether or not those actions are justifiable, control over whether or
not one’s actions affect the value of somebody else’s property does
not rest with the acting person but rather with other people and their
subjective evaluations. Thus, no one could determine ex ante if his
actions would be qualified as justifiable or unjustifiable. One would
first have to interrogate the whole population to make sure that one’s
planned actions would not change another person’s evaluations
regarding his own property. Even then nobody could act until uni-
versal agreement was reached on who is supposed to do what with
what, and at which point in time. Clearly, because of all the practical
problems involved, everyone would be long dead and nobody could
argue any longer, well before agreement could be reached.30 Even
more decisively, this position regarding property and aggression
could not even be effectively argued because arguing in favor of any
norm implies that there is conflict over the use of some scarce
resources; otherwise, there would simply be no need for discussion.
However, in order to argue that there is a way out of such conflicts it
must be presupposed that actions must be allowed prior to any actual
agreement or disagreement because if they were not, one could not
even argue so. Yet if one can do this, and insofar as it exists as an
argued intellectual position the position under scrutiny must assume
that one can, then this is only possible because of the existence of
objective borders of property—borders which anyone can recognize
as such on his own without having to agree first with anyone else with
respect to his system of values and evaluations. Such a value-protect-
ing ethic, too, in spite of what it says, must in fact presuppose the exis-
tence of objective property borders rather than of borders deter-
mined by subjective evaluations, if only in order to have any surviving
persons who can make its moral proposals.
The idea of protecting value instead of physical integrity also fails
for a second related reason. Evidently, one’s value, for example on
the labor or marriage market, can be and indeed is affected by other
people’s physical integrity or degree of physical integrity. Thus, if one
wanted property values to be protected, one would have to allow
physical aggression against people. However, it is only because of the
very fact that a person’s borders—that is the borders of a person’s
property in his own body as his domain of exclusive control that
another person is not allowed to cross unless he wishes to become an
aggressor—are physical borders (intersubjectively ascertainable, and
not just subjectively fancied borders) that everyone can agree on any-
thing independently (and agreement means agreement among inde-
pendent decision-making units!). Only because the protected borders
of property are objective (i.e., fixed and recognizable as fixed prior to
any conventional agreement), can there be argumentation and possi-
bly agreement of and between independent decision-making units.
Nobody could argue in favor of a property system defining borders of
property in subjective, evaluative terms because simply to be able to
say so presupposes that, contrary to what theory says, one must in fact
be a physically independent unit saying it.
nirgraham do not play us for fools. That text does not even mention intellectual property.
It is sad that the children here always rely on a dog ate my homework defense.
However, it is only because of the
very fact that a person’s borders—that is the borders of a person’s
property in his own body as his domain of exclusive control that
another person is not allowed to cross unless he wishes to become an
aggressor—are physical borders (intersubjectively ascertainable, and
not just subjectively fancied borders) that everyone can agree on any-
thing independently (and agreement means agreement among inde-
pendent decision-making units!). Only because the protected borders
of property are objective (i.e., fixed and recognizable as fixed prior to
any conventional agreement), can there be argumentation and possi-
bly agreement of and between independent decision-making units.
Nobody could argue in favor of a property system defining borders of
property in subjective, evaluative terms because simply to be able to
say so presupposes that, contrary to what theory says, one must in fact
be a physically independent unit saying it
That text does not even mention intellectual property.
oh yeah? so in the example of the book that I introduced, you don’t see how this is relevant? you don’t notice his appeals to phsyicality as being necessary for the concept of property to apply? how border crossings are not to be imagined in purely intangible and ethereal spheres of the spiritual realm in which your platonic-book-mystery lost its virginity?
also notice the following :
Thus, if one wanted property values to be protected, one would have to allow physical aggression against people.
This is the Kinsellian argument that to protect the property value of your book by means of limiting the expression of its information by others you have to allow physical aggression against people, and he notes that this is a strike against this poor theory!
It is not relevant. You are merely engaging in the fallacy of the immateriality of information, which Hoppe would not.
I will e-mail him. let’s clear this up.
Stranger,
First, almost every modern Rothbardian I know is against IP–Hoppe, Huelsmann, DiLorenzo, Tucker, Rockwell, and so on. Second, Rothbard himself was opposed to both patent and modern copyright. The only thing he was in favor of was some contractual copyright notion. He was a bit confused about how far this would get you, which is understandable as he was operating without a net and didn’t devote much time to it. But he rejected patent and copyrgiht as being monopolies, and only posited that the seller of an innovative item could create a contract with his buyer to prevent him from copying it (see Against Intellectual Property, the “Contract vs. Reserved Rights” section).
Second, I know Hoppe very well, and can assure you he is ardently anti-IP. He has told me so. He had me speak on IP at the last PFS. He as editor of JLS solicited my Against IP article, and was key in selecting it to win the Alford prize in 2002. There is no doubt he is 100% in agreement with me on this. IN fact his thought predated mine; I just fleshed this out and elaborated on what he alrady say when I was still flailing with it in 1988:
Hoppe realized this as far back as 1988, at a panel discussion on ethics with Rothbard, David Gordon, and Leland Yeager, at which, there is this exchange:
Question: “I have a question for Professor Hoppe. Does the idea of personal sovereignty extend to knowledge? Am I sovereign over my thoughts, ideas, and theories? …
Hoppe: “… in order to have a thought you must have property rights over your body. That doesn’t imply that you own your thoughts. The thoughts can be used by anybody who is capable of understanding them.”
That, son, is what we call PWNage.
Actually Mr Kinsella, that is a repetition of Rothbard’s MES intellectual property definition. It is not new, or radical or contradictory.
I will believe that Hoppe is against IP when he publishes a text, even just a little blog post on Mises.org, entitled “Refuting Rothbardian intellectual property rights.”
Stranger, “It is not relevant. You are merely engaging in the fallacy of the immateriality of information, which Hoppe would not.”
I am not appealing to authority, you are: but you are in fact wrong. Hoppe agrees wtih me 100% on IP and most everything else (and vice-versa), and has told me so explicitly; and it is clear from his corpus of writing. If you think Hoppe does not agree with us on IP you are dead wrong.
Where’s the proof?
Your word has no value.
"Where’s the proof?
Your word has no value."
Stranger, how dare you accuse me of dishonesty. This is typical of IP fascists. I am one of his closest confidantes, supporters, friends; I run his site and his PFS site; I edited the festschrift for him; I am the worlds’ biggest Hoppean. Who would know if not for me? In the previous post I explaiend all the facts that bear this out and even quoted him on the character of information as property as contrasted with property in scarce goods. You are just daft here. Apparently it would rock your world to realize Hans is of course against IP for EXACTLY the same reasons I am; sorry to tell you, this is indeed the case.
Now, you are free to disagree but if you insinuate I am lying we are done here, as are you.
lol, I guess it wasn’t my homework that the dog ate after all.
You know, more LvMI staff should post on the forums. It puts a smile on my face!
bluelines976, “You know, more LvMI staff should post on the forums. It puts a smile on me face!”
I assume you’re referring to me–thanks! But to be clear, I’m not Mises Staff. But I know what you mean. 
All I asked for was link to an actual text penned by Hoppe refuting Rothbard’ intellectual property work.
I did not accuse anyone of anything except failing to provide this.
Whatever guilt you may feel for this failure is entirely your own making.
Stranger:
All I asked for was link to an actual text penned by Hoppe refuting Rothbard’ intellectual property work.
I did not accuse anyone of anything except failing to provide this.
Whatever guilt you may feel for this failure is entirely your own making.
good. I am glad you are not getting incivil and accusing me of dishonesty.
As for text, I did givey ou one:
Question: “I have a question for Professor Hoppe. Does the idea of personal sovereignty extend to knowledge? Am I sovereign over my thoughts, ideas, and theories? …
Hoppe: “… in order to have a thought you must have property rights over your body. That doesn’t imply that you own your thoughts. The thoughts can be used by anybody who is capable of understanding them.”
He has not writen much directly on this though his work on scarcity and property and value etc. clearly implies his support. He provided the scaffolding and I helped to fill it in. Trust me, Hoppe is 100% with the good guys (that’s us) on IP. I don’t know why this bothers you so much.
I do not disagree with that statement mr. Kinsella, neither did Rothbard, so I do not know why you would think that a refutation of Rothbardian intellectual property.
Where does Hoppe defend your rejection of copyright and refute Rothbard’s? I ask this because Hoppe always makes sense to me, and if you were to provide a text by him where he does this, I would almost certainly change my mind and side with you.
Kinsella, what do you think Hoppe would say about your reading Strangers book from over his shoulder and writing things down onto your paper? Is there a possibility given your close relationship that you could pester him for a soundbite?
Stranger:
“Where does Hoppe defend your rejection of copyright and refute Rothbard’s? I ask this because Hoppe always makes sense to me, and if you were to provide a text by him where he does this, I would almost certainly change my mind and side with you.”
He does not do so in public in print. It is obvious to anyone who understands his property views and my elaborations. He has told me in person and in email, it’s very clear. He was key in soliciting and publishing my Against IP article and in having it awarded the Alford PRize. He requeseted that I give my Anti-IP speech at his PFS in May this year and loved it. I mean what else do you want?
Nirgraham: “Kinsella, what do you think Hoppe would say about your reading Strangers book from over his shoulder and writing things down onto your paper? Is there a possibility given your close relationship that you could pester him for a soundbite”
I am not sure I want to do this. Hoppe is a great man and I do not like to pester him.