Alexander

It is a rather curious position to hold that what we all emerge from (matter) should be considered completely separate and apart from us. Indeed, what rational basis has this? I'm sorry, I don't follow what you're saying.

Any theory of anything requires intitial assumptions. For example, in Human Action, Mises assumes the existence of humans that act purposefully. This assumption will not satisfy existentialists. Even a dictionary assumes some basic agreement on the meaning of words, in order to then report definitions of other words. To approach my theory from the very ground up, I would simply copy Hoppe's Argumentation Ethic, which is what I'm doing. If you want to argue the validity of that, argue with him. I'm choosing to accept Hoppe for three reasons: 1. It makes perfect sense to me. 2. It seems much like Stef's UPB, which also makes sense to me. 3. Kinsella accepts it.

You could view "language" the same way you view "matter". Matter was given to us, strictily speaking to include the entire mass of the universe, or at least the entire mass of the earth. Humans did not create matter. Humans do, however, in such ways as they are able, transform some amount of physical matter in such a way as to make it useful. We call this transformation "homesteading", and we libertarians hold that this establishes a property right. The fact that matter pre-exited humans should not, I dare say, invailidate the concept of physical property. Thus, the pre-existence, or "gift" of language cannot be held to invalidate intellectual property.

Hi David, I'm trying to take a more rigorous approach than to say things like "it's pretty obvious that . . .". I invite you onto the "Intellectual Property" thread linked above. -Alex

@ribuck - Thank you very much for your input so far. Your time is valuable, and I appreciate it. I have chosen to proceed here step by step, because forum discussions can easily go off in every direction, as we all know I'm sure. My general thesis should be clear by now. I postulate the theoretical existence of Intellectual Space, Matter and Objects. I assume as valid the austro-libertarian theory of physical property. I substitute Intellectual objects for physical objects into the existing valid property theory, to see what happens. I find that Intellectual Matter is homesteaded into Intellectual Property by the trasnsformative input by humans, just as physical matter is homesteaded. My approach to the deconstruction of anti-IP should also be clear now. I'm showing that the rules that generate these allegedly strong arguments against IP do not hold for physical property, and therefore must be invalid. Your task as an opponent of IP would be to forumlate rules for defining property that hold for physical property, yet fail for IP. I allow you to assume as valid self-ownership, NAP, physical property rights. Obviously, you may not define property as necessarily needing to be physical, for that would be assuming the conclusion. -Alex

In my theory, I assume as valid the moral / ethical property system commonly known as anarcho-capitalism. My positive theory will state that. This process is the analysis of the anti- IP position. When I said " valid property" I meant "valid physical property as understood by anarcho- capitalists".

Next, I repeat the anti-IP arguments, this time each item is followed by the logical rule that must operate to reach the conclusion in the item. For each rule, please answer: 1. Does the rule represent a correct inference derived from the argument above it. If not, why not? 2. Does inserting a physical object for X invalidate physical property according to the rule? If not, why not? 1. Intellectual property is not scarce. Physical objects, such as the apples on a tree, are always limited in abundance. If I take the apples and eat them, there are none for you. The use of property by one excludes the use by another. Conflict over scarce resources is inevitable. A peaceful society therefore requires a system of property rights in physical things to decide who is allowed to exploit which resource. Conversely, IP is, by its very nature, super-abundant. If you copy my book, I still have my book. Your use of the IP does not preclude my use. A system of IP rights is therefore unnecessary. Rule 1: If X is useful, and Y is a duplicate of X, and the use of Y does not interfere with the use of X, then X cannot be property. 2. Intellectual property is not libertarian. Enforcement of IP necessitates violations of physical property rights, including the right to self-ownership. If I write a novel and assert a copyright, IP denies you the ability to write down the same pattern of words, even though you are using your own pen, your own paper, and your own physical body. Because you have not aggressed against me, any enforcement of my IP would represent the initiation of force against you. Rule 2: If the enforcement of Person A’s alleged property rights in X imposes any restrictions on the physical movement of Person B, or any restriction on Person B’s use of his own rightful property, then X cannot be property. 3. IP requires arbitrary boundaries. Supporters of IP all agree that a novel is sufficiently complex to be IP, while nobody has suggested that the single word "the" should be property. But how and where do we draw the line? IP requires arbitrary, subjective judgments about the quantity and complexity of information needed to constitute property. Therefore IP cannot be the subject of a rational objective theory. Rule 3. If, during the attempted homesteading of X, the property lines cannot be objectively determined with absolute precision, then X cannot be property. 4. Intellectual property is evil. IP laws are tools of the coercive state. Enforcement of IP is arbitrary or malicious, practiced for the benefit of the government itself and favored interest groups, at the expense of everyone else. Rule 4: If a state has legislated with regard to the use of X, and enforced that legislation in violation of libertarian principles, then X cannot be property. 5. Intellectual property requires a physical container. Storing, transmitting and consuming IP can only be accomplished with tangible, physical things like paper, CDs, hard drives, modems, copper wire, DNA, and the human brain. Without physical property, IP disappears. IP is therefore meaningless, and the only correct system of rights is in physical, tangible things. Rule 5. If X requires a physical container in order to be useful, then X cannot be property. 6. Intellectual property is not economical. IP works against the interest of consumers by stifling innovation and dis-coordinating the economy. This utilitarian argument is based on economic analysis. An ethical, moral and economic analysis of intellectual property on the free market can proceed by postulating the Doctrine of Intellectual Space, Matter and Property; then reasoning forward under Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethic and Austrian Economic Principles generally. Such is the task of the next section.

I'm bringing it on ribuck, in measured steps. There are two aspects to my overall work - the positive case for IP, and the deconstrction of the case agasint it. This particular thread is stating the anti-IP case, after which I will state the rules that must exist to support the anti-IP position. In response to your query about a method patent for fire, I will tell you that my conclusion will be that copyright exists, but patent does not.

The "scarcity" argument goes directly to the moral / ethical foundation of austro-libertarianism. The "Not libertarian" argument then assumes the validity of self-ownership, non-aggression and physical property rights proven via the scarcity argument. Etc. Yes, your point about the futility of utilitarian approaches is well taken. The ability to analyze any issue in terms of its implicit moral / ethical assumptions is a great part of Stefan Molyneux's genius, and the main reason I am here.

Yes, of course.

Sorry, I should have been clear. I was using "liberatarian" to mean "anarcho-capitalist" as Rothbard did. Yes, minarchists tend to support IP. But their case is, of course, philosophically muddled. Either there is a justification for the state, or there isn't. I say there isn't. And I also say intellectual property rightly exists. Supporting my position will require a positive theoretical framework supporting IP, plus a comprehensive deconstruction of the alleged case against IP.

Hi FDR, I'm a fellow anarcho-capitalist in the tradition of Murray Rothbard, Hans Hoppe, and Stefan Molyneux. Like Rothbard, I think intellectual property exists, and I have an original thesis supporting IP consistent with a free society. I'm quite aware that the predominant view in libertarian circles is agaisnt IP, and I will greatly appreaciate civil discourse here, especially from articulate opponents of IP. Dialoging here should expose any weaknesses in my theory. I started a thread here on one of my first tasks, which is to clearly restate the strongest case against IP. Link to Anti IP Restatement Thread -Alex

Genetic information is stored on strands of DNA, which is physical. Information about genes collected by scientists is stored on computer memory devices, which are physical. Chemicals are physical, and chemical formulas are stored on pieces of paper or computer memory, which are physical. Processes are written down on pieces of paper or PDF files which are stored in computer memory which is physical. Seeds are physical. I still think it's fair to say that all IP requires a physical container, but perhaps I should add some of these interesting examples. Thank you.

Here's another . . . Intellectual property requires a physical container. Storing, transmitting and consuming IP can only be accomplished with physical devices like books, CDs, hard drives, modems, copper wire, iPads, etc. Without these physical objects, IP disappears. IP is therefore meaningless, and the correct system of rights is in physical, tangible things.

Amen! This would be part of the positive case in favor of IP.

I'm really just looking for an endorsement that I have given a concise and fair restatement of the case against IP.

I agree, the historical or current source of IP law is not relevant. The important question here is, regardless of the history, could IP possibly exist in a free society? Statists of course, argue that since physical property rights are currently codified and enforced by the state, that this must be the case. As Hoppe has pointed out, that's like saying, "because a monkey can ride a bicycle, ONLY a monkey can ride a bicycle".

Intellectual property is not scarce. Physical objects, such as the apples on a tree, are always limited in abundance. If I take the apples and eat them, there are none for you. The use of property by one excludes the use by another. Conflict over scarce resources is inevitable. A peaceful society therefore requires a system of property rights in physical things to decide who is allowed to exploit which resources. Conversely, IP is, by its very nature, super-abundant. If you copy my book, I still have my book. Your use of the IP does not preclude my use. A system of IP rights is therefore unnecessary. Intellectual property is not libertarian. Enforcement of IP necessitates violations of physical property rights, including the right to self-ownership. If I write a novel and assert a copyright, IP denies you the ability to write down the same pattern of words, even though you are using your own pen, your own paper, and your own physical body. Because you have not aggressed against me, any enforcement of my IP would represent the initiation of force against you. IP requires arbitrary boundaries. Supporters of IP all agree that a novel is sufficiently complex to be IP, while nobody has suggested that the single word "the" should be property. But how and where do we draw the line? IP requires arbitrary, subjective judgments about the quantity and complexity of information needed to constitute property. Therefore IP cannot be the subject of a rational objective theory. Intellectual property is evil. Originating in medieval England under the "Statute of Monopolies", IP is strictly the legislated tool of the coercive state, and cannot arise voluntarily under common law. Enforcement of IP is therefore malicious, practiced for the benefit of the government itself and its favored interest groups, to the detriment of everyone else. Intellectual property is not economical. Contrary to the utilitarian claims of its supporters, IP actually works against the interest of consumers by stifling innovation and dis-coordinating the economy. Intellectual property is mandatory. Under the current statist model, copyright automatically attaches to published songs, videos, books, etc. Even if the creator wanted to make the work freely available, he is unable to do so.

Thanks Alan. I have "tool of the coercive state" in the item called "IP is evil", and "using his own body" is covered in "IP is not libertarian". Is it your position that IP MUST be granted by the state, that it could not exist in a free society?

Strange, I had edited my post above where I first replied to Arius, but it reverted back. No big deal, but odd. I had removed the last couple of sentences.

Regardiing the attempted ownership of the word "the", I propose a new item in the case against IP: IP requires arbitrary boundaries. Supporters of IP all agree that a novel is sufficiently complex to be IP, while nobody has suggested that the single word "the" should be property. But how and where do we draw the line? IP requires arbitrary, subjective judgments about the quantity and complexity of information needed to constitute property. Therefore IP cannot be the subject of a rational objective theory.

Incorporating Arius' item strengthening #2: Intellectual property is not libertarian. Enforcement of IP necessitates violations of physical property rights, including the right to self-ownership. If I write a novel and assert a copyright, IP denies you the ability to write down the same pattern of words, even though you are using your own pen, your own paper, and your own physical body. Because you have not aggressed against me, any enforcement of my IP would represent the initiation of force against you.

I appreciate the reply, I'm not sure your item is different than the one I called "IP is not libertarian".The point of that item is to say that IP necessarily places limits on the physical property rights of others, including self-ownership, which is what I think you're trying to say in your item. You also said "because IP does not exist . . ." which would be an assumption of anti-IP's attempted conclusion. That's so easy to knock down that if I used it, I'd be accused of making a strawman argument. And then you said that "enforcement" is like "the initiation of force". Yes, force is like force, but that's a bit of a tautology. Not sure it adds.

I believe I've got a robust theory supporting intellectual property consistent with a free society. I'm hoping to get through to Stef on a Sunday call-in to kick it around a bit as I continue writing. Below is my current summary of the Anti-IP position as given by Stephan Kinsella and others. Please comment on whether I've done a fair job of presenting that which I wish to destroy, or to add other elements of the current libertarian case against IP. Thanks. -Alex _______ Intellectual property is not scarce. Physical objects, such as the apples on a tree, are always limited in abundance. If I take the apples and eat them, there are none for you. The use of property by one excludes the use by another. Conflict over scarce resources is inevitable. A peaceful society therefore requires a system of property rights in physical things to decide who is allowed to exploit which resources. Conversely, IP is, by its very nature, super-abundant. If you copy my book, I still have my book. Your use of the IP does not preclude my use. A system of IP rights is therefore unnecessary. Intellectual property is not libertarian. Enforcement of IP necessitates violations of physical property rights. If I write a novel and assert a copyright, IP denies you the ability to write down the same pattern of words, even though you are using your own pen and your own paper. Intellectual property is evil. IP laws are tools of the coercive state. Enforcement of IP is arbitrary or malicious, practiced for the benefit of the government itself and favored interest groups, at the expense of everyone else. Intellectual property is not economical. IP works against the interest of consumers by stifling innovation and dis-coordinating the economy.