Intellectual Property

[Arius]

I don't think a "process" or "method" can be homesteaded into IP the way a finished work like a "song" or a "movie" can be. I believe that my theory will conclude that copyright is valid IP, while patent is not. Attempting to homestead the concept of argumentation will fail the homesteading test.

Excuse me, you have trespassed on my intellectual object of argumentation.  By trying to make a claim about some arbitrary exclusion from the definition of intellectual matter, which you established, you have trespassed into argumentation.  Argumentation is understandable through language and, as you have stated, intellectual matter its that which can be understood through language.  Argumentation is distinct from not-argumentation, and so it is an intellectual object.  Any unowned intellectual property only needs to be used and claimed to be owned.  I am arguing and I claim to own argumentation.  As we discussed earlier, there is no public property, remember?  Argumentation was unowned until I claimed it, just now.  I'm afraid that I must use my legitimate exclusive moral claim to exclude you from arguing.  If you continue to argue, I will assume you are not interested in keeping to the NAP or respecting property rights.

 

 

 

 

[Kawlinz]

 

Absent a consideration of the Doctrine of Intellectual Space, Matter and Property, what you say here is correct. Considering the Doctrine, what you say is incorrect. There are not, and cannot be multiple "instantiations" of an intellectual object. Each is unique.

If I write a song, I have transformed previously unowned intellectual matter in a way that is useful, thus homesteading a new piece of property. This piece of intellectual property exists in a unique location in intellectual space, distinct from every other object and every other location in intellectual space. Regardless of how many copies of the song are made in the physical world, the intellectual property cannot be duplicated.

Thinking that there could possibly be multiple instances of a piece of intellectual property makes no more sense than saying that there could be multiple instances of a piece of property located at some particular geographical coordinates. The coordinates specify a unique location in phsyical space. An intellectual property object exists at a unique location in intellectual space.

 

If each is unique and can't be duplicated, then what are you actually making a pro IP argument for? How can you trespass on someone's intellectual property if every "intellectual object" is unique? If you played an original song on the sidewalk at 2 pm and I walk by, then the intellectual object in my head when I hear this song is unique and completely seperate from the one that was in your head. Then the one I think about at 2:02 is different again. Then I go home and make a recording of the song in my head, which is another unique object, and the next day I press up some CDs and sell them on the corner. I play a CD on my boombox (abother unique intellectual object), and you walk by to hear the song (another unique object).

What would your response to hearing this song while I attempt to sell it? What grounds could you possibly have to say that I'm doing something wrong?

[Alexander]

 

 

Absent a consideration of the Doctrine of Intellectual Space, Matter and Property, what you say here is correct. Considering the Doctrine, what you say is incorrect. There are not, and cannot be multiple "instantiations" of an intellectual object. Each is unique.

If I write a song, I have transformed previously unowned intellectual matter in a way that is useful, thus homesteading a new piece of property. This piece of intellectual property exists in a unique location in intellectual space, distinct from every other object and every other location in intellectual space. Regardless of how many copies of the song are made in the physical world, the intellectual property cannot be duplicated.

Thinking that there could possibly be multiple instances of a piece of intellectual property makes no more sense than saying that there could be multiple instances of a piece of property located at some particular geographical coordinates. The coordinates specify a unique location in phsyical space. An intellectual property object exists at a unique location in intellectual space.

 

If each is unique and can't be duplicated, then what are you actually making a pro IP argument for? How can you trespass on someone's intellectual property if every "intellectual object" is unique? If you played an original song on the sidewalk at 2 pm and I walk by, then the intellectual object in my head when I hear this song is unique and completely seperate from the one that was in your head. Then the one I think about at 2:02 is different again. Then I go home and make a recording of the song in my head, which is another unique object, and the next day I press up some CDs and sell them on the corner. I play a CD on my boombox (abother unique intellectual object), and you walk by to hear the song (another unique object).

What would your response to hearing this song while I attempt to sell it? What grounds could you possibly have to say that I'm doing something wrong?

 

If I have properly homesteaded the object, the song is my intellectual property. From this property can be manufactured products, just as a factory churns out widgets from the assembly line.

The use of a "song" for listening pleasure is completely different than the use of a "song" for making copies. They require different hardwares, different softwares, different human labor, different time, and, most importantly of all, they are distinct economic functions. Use of a "song" for listening pleasure is a consumer good, use of a song for making copies is a capital good. Therefore, the song in your head will be one of these two types of objects, depending on what you are using it for at that time. If it is for your your listening pleasure, it is a conumser good, like a widget. If it is for making copies, it is a capital good, like a factory. The widget is your property, and you may do as you wish with it. The factory is my property, stay away without my permission.

 

Your first question does not appear to be written in English, so I can't respond.

Inetllectual objects are scarce and rivalrous, therefore rightful property. Copying without persmission is trespass. Trespass is wrong.

 

 

[Kawlinz]

 

 

 

Absent a consideration of the Doctrine of Intellectual Space, Matter and Property, what you say here is correct. Considering the Doctrine, what you say is incorrect. There are not, and cannot be multiple "instantiations" of an intellectual object. Each is unique.

If I write a song, I have transformed previously unowned intellectual matter in a way that is useful, thus homesteading a new piece of property. This piece of intellectual property exists in a unique location in intellectual space, distinct from every other object and every other location in intellectual space. Regardless of how many copies of the song are made in the physical world, the intellectual property cannot be duplicated.

Thinking that there could possibly be multiple instances of a piece of intellectual property makes no more sense than saying that there could be multiple instances of a piece of property located at some particular geographical coordinates. The coordinates specify a unique location in phsyical space. An intellectual property object exists at a unique location in intellectual space.

 

If each is unique and can't be duplicated, then what are you actually making a pro IP argument for? How can you trespass on someone's intellectual property if every "intellectual object" is unique? If you played an original song on the sidewalk at 2 pm and I walk by, then the intellectual object in my head when I hear this song is unique and completely seperate from the one that was in your head. Then the one I think about at 2:02 is different again. Then I go home and make a recording of the song in my head, which is another unique object, and the next day I press up some CDs and sell them on the corner. I play a CD on my boombox (abother unique intellectual object), and you walk by to hear the song (another unique object).

What would your response *be* to hearing this song while I attempt to sell it? What grounds could you possibly have to say that I'm doing something wrong?

 

If I have properly homesteaded the object, the song is my intellectual property. From this property can be manufactured products, just as a factory churns out widgets from the assembly line.

The use of a "song" for listening pleasure is completely different than the use of a "song" for making copies. They require different hardwares, different softwares, different human labor, different time, and, most importantly of all, they are distinct economic functions. Use of a "song" for listening pleasure is a consumer good, use of a song for making copies is a capital good. Therefore, the song in your head will be one of these two types of objects, depending on what you are using it for at that time. If it is for your your listening pleasure, it is a conumser good, like a widget. If it is for making copies, it is a capital good, like a factory. The widget is your property, and you may do as you wish with it. The factory is my property, stay away without my permission.

 

Your first question does not appear to be written in English, so I can't respond.

Inetllectual objects are scarce and rivalrous, therefore rightful property. Copying without persmission is trespass. Trespass is wrong.

 

 

 

You're saying "the song" like there's only one, when you've said previously that every copy is a new and unique intellectual object. You said "the intellectual property can not be duplicated" and you also say that "copying without permission is tresspass" - so which is it?

[Alexander]

The song is a pattern of ideas, that is a unique intellectual object that resides at a unique location in intellectual space. Assuming I have homesteaded, the song is my rightful property. No matter how many copies are made, and no matter who makes the copies, there is one song, and it is a unique intellectual object at a unique location in intellectual space.

Think of "the song" like a patch of farmland. When I make copies, I am growing carrots on my farmland. When I distribute copies, I am distributing carrots. When you listen to the song for your entertainment, you are eating a carrot.

When you copy the song without my permission, you are coming on to my farmland, planting your own seeds, and growing your own carrots, and walking off with them. Although you may believe those new carrots rightly belong to you because you used some of your own effort and your own seeds to grow them, you would be wrong becuase you had to trespass.

 

 

 

 

[Alexander]

 

I don't think a "process" or "method" can be homesteaded into IP the way a finished work like a "song" or a "movie" can be. I believe that my theory will conclude that copyright is valid IP, while patent is not. Attempting to homestead the concept of argumentation will fail the homesteading test.

Excuse me, you have trespassed on my intellectual object of argumentation.  By trying to make a claim about some arbitrary exclusion from the definition of intellectual matter, which you established, you have trespassed into argumentation.  Argumentation is understandable through language and, as you have stated, intellectual matter its that which can be understood through language.  Argumentation is distinct from not-argumentation, and so it is an intellectual object.  Any unowned intellectual property only needs to be used and claimed to be owned.  I am arguing and I claim to own argumentation.  As we discussed earlier, there is no public property, remember?  Argumentation was unowned until I claimed it, just now.  I'm afraid that I must use my legitimate exclusive moral claim to exclude you from arguing.  If you continue to argue, I will assume you are not interested in keeping to the NAP or respecting property rights.

 

 

 

I would characteize "Argumentation" as a process, not a finsihed work, and not subject to copyright. However, the general point you are making is what I would call a "fuzzy boundary" problem. When is an intellectual object sufficiently large / complex / transformed / ascertainable / controllable enough to be rightly claimed as property? 

There are subjective, arbitrary decisions that must be made with respect to the location of borders around homesteaded property. This is of course true with physical property as well as intellectual. If the fuzzy boundary problem does not invalidate physical property, it does not invalidate intellectual property.

 

[Kawlinz]

 

The song is a pattern of ideas, that is a unique intellectual object that resides at a unique location in intellectual space. Assuming I have homesteaded, the song is my rightful property. No matter how many copies are made, and no matter who makes the copies, there is one song, and it is a unique intellectual object at a unique location in intellectual space.

Think of "the song" like a patch of farmland. When I make copies, I am growing carrots on my farmland. When I distribute copies, I am distributing carrots. When you listen to the song for your entertainment, you are eating a carrot.

When you copy the song without my permission, you are coming on to my farmland, planting your own seeds, and growing your own carrots, and walking off with them. Although you may believe those new carrots rightly belong to you because you used some of your own effort and your own seeds to grow them, you would be wrong becuase you had to trespass.

 

 

Are you aware that you're switching your position midstream and saying that intellectual property can be duplicated, whereas before you said that it can't be?

And i disagree with this explanation.

If I eat a carrot, it's gone. I can't "eat" a song.

When I copy the song without your permission, I am creating my own carrots on whatever land I may have. Saying I'm trespassing on a song would mean I'd literally have to extract it from your brain, which I don't. If you play the song, whoever hears that song is getting a carrot, and what someone does with that carrot is up to them. Unless I sign a contract before I get the carrot, there aren't any restraints on how I'm allowed to use the carrot. If I want to plant the carrot top, there's nothing wrong with doing that.

 

[Alexander]

 

 

The song is a pattern of ideas, that is a unique intellectual object that resides at a unique location in intellectual space. Assuming I have homesteaded, the song is my rightful property. No matter how many copies are made, and no matter who makes the copies, there is one song, and it is a unique intellectual object at a unique location in intellectual space.

Think of "the song" like a patch of farmland. When I make copies, I am growing carrots on my farmland. When I distribute copies, I am distributing carrots. When you listen to the song for your entertainment, you are eating a carrot.

When you copy the song without my permission, you are coming on to my farmland, planting your own seeds, and growing your own carrots, and walking off with them. Although you may believe those new carrots rightly belong to you because you used some of your own effort and your own seeds to grow them, you would be wrong becuase you had to trespass.

 

 

Are you aware that you're switching your position midstream and saying that intellectual property can be duplicated, whereas before you said that it can't be?

And i disagree with this explanation.

If I eat a carrot, it's gone. I can't "eat" a song.

When I copy the song without your permission, I am creating my own carrots on whatever land I may have. Saying I'm trespassing on a song would mean I'd literally have to extract it from your brain, which I don't. If you play the song, whoever hears that song is getting a carrot, and what someone does with that carrot is up to them. Unless I sign a contract before I get the carrot, there aren't any restraints on how I'm allowed to use the carrot. If I want to plant the carrot top, there's nothing wrong with doing that.

 

 

Food is what's called "non-durable" goods - you eat it, it's gone. A car is a durable good - you drive it, and it's still there. Durability is a distraction from the issue here. Eating a carrot and driving a car are both examples of consumption. A song copy is a durable good, so we can use the example of a car factory instead of a carrot farm, if that will be less distracting.

To respond to the carrot analogy, if you plant a carrot top into your own land, you are not trespassing on my property, and you are free to that. The intellectual equivalent would be if you bought a copy of my song, listened to it, then wrote your own different song, then made a copy of your own song.

You are incorrect to say, "Unless I sign a contract before I get the carrot, there aren't any restraints on how I'm allowed to use the carrot."

You may not take the carrot and stab someone in the eyeball with it. All property rights, including the use of your own physical body, are limited in scope by other people's property rights.

 

 

 

 

[Arius]

 

I would characteize "Argumentation" as a process, not a finsihed work, and not subject to copyright. However, the general point you are making is what I would call a "fuzzy boundary" problem. When is an intellectual object sufficiently large / complex / transformed / ascertainable / controllable enough to be rightly claimed as property? 

There are subjective, arbitrary decisions that must be made with respect to the location of borders around homesteaded property. This is of course true with physical property as well as intellectual. If the fuzzy boundary problem does not invalidate physical property, it does not invalidate intellectual property.

 

I'm glad you're willing to admit your definitions are wrong. I relinquish my invalid claim over argumentation.

You'll need to change "Intellectual Matter - That which can be understood through language." to read "Intellectual Matter - That which can be understood through language, except anything which can be regarded as a process, or is not a finished work."

Let's try another two and see if we can find all the arbitrary exceptions to your definitions.

I own the symbols 'r' and 'R'.  Both are explainable through language, neither can be regarded as a process.  The symbols are fully drawn, there is no more production required for them, both are finished products.  Each is highly distinct when compared to the millions of other symbols.  I have used both, and claim ownership of them.  Using either of these intellectual objects without my express permission is trespass, as I have a legitimate, exclusive, moral claim of authority to exclude others from use of these properties.

I own the word "Alexander".  It is clearly explainable through language. It cannot be regarded as a process.  It is highly distinct from the millions of other words.  The word is complete, as no additions are required, and is a finished product.  I just used it to make this statement, and I claim ownership over it.  Using this intellectual object without my express permission is trespass, as I have a legitimate, exclusive, moral claim of authority to exclude others from use of this properties.

 

[Alexander]

I would characteize "Argumentation" as a process, not a finsihed work, and not subject to copyright. However, the general point you are making is what I would call a "fuzzy boundary" problem. When is an intellectual object sufficiently large / complex / transformed / ascertainable / controllable enough to be rightly claimed as property?

There are subjective, arbitrary decisions that must be made with respect to the location of borders around homesteaded property. This is of course true with physical property as well as intellectual. If the fuzzy boundary problem does not invalidate physical property, it does not invalidate intellectual property.

I'm glad you're willing to admit your definitions are wrong. I relinquish my invalid claim over argumentation.

You'll need to change "Intellectual Matter - That which can be understood through language." to read "Intellectual Matter - That which can be understood through language, except anything which can be regarded as a process, or is not a finished work."

Let's try another two and see if we can find all the arbitrary exceptions to your definitions.

I own the symbols 'r' and 'R'.  Both are explainable through language, neither can be regarded as a process.  The symbols are fully drawn, there is no more production required for them, both are finished products.  Each is highly distinct when compared to the millions of other symbols.  I have used both, and claim ownership of them.  Using either of these intellectual objects without my express permission is trespass, as I have a legitimate, exclusive, moral claim of authority to exclude others from use of these properties.

I own the word "Alexander".  It is clearly explainable through language. It cannot be regarded as a process.  It is highly distinct from the millions of other words.  The word is complete, as no additions are required, and is a finished product.  I just used it to make this statement, and I claim ownership over it.  Using this intellectual object without my express permission is trespass, as I have a legitimate, exclusive, moral claim of authority to exclude others from use of this properties.

 

 

STOP STRAWMAN! You're confusing matter with property. Read the definitions carefully. "Intellectual Matter" is one thing, "Intellectual Object" is another thing, "Intellectual Property" is yet another. All Intellectual Property is composed of Intellectual Matter, but not all Intellectual Matter is rightful property. OK? Please read carefully:

 

 

Intellectual Space - An abstract, yet objectively understandable theoretical array of unique locations.

 

Intellectual Matter - That which can be understood through language.

 

Intellectual Object - an ascertainable bounded pattern of intellectual matter, temporally stable and cohesive such that it can be reliably identified and distinguished from surrounding intellectual matter.

 

Intellectual Property - a previously un-owned intellectual object that has been transformed into usefulness and declared owned by a human.

 

Object – that which exists within objectively discernable boundaries

 

Property – a valuable object which is legitimately owned.

 

Property Right – a legitimate exclusive moral claim of authority to use, to exclude others from use, and to transfer ownership of an object.  

 

Homesteading – the process of transforming an un-owned object in a manner that creates value, thereby establishing a legitimate property right.

 

Legitimate – that which does not violate the principles of self-ownership and the Non-Aggression Principle.

 

Value – a subjective individual human assessment that the possession or use of an object is preferable to non-possession and non-use.

 

Owner – a person with a legitimate property right over an object.

 

Law – a practical body of rules designed to allocate the legal right to use contestable or  or rivalrous scarce resources.

 

Scarce – the quality of being limited in abundance

 

Rivalrous – the concept that use by one person interferes with use by another
 

[Arius]

My symbols and my word are both owned by me.  You are trespassing on my property again.  It is immoral for you to do so, as trespassing is immoral.

You're confusing matter with property. Read the definitions carefully. "Intellectual Matter" is one thing, "Intellectual Object" is another thing, "Intellectual Property" is yet another. All Intellectual Property is composed of Intellectual Matter, but not all Intellectual Matter is rightful property.

Let's just compare it to land.  I claimed ownership of argumentation, which I will now refer to as a piece of land.  I claimed this piece of land and you walked all over it against my express permission.  You then claimed that the land could not be owned because there was some type of mineral (it was actually a process, which is unownable) on it.  I excepted your definition that land with that mineral was unownable (process are conceptually fuzzy and cannot be sufficiently defined to be owned).  I claimed some symbols and a word...which I will now refer to as a piece of land.  This land is free of the mineral which creates an exception to your moral rule (it's pretty tough to claim the symbols 'r' and 'R', as well as the word "Alexander", are either conceptually fuzzy or a process). You are now walking all over my land without my express permission.  So, I'm waiting for you to either respect your own moral principle and get off my land, or explain the next arbitrary exception to your "moral argument".

 

 

[Alexander]

 

My symbols and my word are both owned by me.  You are trespassing on my property again.  It is immoral for you to do so, as trespassing is immoral.

You're confusing matter with property. Read the definitions carefully. "Intellectual Matter" is one thing, "Intellectual Object" is another thing, "Intellectual Property" is yet another. All Intellectual Property is composed of Intellectual Matter, but not all Intellectual Matter is rightful property.

Let's just compare it to land.  I claimed ownership of argumentation, which I will now refer to as a piece of land.  I claimed this piece of land and you walked all over it against my express permission.  You then claimed that the land could not be owned because there was some type of mineral (it was actually a process, which is unownable) on it.  I excepted your definition that land with that mineral was unownable (process are conceptually fuzzy and cannot be sufficiently defined to be owned).  I claimed some symbols and a word...which I will now refer to as a piece of land.  This land is free of the mineral which creates an exception to your moral rule (it's pretty tough to claim the symbols 'r' and 'R', as well as the word "Alexander", are either conceptually fuzzy or a process). You are now walking all over my land without my express permission.  So, I'm waiting for you to either respect your own moral principle and get off my land, or explain the next arbitrary exception to your "moral argument".

 

 

 

It sounds as though you are attempting to assert ownership over that which is not own-able. This problem is not unique to IP, the same problem occurs with physical things. You might try to claim ownership of a rain cloud, and send me a bill for the nice soothing rain that befell my thirsty garden. You might try to say your homesteaded land extends to the horizon, as far as you can see. You might try to claim ownership of a single speck of dust, and prosecute me for theft upon discovering the dust on my jacket.

Property, physical OR intellectual, requires arbitrary judgments about boundaries and sufficiency. If this "fuzzy boundary" problem inavalidates IP, then it invalidates physical property. I begin with an assumption that physical property is valid, therefore the fuzzy boundaries do not invalidate IP.

 

 

[Arius]

Property, physical OR intellectual, requires arbitrary judgments about boundaries and sufficiency. If this "fuzzy boundary" problem inavalidates IP, then it invalidates physical property. I begin with an assumption that physical property is valid, therefore the fuzzy boundaries do not invalidate IP.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but there are air rights, water rights, and mineral rights.  In fact, the concept of property can be extended to any object which physically exists.  True, one person doesn't own all the world.  However, all the available land is constantly being converted to property and subdivided.  There is no physical object which cannot be owned.  To include: clouds, air, and water.

You might try to claim ownership of a rain cloud, and send me a bill for the nice soothing rain that befell my thirsty garden.

Water rights.  If I own the water, it doesn't matter if it becomes displaced.  My car is not, somehow, less my car because it moves over a parking space.  By the same token, my water is not any less my water because it changes containers.  If my ownership claim is valid, you're in the wrong for stealing my water.

You might try to say your homesteaded land extends to the horizon, as far as you can see.

Farmland.  Do you know how large Disneyland is?  Have you ever seen a private animal reserve?  There are a ton of extremely-large, privately owned plots of land.  If my ownership claim is valid, I can own the whole world.

You might try to claim ownership of a single speck of dust, and prosecute me for theft upon discovering the dust on my jacket.

Diamonds are sold in extremely small sizes. So are microchips.  There are a number of micro and nano objects which are privately owned.  Steal a diamond, see what happens.

 

You are still trespassing on my property without an explanation.

 

[Alexander]

 

Property, physical OR intellectual, requires arbitrary judgments about boundaries and sufficiency. If this "fuzzy boundary" problem inavalidates IP, then it invalidates physical property. I begin with an assumption that physical property is valid, therefore the fuzzy boundaries do not invalidate IP.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but there are air rights, water rights, and mineral rights.  In fact, the concept of property can be extended to any object which physically exists.  True, one person doesn't own all the world.  However, all the available land is constantly being converted to property and subdivided.  There is no physical object which cannot be owned.  To include: clouds, air, and water.

You might try to claim ownership of a rain cloud, and send me a bill for the nice soothing rain that befell my thirsty garden.

Water rights.  If I own the water, it doesn't matter if it becomes displaced.  My car is not, somehow, less my car because it moves over a parking space.  By the same token, my water is not any less my water because it changes containers.  If my ownership claim is valid, you're in the wrong for stealing my water.

You might try to say your homesteaded land extends to the horizon, as far as you can see.

Farmland.  Do you know how large Disneyland is?  Have you ever seen a private animal reserve?  There are a ton of extremely-large, privately owned plots of land.  If my ownership claim is valid, I can own the whole world.

You might try to claim ownership of a single speck of dust, and prosecute me for theft upon discovering the dust on my jacket.

Diamonds are sold in extremely small sizes. So are microchips.  There are a number of micro and nano objects which are privately owned.  Steal a diamond, see what happens.

 

You are still trespassing on my property without an explanation.

 

 

You're ignoring the element of dominion and control. Yes, small or large things can be owned, if they are sufficiently definable, controllable. A diamond, yes. A nanochip, yes. A raincloud . . . no. If you can learn how to reliably control it, and deliver it above my garden on a regular basis, then yes. Otherwise, no.

 

You're ignoring the element of arbitrary judgment. Suppose I homestead some unowned land and make a farm and a farm house. I'm putting the land to use, and transforming it, so my homestead is valid. Does my house have to be exaclty next to my crops, or can I leave some land in between as my front yard? If so, how much front yard? 10 ft? 1000 ft? 100 miles? I'd like a back yard for my kids to play in. That's a valid use of land. How big is my back yard? 1 square foot? 1000 sq. ft? 1000 sq. miles?

How deep does my ownership of the land go? All the way to the center of the earth? Suppose you want to build a useful tunnel underneath my crops. Does my property end at the bottom of the roots of my crops? Or somewhere deeper?

Isn't it absolutely clear that establishing boundaries requires arbitrary, subjective judgments by people? Does this invalidate physical property?

 

 

 

 

[Arius]

You're ignoring the element of dominion and control.

Not part of your definitions.  If you'd like to revise them...

People own all sorts of things which they don't control.  I own my car, but it's out in the parking lot right now.  If someone picked the lock and hot wired my Echo, it doesn't suddenly stop being my car.  If I take a vacation and a bunch of hobos move in to my house, does it suddenly become their house because I was gone?  Come on now.  Ownership is a moral claim, it has next to nothing to do with control.  My goodness, by that logic, if I hand someone my wallet, it suddenly stops being mine.  At a minimum, A theory of property needs to account for what happens in the real world.

You're ignoring the element of arbitrary judgment. Suppose I homestead some unowned land and make a farm and a farm house. I'm putting the land to use, and transforming it, so my homestead is valid. Does my house have to be exaclty next to my crops, or can I leave some land in between as my front yard? If so, how much front yard? 10 ft? 1000 ft? 100 miles? I'd like a back yard for my kids to play in. That's a valid use of land. How big is my back yard? 1 square foot? 1000 sq. ft? 1000 sq. miles?

The farm owner builds a fence as a tool to indicate to other people what he perceives the boundary of the property to be.  If he's especially community-minded, he might post a bill in the town square with a diagram of his property.  At a minimum, he'll post a sign which indicates his boundary.  Me?  I'm a nice guy and explain exactly what part of the intellectual space belongs to me.  Better than a fence, I gave you a personal explanation of what I own.  Not only that, I'm nice enough to personally explain when you're on my property.  I've actually used the computer to produce reproductions of my property.  What more can I do to clearly indicate where my property is?

 

How deep does my ownership of the land go? All the way to the center of the earth? Suppose you want to build a useful tunnel underneath my crops. Does my property end at the bottom of the roots of my crops? Or somewhere deeper?

Isn't it absolutely clear that establishing boundaries requires arbitrary, subjective judgments by people? Does this invalidate physical property?

Somehow, I don't think you have trouble telling 'r' and 'R' from other symbols (you write too well to claim you have that problem).  I didn't claim a family of symbols.  I'm claiming exactly two symbols.  There is nothing fuzzy about what I'm claiming ownership of.  Good lord, I picked the word "Alexander" because I know you're familiar with where it is in intellectual space.  I'm not trying to pick obscure property for fun.  I'm trying to get-in on the rush for commonly used symbols.  There's big money in licensing the rights to 'r' and 'R'.  I'm not sure "Alexander" has commercial value, but my owning it invalidates the "fuzzy" argument.  You are actively using the word, so you can't claim ignorance of it's exact location and dimension in intellectual space.  In fact, of all the names you could have picked for the forum, you selected that one.  You must know exactly where it is in intellectual space, since it was so easy for you to find it.

You are still trespassing.  There are exactly two solutions to the problem.  Either my claim of ownership is invalid (and we need to work on your definitions, so there can be some exceptions), or you are in the wrong morally (and need to change your forum name).  It's a strange scenario, but we need to put your theory to the test.  If every usage of your theory results in a new exception, then I don't think there's very much value in it.

 

 

[Kawlinz]

 

 

Are you aware that you're switching your position midstream and saying that intellectual property can be duplicated, whereas before you said that it can't be?

And i disagree with this explanation.

If I eat a carrot, it's gone. I can't "eat" a song.

When I copy the song without your permission, I am creating my own carrots on whatever land I may have. Saying I'm trespassing on a song would mean I'd literally have to extract it from your brain, which I don't. If you play the song, whoever hears that song is getting a carrot, and what someone does with that carrot is up to them. Unless I sign a contract before I get the carrot, there aren't any restraints on how I'm allowed to use the carrot. If I want to plant the carrot top, there's nothing wrong with doing that.

 

 

Food is what's called "non-durable" goods - you eat it, it's gone. A car is a durable good - you drive it, and it's still there. Durability is a distraction from the issue here. Eating a carrot and driving a car are both examples of consumption. A song copy is a durable good, so we can use the example of a car factory instead of a carrot farm, if that will be less distracting.

To respond to the carrot analogy, if you plant a carrot top into your own land, you are not trespassing on my property, and you are free to that. The intellectual equivalent would be if you bought a copy of my song, listened to it, then wrote your own different song, then made a copy of your own song.

You are incorrect to say, "Unless I sign a contract before I get the carrot, there aren't any restraints on how I'm allowed to use the carrot."

You may not take the carrot and stab someone in the eyeball with it. All property rights, including the use of your own physical body, are limited in scope by other people's property rights.

 

I have no desire to continue this conversation.

[Alexander]

Dominion and control are part of homesteading, and an essential part of property. Check Carl Menger's definition of "goods". (sufficient control to make the thing useful).  I will modify my definition to make this more explicit, thank you for identifying it.

I'll try to pin down your position a little:

Is it your position that a homesteader MUST build a fence to establish rightful property? Is it your position that building a fence automatically entitles the builder to ownership of all within?

Is it your position that a homesteader who marks his territory on a map automatically owns everything within his marked borders?

Is it your position that a rain cloud can be owned? (not "water", a rain cloud).

 

 

 

[Arius]

Dominion and control are part of homesteading, and an essential part of property. Check Carl Menger's definition of "goods". (sufficient control to make the thing useful).  I will modify my definition to make this more explicit, thank you for identifying it.

"goods are valuable because they serve various uses whose importance differs"?  You need the water I own.  I let you use the water.  You pay me money.  Seems very straightforward.  You need to use the symbols 'r' and 'R'.  I own those symbols.  For a price, I'll permit you to use them.  Clearly there's value to you in using my symbols and word.  Look how frivolous you are when you can steal them from me.  I'm certain you'd pay a fair price to use my property.

Is it your position that a homesteader MUST build a fence to establish rightful property? Is it your position that building a fence automatically entitles the builder to ownership of all within?

The fence is a nicety, like a handshake during a greeting.  It isn't required, but it smooths-out the interaction.  The boundaries of the property are well-defined to the owner.  As ownership is a moral claim, as long as the owner knows (and accurately represents) what is owned, no indicators are necessary.  A passer-by wouldn't know that my car belongs to me.  There are no markings on my car that indicate it is mine.  It could be an abandoned vehicle as easily as it is my car (it's getting kinda old).  None of these conditions modify the ownership status of the vehicle.  I don't have a fence around my car.  I don't have a big sign which says "This is my car, leave it alone".  But it's still my car.

Enclosure and ownership are two different things.

Is it your position that a homesteader who marks his territory on a map automatically owns everything within his marked borders?

Drawing and owning are two different things...  Though, under the proposed model of IP there is a lot of overlap.  The homesteader might not own land on the basis of the drawing, but I believe he does gain ownership of all similar renditions of the drawing he has created.  Unless someone else already drew a picture like that, then he's trespassing.  Drawing a picture of a thing, even under the proposed model of IP, is not a claim to the ownership of the thing.  At best, it is a claim of ownership to the drawing.

Is it your position that a rain cloud can be owned? (not "water", a rain cloud).

Clouds are made of water.  If the property claim on the water is valid, then the form of that water is irreverent.  How absurd is it to claim that, because a thing is a few degrees hotter or cooler, heavier or lighter, larger or smaller that somehow modifies its ownership?  It modifies value, no doubt.  But not the actual ownership of the thing.  My car does not stop being mine simply because it overheats.  If I remove the engine from my car, it remains mine.  If I have the car crushed into a cube, it is still my cube until I relinquish the title.

 

[Alexander]

Ok, you think you can own a rain cloud. Let's just agree to disagree on that. I don't think we agree about the nature of physical property, which was a pre-condition of the discussion really.

Ok, so a fence is not required to establish ownership of physical property. Great. So I homestead a piece of land by planting a new little crop on 1/4 acre, and build a small house, and I say that I now own the surrounding 25,000 square miles. Is this valid? If not, why not? Suppose two neighbors have both validly homesteaded 1 mile apart from each other, and they honestly disagree about where the property line is between them.

How do we objectively decide?

I don't think we can objectively decide. I think there are fuzzy bondaries. I think property requires arbitrary decisions about boundaries.

 

[Arius]

Ok, you think you can own a rain cloud. Let's just agree to disagree on that. I don't think we agree about the nature of physical property, which was a pre-condition of the discussion really.

You do agree that clouds are made of water, right?  You also believe people can own water, right?  I don't see why owning water in cloud form is such a big deal for you.  If there an equal prohibition against owning ice or plasma?  Why is the liquid form of water the only permitted state for owning?  Are all gasses off-limits, or is it just water vapor?

So I homestead a piece of land by planting a new little crop on 1/4 acre, and build a small house, and I say that I now own the surrounding 25,000 square miles.

To whom do you say it?  That's a pretty big part of the question.  If you're all by yourself, you can validly claim ownership of the whole of the universe.  Who would ever know?  In fact, as there are no other people, you cannot violate the NAP or self-ownership.  Under your definition, if there is exactly one person in existence, they cannot make an invalid ownership claim.

Is this valid? If not, why not?

Well, you've explained to me that ownership (a property right) is "a legitimate exclusive moral claim of authority to exclude others from use of property".  "Legitimate" means "that which does not violate the principles of self-ownership and the Non-Aggression Principle".  So, if the claim to exclude others from the 25,000 square mile plot doesn't violate the NAP or self-ownership, then it must be valid.  Alternatively, if it violates the NAP or self-ownership, it must be invalid.  You've already established rules for answering this question.

Suppose two neighbors have both validly homesteaded 1 mile apart from each other, and they honestly disagree about where the property line is between them.

Well, if they both have claims which, when exercised, do not violate self-ownership or the NAP, then both of their claims are valid.  Alternately, if their claims are mutually exclusive, then the first claim which is made has priority.  That is, the entire purpose of homesteading is get there first.  Thus, by the homesteading rule, the first one to make a claim which does not violate NAP or self-ownership has the valid claim.  See, you describe homesteading as "the process of transforming an un-owned object in a manner that creates value, thereby establishing a legitimate property right".  By that definition, the first claim transforms a property from unowned to owned.  An ownership claim cannot be advanced against an owned property.  Thus, the first guy to transform the unowned property into an owned property wins the territorial dispute.

How do we objectively decide?

It's pretty easy to see who got there first and made the claim of ownership.  If you arrive somewhere and there's already someone there, you weren't first.  If you arrive somewhere and no one's there, you might be first.  That's pretty objective.  Which is exactly the reason I feel confident in my claim of ownership over the symbols 'r' and 'R' and the word "Alexander".  Nobody else had claimed them and my claim doesn't violate self-ownership or NAP.  I've discussed the qualities of the properties which make them ownable.  I'm really quite certain that I've gotten-in on the ground floor of this new land rush for intellectual properties.

[Alexander]

 

Ok, you think you can own a rain cloud. Let's just agree to disagree on that. I don't think we agree about the nature of physical property, which was a pre-condition of the discussion really.

You do agree that clouds are made of water, right?  You also believe people can own water, right?  I don't see why owning water in cloud form is such a big deal for you.  If there an equal prohibition against owning ice or plasma?  Why is the liquid form of water the only permitted state for owning?  Are all gasses off-limits, or is it just water vapor?

So I homestead a piece of land by planting a new little crop on 1/4 acre, and build a small house, and I say that I now own the surrounding 25,000 square miles.

To whom do you say it?  That's a pretty big part of the question.  If you're all by yourself, you can validly claim ownership of the whole of the universe.  Who would ever know?  In fact, as there are no other people, you cannot violate the NAP or self-ownership.  Under your definition, if there is exactly one person in existence, they cannot make an invalid ownership claim.

Is this valid? If not, why not?

Well, you've explained to me that ownership (a property right) is "a legitimate exclusive moral claim of authority to exclude others from use of property".  "Legitimate" means "that which does not violate the principles of self-ownership and the Non-Aggression Principle".  So, if the claim to exclude others from the 25,000 square mile plot doesn't violate the NAP or self-ownership, then it must be valid.  Alternatively, if it violates the NAP or self-ownership, it must be invalid.  You've already established rules for answering this question.

Suppose two neighbors have both validly homesteaded 1 mile apart from each other, and they honestly disagree about where the property line is between them.

Well, if they both have claims which, when exercised, do not violate self-ownership or the NAP, then both of their claims are valid.  Alternately, if their claims are mutually exclusive, then the first claim which is made has priority.  That is, the entire purpose of homesteading is get there first.  Thus, by the homesteading rule, the first one to make a claim which does not violate NAP or self-ownership has the valid claim.  See, you describe homesteading as "the process of transforming an un-owned object in a manner that creates value, thereby establishing a legitimate property right".  By that definition, the first claim transforms a property from unowned to owned.  An ownership claim cannot be advanced against an owned property.  Thus, the first guy to transform the unowned property into an owned property wins the territorial dispute.

How do we objectively decide?

It's pretty easy to see who got there first and made the claim of ownership.  If you arrive somewhere and there's already someone there, you weren't first.  If you arrive somewhere and no one's there, you might be first.  That's pretty objective.  Which is exactly the reason I feel confident in my claim of ownership over the symbols 'r' and 'R' and the word "Alexander".  Nobody else had claimed them and my claim doesn't violate self-ownership or NAP.  I've discussed the qualities of the properties which make them ownable.  I'm really quite certain that I've gotten-in on the ground floor of this new land rush for intellectual properties.

 

 

Ownership is not about the chemical elements in the substance! The reason you can't own a rain cloud is because you can't bring it under control in a way to make it useful to people.That is a defining characteristic of property. It's not about what exact molecule it is made from. The moon is made of dirt (or whatever). What it's made of doesn't matter. You can't own it, because you can't bring it under control.

 

You're absolutely right that if you are alone in the universe, there is no need for property.

 

You're not thinking deeply enough about my 25,000 mile question. A property right in land DOES confer the right to use force in excluding a trespassor. A trespassor on your land is intitiating force against you. The question, again, is:

Where are the boundaries?

Isn't it clear that property requires arbitrary judgments about boundaries?

 

 

 

 

 

[Arius]

Ownership is not about the chemical elements in the substance! The reason you can't own a rain cloud is because you can't bring it under control in a way to make it useful to people.That is a defining characteristic of property. It's not about what exact molecule it is made from. The moon is made of dirt (or whatever). What it's made of doesn't matter. You can't own it, because you can't bring it under control.

It's only about the chemical elements insomuch as you actually own the thing.  I maintain, the physical configuration of matter is unimportant to an ownership claim.  It doesn't matter which glass the water is in, if my ownership claim was valid in one glass, it's valid in another.

You're not thinking deeply enough about my 25,000 mile question. A property right in land DOES confer the right to use force in excluding a trespassor. A trespassor on your land is intitiating force against you. The question, again, is:

Where are the boundaries?

Isn't it clear that property requires arbitrary judgments about boundaries?

 

1: Boundaries are defined by the claimant who has made the most primary claim of ownership and made use of the object.  Whoever transforms an unowned object in a manner that creates value sets the bounds.   Remember a physical object is an ascertainable bounded pattern of matter, temporally
stable and cohesive such that it can be reliably identified and
distinguished from surrounding matter.  Anything which can be "reliably identified" is sufficient for the creation of an ownership claim.  Now, value ("a subjective individual human assessment that the possession or use of an object is preferable to non-possession and non-use") is entirely subjective.  The claimant merely need claim that they have put the property to valuable use.  I, for example, showed how I had used the symbols 'r' and 'R' to create a statement, and the word "Alexander" to illustrate a point.  Both are quite valuable activities IMHO.

2: No, it isn't clear.  Which unowned place a claimant chooses to claim is arbitrary, but once the claim is made, the exact boundaries of the property must be well-defined within the claim.  Your exclusion of "fuzzy" objects makes that clear.  I abandoned my ownership of argumentation because it was too poorly defined for me to sustain the claim.  However, a claim of "these ten square feet", "the symbols 'r' and 'R'", or "the word 'Alexander'" are all well-defined.

[Libertus]

A very similar conversation took place just the other day, between Stephan Kinsella and a person named Alexander, who has a very similar argument. For anyone who is interested..

KOL 040 | Discussion with a Pro-Intellectual Property Libertarian

[RestoringGuy]

The claimant cannot be the sole source of boundary.  The claimant does not use (and cannot use) "all" of what they claim.  I claim Earth.  I use it.  The fact that I don't use all of it (and can never) destroys my claim.  I can never use one acre of land either, not every single atom of it, for productive value.  Nor can I use every bit of my car.  The claimant and the opposing competitor agreeing mutually seems to be the only way to have a boundary that makes property useful as a concept.

[oudeicrat]

Alexander, before I comment on the couple of errors and misunderstandings in your arguments, I'd like to ask how your theory deals with "independent discovery".

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.

BTW I'm using a similar strategy to disprove pro-IP arguments. Every time I hear one I apply it to "independent discovery" and to "competition" and if they are too powerful to destroy intuitively and obviously legitimate "independent discovery" or "competition", they must be invalid.