“proprietary”

Scrolling down this blog, I count nine articles on IP before I reach the bottom of the page.

Dear Brian,

Your refutation did not address:
“Since the invisible realm is not a physical thing and is boundless and has perfectly free access there can be no exclusive resource ownership so there cannot be a monopoly unless, like almost all monopolies, it is artificially granted by an interventionist.”

Each example you gave in your ‘refutation’ referred to property readily defined by identifiable boundaries. Therefore these are property rights issues. My comment stated: Don’t Confuse IP With Property Rights!

The concepts of imperfect knowledge and lack of omniscience which make the free market the only just and functional means for the economy to operate does not disappear because the topic being discussed is very specific. These are overarching principles and they do not go away.

How would you know that the idea that you ‘discovered’ in ‘thought’ was not also discovered by many, many other individuals around the globe before or at the same moment as your discovery?

Therefore assuming that yours is ‘the one and only’ would be arrogant by definition. That is not meant to be an insult it is just an application of the word to an occurrence that is a good example of the meaning.

Maybe Austrianism is caused by mercury in vaccines.

“Four still in the box. IP is not property. Four still in the box…”

Ha. Actually, on this issue I think I’m with Kinsella and the bunch.

Has this use of a Dilbert comic for illustrative purposes been authorized by the Long-Carson Syndicate?

One European joke to boot…
Image 1: two scientists – “We have discovered a new chip that makes it possible to put infinite amount of data on this small finite chip”
Image 2: “Can you imagine the consequences of such invention?”
Image 3: “Hi, I am from the the Copyright holders organization and I came to collect the $0.01 per MB fee”

Bruce,

Your refutation did not address:
“Since the invisible realm is not a physical thing and is boundless and has perfectly free access there can be no exclusive resource ownership so there cannot be a monopoly unless, like almost all monopolies, it is artificially granted by an interventionist.”

Because that wasn’t on pages 49 and 50 of Kinsella’s book. I pointed out that I had refuted those sections to show that humility was not required. Success does not require humility.

I refuted your additional argument in another comment recently also.

“Each example you gave in your ‘refutation’ referred to property readily defined by identifiable boundaries. Therefore these are property rights issues. My comment stated: Don’t Confuse IP With Property Rights!”

The subject of IP covers more than merely two position. My philosophical position is that at least two sides are wrong it believing that platonic ideals exist. Since they don’t your argument presents no problem for my position.

My position is that copying rights are actually part of physical property rights. My position is similar to Rothbard’s. Neither of us claim there is ownership in ideals.

Intellectual Property can be and properly is about ownership over the specific intellectual content of specific physical objects. Use of the objects without permission to transfer that intellectual content into other objects violates the physical property of the owner. Therefore it is a trespass and not allow. Restitution can be forced by the owner without initiating force.