Activity feed
#1371·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoSo… the law extending to others’ property is nothing new and not totalitarian in and of itself.
true!
So… the law extending to others’ property is nothing new and not totalitarian in and of itself.
#1368·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoMaybe? Kinda? Not sure.
You don't get to use your knife to aggress on others, that much is clear. So perhaps this can be understood as a right of others to do certain things with your property.
Right, like preventing you from murdering them.
#1339·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months ago‘To stop someone from murdering you you have to infringe on his private property by claiming an exclusive right on prohibiting his use of his privately owned gun to shoot you’ How is that different?
Maybe? Kinda? Not sure.
You don't get to use your knife to aggress on others, that much is clear. So perhaps this can be understood as a right of others to do certain things with your property.
Some people abuse the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law, but that doesn’t mean the corresponding laws are bad per se. Those are problems, errors that can be corrected.
#1363·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoSo if someone publishes a blog post falsely but believably accusing you of being a pedophile and then all your business partners stop talking to you and you lose all your money and your friends and family ghost you, you wouldn’t want to have any legal recourse?
I can also think of ways this could be misused.
The comment has since been removed.#1363·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoSo if someone publishes a blog post falsely but believably accusing you of being a pedophile and then all your business partners stop talking to you and you lose all your money and your friends and family ghost you, you wouldn’t want to have any legal recourse?
#1363·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoSo if someone publishes a blog post falsely but believably accusing you of being a pedophile and then all your business partners stop talking to you and you lose all your money and your friends and family ghost you, you wouldn’t want to have any legal recourse?
I'm not sure, seriously. I'm open to suggestions.
There's lots of things that I think people shouldn't do yet should still be legal.
So if someone publishes a blog post falsely but believably accusing you of being a pedophile and then all your business partners stop talking to you and you lose all your money and your friends and family ghost you, you wouldn’t want to have any legal recourse?
#1359·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoTake someone’s reputation. That isn’t a ‘scarce’ thing yet it’s a good thing there are laws against defamation.
I'm not sure it's a good thing.
#1359·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoTake someone’s reputation. That isn’t a ‘scarce’ thing yet it’s a good thing there are laws against defamation.
Reputation is scarce in the sense that it’s limited.
#1346·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoThe issue is scarcity. Digital money is also scarce since you cannot double spend it. If it wasn't scarce, it wouldn't be money and neither would it be private property.
Take someone’s reputation. That isn’t a ‘scarce’ thing yet it’s a good thing there are laws against defamation.
#1335·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoIntellectual property is a contradiction in terms because information isn't scarce the same way that private property necessarily must be.
Duplicate of #1346.
#1346·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoThe issue is scarcity. Digital money is also scarce since you cannot double spend it. If it wasn't scarce, it wouldn't be money and neither would it be private property.
Imagine living on a flat planet that extends infinitely in all directions.
Land is not scarce on this planet.
You build a house, mixing your labor with an acre of land. Someone comes and takes your land, saying you have no cause for complaint since land isn’t scarce.
See how scarcity isn’t necessary for something to be property?
#1354·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoI don't care about current law, there are lots of dumb laws. I care about what's right and why.
It’s right for the law to address and prevent the arbitrary, and that’s about more than just property. See #1345.
#1354·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoI don't care about current law, there are lots of dumb laws. I care about what's right and why.
But the law against murder isn’t a dumb law even though it doesn’t refer to someone’s body being scarce property.
#1353·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoIf current law isn’t based on what you claim it’s based on then that does make it less true.
I don't care about current law, there are lots of dumb laws. I care about what's right and why.
#1352·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoNo. I don't expect to find it, but that doesn't make it less true. That's how I make sense of the difference between IP and real property.
If current law isn’t based on what you claim it’s based on then that does make it less true.
#1350·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoRidiculous definition of murder. Classic libertarian thought bending over backwards to reduce everything to property rights. Please cite a legal text where the definition of murder invokes scarce property.
No. I don't expect to find it, but that doesn't make it less true. That's how I make sense of the difference between IP and real property.
Ridiculous definition of murder. Classic libertarian thought bending over backwards to reduce everything to property rights. Please cite a legal text where the definition of murder invokes scarce property.
#1343·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoThat could be happening though, so agreed that it isn't a good argument.
I do expect innovation to suffer from current copyright infringement, yes. Just add up all the infringed copies being shared times the average price, that’s the damage being done and it discourages creators from creating more.
#1341·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoMurdering someone destroys their scarce property (their body in this case). Copying something using your own property leaves the original totally untouched.
Ridiculous definition of murder. Please cite a legal text where the definition of murder invokes scarce property.
#1346·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoThe issue is scarcity. Digital money is also scarce since you cannot double spend it. If it wasn't scarce, it wouldn't be money and neither would it be private property.
But digital money isn’t physically scarce like someone’s body. Your argument rests on physical property being special in some way.