Activity feed
The comment has since been removed.#1363 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 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, 3 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, 3 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, 3 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, 3 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, 3 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, 3 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, 3 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, 3 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, 3 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, 3 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, 3 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, 3 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, 3 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, 3 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.
#1344 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoOne can steal value without stealing physical property (as happens when you transfer someone’s digital money without their consent).
The 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.
#1341 · Amaro Koberle, 3 months agoMurdering someone destroys their scarce property (their body in this case). Copying something using your own property leaves the original totally untouched.
Laws (against murder and other crimes) don’t reduce to physical property.
Libertarians often think that the purpose of the law is ONLY to define and enforce property rights. In reality, the purpose of the law is to prevent and address the arbitrary in social life.
It’s true that it would be arbitrary if anyone could just take your property against your will, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only kind of arbitrariness the law should prevent/address.
#1341 · Amaro Koberle, 3 months agoMurdering someone destroys their scarce property (their body in this case). Copying something using your own property leaves the original totally untouched.
One can steal value without stealing physical property (as happens when you transfer someone’s digital money without their consent).
#1342 · Amaro Koberle, 3 months agoJust that if it was so crucial for innovation then you'd expect innovation to suffer from all the copyright infringement that is going on.
That could be happening though, so agreed that it isn't a good argument.
#1340 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 months ago‘Lawbreakers get away with it all the time so it’s fine.’ How is that an argument?
Just that if it was so crucial for innovation then you'd expect innovation to suffer from all the copyright infringement that is going on.
#1339 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 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?
Murdering someone destroys their scarce property (their body in this case). Copying something using your own property leaves the original totally untouched.
‘Lawbreakers get away with it all the time so it’s fine.’ How is that an argument?