Search Ideas

Yes.

Credit is a different matter from copyright. Plagiarism and copyright infringement aren’t the same thing.

I should be clear though that it is only right for the law to interfere with property to protect others’ rights. It’s not right for the law to confiscate your money to collect taxes, say.

true!

So… the law extending to others’ property is nothing new and not totalitarian in and of itself.

exactly

Right, like preventing you from murdering them.

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.

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?

I'm not sure it's a good thing.

But it isn’t scarce in a physical sense.

Take someone’s reputation. That isn’t a ‘scarce’ thing yet it’s a good thing there are laws against defamation.

Duplicate of #1346.

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?

It’s right for the law to address and prevent the arbitrary, and that’s about more than just property. See #1345.

But the law against murder isn’t a dumb law even though it doesn’t refer to someone’s body being scarce property.

If current law isn’t based on what you claim it’s based on then that does make it less true.

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.

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.

But digital money isn’t physically scarce like someone’s body. Your argument rests on physical property being special in some way.

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.

One can steal value without stealing physical property (as happens when you transfer someone’s digital money without their consent).

That could be happening though, so agreed that it isn't a good argument.