Search Ideas

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 can also think of ways this could be misused.

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.

Reputation is scarce in the sense that it’s limited.

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.

I don't care about current law, there are lots of dumb laws. I care about what's right and why.

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

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.

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.

Ridiculous definition of murder. Please cite a legal text where the definition of murder invokes scarce property.

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

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.

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).