The question we keep getting back to and which I never get an answer to is this: why should ONLY physical things be regarded as property and not patterns? That's a completely arbitrary assertion which no-one is able to answer. There comes a whole host of secondary arguments to support this, but as I have shown all of this require some kind of qualifier, some deeper argument without which the argument fails. The arguments presented don't stand on their own feet.


Example of such a skin deep argument: "IP limits what people can do with their physical property, therefore it is a violation of their rights." To this I can reply "laws against murder limit what people do with their physical property (e.g. their guns), therefore it is a violation of their rights." Then of course comes the qualifier, the hidden underlying argument of physical property rights: "it's ok to limit people's physical property rights because they cannot violate other legitimate rights." In other words, you are not free to do whatever you want with your gun. You are only allowed to use your gun in a PEACEFUL manner. Therefore it is not sufficient to say "IP limits what people can do with their physical property, therefore it is a violation of their rights" because as we have just seen, it is perfectly ok to limit property rights of guns so that you cannot use them to violate other peaceful individuals' rights. So in order to make that argument, another argument is needed, a qualifier. What is it? Why is it ok to limit physical property rights with other physical property rights, but not with IP rights?

This is where this discussion with anti-IP libertarians always stops up, because to this I simply get a tautological answer: "because it violates my physical property rights." But the property rights are what is in question. What the murder example shows is that any right can be limited in any way so long as there is another right of equal importance. So why is it ok to own physical property (and thereby to limit what others can do) but not to own intellectual property? What's the qualifying argument that I am missing?


Some people say it's because information is an infinite resource, but as I showed earlier, so is the life of an immortal being. If such a being existed surely he would still have the right to his own body. The infinite argument is just arbitrary. WHY should the infinite argument carry any weight? And if it does carry any weight, why is it not ok to argue that there are virtually infinitely many atoms in the universe. Therefore there should be no property rights on atoms. If you need one, just go get one. The answer to this is usually "because it required energy and time to pattern the atoms, and your life is finite." That's right, so it's really your WORK that is a finite resource, not the atoms themselves. But that's equally true of information patterning. Even though information is an infinite resource, it is the energy and time of your life that is a finite resource and that which you acquire property rights to.

This is what I started as a reply, and still these arguments stand completely unanswered. We're walking in circles and the anti-IP people always ends up reiterating one of the above arguments tautologically. So again: WHY should atoms (matter stuff) be allowed to become property, but not information (mind stuff). And don't give me the "you own your own information on your own hard disk"-crap, because that is clearly not an information right since it can wholly be reduced to physical property rights. So come on guys: why does matter take precedence over information when it comes to property rights?

No, the question is, why should patterns by regarded as property? The burden of proof is on you as well. You can't keep demanding that we prove you wrong while refusing to prove yourself right.

I did also answer your question here: http://bt.irlbtc.com/view/5256.msg78334#msg78334 but you failed to respond.


You're conflating the life of a person with their body. Even if I live forever I still only have one body so it's a scarce resource. Therefore, your argument fails.

Yea, I heard about the group that claimed a loss of 76 Trillion dollars in Australia. More than the Earth's GDP.

But what if it can be shown that more money is made by the piracy rather than less. I can show cases of when piracy increased sales. Should they get to also sue for the loss when they made a greater profit.

It is proving a negative. And courts seem to go along with it for lack of math skills. Sort of like "Jobs Saved".

I really think it won't be long before they realize that it is not the content but the servicing of the content. Kind of like NetFlix, and why they are starting to fight NetFlix, they are scared of losing the control instead of braving the new ground.

That's probably not true but even if there were an infinite number of atoms in the universe, an atom of gold on Earth is worth more than two atoms of gold in another galaxy. Practical availability is key. Plus there's the whole problem with needing these atoms to be in a certain configuration, namely a hand, arm or whatever to replace my body, rather than just a lump of matter on a table. If you chop my arm off and give me the equivalent amount of atoms by mass, I'm afraid that's not good enough.

I'm not talking about the current system of centrally planned law, but polycentric free market law. Nobody would provide you an insurance that shields you from prosecution when you murdered somebody. That's just unsustainably expensive, like selling insurances that pay you for intentionally burning down your own house.

As you pointed out, making a law means to point guns at people. In a free market, laws would be rules that people are generally ready to enforce by pointing guns at others. I highly doubt that downloading a song from the internet would count. In a statist law monopoly people don't have to personally pay the costs of the laws they support and that's why we have stupid and invasive laws. I find the deduction of "rights" by complex philosophical argumentation quite uninteresting and useless.

Medieval Iceland, American settler communities and Somalia's Xeer are historical examples of polycentric common law, and they weren't violent dystopies but really efficient and peaceful systems compared to what we have now.


Thanks for using Bitcoin. I think people are waiting to see more discussion and generally get to know the project better before they donate.

This of course is a bogus claim, but it is irrelevant to a principled discussion on IP.


What if I can show that you have a better and more secure life if I impose a welfare state on you? Does that make it ok?

Whoever makes a claim has the burden of proof. You're claiming that intellectual property should be considered as legitimate property. Are you not? If so, where's your argument for that? All I see you doing is loudly declaring that you should be able to make money by owning information. Why?


Why is it relevant that you are conflating two things? Because it's fallacious reasoning, that's why. What about that is confusing to you?

Also, you keep skipping over my previous posts and claiming I haven't answered you. Please make sure you read everything before making such claims. The forum software notifies you if new replies have been posted while you were typing so you really have no excuse.

Here's my evidence for physical property: our own bodies and the ability to sustain them. Man must own himself and property in order to sustain. The intangible is a different story. Patterns don't feed people or sustainably create wealth.

My evidence for why we don't need intellectual property:

I make money from my work. The end.

How about a thought experiment.

Assume we now have telepathic abilities. I go and watch a movie but with my photographic memory and telepathy, I go to a coffee shop and share the movie with others. Am I wrong. Or is the argument that as long as we can prevent it we will, but once we can't well all will have to change.

Well, All will have to change.  I just wish they would hurry up and get there.