≡ Menu

Reply to Academic Agent’s “Why I Support Intellectual Property Rights”

One “Academic Agent” posted this July 4, 2021:

My tweet storm response on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NSKinsella/status/1411936878232748036:

Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
I may listen later, but a friend already did and confirmed my suspicions. He wrote: “As standard, appears novel for half a moment – until it falls back into all the oldschool degen arguments… i.e. conflating scarce with rivalrous etc. Lockean homesteading principle is the /1
View Tweet analytics
2

Bookmarks

Stephan Kinsella

Tweet your reply
 
Reply

Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
Okay — I am only 6 minutes in and it is riddled with error already. I will briefly point to some of them here, but this is not the right forum for this and it will be pointless to fisk the whole thing. I suggest he and I have a discussion about all this and you moderate. If he/3
1
4

Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
wants. But first, he seems polite enough, at least, at least in the beginning, unlike most defenders of IP. Refreshing. He then says he will lay out a positive case for IP. Bravo. But he never *defines* IP or the system he supports. He just launches into an assertion that /4
1
5

Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
you can own “ideas.” This doesn’t define IP at all or even make it clear if he endorses existing patent and copyright law or something different. Note that half the IP advocates get indignant if you accuse them of supporting ownership of ideas. And even copyright does not /5
1
4

Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
support ownership of “ideas.” So does this guy support some expansion of copyright or does he not understand the legal system he thinks he’s in favor of? Further, it is literally impossible to own ideas. not unjust, but impossible. I explain /6
1
4

Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
this already — c4sif.org/2011/06/intell . He then starts off on the same tired old mistakes: —equating scarcity with lack of abundance, and with something someone will “pay for.” —he makes an argument similar to J. Neil Schulman in logorights, stuff that the essential identity/7
c4sif.org
Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes
[From the Mises Blog; archived comments below. See also “Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward”, the section “IP Rights as Negative Easements̶…
1
3

Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
of a thing is its impatterning, its logos. This is not new. It is Schulman’s claim. It’s already been debunked. Even Neil had to scramble to recast his theory in the face of criticism, and he re-named it some other nonsense like “material-carried property”. /8
1
5

Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
Then, our author seems to think that if you “buy” something, that proves it’s ownable. But I’ve debunked this already: stephankinsella.com/2018/06/if-you He also starts using all these metaphors — “selling dreams” and Willie Wonka and Disney blah blah blah. /9
stephankinsella.com
The “If you own something, that implies that you can sell it; if you sell something, that implies…
From my July 20, 2014 Daily Bell interview by Anthony Wile, “Stephan Kinsella on Libertarian Legal Theory, Self-Ownership and Drug Laws.” I have to point this
1
5

Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
He tries to say you homestead ideas, but then he says it’s because you create it; and that it’s like homesteading land; but you don’t create the land you homestead. So which is it? He basically makes the same old tired argument all the others ones do–that creation is a /10
1
2

Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
source of rights. But he doesn’t realize creation is not an independent source of rights. I have explained this in numerous articles. I’m tired of taking the time to link to thinks no one ever reads, but can if anyone really wants. But basically the thing is this: there are /11

Also: https://twitter.com/OGRolandRat/status/1411813635966525440:

 

Stephen W. Carson
@RadicalLib

Here is my friend laying out his pro-IP argument,

. Would love your thoughts!

2
7
Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
What thoughts do you want? I already know he’s wrong. Is it worth listening to 45 minutes of the same old stuff I’ve heard? I don’t intend to do a review of it. But I’d be happy to have a debate or discussion with anyone and let them try to present a coherent case and then /1
1
27
Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
point out the problems I see in it and give him a chance to respond, that kind of thing. Or if you have a parituclar section or argument or question point me to that. /2
1
2
Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
Oh, is he referring to the thing he did with you? youtube.com/watch?v=AkmY37 — this? I may give it a listen later. IF I find anything of note I’ll mention it but honestly expect the same old confused arguments. If you had a particular thing you want a response to lemme know. /3
youtube.com
Intellectual “Property”
This is part 2 of a 3-part series being broadcast across 3 channels which discusses justifications for intellectual property and the wider implications of in…
1
4
Stephen W. Carson
@RadicalLib
No. The first video in the thread “Why I Support Intellectual Property Rights” (37 minutes) This is where he is more carefully laying out his argument, directly contesting your reading of Hoppe, etc.
3
1
Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
I may listen later, but a friend already did and confirmed my suspicions. He wrote: “As standard, appears novel for half a moment – until it falls back into all the oldschool degen arguments… i.e. conflating scarce with rivalrous etc. Lockean homesteading principle is the /1
1
8
Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
Okay — I am only 6 minutes in and it is riddled with error already. I will briefly point to some of them here, but this is not the right forum for this and it will be pointless to fisk the whole thing. I suggest he and I have a discussion about all this and you moderate. If he/3
1
4
Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
wants. But first, he seems polite enough, at least, at least in the beginning, unlike most defenders of IP. Refreshing. He then says he will lay out a positive case for IP. Bravo. But he never *defines* IP or the system he supports. He just launches into an assertion that /4
1
5
Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
you can own “ideas.” This doesn’t define IP at all or even make it clear if he endorses existing patent and copyright law or something different. Note that half the IP advocates get indignant if you accuse them of supporting ownership of ideas. And even copyright does not /5
1
4
Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
support ownership of “ideas.” So does this guy support some expansion of copyright or does he not understand the legal system he thinks he’s in favor of? Further, it is literally impossible to own ideas. not unjust, but impossible. I explain /6
1
4
Stephan Kinsella
@NSKinsella
this already — c4sif.org/2011/06/intell . He then starts off on the same tired old mistakes: —equating scarcity with lack of abundance, and with something someone will “pay for.” —he makes an argument similar to J. Neil Schulman in logorights, stuff that the essential identity/7
c4sif.org
Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes
[From the Mises Blog; archived comments below. See also “Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward”, the section “IP Rights as Negative Easements̶…
1
3

 

 

Share
{ 0 comments… add one }