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
Tweet your reply
Reply
conza.tumblr.com
Natural Law and the Second Homesteading Principle
“Some advocates of copyright and other forms if IP try to justify IP with natural law type arguments. For example, some say that the author “creates” a work, and “thus” is entitled to own it….
1
3
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
1
4
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
1
5
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
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
1
3
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
1
5
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
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:
2
7
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
3
27
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
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
1
8
conza.tumblr.com
Natural Law and the Second Homesteading Principle
“Some advocates of copyright and other forms if IP try to justify IP with natural law type arguments. For example, some say that the author “creates” a work, and “thus” is entitled to own it….
1
3
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
1
4
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
1
5
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
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
1
3
You must log in to post a comment. Log in now.