tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post7911464579701604981..comments2019-05-15T19:42:58.525-07:00Comments on Intellectual Space: Title-Transfer Theory of Contracts (and other notes to Steve)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-62245824591272675152014-05-16T20:41:30.389-07:002014-05-16T20:41:30.389-07:00I'm speaking here of legal rights, and legal w...I'm speaking here of legal rights, and legal wrongs. All legal wrongs are property violations. <br /><br />Of course fraud is wrong. Fraud has 3 elements - deception, reliance, and harm. I deceive you, you rely on the deception, and are harmed as a result. Harm must take the form of an injury to property. <br /><br />Of course it is wrong to "knock them out". A person has a property right in their own body. Therefore battering another person injures that person's property. <br /><br />If you falsely take credit for someone else's labor, that is wrong if in so doing you obtain property. This would be fraud. If the falsehood merely injures someone's reputation, then a finding of wrongdoing would need to be based on a property right in one's reputation. This is known as "defamation". <br /><br />I'm with Murray Rothbard, I don't find a property right in a reputation. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Alexander Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17084437410219655499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-16368342275304634882014-05-16T08:24:01.454-07:002014-05-16T08:24:01.454-07:00"No property, no wrong."
So fraud isn&#..."No property, no wrong."<br /><br />So fraud isn't wrong? If someone else digs a ditch, but you knock them out and claim credit, that's not wrong? Even if no money was involved, but you wanted to curry favor?R. Douglas Barbierihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02702394504378377999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-57566570625668413442014-05-13T20:52:48.184-07:002014-05-13T20:52:48.184-07:00Ok, my argument is posted here:
http://homesteadi...Ok, my argument is posted here:<br /><br />http://homesteadip.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-intangible-goods-are-scarce-and.htmlAlexander Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17084437410219655499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-79818117041756118092014-05-13T16:16:24.447-07:002014-05-13T16:16:24.447-07:00Yes, proceed. Yes, proceed. Alexander Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17084437410219655499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-55573098831656312712014-05-12T20:40:53.588-07:002014-05-12T20:40:53.588-07:00We both agree that it's necessary to assign pr...We both agree that it's necessary to assign property rights in rivalrous goods, correct? That, because of their nature, there is always the possibility of conflict, so rules that assign rights of exclusive control are necessary?<br /><br />We both agree that goods that are not rivalrous, i.e., goods whose use by any one person for any one purpose would not in any way exclude, or interfere with, or restrict its use by any other person or for any other purpose, do not have to have property rights assigned in them, correct?<br /><br />This is where your claim comes in: that certain intangible things are rivalrous, and that those things therefore need to have property rights assigned in them. Right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-52889783448048378212014-05-12T19:00:30.349-07:002014-05-12T19:00:30.349-07:00Anyway, OK. For purposes of this conversation, we ...Anyway, OK. For purposes of this conversation, we can go with your definitions. <br /><br />I AGREE!! Alexander Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17084437410219655499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-64428034791692753972014-05-12T18:56:58.146-07:002014-05-12T18:56:58.146-07:00By "necessary" we mean something like &q...By "necessary" we mean something like "conflict will result if not obeyed" ?<br /><br />Alexander Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17084437410219655499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-34984087771689380252014-05-12T18:40:31.157-07:002014-05-12T18:40:31.157-07:00Alexander,
My definition of intangible goods will...Alexander,<br /><br />My definition of intangible goods will work for purposes of this discussion, because I intend to show that it's not necessary to assign property rights in any non-physical goods at all.<br /><br />So, to recap:<br /><br />1) An intangible good is a non-physical good: information, ideas, patterns, etc.<br /><br />2) A scarce good is a rivalrous good, i.e., a good whose use by any one person for any one purpose would in some way exclude, or interfere with, or restrict its use by any other person or for any other purpose.<br /><br />3) You must show that it's necessary to assign property rights in intangible goods.<br /><br />Agreed?<br /><br />Best regards,<br />SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-8723430320773624502014-05-12T14:26:11.748-07:002014-05-12T14:26:11.748-07:00I assume we can use Carl Menger's definition o...I assume we can use Carl Menger's definition of "goods". <br /><br />My other definitions are relevant, because each preceding term appears in a subsequent definition: matter --> object ---> property. <br /><br />Your definition of intangible goods is vague. It leaves out some key elements - namely "ascertainable", "bounded" , "temporally stable", and "able to condition the outcome of human events". Not all intangibles could be rightful property. Some can, some cannot. <br /><br />Lets go with this, substituting "intangible" for "intellectual" if you like:<br /><br />Intellectual space – a theoretical array of unique locations<br /> <br />Intellectual matter – that which can be understood through language<br /><br />Intellectual object - an ascertainable, temporally stable and bounded pattern of intellectual matter which can condition the outcome of human events.<br /><br />Intellectual property – a non-trivial, homesteaded rivalrous intellectual object that substantially functions as productive capacity <br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Alexander Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17084437410219655499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-15342503400162234072014-05-12T13:41:31.732-07:002014-05-12T13:41:31.732-07:00Alexander,
1) Your other operational definitions ...Alexander,<br /><br />1) Your other operational definitions are irrelevant to the definition of an intangible good. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm using the standard definition of intangible: something that can't be touched or grasped and that has no physical presence. So intangible goods are non-physical: they are information, ideas, patterns, etc.<br /><br />2) Yes, you are correct. I meant to say that a rivalrous good is a good whose use by any one person for any one purpose would in some way exclude, or interfere with, or restrict its use by any other person or for any other purpose.<br /><br />3) The status quo is irrelevant. Anyone can come up with ways to assign property rights in anything. You are trying to show that it is *necessary* to assign property rights in intangible goods.<br /><br />Are we on the same page?<br /><br />Best regards,<br />SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-65588807515568343612014-05-12T13:15:20.173-07:002014-05-12T13:15:20.173-07:001) I've given my operational definitions:
htt...1) I've given my operational definitions:<br /><br />http://homesteadip.blogspot.com/2013/04/intellectual-space-definitions-of-key.html<br /><br />My definition of intellectual space, matter, objects, and property are more precise. But we can go with this to see where it leads. <br /><br />2) Your syntax has a typo, reversing your meaning. What I think you mean is this. <br /><br />Rivalrous - use by any one person for any one purpose interferes with or restricts its use by any other person of for any other purpose. <br /><br />Yes, I'll go with that. <br /><br />3) It could be argued that the burden of proof would fall an those seeking to abolish the status quo. But for purposes of this discussion, and because I appreciate a difficult challenge, OK. <br /><br />Alexander Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17084437410219655499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-58180925052136044072014-05-12T12:15:15.526-07:002014-05-12T12:15:15.526-07:00Alexander,
For the purposes of this discussion, I...Alexander,<br /><br />For the purposes of this discussion, I would like to ask you to acknowledge three things:<br /><br />1) An intangible good is defined as a good that is unable to be touched or grasped; a good that has no physical presence.<br /><br />2) A scarce good is the same thing as a rivalrous good, with a rivalrous good defined as a good whose use by any one person for any one purpose would not in any way exclude, or interfere with, or restrict its use by any other person or for any other purpose.<br /><br />3) The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that property rights in intangible things are necessary.<br /><br />Do you acknowledge these three things?<br /><br />Best regards,<br />SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com