we shall see....
Wenzel: Isn't the great and powerful Oz's power really a myth based on peoples false beliefs? Also, wasn't L. Frank Baum using Oz as a metaphor for the eastern establishment's control over money? Thus making "Emerald" City green and the yellow "gold" brick road being the path to discovering the truth. Seems like a weird boast by you, that's all.
I love your work Bob, but i think Stephan is going to Pwn you on this one because you will not be able to advance case law-based arguments.
If Kinsella uses case law-based arguments for justifying his IP position, then all you have to do is use similar case law-based arguments for invalidating all property ownership.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but "intellectual property" is logically incompatible with property rights in physical property.
looks like kinsella thinks youre a joke...
Hahaha, looks like Kinsella is deep inside your head, Wenzel. You keep commenting on what he says, not directly at you."Can't wait for the debate. I will look like Oz the great and powerful, when it is over."BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAOh the demolition to pro-IP is going to be GLORIOUS! Just look at all this boasting from one with an anti-libertarian perspective on IP!I can't wait to see the floor wiped with yet another pro-IP crypto-statist thug.
Crypto-statist thug? Do you base this solely on Wenzel's IP postition?
What else do you call someone who runs to mommy and daddy government if someone else uses their own material property and their own minds to create and voluntarily sell something that Wenzel understands as a particular form of brain matter that originated in his mind?Those who call for force to be used against others for using their own material property and their own minds to create and sell something, are crypto-statist thugs.I've mentioned many arguments that show why. Here's another:All pro-IP law advocates are faced with the fact that because their position is based on initiating force, their use of force necessarily becomes arbitrary. Where is this arbitrariness manifested? In many places, but one of them is in the TIME the supposed legitimate use of force is justified. For pro-IP advocates, most are not stupid enough to call for a time of enforcement of 1,000 years. No, they usually depend on the status quo of around 20 years or so. But why not 21 years? Or 19 years? What is so special about 20 years, that the use of force suddenly becomes unjust? The choice of 20 years is arbitrary precisely because the use of force in IP matters is arbitrary.If it were really a crime to develop in one's mind the same structure of brain matter as another, such that they are considered to have "the same idea", and to use one's brain to produce something, and selling it, then there would be no necessary arbitrariness to choosing when the use of force is justified. There would no "Oh well, I guess 20 years is a good enough period of time." No, it would be specific in principle, like actual justified libertarian uses of force.
pete and repete...I have not read Wenzel regarding how he would enforce IP via government force. That you believe that the state is the only means for enforcement demonstrates a lack of ability on your part to think critically. Please don't be so proud of your dysfunction. Until I read Wenzel's position on enforcement, I remain open to his views.Regardless of his views, I see no conflict in an individual attempting to enforce IP via private contract and other private arrangements.
"I am deep in Kinsella's head!" Wenzel says, as he rushes to post to his blog every time Kinsella says something on Facebook.