In the many hundreds of pages of Rothbard I've read, I had never come across a subject in which I disagreed with him, until the subject of IP. For some time, due to my own uninitiation, I unfortunately let Kinsella/Tucker corrupt my thoughts. Thank you for correcting them. I should have never doubted Rothbard.
This is not an argument showing why he is justified in changing his mind.
ReplyDeleteWeak.
Yeah, it's not genuine brand Pete's Weak Sauce, but it will do for a weekday brunch.
DeleteIf my sauce is weak, then your sauce is water.
DeleteI wonder... Who is Pete Petepete?
ReplyDeleteWhy does he hide behind a pseudonym? Could it be he posts under more than one name, to make it seem like there are more anti-IP proponents than opponents?
I smell a sock puppet.
FYI, one does not have to make an argument to state one's opinion.
Yes. Using a real-looking name for some comments really does prevent that person from also posting comments under another real-looking name. Impeccable logic.
Delete@ alan.szepieniec
DeleteSince we know nobody would voluntarily pick the name "szepieniec," at least we know you are for real.
I hope you take that in jest :)
I am seriously considering another user name, so I can use one to post serious comments and questions, and the other to make smartass remarks.
I call myself under a pseudonym to protect my identity.
DeleteI actually laughed out loud at your claim that my intention is to "make it seem like there are more anti-IP proponents."
And I agree with you that "opinions" (which are not arguments) are an excellent description of the pro-IP gobbledygook elicited by Wenzel and other pro-IP befuddled people.
Please adress Rothbard's love of VCR's and all thier wonderfull uses?
ReplyDeleteAnd ther is always Hoppe.
Too bad Hoppe was on the bottom of Pandora's box.
DeleteRothbard did not assert that he could record TV shows and then sell the recordings.
DeleteThis is getting pathetic. Is Rothbard a God? No, he is a fallible human being that certainly did not get everything correct in his life.
ReplyDeleteI am happy to also admit that Robert's persistance in pushing the issue also made me rethink it and actually conclude that IP is valid.
ReplyDeleteSo can you explain where you went wrong in the first place?
DeleteI have countless times on this blog. Feel free to reread old comments.
DeleteActually, in this 1983 paper by Rothbard it seems that Stephan hasn't deviated from Rothbard at all.
ReplyDeletehttp://c4sif.org/2013/04/rothbards-high-tech-crime-a-call-for-papers-1983/
Fetz, what's with your comprehension problem?
DeleteRothbard is aruing from a possition in favor of copyright and even says, "I defend the common law of copyright"
actually both are possible in an anarchist market, its just up to the parties to decide if they value the thing enough to accept the terms offered.
DeleteJaclweil, I have absolutely no problem regarding my comprehension.
DeleteThe whole point in my linking to that article is that anti-IP advocates support Murray's position on the "common law of copyright". We do not at all disagree with libertarian contract law, we support that whole-heartedly (it is actually a large part of our theory), but it is clear that in that 1983 paper that Rothbard takes issue with extending that right to third-parties who are not the original parties to the contract. This is all a major part of IP theory and pretty standard stuff.
If you understand the libertarian argument against war with regard to civilian casualties, then you would completely understand the argument against IP. To take a pro-stance on IP would serve only to reveal a double-standard and a contradiction in libertarian theory, the logical conclusion of which would be, "it's just collateral damage".
"I should have never doubted Rothbard."
ReplyDelete...except on that whole natural rights thing, eh, Wenz? Too bad you never released your alleged booklet so this guy could have had you show him just how clueless Rothbard was, and how naive he was to follow him.