Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist | Page 9 | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
Cold Cous Cous
LSU Fan
Obvious and pointed jeering
Member since Oct 2003
13880 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

you have no argument.

quote:

Hitler

quote:

you don't understand what theory means

quote:

idiot LSU professor

quote:

completely unprincipled

quote:

totally confused

quote:

bring literally nothing to the table

quote:

amateur confusion and bravado

quote:

braying

quote:

amateur dishonest attempt

quote:

brainwashed children

quote:

intellectually stunted


But it's his opponents who engage in
quote:

ad hominem swipes instead of deal[ing] with the actual argument.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Cold Cous Cous
LSU Fan
Obvious and pointed jeering
Member since Oct 2003
13880 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:


But if you do believe that trademark law is justified, then you've just agreed to recognize "intangible" property rights

By the way I disagree with this statement completely. In the past 20-30 years the lawyers of (usually) large companies have managed to convince a large majority of judges, lawyers, and laypeople that a trademark is a sort of property right of the trademark owner. It is not, at least not historically.

The fundamental purpose of trademark law is consumer protection. It was created to protect consumers who reasonably rely on a known mark as a source identifier and implicit guarantee of quality. It was not created to protect the owner of the mark; any benefits which accrue to the owner of the mark are secondary to the primary purpose of protecting consumers. (This is why the central test of trademark law is likelihood of confusion -- the question is whether consumers are going to be confused by a copycat mark.)

If you rethink trademark law from a consumer protection perspective rather than a property perspective it will make a lot more sense. I think the problem starts in law school, where trademark is (usually) taught as part of an "intellectual property" class in conjunction with copyright and/or patent law. I think this is a fundamental mistake, like teaching torts and contracts together. The concepts get muddled.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Scrowe
New Orleans Saints Fan
Louisiana
Member since Mar 2010
1788 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

I cannot respond to all of your ignorant screed. You need to step back and think about this, and find a way to ask honest and sincere questions, and to search for truth and knowledge.


I have asked honest questions wondering how your theory would work with a given scenario. Although I then realized we were not suppose to bring experiments to the table, just word logic.

quote:

You need to try to open your mind to where in your preconceived notions you are relying on assumptions that you have not and cannot justify.


Assumptions that happen and/or have happened to me personally in the business realm. Pretty justified question if it involves past experience.

quote:

There are so many confusions and errors riddled in with your penultimate post that I cannot begin to correct it. It would take 10 pages. You are wrong about the nature of proof, validity, theory, and knowledge. You have been infected with scientism and empiricism and utilitarianism--all of which are unscientific. If you want to learn more read Mises's Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science (free at mises.org) and Hoppe's Economic Science and the Austrian Method (hanshoppe.com) and maybe Rothbard's Mantle of Science (at mises.org). Some of my posts too about scientism and CP Snow and whatever, all at stephankinsella.com/publications


Why not just stick your tongue out and say, "My beliefs are right because they are mine, yours are wrong because they aren't mine!"

You didn't have to waste all that typing and a thesaurus to say so.

There are obviously plenty of people with the same thoughts and have questioned you as I have, otherwise you wouldn't scream propoganda.

As always you speak as if you're above others which you are not and have never been. None of your links are worth my time if the simplest of questions cannot be answered. You can be Joseph Smith all you want or you can show the golden tablets. You may find that if you answer people's questions they'd be more willing to listen and/or read your information.






Back to top
Rex
LSU Fan
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
56363 posts
 Online 

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

"My beliefs are right because they are mine, yours are wrong because they aren't mine!"


Well, in defense of Mr. Kinsella, he HAS posted actual arguments... e.g. that patent laws are not worth the trouble they cause, that it's impossible to "own" an idea, that patent and copyright laws are statist impositions of anti-competitive monopoly. Unfortunately, none of his arguments are compelling enough individually or in aggregate to change the mind of the majority... most people see the absolute fairness of protecting a person who devotes months and years of his life writing a book from somebody who merely copies it and presents it as his own. That will never change.

A few other comments regarding his arguments...

About the impossibility of intellectual property being actual property, i.e. that a "thought" can't be owned:

So bloody what? Would Mr. Kinsella be happier if we called it by another name? How about leaving out the "property" word and just calling it "exclusivity"? Or "toobadforyouyouleech"? Furthermore, it's not the thought, itself, that's being sold in the first place. It's the property it produces: a book or a can opener. Government grants exclusive rights to things all the time... for example, upon the very house in which Mr. Kinsella lives. There is absolutely no logical or moral need for me to accept the fact that intellectual property is not perfectly equivalent to tangible property as a legitimate argument against patents or copyrights.

And while it's true that government can't dictate who owns what thoughts, it's not the thought, itself, that's being controlled by legislation: it's action and execution. And, once again, actions and executions are necessarily controlled by government all over the place. Mr. Kinsella might think the speed limit on his street should be 60 mph, and others might come to the same conclusion, but it's the act of driving more than 20mph that will get you fined.



This post was edited on 3/21 at 1:23 pm


Back to top
Scrowe
New Orleans Saints Fan
Louisiana
Member since Mar 2010
1788 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

Well, in defense of Mr. Kinsella, he HAS posted actual arguments... e.g. that patent laws are not worth the trouble they cause, that it's impossible to "own" an idea, that patent and copyright laws are statist impositions of anti-competitive monopoly. Unfortunately, none of his arguments are compelling enough individually or in aggregate to change the mind of the majority... most people see the absolute fairness of protecting a person who devotes months and years of his life writing a book from somebody who merely copies it and presents it as his own. That will never change.


I see his arguments, I understand that the system is not perfect and problematic. We can agree on that much.

I understand that patent and copyright is the impositions of anti-competitive monopoly, but some markets would not be what they are today without such monopolies.

Also, I've seen his arguments, I understand what he is saying through his logic. I don't understand how the real world application would work, which is what my questions and scenarios were based upon.

Through the things I've experienced, companies and people steal and screw each other constantly even with the current system. I just don't understand how this helps overall by removing such protections. Seems like the only person to get hosed here is the originator of the idea/invention.

Just don't believe innovation and technology would be where it's at if there is no incentive for coming up with the next big thing.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Decatur:

quote:

"So the generic maker who wants to make sales has to establish a reputation. If they are selling under "Bayer" they will soon be sued. "

Sued under trademark law. Again, it's hard for you to escape this.


No. Fraud law. TM law is redundant. I explain this in varouis blog posts and articles: The Libertarian Approach to Negligence, Tort, and Strict Liability: Wergeld and Partial Wergeld; Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach; The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression; Trademark and Fraud -- all linked at http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications

WildTchoupitoulas:
quote:

" If they are selling under "Bayer" they will soon be sued"


On what grounds, though?


fraud, a type of theft. see the references above.

quote:

How can it be considered misrepresentation if their is no standard for representation?


there is a standard. you don't need the state, legislation, or trademark for such a standard.

quote:

I may decide that it is most profitable for my new company to simply make knock off products and brand them as existing top-selling products.


and you will soon appear as a joke and be a marginal player, and sued by people who are ripped off.

quote:

Should I be sued for fraud, couldn't my defense simply be that I like the word "Bayer" and the mark I use on the label simply looks good and inspires a sense of trust in my customers?


I discuss this in detail in Reply to Van Dun: Non-Aggression and Title Transfer, available at the preceding link

quote:

If this is profitable for my business, it should be profitable for others' as well. At this point the retailer would not develop a bad reputation because his shelves are full of products that the consumer can't tell one from another.


If the consumer cant tell them apart then presumably they have no complaint, and ther is no problem. if they complain presumably they can tell that you have deceived them. if you ar really able to make an identically quality produce, you will tend to wnat to have your own name and reputation.

quote:

Your Pepsi, Coke, Wendy's examples seem invalid because they sell their products in the current environment of trademark law.


I don't think Dave whatever named his company Wendy's b/c of TM law. Do you think he would have a bunch of fake McD restaurants if hte law allowed him to?

quote:

Sans trademark, I could see Coke coming out with a product made from the sex organs of a sea urchin and label it "Pepsi" in order to sabotage their competitors product.


yeah, great way to win customers' confidence. anyway all this completely unrealistic speculation does nothing to justify patent and copyright law.

Decatur:
quote:


What happens when another company uses someone else's mark to sell their own goods?


they are laughed at, or marginal, or sued for fraud. I mean what if you try to sell tomorrow Decatur's, "Taming of hte Shrew". Who would buy it? What moron?






Back to top
Decatur
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17684 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

No. Fraud law.


What's to stop me from starting a company and calling it "Coca-Cola" selling cola products and using Coca-Cola's logo. I just make sure to put my corporate office address on the products so consumers at the point of sale know that I am not the same Coca-Cola company that has been selling the same kind of product for decades. I'm the Coca-Cola company located a few doors down from the Coca-Cola everyone is used to.

How would it be fraud if I don't claim to be the same Coca-Cola company that has been in business for years?



This post was edited on 3/21 at 3:07 pm


Back to top
  Replies (0)
Decatur
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17684 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

I mean what if you try to sell tomorrow Decatur's, "Taming of hte Shrew". Who would buy it? What moron?


I bet if I wrote Decatur's "Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist" I could sell some copies at a Ron Paul rally.

I gotta get paid.






Back to top
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Decatur: "I bet if I wrote Decatur's "Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist" I could sell some copies at a Ron Paul rally.

I gotta get paid."

You have my blessing, if you want it. Smartass troll.






Back to top
NaturalBeam
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
13121 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

nskinsella
When you hit reply to someone's post, either:

1) Highlight the text you want to quote using your mouse. Then click the quote button.

or

2) Hit the quote button, and copy and paste the text into the box.







Back to top
  Replies (0)
WildTchoupitoulas
Member since Jan 2010
16566 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

If the consumer cant tell them apart then presumably they have no complaint, and ther is no problem. if they complain presumably they can tell that you have deceived them.

But how can they tell it's me? ie, how can they distinguish mine from the Real Thing?

quote:

yeah, great way to win customers' confidence.

No, the point is to lose the customers' confidence - in my competition. I'm taking a loss on one product line, intentionally selling it branded as my competitor, in order to drive customers away from my competition's brand and towards mine. "God, did you taste that Pepsi I just bought at Walmart? It tastes like the genitalia of some sea-going organism! I'm switching to Coke from now on."

I'm talking about appearing to be the same...

quote:

I don't think Dave whatever named his company Wendy's b/c of TM law. Do you think he would have a bunch of fake McD restaurants if hte law allowed him to?

That's just it though, they woudn't be 'fake', there would be no way to distinguish between brands because they would actually be the same 'brand'.

But if, as you say, fraud can be prosecuted apart from trademark, then it could still work.

Overall I can definitely see the point of using a monopoly to control others' property as being intrusive - and the question of ideas as property.






Back to top
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Decatur:

quote:

What's to stop me from starting a company and calling it "Coca-Cola" selling cola products and using Coca-Cola's logo. I just make sure to put my corporate office address on the products so consumers at the point of sale know that I am not the same Coca-Cola company that has been selling the same kind of product for decades. I'm the Coca-Cola company located a few doors down from the Coca-Cola everyone is used to.

How would it be fraud if I don't claim to be the same Coca-Cola company that has been in business for years?


It's a factual question whether you are deceiving your customers or not. If not, no problem. But this is fraud law. It has nothing to do with patent or copyright.

WildTchoupitoulas:
quote:

But how can they tell it's me? ie, how can they distinguish mine from the Real Thing?


Because communication is possible. It's possible to identify actors and sources. If this really becomes a problem then Coke would add its address "Sold by the Coca-Cola company founded by XYZ in [state] in [year] and having a current address of []." I mean this is just a non-problem.

quote:

That's just it though, they woudn't be 'fake', there would be no way to distinguish between brands because they would actually be the same 'brand'.


SEe my reply to VAn Dun. Linked previously.






Back to top
Decatur
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17684 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

But this is fraud law. It has nothing to do with patent or copyright.


Again, it has to do with trademark law. How would it be fraud if I'm selling the merchandise under my company name?

Let's say I start a company named Montblanc and sell pens to people. I sell my pens to them. I don't claim that my pens are any else's but my own.

How would I be prosecuted under existing fraud law?

I suspect that the absence of trademark law would allow me to skirt prosecution under fraud law since I could start my own company with the same name and selling the same products as a competitor. I'm not defrauding my customers because I sell them my products under my name (even though it happens to be the name of one of my competitors). Under these circumstances, I can't help it if some of my competitor's customers become confused and use my business instead. After all, gotta get paid.







Back to top
Rex
LSU Fan
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
56363 posts
 Online 

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Decatur, clearly you've delivered the killshot to that bozo. He's obviously willing to stretch however ridiculously he needs to in order to maintain his "libertarian" proposition. No matter how impractical and unfair the ramifications of his view he's bound to say "I don't see that as a problem"... it's apparently more important to him to be a "Libertarian", capital L, than to admit he's wrong.

Among his numerous problems you've highlighted another example: earlier he said that Bayer's sales advantage should be its reputation, alone, and now we learn that Bayer is not even entitled to the exclusive use of its own name. Backed into a corner, and compelled to defend his book, Mr. Kinsella naturally had to declare that he didn't see that as a real problem. Oh really, now. It wouldn't be a problem for either the seller or the consumer to not know if the product in question is genuine or not?


This has become theater of the absurd.



This post was edited on 3/22 at 9:36 am


Back to top
NaturalBeam
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
13121 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


I definitely subscribe to many of the ideas of libertarianism, but this is stupid. Sometimes principle has to give way to pragmatism.

While I appreciate the concept of the idea that IP doesn't exist, it would be monumentally asinine to attempt "unregulate" its existence.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Rex, you know a lot but you do not. You do not know how to construct a careful, sincere, or coherent argument. You just bluster along like a guy carrying a six pack and a swagger. Your arguments of those of an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

Decatur:

quote:

Again, it has to do with trademark law. How would it be fraud if I'm selling the merchandise under my company name?


I explain all this in the section of the reply to Van Dun addressing just this question. To have meaningful social cooperation or contracts, or for there to be a possibility of fraud, there needs to be the possibility of communication, i.e. a shared language. and it is possible for a consumer and vendor to have a shared, communicated understanding as to the nature of a proposed transaction--without trademark law. You don't have to have an IP system for people to have communication. If I want a "genuine montblanc" pen that means I want one made by a particular group of people. It is possible to identify who they are. It is just a fact. Language can be used to do this. Normally we use shorthand like "montblanc'--but if necessary we could specify other facts that remove any ambiguity such as dates, addresses, etc. (In Houston, here, for example, there are two Ninfa's restaurant chains; they split long ago and one calls itslef "the Original Ninfa's" and attaches its address to it, so people can tell which one they are dealing with).

quote:

Let's say I start a company named Montblanc and sell pens to people. I sell my pens to them. I don't claim that my pens are any else's but my own.


If your customer thinks they come from the other Montblanc and you know this is a material condition of the sale, then you are in fact making a material misrepresentation to them by blithely saying you "are" "montblanc". OTOH I think in most cases the customer knows or should know you are not the real deal so I think caveat emptor. But suppose the customer says, "Say, are you the *original MontBlanc--you know, the one based in Switzerland and founded in 1817?" IF you say "No, I started my own Montblanc in 2003 in Houston" then they will either do the deal (no fraud), or walk away. But if you lie, then now you are defrauding them. With no trademark law being necessary for this result.

quote:

I'm not defrauding my customers because I sell them my products under my name (even though it happens to be the name of one of my competitors). Under these circumstances, I can't help it if some of my competitor's customers become confused and use my business instead.


You are just ignoring the fact that all contracts require a communication between buyer and seller. If the stated understanding would objectively mean that you are saying you are the original Montblanc, then you are communicating a false represntation and that gives rise to a fraud claim. The reason is the the buyer's consent for you to take his money is conditioned upon the truthfulness of the material representations you are making about the nature of the goods he is expecting to receive. I explain all this in my contract theory article.






Back to top
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


NaturalBeam:

"I definitely subscribe to many of the ideas of libertarianism, but this is stupid. Sometimes principle has to give way to pragmatism. "

what principle do you use to determine when to give way?






Back to top
NaturalBeam
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
13121 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Hard to say exactly where the line is drawn. I just know this is waaaaaaay beyond that line.





Back to top
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


NaturalBeam: "Hard to say exactly where the line is drawn. I just know this is waaaaaaay beyond that line."

WEll I guess you know it when you see it, and we just have to trust you.

If it is not clear to the LSU-"educated" following this, I am highlighting a confusion and inconsistency on the part of this nym. He rejects principle in favor of pragmatism, even though you need principles to know when to do this. This is yet another example of mental midgets mouthing off when they should stfu and listen and learn.






Back to top
NaturalBeam
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
13121 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

He rejects principle in favor of pragmatism, even though you need principles to know when to do this
No one ever said pragmatism was devoid of principle. In fact, it's in the definition. My understanding of pragmatism involves a combination of principle and practicality - not sure what you think it is.

quote:

This is yet another example of mental midgets mouthing off when they should stfu and listen and learn.
You're new here - no need to be a douchebag.

What type of law do you practice?






Back to top


Back to top