Quote from: FredericBastiat on September 01, 2011, 09:51:56 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 01, 2011, 09:26:42 PM

And you seem to be doing that. Your whole premise seems to be "I don't want to recognise intellectual property so I won't. To hell with everyone else."

Here's the thing. What can be said for certain is that the theory of private property and that of intellectual property conflict. The one affects the other and vice a versa.

They are not independently and mutually exclusive theories.

Intellectual property theory states that anyone can lay a claim to any property, anywhere, and at any time and for virutally any reason, based on it's physical attributes as determined by external agents.

Private property theory states that physical objects can only be legitimately acquired by homesteading or via mutual consent by trade.

Intellectual property laws violate more human rights than private property laws do, hence the reason for rescinding such laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights#Types_of_property

As you see there are all kinds of property. Private property is just one. Where does the ownership come from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights#Thomas_Hobbes_.2817th_century.29

"Hobbes' reflection began with the idea of "giving to every man his own," a phrase he drew from the writings of Cicero. But he wondered: How can anybody call anything his own? He concluded: My own can only truly be mine if there is one unambiguously strongest power in the realm, and that power treats it as mine, protecting its status as such."

This definition hasn't been improved upon and is the part of the basis of Hernando de Soto's work.

Our society recognises that intellectual property can be owned. Why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#Objectives

Because it makes us better off.

You keep trying to pretend that this reality can't make sense but it does. Everyone understands it. The system works. You can go anywhere in the world and buy a can of Coca-Cola and you get what you wanted. We have a super-abundance of good things based on intellectual property.

You argue that this system which works so well should be abandoned as it breaches your human rights. What right are you deprived of? You can't steal someone else's idea. Nor can you steal their car. Nor their share certificates. All are things that you own as part of a social convention. Unless you can provide a benefit that exceeds the value of the abundance of good things the existing system produces, you idea is pointless as any property rights are based on the benefit to society.

In short, if you don't like the concept of intellectual property, come up with something that will produce more goods for us as a society. Arguing that the intellectual property rights that society gave you conflict with the property rights that society gave you is not convincing. You may as well argue that property is theft and all should be abolished.