Prologue - The Inversion:

Epictetus held that a slave retained liberty of mind even when his body was another's - that ownership of the person could extend only to the flesh. Cognition remained untouched territory.

Apply that to intellectual property and the premise inverts.

The product of cognition is precisely what stands outside the recognized category of ownership. So the retreat Epictetus offered - the inner citadel - becomes the very site of the expropriation. You are not free within your thoughts when the thoughts' external expression carries no ownership, the denial of ownership is treated as liberation, and that liberation is passed off as principle.

tldr:
Even those sincere in the goodness and efficacy of their actions are parasites and enablers of other parasites - they must be opposed and their ideas exposed, if civilisation is to continue.

Subject of this thread:
Refuting anti-ip's scarcity/non-rivalrous aspect.
Proving that IP, from a Misean/Randian
("...and I don't like that name.")
(Would have been shorter and easier to spell, if not for this parenthetical, if I didn't need to ask you whether you'd feel loss for had you known this parenthetical was a device, that, though, serves both our ends, is a Novel Creation of mine done to disproportionately benefit producers at the expense of the looters?
Or would you rationalize pain?

Entropy? - who wins

Not recognizing that IP is valid is the continuation of disbelieving that man's mind should have complete control of the results of its Actions.

Intro:
Purported allies who are inconsistent in their position are more dangerous to their own cause than the most skilled opponent.
An enemy fights in the open.
An inconsistent ally opens the gates.


A principle compromised once is a principle abandoned. There are no half rights, no half measures.

"There was a time when men were afraid that somebody would reveal some secret of theirs that was unknown to their fellows. Nowadays, they're afraid that somebody will name what everybody knows. Have you practical people ever thought that that's all it would take to blast your whole, big, complex structure, with all your laws and guns — just somebody naming the exact nature of what it is you're doing?"
- Rand

Definition of property:

People own themselves.
A person acting converts what is theirs - their temporal existence - along with unowned inputs - to alleviate their uneasiness. This conversion results in physical and intellectual goods.
Property begins where labor ends. The cotton is yours because you picked it. The technique is yours because you invented it. Scarcity describes the cotton. It says nothing about the technique. Kinsella's test smuggles that silence in as a verdict.

Claim: Scarcity - that ideas aren't rivalrous because using another's idea doesn't affect the person who discovered it.

"If I invent a technique for harvesting cotton, your harvesting cotton in this way would not take away the technique from me. I still have my technique as well as my cotton. Your use does not exclude my use; we could both use my technique to harvest cotton. There is no economic scarcity, and no possibility of conflict over the use of a scarce resource. Thus, there is no need for exclusivity."
-Kinsella

Note:
While a refutation of the validity of an argument only requires demonstrating a single mistake, people's willingness to build compromised arguments, and to operate on shaky foundations, indicates that total demolition is best.

Counter:

Property is the fruit of labor.

One's novel conceptions' value to themselves is affected by others employing the novel conception, to the detriment of their autonomy.
The mechanism involves the marketability of one's Novel Conceptions when others use them to influence the market in a way only possible by the employment of that Novel Conception, in the absence of any compensation requested by the originator for use.

"Take it to the limit." - Friedman:
>Be consistent in your philosophy.
>Oppose yourself.

Suggesting that scarcity affects whether something can be property implies that any idea or form of matter can be unlimited, which may actually be true of the universe, but on Earth it's a spectrum that Kinsella pled-especially-well-for to justify that intellectual output's novel conceptions cannot be property because they cannot be policed, implying that people have no right to force Recompense. Expropriators of wealth weaponize this Logic in their taking of the fruit of man's mind while espousing their charity, Case taking as many bananas as they can get away with taking, according to the effect that political Funders desire for individuals, to the degree that Funders affect what the politician chooses. Applies to all sources of Force.

That is, IP not being property denies recompense of harm.

File: Diagram-of-the-six-possib(...).png (134 KB, 850x613)

134 KB PNG

>>545991216
Nah, file sharing is commensalist game theory, lost profits are not equivalent to lost funds. The former is (1,0) the other is (1,-1) parasitism. IP is no longer practically or ideologically practical towards its stated aims either. The last century is defined by the integration of supply chains, ip makes sense for verticlized production, but it abhors standardization or composition innovation. We need to share secrets to advance at this point, and they dont like the hobby nuclear reactor maker. Furthermore ip around information is further lambasted as 5g warfare made the culture industry loss leader. You cant dictate cultural norms through the screen if your paywalling the info, your adversaries are just going to code their alternative financial system for free and give people daily doses of redpills from diogenese cistern.

Deepstate doesnt want it, plebs dont want it and everyone can smell a ceo who dont eat their own burgers.

My only reconsiliation with the institution of IP is through original attribution, that the compensation graph goes all the way back to the creators and deseminators of letters and numbers

" 'The tycoons can stand being squeezed, they've amassed enough to last them for three generations' — then, later, had yelled: 'Why should the people suffer while businessmen have reserves to last a year?' — now were screaming: 'Why should we starve while some people have reserves to last a week?' "
-Rand
IP results from labor. But no creator works from nothing - every mind stands on the shoulders of giants whose contributions can never be fully credited or compensated. That cumulative debt doesn't erase the creator's claim. It bounds it. A right that never expires would demand payment from minds that built on what came before, forever, without end. So the time limitation follows from the same principle that makes IP valid, not from philosophy or pragmatism. Where the line falls can't be fixed objectively - but neither can the line between one man's contribution and the giants beneath him. Indeterminable is not arbitrary. The anti-IP side engaged in fallacies to contrive time limits. They can have them. Without the fallacy.

"Scientists are not supposed to believe anything. Scientists are supposed to have some evidence that leads them tentatively to some conclusion or to some action. They're supposed to be able to show that to other scientists, any interested person in fact who's willing to understand what it is that was used as evidence, should be able to say, yeah, I agree with that, that makes sense, using rules of inference that we've used since Aristotle. Okay, and it's not complicated at all. You learn it in sixth grade. Most scientists forget it pretty quickly. But science is not a set of beliefs. I mean, there's only one belief in science, that you have to retreat to commitment at a certain point."
-Kary Mullis

>>545992315
Time limitation is a bandaid the reveals ip to be a futile institution. Just because someone hasnt touched their possession in a long time doesnt release their claim. It admits IP isnt an object one can possess like a pen or paper if a man were to live forever does their claim on the pen end at average-life+buffer?

Dont make these psuedofundementalist bargains, the heart of it is too pad a businesses bottom line with a sultry justification. If the original attribution problem cannot be sustained, ditch the concept done. Dont think taking a birds wings will make it a better horse

Holy retard yap

>>545992190
>Nah, file sharing is commensalist game theory, lost profits are not equivalent to lost funds.
True, but I'm not arguing for value maximization.

>IP is no longer practically or ideologically practical towards its stated aims either. The last century is defined by the integration of supply chains, ip makes sense for verticlized production, but it abhors standardization or composition innovation.
I suggest that paying for IP better funds innovation. Not my postsm's subject matter, though.

>ip around information is further lambasted as 5g warfare made the culture industry loss leader. You cant dictate cultural norms through the screen if your paywalling the info, your adversaries are just going to code their alternative financial system for free and give people daily doses of redpills from diogenese cistern.
Are you saying:
>ip impedes those who seek to use media to influence others
If so, how does pro ip affect?

>My only reconsiliation with the institution of IP is through original attribution, that the compensation graph goes all the way back to the creators and deseminators of letters and numbers
Yes.
It's about how humans choose to support those whose knowledge helped them.

if the ip isn't built from the work of others then you shall have it

>>545993244
>Time limitation is a bandaid that reveals ip to be a futile institution. Just because someone hasnt touched their possession in a long time doesnt release their claim.

Unbstantiated assertion.

>>545994373
>if the ip isn't built from the work of others then you shall have it fully and without question
Extended your statement for clarity.
Also,
>implying that any IP doesn't rest, to any degree, on the work of others

>>545993426
>Holy retard yap
Ty for the bump, looter flag.

>>545991216
IP won't exist in the near future, you think they were YOUR ideas? lmao

>>545993244
>temporal
"A tract of wild, unowned land is cleared, plowed, and sown by a homesteader. He mixes sufficient labor with the land to acquire a property right. After the homesteader dies, the field is neglected. Five hundred years later, the field has returned to a state indistinguishable from that of nature. Thus, through the application of labor, the homesteader has temporarily removed the field from the state of nature, because the means by which the property right was first established dissipate over time."
-Roth

>>545994626
>IP won't exist in the near future, you think they were YOUR ideas? lmao
IP results from Human Action.
Imagine believing what you typed.

File: Screenshot_20260526_11051(...).jpg (961 KB, 1438x1080)

961 KB JPG

>>545994947
wtf you blabbering about? ideas are all up in the aether they were never yours

>>545995270
>ip isn't anyone's
Assuming the conclusion

>>545994253

>>545994253
>True, but I'm not arguing for value maximization.
your right, i argued against that so many times i just assumed. I read now- deny the mind own its output. Indeed, I've come to adopt an older perspective that ideas are gifts from egrigorical thought forms one learns to channel. Teslas brain in a receive quote probably drove that forward more than anything.

>I suggest that paying for IP better funds innovation. Not my postsm's subject matter, though.
my counter argument is that it did historically up until bretton woods when state sanctioned piracy got back benched and supply chains became too tightly integrated to not afford standards. I'd suggest now IP stifles innovation as it prevents standards formation and composition economies.

>ip impedes those who seek to use media to influence others
part of this change from consumer to stakeholder capitalism (gamergate included) these zombie media corps dont churn a profit, but they do find investors to pay off their old debt with new loans. These investors, often with deepstate ties to culture propaganda offices, care more about inculcating and imbibing as many people as possible to norms and fashions of their industrial apparatus. box office ticket sales are a great way to dab a movie was a hit, but the value their getting is from as many eyes repeating what they see on the screen. with the loss of the ability to create celebrities and the rise of amateur video, IP gets more in the way of their objectives.

>It's about how humans choose to support those whose knowledge helped them.
mhm, which seems to synthesize back on the egrigorical/hemetic persuasion. cause doing it for free and attributing to 'the gods' solves it before the fact

>>545994821
Im definitely not an acoylte of this Roth character. If a man were to live for 250k years 500 is a brief vacation. Suredly he wouldve appreciated at least pre agreeing over a length of tenancy. That ownership necessitates possesion seems like a communist seduction to part the land owner from their estate

>>545991216
Intellectual property is kiked.
Intellectual property is kiked.
Intellectual property is kiked.
Intellectual property is kiked.
Intellectual property is kiked.

>>545995329

>>True, but I'm not arguing for value maximization.
>your right, i argued against that so many times i just assumed. I read now- deny the mind own its output. Indeed, I've come to adopt an older perspective that ideas are gifts from egrigorical thought forms one learns to channel. Teslas brain in a receive quote probably drove that forward more than anything.

Could be, 2 points:
>post was made to attack inconsistency common in libertarianism

>>I suggest that paying for IP better funds innovation. Not my postsm's subject matter, though.
>my counter argument is that it did historically up until bretton woods when state sanctioned piracy got back benched and supply chains became too tightly integrated to not afford standards. I'd suggest now IP stifles innovation as it prevents standards formation and composition economies.

May be true, but not of interest to me.

>>ip impedes those who seek to use media to influence others
>part of this change from consumer to stakeholder capitalism (gamergate included) these zombie media corps dont churn a profit, but they do find investors to pay off their old debt with new loans. These investors, often with deepstate ties to culture propaganda offices, care more about inculcating and imbibing as many people as possible to norms and fashions of their industrial apparatus. box office ticket sales are a great way to dab a movie was a hit, but the value their getting is from as many eyes repeating what they see on the screen. with the loss of the ability to create celebrities and the rise of amateur video, IP gets more in the way of their objectives.
IP being valid, I don't believe, affects them doing this.

>>545995329
>>It's about how humans choose to support those whose knowledge helped them.
>mhm, which seems to synthesize back on the egrigorical/hemetic persuasion. cause doing it for free and attributing to 'the gods' solves it before the fact

"the modern movement for planning [I reject unsubstantiated attribution of ideas to any god, and liken the effect to (economic) planning] is a movement against competition as such, a new flag under which all the old enemies of competition ["liberty" can replace "competition"] have rallied."
-Hayek

>>545991216
No one in the world singlehandedly made something themselves, everything is made from already existing matter.
Every human being imitaties, all the words we use are imitated from already existing people, and we did not invent sound , sound was already here

>>545995768
>Suredly Roth wouldve appreciated at least pre agreeing over a length of tenancy.
I agree, addressing this in my original posts.
>That ownership necessitates possesion seems like a communist seduction to part the land owner from their estate.
I don't argue or imply this.

>>545996137
>all property depends on the Action of other Humans
Mostly true
>sound
Physical phenomena, unrelated to discussion.

>>545996329
We are physical phenomena

>>545996370
>We are physical phenomena
Non sequitur

>>545996571
What are you trying to accomplish here

>>545995977
Its a resource and time issue, my biggest arguement against ip not mentioned here is that its unenforceable abd cumbersome to operate under. Patents for anyone other than a multimillionaire or corporation as the legal team to implement it. Linux ate server and mobile, and windows needed wsl2 to be relevant to working in modern software. People were willing to ditch torrents for netflix, but went back to torrents after larfare made online stream almost worse than cable broadcast

>>545996242
So if he had some robots mowing thd lawn the property is still his?

>>545996667
hes a midwit

Patents are only handy in a corrupt system that enforces the concept of ownership. If we could all 'trust' eachother then there wouldnt be a need to 'own' anything since everything on this planet is from nobody, ownership does not exist , its just a deal between two players for a fair game. And the system we live in now , I think the 'sincerity' of the game speaks for itself.

>>545996667
Main post was made to attack inconsistency in libertarianism.

>>545996698
>ip is unenforceable
Assuming the conclusion.

>ip is cumbersome to operate under
Not what argument is about.

>>545996744
>So if he had some robots mowing thd lawn the property is still his?
Depends on the agreement and circumstances, but this question addresses a specific agreement, not the op.

>>545996847
>Patents are only handy in a corrupt system that enforces the concept of ownership. If we could all 'trust' eachother then there wouldnt be a need to 'own' anything since everything on this planet is from nobody, ownership does not exist , its just a deal between two players for a fair game. And the system we live in now , I think the 'sincerity' of the game speaks for itself.

(you).

>>545997066
Thinking is not something we invented, thinking invented the self (you).
(You) Cannot stop thinking, we are reactive at any given moment, there is no seperate entity anywhere.

>>545997066
Also the word mind just means thinking, without thinking - no self, no mind, no ego, no soul, just the body (matter).
The word mind is charming because it gives a more personal flavor instead of the word thinking.

>>545997126
>thinking invented the self (you).
Proof?

>(You) Cannot stop thinking, we are reactive at any given moment, there is no seperate entity anywhere.
Relevance?

>>545997258
>the word mind just means thinking

Stipulative definition, citation required.

File: 1793987786119169.jpg (84 KB, 888x499)

84 KB JPG

>reply quality
Some people argue from premises. Some argue from vibes.
Some argue from the void and call it insight.

File: Trilateral-fashion-integr(...).jpg (886 KB, 1301x1597)

886 KB JPG

>>545996920
For why its a pic and choose rught now most critically for software and close by media. Stuff thats just lying around and free to use gets composed with faster than the suits strong arming ip deals. The stakeholders lowkey are the ones torrenting their firms ip to loss leader american cultural norms and not lose cultural hegemony to power centers that disagree with global economic integration.

Ip just doesnt serve the original mandate it was originally argued on. Technological progress is too dangerous at this point not to do it together, industrial integration necessitates standardization and composition economies. Information industries loss leader to corner the market on attention, there is no scarcity of innovation in information technology and media production.

The deepstate kills swartz and balaji but lets open ai gobble everything while claude rips the spines from the old books- i library of alexandria burn and pillage
So much for IP, glad i never wasted time taking it seriuously

>>545997420
If you are unable to think, you are the body (100% reactive, and all of us are in reality 100% reactive, but thinking in this day and age seems to try and seperate itself from what is)
The relevance of the fact that you cannot stop thinking (you also cannot stop feeling for that same matter) means you are a mere product of a bodily mechanism(being born = no choice , its reproduction , the 'will' for sex is also not a choice, the feeling of 'wanting to have sex' is a rhythm unique to each body (mechanism: it repeats itself , why? Essentially to stay alive and avoid pain, any living organism avoids pain(feeling) and wants to remain 'alive', deny this and you deny nature). Maybe some living organisms do strive to feel pain, only for another organism to survive.
We are products of life itself and at the same time cannot seperate ourselves from it.

>>545997511
No the word mind just needs more explanation , and any effort I know I can just simplify it back to 'thinking'. Imo the word mind enforces the idea of ownership - "someones mind".
But thinking is not from someone.
When you think, you are the thought - there is no seperate you apart from the thought, that would be , of itself a thought.

>>545998182
>value judgement
Not the subject of the OP
>Schwartz, Balaji
Unequal treatment, tragic.
That said,
>ignoratio elenchi

>>545998408
>arguing from a point of determinism, without proving that determinism is truth orientated

>>545998862
Youre putting me in a box of determinism, great for you , I'm sure youve explained yourself something now!

>>545998503
>No the word mind just needs more explanation , and any effort I know I can just simplify it back to 'thinking'. Imo the word mind enforces the idea of ownership - "someones mind".
>But thinking is not from someone.
>When you think, you are the thought - there is no seperate you apart from the thought, that would be , of itself a thought.

You define mind as ownership, then ruled ownership out by redefining the self as thought.
Where did the Human go?
I did lead with Descartes...

>>545998995
>Youre putting me in a box of determinism, great for you , I'm sure youve explained yourself something now!

You've never made sense, and I'm helping you discover where you are in error.

Sincerely, forgive me if I don't know where you are lost.

>>545999063
In my opinion I see that the word mind gives a sense of ownership in relation to the word thinking. Thinking sounds (to my conditioning less personal then mind).
The mind (sounds like an object)
Thinking

Can you see the difference you insufforable midwit?

>>545999203
Youre not making sense for yourself , its not my problem you pretend to be seperate from basic biology.

>>545999203
You can only help yourself , but ofcourse , you pretend you dont understand

>>545999203
Were on 4chan , everyone is lost here , seems like you are extremely forget full, i wish you the best bye

>>545999239
>when you think, you are the thought
-non-dualist, Nisargadatta

>>545999304
>ah hom, context dropping

>>545999472
>>545997957