Kinsella's book "Against Intellectual Property" argues against consent in the use by others of one's intellectual goods.The book purports to be libertarian, but uses the begging the question fallacy to define property as scarce/rivalrous (he uses "scarce" in the book, "rivalrous" in later writings - Moving the Goalpost), whereas I start from a deeper premise: that man's mind is his base tool of survival and that complete control of his mind's labors is his right:https://abidode.substack.com/p/expropriation-of-the-mindKinsella makes another (unforced) error when he uses another fallacy (special pleading) to state that since enforcing intellectual property requires initiating force (begging the question, since this only makes sense if you accept his fallacious reasoning that using another's intellectual goods is not force), that it's not property.From here, we induce that physical property that is undefendable is not property.As such, Kinsella states that libertarianism doesn't necessarily allow the use of force in defense of one's property.
>>546167013>tfw we'll never get to see Seff vs. Kenny
>>546167738>>tfw we'll never get to see Seff vs. KennyMfw free bump, ty friendo
Your definition of property is retarded, an idea isn't scarce thus isn't an economic good
>>546167013>this only makes sense if you accept his fallacious reasoning that using another's intellectual goods is not force)You are making a positive assertion, it's on you to prove it.In my personal life it's 1 liberal writer and one leftoid musician who have anything positive to say about IP. Fuck you, if you want a specific string of data to not spread, there's only 2 realistic means: never create it in the first place, or keep it under lock and key far away from the global information ecosystem. Because once it it wild, it's wild. It's no longer under your control, and it's your own fault.
>>546168152The reproduction cost is zero
An unforced error implies the existence of an opponent who can force an error. Imagining yourself arguing with Kinsella 26 years ago at a conference does not mean Kinsella had an opponent.pic unrel, I'll be expropriating this post. Expect revenues to plummet by as much as 3.50
>>546168277>>this only makes sense if you accept his fallacious reasoning that using another's intellectual goods is not force)>You are making a positive assertion, it's on you to prove it.It's the Substack. >In my personal life it's 1 liberal writer and one leftoid musician who have anything positive to say about IP. Fuck you, if you want a specific string of data to not spread, there's only 2 realistic means: never create it in the first place, or keep it under lock and key far away from the global information ecosystem. Because once it it wild, it's wild. It's no longer under your control, and it's your own fault.Begging the question
>>546168490>An unforced error implies the existence of an opponent who can force an error. Imagining yourself arguing with.It's not necessary that he argued against me. >pic unrel, I'll be expropriating this post. Please do
>>546168305>The reproduction cost is zeroIrrelevant
>>546168490kek
>>546168152>Your definition of property is retarded, an idea isn't scarce thus isn't an economic goodBegging the question
