Friday, January 23, 2009
Stephan Kinsella Launches New Journal
Comments:
Gee, I wonder if he'll accept an article expanding my devastating libertarian arguments for IP, including quotation of his destructive admissions ...
Bob, believe me, you'll know when I assert it.
Just kidding. We've done everything we can to liberate the copyright--Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution is the best we can find that is reliable. The new CC0 would be great, but I don't trust it would work. See my comments to Roderick here.
Just kidding. We've done everything we can to liberate the copyright--Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution is the best we can find that is reliable. The new CC0 would be great, but I don't trust it would work. See my comments to Roderick here.
Bob_Murphy, your sarcasm is understandable but undeserved. Again and again I have seen libertarians approach the IP issue (and global warming, but let's leave that for another day) without making any serious effort to come up with a principled, consistent position, but instead simply pander to their own biases.
With Stephan_Kinsella especially, I have persuaded him to admit the critical flaws in his position and yet he trudges ahead anyway. This is not, as I'm sure you'll argue, a case of "Stephan doesn't regard you as worthy of a response because you haven't been published." Stephan_Kinsella most certainly has devoted considerable time and (at the level he normally applies to IP) thought to responding to me, and his responses admit the very points I have tried to make.
Specifically, I have first demonstrated that whatever argument you might make against IP, you cannot do so on grounds of non-scarcity. Stephan_Kinsella agreed to this, after being dragged kicking and screaming through debates spanning over a year, thus rescinding about 10 pages of Against Intellectual Property.
Second, I have forced him to admit (after another series of debates in which Stephan Kinsella put forth his best responses) that the only way to morally differentiate IP (which he rejects) and EM spectrum rights (which he supports) is by appeal to the nebulous concept of a "relevant use" of resources, which he has arbitrarily chosen in a way that favors his position, backed only by his personal opinion.
(I'd give you the links, of course, but that's "stalking" and we can't have that.)
I'd be glad to admit my error when there's, you know, actual justification for the claim that there is an error.
Post a Comment
With Stephan_Kinsella especially, I have persuaded him to admit the critical flaws in his position and yet he trudges ahead anyway. This is not, as I'm sure you'll argue, a case of "Stephan doesn't regard you as worthy of a response because you haven't been published." Stephan_Kinsella most certainly has devoted considerable time and (at the level he normally applies to IP) thought to responding to me, and his responses admit the very points I have tried to make.
Specifically, I have first demonstrated that whatever argument you might make against IP, you cannot do so on grounds of non-scarcity. Stephan_Kinsella agreed to this, after being dragged kicking and screaming through debates spanning over a year, thus rescinding about 10 pages of Against Intellectual Property.
Second, I have forced him to admit (after another series of debates in which Stephan Kinsella put forth his best responses) that the only way to morally differentiate IP (which he rejects) and EM spectrum rights (which he supports) is by appeal to the nebulous concept of a "relevant use" of resources, which he has arbitrarily chosen in a way that favors his position, backed only by his personal opinion.
(I'd give you the links, of course, but that's "stalking" and we can't have that.)
I'd be glad to admit my error when there's, you know, actual justification for the claim that there is an error.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]