Description

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 198.

This is a discussion with Ash Navabi, an economics grad student at George Mason, who messaged me this question:

Hi Stephan. I’m having a conceptual problem distinguishing IP and tangible property.

In Against IP, you said that an IP right gives the IP owner “invariably transfer partial ownership of tangible property from its natural owner to innovators, inventors, and artists.”

But doesn’t this apply to every property right? If I own a tract of land, why can’t we say that if I ban you riding across it with your dirt bike, then I am claiming ownership over your dirt bike?

I decided to just discuss this with him for the podcast. We ended up veering into a couple tangential issues like auctions for trade secrets in an IP-free world, and so on.

Before we talked, I asked him to read:

Other materials mentioned during our discussion:

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • I know that for me, polyamory and libertarianism go hand-in-hand. I wouldn’t say I’m poly because I’m a libertarian, but the two both come from the same place, at least for me. It’s all about respecting people’s choices and trying not to restrict their freedoms.   If you’re polyamorous, how do you feel it fits in with your other principles / philosophy?

    Jump to Discussion Post 34 replies
  • The government could do its job! It could protect and uphold contracts. If it protected contracts agreed upon voluntarily by parties involved in any exchange then it would be a stabilizing entity! Can you believe it? The stated goal of government is to stabilize things and that can be accomplished if they did what they are supposed to do! Instead we see government causing massive destabilization because it violates contracts and fails to protect contracts. How simple is the solution! Even the government union employee can identify with the solution: “I only do specifically what my job is and nothing more!” Someone tell the government ‘to protect and uphold contracts’ only!

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies
  • Dominance, Sharing, and Privacy gives us a simplified (maybe oversimplified), and intuitive way to categorize human sociality. Instead of thinking of social structures as being diverse and too complicated to be categorized, these three categories allow us to classify behaviors that address conflict as one of three types or a combination of the three.  For example, might makes right is not really a property norm but it is a dominance strategy. The ethic that the world belongs to everyone is not an alternative property norm, it is the nullification of property in favor of a sharing norm.  The violent defense of a territory is not a might makes right or dominance behavior but is the defense of privacy. The reluctance to intrude on others prior establish territory is not just a fear of retaliation but a respect for privacy.   For moe read: Dominance, Sharing, and Privacy (DSP), The Three Principles of Sociality  

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • If the state was abolished but private property was not then wouldn’t landlords effectively become the state? There are a lot of similarities between a landlord and a state.  They both hold territory that they can exclude people from.  A proprietor can tell their tenants what to do while they are on their property. Taxes are similar to rent.  Laws are like the rules of a rental contract.  A proprietor may defend their property with force.   So what is the difference?

    Jump to Discussion Post 12 replies
  • Is there anyone out there that can SHOW ME the LAW that says the IRS can interfere with the business of the State Department?  Is there anyone out there that show me where “Congress” acquired Legislative Jurisdiction to interfere with travel within a State?  Can anyone show me the Law that grants “Enforcement” jurisdiction to the IRS for any territory other than “Federal” Land?  Just because the bunch of outlaw-renegades that call themselves “Congress” puts a bunch of words on a piece of paper and calls it a “LAW” doesn’t mean that it is a True, Correct, and Certain string of words that actually is “enforceable”.  Yet almost every time Obama writes an “Executive Order” or “Congress” passes something they call a Law most people (including some that should know better) start claiming that you or I are on our way to prison because of some language in the “new” Law or Order.  So let me ask this: How many of you have studied “Federal Jurisdiction”, or Federal “Legislative” Jurisdiction?  How many have read the Constitution and know anything about Separation of Powers?

    Jump to Discussion Post 23 replies