All property is a government enforced monopoly. Without property there is no trade. There is no reason to transact when you can just take or copy.

Payment for services.

Governments don't create property rights, nor do they enforce then very well, usually governments seize private property.

We civilized humans have come to terms with natural rights, that there "inalienable" rights granted by being a conscious free willed beings.

All the bootlicking DC apologists would be wise to reread some philosophy and develop a moral code beyond the barbaric might makes right.

That's a rather empty argument. Sure, protection intellectual "property" is important for encouraging innovation, but the length of protection must be carefully balanced to prevent rent-seeking (resting on laurels of past innovation). Currently, the terms are ridiculous for many categories (software patents, copyright). In particular, there's nothing that "encourages innovation" when terms get extended retroactively (for existing innovations).

That's an orthogonal point. You could make a similar argument for private land ownership (why should someone be able to keep a parcel in his ownership for decades if he doesn't plan to use it?)

>why should someone be able to keep a parcel in his ownership for decades if he doesn't plan to use it?

He shouldn't. Next question?

My next question would be "what is a persuasive argument against intellectual property for those of us who don't reject the concept of private property altogether?"

Do you have a persuasive (to you) argument for it?

Is the structure of that argument the same as the structure of your argument for physical property? (in which case my argument would be that there are very relevant differences)

There are pragmatic arguments against it: The costs copyright and patents impose on the market are huge. Not the prices, but all the good things that become difficult or illegal to do.

On principle: even if an IP system has some practical benefit, we usually set a pretty high bar for restricting people's communication or creativity. Is copying properly up there with fraud and slander?

I think we can come up with much better ways to pay for art. (Kickstarter is one.)

Respectfully, I asked if you had an argument against IP that worked for those of us who do not believe that the whole concept of private property is flawed. I asked because you said "next question". Asking me to justify IP is not responsive to my question.

The only argument I see in here is that copying might not be on a par with fraud and slander. Frankly, I'm a lot more worried about criminalizing slander than I am about criminalizing copying. Slander law actually does clamp down on free speech. Copyright law just prevents free-riding.

> Frankly, I'm a lot more worried about criminalizing slander than I am about criminalizing copying. Slander law actually does clamp down on free speech. Copyright law just prevents free-riding.

Indeed, I think the area of IP with the most significant impact on free speech is the one that hardly gets talked about: trademark. Causes of action for dilution and tarnishment have major free speech implications. IMHO, 15 USC 1125 is unconstitutional to the extent it allows an action for tarnishment.

Wouldn't that argument just reinforce the comment's point? Land ownership is heavily regulated - taxes, zoning, easements, eminent domain and so on.

> why should someone be able to keep a parcel in his ownership for decades if he doesn't plan to use it?

Property taxes are structured to discourage productive land sitting idle.

You've written this, or something similar, before. It's kind of disingenuous.

For instance, I have a leatherman "Micra" in my pocket. It's my property. I can tell I still own it by putting my hand in my pocket... yep, it's still mine.

Now, "intellectual property" is another matter all together. I can't tell is my "intellectual property" is being infringed on without a large effort to police it. Is my fantastic new way of rigging sails being infringed upon by some "pirate" on Lake Michigan? I can't tell. My sailboat still have the fantastic new way of rigging, so I'm fat dumb and happy. I have to have a state, or some huge organization, find the infringement for me.

I think that's one difference in property theft vs "intellectual property" infringement. I'm not exactly sure what to call it, other than "government enforced monopoly". Yes, some laws around property need to be in place, and governments need to enforce them. There's a difference in both magnitude of enforcement, and type of enforcement that's necessary for "intellectual property" to exist.

As far as "just copy", well, I'm using my capital (expensive computer) to manufacture those copies myself, should I actually do that. The enforcers now need to keep me from using my capital in a way that I control. That's another significant difference you're glossing over.

> For instance, I have a leatherman "Micra" in my pocket. It's my property. I can tell I still own it by putting my hand in my pocket... yep, it's still mine.

You've confused possession with ownership. If you loan it to someone -- or someone steals it -- you won't find it in your pocket, you won't possess it, but you will still own it.

Ownership is a relation created in law. It is different than possession. In fact, its a meaningful concept only because it can differ from possession.

> Now, "intellectual property" is another matter all together. I can't tell is my "intellectual property" is being infringed on without a large effort to police it.

That's very much true of lots of real property (and even of tangible personal property that you don't keep in your possession). If I have real property spread around the different states -- and tangible personal property on the grounds of each of those real properties -- it takes a considerable policing effort to tell if the exclusive legal rights I have to those items which make them property are being infringed.

> I have to have a state, or some huge organization, find the infringement for me.

That's true, again, of all kinds of property in general, real property, tangible personal property, and intangible personal property other than intellectual property in general.

The tangible personal property you happen to keep in your immediate possession is actually the exception here, not the norm with property. Largely, the whole point of ownership existing as a legal relationship beyond mere possession is to enable people to have control of things that aren't under their immediate supervision all the time.

> I think that's one difference in property theft vs "intellectual property" infringement

And, in general, you are wrong. What you are pointing to is just largely true of physical property (real and tangible personal property) as of intangible personal property in general and intellectual property in particular.

> I'm not exactly sure what to call it, other than "government enforced monopoly".

Government enforced monopoly is exactly the defining characteristic of all property. So, its not a bad term to use for intellectual property, its just a mistake to use that to indicate something that is supposedly distinct about intellectual property as opposed to true of all property.

> There's a difference in both magnitude of enforcement, and type of enforcement that's necessary for "intellectual property" to exist.

There are differences in the steps taken to for enforcement between every pair of categories of property (this is just as true between tangible personal property and real property as between tangible personal property and intellectual property.)

Its these kind of distinctions that are a big part of the reason that we name different categories of property in the first place; if they were all identical, rather than subcategories of a common higher-level categories, we wouldn't need named types.

Spoken like a true gentleman, and you raised a few good points. I still feel that there's a difference between physical property and "intellectual property" - probably because "intellectual property" is mostly licensed. It's the licensing that sets apart "intellectual property" and it's the giant, state support for enforcement of licenses that makes the difference. If we talked about people leasing or renting software or music, it might make more sense, but licensing something to a consumer, all the while encouraging them to think they've bought it, seems like a recipe for disaster.

The other thing about "intellectual property" is the distinct possibility of independent invention. Even if we disallow my use of my own capital hardware to make a duplicate via some state financed mechanism, there's still a very real possibility that someone else also invented the "intellectual property" in question. Several people invented the steam engine. Several people invented the telegraph, at more or less the same time. Someone in the Bronze age seems to have invented safety pins. Algorithms get independently discovered all the time - see KMP string matching for a classic, but there's certainly a lot of others. A bunch of people discovered continuations at different times. How do we stretch the idea of property to cover all this? This seems like it will lead to trouble.

I "license" the apartment I live in, and the state has elaborate enforcement mechanisms for kicking me out when I breach the terms of the license.

Independent invention is definitely a distinguishing characteristic, and the shakiest part of the rationale for patents. IMHO, independent invention should be a defense to patent infringement. That said, it's not really implicated in the drug industry, where the folks doing the copying don't have the resources to invent and test the drugs independently.

> I still feel that there's a difference between physical property and "intellectual property" - probably because "intellectual property" is mostly licensed.

Conditional, restricted-use-specific licensing of real and tangible personal property is common.

You can insert a logical not in front of anything important that Obama says and only then, you get the intended meaning.

of course, that is a generalized statement... and doesn't always hold true, probably...