>>64443
>Property is most easily defined by DDDEAL
Ease of definition does not constitute a valid argument. You have presented this definition many times on this board, but you have not established its logical necessity.
>IP is defineable because it's not an abstract thing in a stateless (or microstate) society. It requires proof of concept and typically brand recognition.
Providing evidence that you were the first to think of an abstract idea does not make the idea any less abstract.
>IP is excludeable in that you can actively dictate who can use it
Only insofar as you can impose your will upon others' use of their own property. This point essentially amounts to a "might makes right" argument.
>IP is liable in that you can be sued for the damages caused by the product of your IP
You can be sued for just about anything. The question is whether or not you are genuinely responsible for it. If you are not directly involved in the manufacture and distribution of that particular product, or if you have not contractually obligated yourself to assume responsibility, then you are not actually responsible for it.
>seeing as how most forms of property require a court for defense of them as there are legal grey areas even in property that require arbitration and decisions from a third party
This is again appealing to someone's ability to attempt something in a court, which does not in itself necessitate that the court adheres to reasonable standards.
>>Copyright and patents serve the same purpose
>When you don't even know the difference between a copyright and a patent
His statement, which you quoted, did not in any way imply that there were no differences between them. They serve the same purpose in different industries; to grant the creative party a transferrable privilege of monopoly over the abstract form of their creative work. There is nothing in his commentary which calls for your dismissal nor fails to convey the information in your subsequent efforts at clarification.
>Until you understand this difference, you're just spouting ideology with no basis in reality.
At the risk of provoking ill feelings, this is precisely what you have demonstrated here. You've made a series of claims with regard to your far-from-universal definition of property, and failed to coherently defend them, and have proceeded to make unduly dismissive comments seeking to clarify information which was already readily apparent in the remarks to which you were responding.
Your theory of property is noted with interest, but you've much more work cut out for yourself before you can rest on the notion that it is adequately established in this forum.
>>64446
>Because of that thing that a lot of AnCaps believe in, y'know, common law.
What relevance does this have? Traditional Common Law as supported by AnCaps does not make provision for ownership of the idea of an invention or creative work.
>For thousands of years '"international trade" was limited to a geographical area roughly the size of Texas
Perhaps in the "thousands of years" between the first man and the invention of sailing ships, but trade between the Mediterranean, Middle East, and Far East has been in practice for thousands of years.
>language barriers prevented a need for extensive law past your own country
Anyone who traveled much (like merchants) learned multiple languages as a matter of course.
>you'd quickly realize if someone stole your work
As noted elsewhere, it was not considered "stealing" due to a lack of patent and copyright law until relatively recent history.
>Also up until 1440 the printing press didn't exist and until the early 1600s it wasn't widespread enough for common use, so you had to do shit by hand if you wanted to copy works.
Printed works have never been the only form of creative works in circulation.
>Additionally the Ancient Greeks had systems in place similar to IP, and I believe the ancient Chinese did as well
Perhaps you're thinking of the areas of IP other than copyright and patent? Trade secrets are broadly considered to be IP as well, and there's nothing wrong with keeping a secret, in and of itself.
>>64449
>Ownership is a monopoly on the ability to use the aforementioned resource after all.
Ownership is the recognition of your exclusive right to control those rivalrous goods which you have secured for your own use without initiating a conflict with anyone else. Patent and copyright are grants of exclusive legal privilege to restrict how other people may use their property. If one owns something, they can exclude others from using that specific thing. If one possesses a patent or copyright, they are able to exclude others from using any and all things which they may possess in certain ways as dictated by the holder. The difference is significant.