Two points against Intellectual property laws

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever happened to the absolute right of individuals to the integrity of their property?

Does this mean it's ok to violate patents or drug formulas, because people will continue to invent things? Does it mean it's ok to tax people a little bit, so long as it doesn't cause them to abandon the marketplace? I am struggling to see the moral difference in the eyes of an ACist.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is ideas aren't scarce, you're not deprived of anything if I copy your idea (you still have it). Unlike your second example. Regarding your first sentence, their non-scarcity makes classifying ideas as property quite dodgy imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that Dave Grohl isn't deprived of anything if I steal his record? What if I go around and perform his music? After all, he still has it.

How is a great album not scarce? Does everyone go around recording them all the time? 'Ideas' in general aren't scarce, but the kind of ideas that people pay for certainly are. That's like saying medicine's not scarce because aloe grows in the wild.

What if I steal someone's formula for an AIDS vaccine and start selling that? I mean, it's not like he's deprived of it, he still has it. It's just an idea.

For someone who is convinced of the absolute sanctity of property this position is completely untenable.