Intellectual Property, Abstract v. Natural Right, Part IV

Avatar

Patrick

Patrick is a mid-40 year old geek with an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a master's degree in Information Systems. Nothing he says here has anything to do with the official position of his employer or any other institution.

Related Post Roulette

5 Responses

  1. Avatar Will H.
    Ignored
    says:

    You’re posting these too fast.
    I haven’t read part III yet.
    You have to wait for the remedial students.
    You don’t want the sweathogs falling too far behind.
    Hegel might approve of that, but I think Locke would disagree.Report

    • Avatar Patrick Cahalan in reply to Will H.
      Ignored
      says:

      The reflections post will probably have to wait until Monday, so you have the weekend to catch up, try and guess what I’m going to write about all this, and rebut it before I even get it up 🙂Report

  2. Avatar DensityDuck
    Ignored
    says:

    I just read a post on Copyhype about Lysander Spooner’s work; it seems that would be worth addressing in this discussion.  Although I may just be biased, because I’d independently arrived at Spooner’s conclusion that since property rights are themselves an entirely intellectual concept then there’s no problem with attaching them to an entirely intellecual concept.Report

    • Avatar Patrick Cahalan in reply to DensityDuck
      Ignored
      says:

      Link?

      I haven’t gotten around to writing my reflections post yet (I’m having trouble with extended bouts at the keyboard).  I’ll probably write my thing before I read that, but I’d definitely like to see it.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *