> Courts do not stop thieves. That is done by police.
They do? Granted, I'm sure it happens some times, but it's rare to see a police officer actually thwart an active robbery. Usually police track down the thief after-the-fact and courts take care of the rest. Also, I don't see a meaningful distinction between courts and police (for the purposes of this conversation). They all fit under the umbrella of arbitration.
> You have not supported your assertion that owners can defend their own property in some way that is different from how intellectual property is defended.
If you try to take a piece of my property, I can physically attempt to defend it. It's the nature of reality because it's a scarce good. If you take it from me, then you've deprived me of it.
Now say I come up with this really cool idea, sell it, etc. How am I going to stop you or anyone else from doing the same (short of keeping something a secret)? I can't. Why? Because it's an idea. They aren't scarce. If you take an idea from me you have not deprived me of the idea itself, which is completely unlike real tangible property that is scarce. You might think that I've deprived you of something else, but then it is no longer like property law dealing in scarcity.
I said this in an earlier comment, I think.
This isn't even a controversial claim. Even the courts today in the US make this distinction. That's why it's called "copyright infringement" and not "theft."
> If you are advocating a new political system
I'm arguing that intellectual property requires a coercive entity while property law dealing in scarcity does not. Since I consider coercion unjust, I therefore conclude that IP is unjust.
> Polycentric law is an academic construct.
Monopolistic law is coercive.
> why not admit that rather than making false claims about the current one
You aren't intellectually honest. Calling men with guns who lock people in cages 'arbitration' is a way of pretending that you don't advocate coercion, when in fact you do.
They do? Granted, I'm sure it happens some times, but it's rare to see a police officer actually thwart an active robbery. Usually police track down the thief after-the-fact and courts take care of the rest. Also, I don't see a meaningful distinction between courts and police (for the purposes of this conversation). They all fit under the umbrella of arbitration.
> You have not supported your assertion that owners can defend their own property in some way that is different from how intellectual property is defended.
If you try to take a piece of my property, I can physically attempt to defend it. It's the nature of reality because it's a scarce good. If you take it from me, then you've deprived me of it.
Now say I come up with this really cool idea, sell it, etc. How am I going to stop you or anyone else from doing the same (short of keeping something a secret)? I can't. Why? Because it's an idea. They aren't scarce. If you take an idea from me you have not deprived me of the idea itself, which is completely unlike real tangible property that is scarce. You might think that I've deprived you of something else, but then it is no longer like property law dealing in scarcity.
I said this in an earlier comment, I think.
This isn't even a controversial claim. Even the courts today in the US make this distinction. That's why it's called "copyright infringement" and not "theft."
> If you are advocating a new political system
I'm arguing that intellectual property requires a coercive entity while property law dealing in scarcity does not. Since I consider coercion unjust, I therefore conclude that IP is unjust.
> Polycentric law is an academic construct.
Monopolistic law is coercive.
> why not admit that rather than making false claims about the current one
Which claims? Why are they false?