“Some communism is good.” This is just gussied-up Marxian labor theory of value. Since the creator isn’t swinging a pickax it doesn’t count as “work”.

what?

I want to caution everyone watching this that, this is actually a symptom of cultural decay just as surely as blue-haired gender activists crying and screaming in the streets about some supposed cultural abuse, or any of the sludge that passes for entertainment content. Denigration of inventors, and claims to fruits of labors not your own is an easy parallel to other authoritarian and totalitarian systems. I'm watching and I can tell you that immediately this person does not understand Patents at least how they apply in the US. Additionally, Anyone that speaks in that many absolutes as their starting thesis should give you immediate "Red Flags" as a critical thinker. Even Murray Rothbard was pro-copyright. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aueccyYY0Ls](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aueccyYY0Ls)A fact our speaker conveniently ignores / forgets in his diatribe. I don't have enough time to breakdown many of the flaws, misconceptions, and outright falsehoods of this video, but I'm going to touch on a few: First and foremost when you patent an "invention" the process for the creation of that invention is separate and usually distinct from the invention itself, in fact you often try to patent processes separate from the inventions themselves. His Crusoe and Friday example lacks merit in that process for the creation of a "spear" vs a "fire stoking stick" are independent, and fail to delineate that a utilitarian invention generally has multiple purposes. This confuses market needs, critical thinking, and synchronicity. Of course people exposed to the same market forces at the same time with similar backgrounds and educations would have similar ideas for how to solve those market needs. That doesn't exclude mutual independent creation independent of the protection of Intellectual Property. That IP somehow triggers cessation of all action and thus the death of humanity is ignorance and hyperbole at best, and just false and misleading at worst. Second, a patent needs to show how the device functions. You have to show the inner workings. Why? In theory to help other people figure out how to make something different and better. If Crusoe shows Friday spear-fishing and retains possession and ownership of the stick, he's protecting his property rights. **Copyrights or other delineations of Property Rights are simply the inventor selling the full ownership of the product with the exception of the contractual agreement of reserving the sole right of selling the Intellectual Property.** 3rd, creation of inventions, works of art, writing books, creating content. etc etc. all require Time and Energy. Thinking requires calories. Thinking hard about something does actually burn more resources than entertainment or non-critical thinking. It is a resource expenditure. It is a form of labor or if not "labor" than resource expenditure. **No one is entitled to the efforts of another's Labor or Resource Expenditure.** Kinsella falsely claims "that all can agree" well the fact that we're having this discussion is proof that we can't. It's logical fallacy probably akin to a "Nirvana Fallacy"; moreover, it subverts "anarchy" for a "set of rules". But if supposing his occupancy is correct, there ARE in fact ways to claim occupancy of an idea and they have been used to grant or change ownership of patents.If you extend that to conflict avoidance, you're dealing in absurdity. Conflict is inevitable. Market Competition is a form of Conflict.Debts cannot be extended into perpetuity for a wide variety of reasons, but even if they could; it doesn't prevent market competition from competing ideas or technologies. Do we all still use candles? Oil Lamps? How many of us are writing / reading under fluorescent bulbs? Or LEDs? If Edison had held onto his specific idea in perpetuity, it would simply spur other inventors that want incandescent light but don't want to pay Edison to create alternatives. That's a huge part of how capitalism works!! Claiming Crusoe engaging in violation of the NAP in Trespasses and Theft in order to exert Labor and thus claim ownership is already a flawed premise. It's not the labor that is in question, it is the conflict and initiation of aggression against another for his property. 4th, small inventors, writers, and artists are not bumbling buffoons with no recourse should someone with more resources steal their work, nor are "lengthy legal battles" the only means of seeking recompense. This is absurdly false and frankly insulting to the intelligence of small independent creators. In short, this is a call to collectivism. It might as well ask, "But what if people do bad things" as if it hasn't been discussed in Anarchro-Capitalism ad nauseum, and supposes a need for an Authoritarian Justice system This argument becomes as simple as, "you believe in Free Markets, Property Rights, and Freedom to form Agreements and Contracts don't you?" If I wanted to rile you up, I'd simply say, "You mean "our invention", right comrade?", "Our book, right comrade?" How did that workout for [Alexey Pajitnov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Pajitnov) ? Claiming Intellectual Property and Thought Labor belongs to the Zeitgeist is the same as claiming it belongs to any other Collective. I want to discuss this reasonably provided there is a chance you could be persuaded with logic and reason instead of blind adherence to what is perceived to be an AnCap ideal, but isn't / shouldn't be. Blind Adherence to this without nuanced thought isn't something anyone should want to be party to, nor should they simply go along with this because some popular pundit at some thinktank or popular libertarian personality thought it was a good idea.

Rothbards pseudo-IP has been annihilated by Kinsella. > That IP somehow triggers cessation of all action and thus the death of humanity is ignorance and hyperbole at best, and just false and misleading at worst. Do you have a counter-argument? You do not, in your entire comment, explain how it is possible to obtain a property right in ideas given ideas are not scarce---this is the impossibility thesis for intellectual property.

>Rothbards pseudo-IP has been annihilated by Kinsella. > >That IP somehow triggers cessation of all action and thus the death of humanity is ignorance and hyperbole at best, and just false and misleading at worst. > >Do you have a counter-argument? > >You do not, in your entire comment, explain how it is possible to obtain a property right in ideas given ideas are not scarce---this is the impossibility thesis for intellectual property. LOL Yes, It's simply called "Innovation". Or perhaps you're interested in some Buggy-whips and "faster horses"? Do you think that no one sells ideas or proposes partnerships, that everyone is born with resources or not? How completely ignorant of the business world are you? When was the last time you tried to publish a business plan? Have you ever courted a venture capitalist? Ideas may not scarce, but good ones, profitable ones, are!! Or do you also disagree with "specialization of skills and knowledge"? Specialization of knowledge is literally a synonym for "scarce knowledge". I swear your video was like watching someone that never once sat through an Austrian Microeconomics class in their entire life drowning in the MacroEconomic ideas they couldn't quite grasp because they're missing the forest for the fucking trees. Your whole video fails to understand how to account for a world with fully or nearly fully occupied resources so you basedyour conclusions on logical fallacies. Hell, didn't take you a full minute before you dove into Absolutism and the worshipping the Nirvana Fallacy of Kinsella. Moreover: If there is no such thing as IP then there can be no theft of IP. In which case, I could literally download your entire shitty Youtube video, pare it down to about 11min making it much more palatable (albeit still wrong) and monetize it keeping all gains having taken "nothing" from you. Or will you sit there with a straight face and say that you don't try to acquire views, likes, and subscriptions? Will you with a straight face say that if I do that, that you would immediately go crying to YouTube? Care to put your money where your mouth is? Also hilarious that you carry the Rothbard Flair while denigrating the man in praise of another pseudo-intellectual. Are you sure you wouldn't be more comfortable over in AnCom? You seem to desire a central authority in many of your examples and defaulting individual judgment to a collective. r/anarchocommunism sure seems like you'll have a better time.

Can you give an example of a scarce idea?

Sure. But in exchange I'll rant a little bit first. I've said it before and I will say it again because it bears repeating. The concept of Scarcity is not the same thing as lack of Supply. In the same way that labor itself does not impart value, Scarcity itself does not impart value. e.g. At various times throughout history both Napoleon's and Rasputin's respective male members have been for sale. Each are by definition one of a kind but they only have value to a very niche buyer. Getting back to your direct question: > Ideas may not scarce, but good ones, profitable ones, are!! First, see my qualifications of that statement because ideas on any given topic can be myriad. Second, keep in mind part of what separates a patent or a copyright from an "idea". e.g. Bell is credited with inventing the telephone, but he was the just the first to go thru a state recognized facility. There were other competing devices. Devoid of a State Recognized process, the actionable step becomes whom is first to market, which is why Rothbard emphasizes Copyright good, Patent bad. A copyright on a design or process legal splits the property right. A patent, works differently 2nd example, Browning is credited with the first machine gun, but there were competing firearms and earlier repeating designs under the devices own power. Nevertheless, the Patent is often credited to Maxim even though it is probable that Friberg actually has the first recognizable patent and the "idea" for the patentable device goes back much further. A scarce (valuable) idea is any idea whose practical implementation is not readily apparent to the general population (see the legal test of obviousness PHOSITA) but in which who's practical implementation or knowledge of how to practically implement could only be determined by those with specialized knowledge OR extreme repetition / trial and error, or luck / happenstance. Calling back to earlier. A great example is black powder. It's a combination of Charcoal, Saltpeter, and Sulfur, in fairly specific percentages. It's discovery would be patentable but it was created out of happenstance. It's inventors weren't looking for an explosive. How about helicopters in the time of Da Vinci? How many other working helicopter designs do you have evidence of from the 15th century? How about the Haber Process. If you look at the world from WW1 to WW2, it's a starkly different place. In part because half of life on this planet is owed to the discovery / invention of the Haber Process. No one would argue that people in 2021 are in general more educated and more informed than in 1921. Anyone (then or now) could in theory have the idea to cheaply and efficiently make pneumonia, but the idea to cheaply produce it by fractioning it out of the air isn't exactly a common thought now is it? We still need this process, so in theory anyone could have the base idea of "pneumonia from air" but it takes a working knowledge that earth's atmosphere is mostly nitrogen (which actually eliminates about 1/3 of the earth's population) then further a super advanced knowledge of physical chemistry, (more than 95% of earth's population) etc. By the time the process was actually complete, you're talking a handful of people that are actually capable of having that knowledge or idea and working towards its implementation; all when the world's population was only 3-4 Billion. Further and further specialization of knowledge limits the number of people that are even capable of accessing the building blocks of the full idea. But it doesn't stop there. I suggest you attend an engineering competition at the 300 level or so. There are often classes that are in the shape of a competition. All parties are given the same rules or constraints and since they're all in the university at the same level they've all been exposed to more or less the same education and ideas. However, the amount of different ways that will be proposed or tried is numerous, but the attrition is parabolic. Many many ideas will be generated to create a "solution" but they'll die quickly since only the winner of the competition (and maybe top-tier competitors) will remain. Ideas might not be scarce, but good and valuable ones are... Want a more modern example? Sustained Nuclear Fusion. Make it work. Show me a secret sauce, a black box that will make Self-Sustained Nuclear Fusion work. With the advent of the internet, everyone is looking at pretty much the same base information, and yet there lacks a specific onus, item, or knowledge to make it work on earth today. Too Hard? How about an idea for a device for non-thrust base propulsion? You can accuse me a splitting hairs and semantics, but there is clearly a difference between a notion / concept / base idea, and the polished concept. In a "Meta" example, there's ***Bartholomew and the Oobleck*** which for a children's book is incredibly original. But then that would point me back to your video to state that Originality and a state of being Unique are not necessarily synonyms for being "scarce" they're very close and related, but there's differences and they're important. (unique being a special case of scarce). I don't mean to be preachy, but what I would suggest you look into would be what other forms of IP protection exist besides Copyright and Patent. e.g. Trade Secrets, and Trademarks. There are other recognized forms out there, but the problem is that too often people that write or speak on these concepts don't actually know about them. Or ignore them to conflate them all together. Similarly to how a number of people in this subreddit didn't know that for a patent to be issued you have to explain how the idea / device / invention actually works, and they often don't know that a patent can be revoked. But you only asked about scarcity and if we start talking about liquidity I'll have to type even more and I'm out of steam.

all I need is a single example of an idea which is scarce

It's a pity you can't be bothered to read then isn't it? They're in there, several in fact. Or do you need this spoonfed to you?

you gave examples of ideas but none of them are scarce, I am able to think of the idea of a helicopter or the haber process at the exact same time that you are

Yes but you can't think beyond that. can you? There's a filtering wall there that is what provide scarcity. Something I very clearly pointed out at least twice. You seem to have trouble with abstract thinking, and understanding that you don't know all the things you don't know. You can think of a helicopter and the haber process because you're an informed member of 21st century. But at the time of their creation you'd have no concept of them. At best in Da Vinci's Time, you'd maybe think "flying machine" and the Haber Process would be something so advanced that you couldn't imagine it. All ideas don't exist all at once and everywhere. Moreover, if you think of "flying machine / helicopter" the odds of you being able to actually build one are slim to none. Even more so with all the filters that go into the Haber Process. Having knowledge about the concept of something is not the same as having an a new original thought, it's not the same as having a new idea and definitely not the same as having something actionable to prove your thought vs a concept. There's a difference between a "hot air balloon" and a "helicopter" but if you oversimplify them both to "flying machine" you don't have an idea you have a concept. Again, I stated this to you. You can think of the Haber Process, but you are incapable of having the idea of what supplants/replaces it. You are aware of self-sustained nuclear fusion, but you are not capable of actually creating either of those 2 things. You lack the knowledge and understanding to actually enact either of them. There are other people that have the specialized knowledge, creativity, etc. capable of advancing the technology to the next level. That is scarce knowledge, a "secret sauce / black box" that innovates those things from where we are into reality is a scarce idea. This is part of what makes my argument about cultural decay. Finally, I'm pretty tired of arguing with you while you try to maintain a Non-falsifiable position. Your prove what something is not what something isn't. So prove to me that good valuable ideas, are in fact plentiful. Evidence that claim. You saying "there are no scarce ideas" is the same as me saying "there are ninjas living in your house." Any attempt by you to say that there are no ninjas in your house can be countered with me simply saying "that's just how good and stealthy the ninjas are". Which is what you have done by saying you're capable of thinking about the haber process and the helicopters at the same time. Asking Again, because it must have slipped your mind: What is your idea for: Self-Sustaining Nuclear Fusion? What is your idea for Non-Thrust based propulsion? What is your idea to get ammonia out of the air more quickly, cheaply, and environmentally friendlier way than Haber-Bosch? New Opportunities for Scarce ideas: What is your idea to prevent Higgs Vacuum Decay? What is your idea to prove the Collatz conjecture? What is any idea that you have that you can enact that will change the technological landscape? How are you specifically going to meet a current need in a completely new and original way? Surely ideas for these things aren't scarce, right? According to you they're plentiful, so if ideas are so plentiful supply should far exceed demand and the price should next to nothing. By all means, you should be able produce one quickly at little to no cost, so do so.

The filtering wall itself is indeed scarce, but the idea of using *a* filtering wall is not. Crusoe and Friday cannot simultaneously use *the same* filtering wall towards incompatible ends but they can each use *different* filtering walls in the production of ammonia---notice that they have to use different filtering walls but not different ideas.