Do libertarians support the idea of information as property?

[Reikoku]

Yes it does. If you can deny somebody it, it's something worth owning.

That's not what I meant. Scarcity isn't the controlling factor for whether something can be property or not. It may be a factor as to whether you want to own it or not.

[1715409472]

1715409472

[1715409472]

1715409472

[1715409472]

1715409472

[Anonymous]

Yes it does. If you can deny somebody it, it's something worth owning.

That's not what I meant. Scarcity isn't the controlling factor for whether something can be property or not. It may be a factor as to whether you want to own it or not.

Let's say I can download a Ferrari using my own machinery and material I rightfully acquired. Have I denied Ferrari anything? A Ferrari isn't scarce any longer. Anybody can make one on a whim. Is that really theft?

[Reikoku]

Yes it does. If you can deny somebody it, it's something worth owning.

That's not what I meant. Scarcity isn't the controlling factor for whether something can be property or not. It may be a factor as to whether you want to own it or not.

Let's say I can download a Ferrari using my own machinery and material I rightfully acquired. Have I denied Ferrari anything? A Ferrari isn't scarce any longer. Anybody can make one on a whim. Is that really theft?

You've denied Ferrari their right to control the product of their labour (design is labour), which is fundamentally where property rights outside of a statist context come from.

[myrkul]

Yes it does. If you can deny somebody it, it's something worth owning.

That's not what I meant. Scarcity isn't the controlling factor for whether something can be property or not. It may be a factor as to whether you want to own it or not.

Let's say I can download a Ferrari using my own machinery and material I rightfully acquired. Have I denied Ferrari anything? A Ferrari isn't scarce any longer. Anybody can make one on a whim. Is that really theft?

You've denied Ferrari their right to control the product of their labour (design is labour), which is fundamentally where property rights outside of a statist context come from.

Design is labor, but labor is not property. So... Nice try.

[Reikoku]

Yes it does. If you can deny somebody it, it's something worth owning.

That's not what I meant. Scarcity isn't the controlling factor for whether something can be property or not. It may be a factor as to whether you want to own it or not.

Let's say I can download a Ferrari using my own machinery and material I rightfully acquired. Have I denied Ferrari anything? A Ferrari isn't scarce any longer. Anybody can make one on a whim. Is that really theft?

You've denied Ferrari their right to control the product of their labour (design is labour), which is fundamentally where property rights outside of a statist context come from.

Design is labor, but labor is not property. So... Nice try.

If property does not stem from the mixing of labour, where does it stem from?

What decides who has a claim over an object, other than mixing of labour or legitimate voluntary transaction with somebody who has mixed their labour?

[myrkul]

If property does not stem from the mixing of labour, where does it stem from?

What decides who has a claim over an object, other than mixing of labour or legitimate voluntary transaction with somebody who has mixed their labour?

Never said it didn't. I said that labor is not property. Let me explain:

You made a drawing by mixing your labor with a piece of paper (your property)

The resultant document is your property.

If I take a picture of that drawing, or look at it and make an exact copy, the exact copy is not your property.

If you draw a picture on a piece of paper you stole from me, that picture is not your property.

Labor doesn't make property all by itself.

[chickenado]

However, without copyright we wouldn't have free software

We wouldn't have free software licenses.  But we would still have open, collaborative software development.

or huge investments in proprietary software,

Most software doesn't need copyright in order to be profitable.  That's why so many software companies are moving from the software-as-a-product to the software-as-a-service model.

without patents all inventions would be secret

Humans aren't good at keeping secrets. All secrets leak sooner or later as soon as >100 people know about them. 
Almost all big inventions require the collective effort of >100 people.

without trademarks there would be no high quality brands due to market saturation

My smartphone is an HTC.  Most of my non-techie friends don't recognize that brand. The HTC's quality is awesome, and superior to the iphone IMO.  It needs to be, because the only reason people buy HTCs is because of their superior quality for the same price, not because of brand recognition. 

Also, brands will lose their meaning a decade from now when the semantic web really takes off.  People will no longer purchase stuff based on packaging, but content. 

So which information should be protected by regulation and/or treated as property, and why?

Information cannot be protected by regulation from third parties.  It can only be protected by personal measures.

It's not a question what information "should" do. It's a question of what information will do, and how we can adapt to that inevitability.

[chickenado]

You've denied Ferrari their right to control the product of their labour (design is labour), which is fundamentally where property rights outside of a statist context come from.

Outside a statist context, property rights only serve one purpose: To settle disputes over scarce resources.

They have nothing to do with the notion of "labour", whatsovever.