So libratarians don't believe that non-tangible property exists? No trademarks, no patents, no publishing rights for writers, no plagiarism laws, no protections what so ever for artists, creators, or inventors?

I don't think is that bizarre. Its a very common position on libertarian circles (particularly in agorist circles) as intellectual property is a state-given monopoly.

Summary of the controversy?

No, as I said before that is lying (or fraud).

Saying you are someone you aren't, or taking credit for something you didn't do isn't okay.

Physically harming people is a punishable offense & harming people with the intent of also damaging a business is worse.

People need ways to clearly identify & distinguish themselves from others. But I do not believe force funded institutions should exist at all, so I think we are going to need decentralized methods for simple & easily authentication.

If you find a recipe do you feel the need to ask permission to use it?

If I figure out how something works it gets added to my knowledge of how to do things & I don't believe anyone has any right to tell anyone else how they can or can't arrange their own property. Food is not different from metal or wood or anything else

IP is a violation of physical property rights. If everything is patented then your ownership of materials would be meaningless. You couldn't make anything with your own stuff without buying permission from a bunch of other people. So the scam is made more believable by creating completely arbitrary time constraints. But it's entirely based on an ends justifying the means sort of argument. "We get to beat you up for using your property a certain way for a certain amount of time because someone needs to be rewarded for this idea." And even independent arrival at an already patented idea doesn't free you from the scam.

The very purpose of property rights is to establish a fair & just way to reduce conflict over scarce & rivalrous things.

The entire basis for the IP scam requires one to confuse copying with stealing in order to create conflict where there otherwise would be none. And that's why I said, if nothing is missing, nothing was stolen.

You call yourself an Agorist but you reason like an average Communist: believing it is perfectly acceptable to laying claim to others intellectual work and feeling entitled to their property

No, you are just dead set on twisting what I said to fit your position so that you don't have to change your mind or see the distinction I made.

Sure... How many hundreds of billions of that is govt & pharam corp corruption?

If R&D is cheaper now than it has ever been for the average person then it is for everyone no matter what sort of BS fiat numbers someone puts up.

Why do you keep reverting back to this position in your argument after I have addressed it multiple times?

And R&D is cheaper & easier now than it has ever been. 3d printers are a couple hundred dollars & modeling software is free. It used to require ~$100k machine to rifle a barrel, & twitter 3d printed gun people figured out how to do it perfectly with a few hundred dollars worth of equipment.

Yeah I think this is a good point. We should expect behavior to be different. Burning problems will still be solved, but sure some marginal ones won’t be. That might be worth the freedom that a no IP world would enjoy. And that world might even be better off in other ways.

Also, people do work for fame and glory in addition to money, and those other two ain’t going anywhere

Anyone claiming they have the right to beat people up for copying them (like an angry fucking 5 year old) is a scammer.

You said... IP is a scam. I said innovators should be able to lay claim to their innovations. I think they should for a period of time, but not infinite time. Your saying my reasoning is flawed because I didn't specify the exact length of time?

Based on what non-arbitrary principle? It seems you can't even argue a specific timeframe.

I don’t think I do… people invent things without preventing others from doing that thing all the time.

We disagree and it’s okay!

You’re a spicy one.

I don't think the IP system protects inventors at all. It takes a long time & easily costs tens of thousands of dollars to get a patent & you face legal threats from massive companies in the process. Most inventors have to work salaried jobs for mega corps who ultimately own all of their inventions.

A system where anyone who invented anything was free to start a business & produce it without having to pay for permission to do so, or to seek legal protection for the use of their own ideas would be a system that was good for individual inventors. IP effectively does the opposite of that.

Well, we disagree. I would still pay someone who makes the chip. No reason to pay them extra to prevent others from making it.

How would a society enforcing idea-ownership solved this problem?

This sounds like an argument against the idea of intellectual property, right? These guys were just protecting their innovations. What am I missing? Believing IP is real property or not wouldn’t result in them sharing their trade secrets would they?

Obviously sandwiches are in the public domain of knowledge, but something like advanced silicon chip manufacturing is not yet. To incentivise advancements in capital intensive and important areas like this you need to reward investors for their ideas.

Not arguing that the system is not ripe for corruption (it is run by humans), just that certain innovative ideas are a person's intellectual property for a certain period of time.

I’m not sure what you’re saying.

There is no IP on sammiches but people keep making them and make $$. If you’re productive for people they will demand/ask for your good or service.

And “IP” also introduces the corrupt arbiter. We have even seen this corruption with cancer treatments and other great solutions for the people. The empowered (and unelected) arbiters usually protect the people that currently fill their pockets.