[lbo-talk] plagiarism watch

[Michael Dawson]

> I hear the sound of questions being begged. There is
> nothing in the second proposition that Locke, Nozick,
> Hospers, and Hayek -- the libertarians -- would
> findany problem with. The question is: who's the
> "owner" and what's involved in "creating somerthing by
> one's labor." Btw, Locke and Nozick, big fans of the
> labor theory of property (not to be confused with the
> labor theory of value), gave up on trying to make
> sense of the notion. Though not on the notion.
> 
> --- Michael Dawson <MDawson at pdx.edu> wrote:
> 
> > > Intellectual property is theft.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> >
> > Tell that to Little Richard, who never got a nickel
> > from Pat Boone, who
> > stole his songs outright before copyright was
> > extended to music.
> >
> > If it's created by the labor of its owner, property
> > is not theft.

Speaking of begging questions, what the heck are you trying to say?  Hayek
thinks big capital is a product of entrepreneurial labor, end of story,
right?  That's not what I'm saying.  In fact, it's the opposite of what I'm
saying.  There's a difference between using money to exploit people and
having the right to get paid for (and have a say over) what you make or help
make.  That's kind of the whole socialist point.  Sheesh.