Comment: Thanks to both responders. I

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Such a disappointment. I was (see in situ)

Thanks to both responders. I

Thanks to both responders. I did find a couple of Stephan's lectures and listened, but neither got to what I'm trying to understand.

I did download the link offered and read through several few pages; I'll look at the rest soon.

I guess the primary problem I'm having is that: I'm struggling to define IP rights as not natural rights. I mean if I produce something from my own intellect, I don't get how that production is not mine. S uses the example of a slab of marble and says that the ownership of the art that may result from me carving on it is simply an enhancement of that slab of marble. But if my "marble" is the English language, which I can't own, and the enhancement my imagination and wordsmithing, how is the "thing," the sculpted piece of letters of less value than the slab or marble? It seems to me that, according to S's view, it is only because the marble creation is a thing that can be handled and bought and sold by turns that gives it protection. But my creation, derived from the ownership of my own mind and the commons of language, once let out of the box, is part of common knowledge and has no claim of property. In the word of a novelist, S's example would mean that the paper -- or the hard drive space -- was equivalent to the marble, something I bought and owned?