Comment: Wenzel and his supporters continue to ignore...

(See in situ)

Wenzel and his supporters continue to ignore...

what Kinsella means by the word "scarce", Kinsella is using it synonymously with the economic definition of the word rivalrous.

In economics, a good is considered either rivalrous (rival) or nonrival. A rival (subtractable) good is a good whose consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers.

Wenzel uses scarcity to mean rarity in his "drudge formula" argument, as in he being the only person that has it, it is therefore scarce.

If scarcity is defined as, an inadequate supply to meet demand, and Wenzel agrees that non scarce things can not be property.

Say you produce more chairs than there is a demand for chairs, these chairs are not scarce by that definition, do chairs cease to be property?

Regardless of how many chairs are produced, each chair is still rivalrous, that is we can't both have a rightful claim to the same physical chair at the same time, possession of it by one of use would exclude possession of it by the other.

It does not matter if something is rare, it matters if possession of something by one person excludes possession of it by another person.

Property rights exist to resolve disputes between ownership of rivalrous goods.

Use of Ideas do not prevent others from simultaneously using them.

We can both posses the same idea simultaneously without preventing the other from doing so.

By keeping an idea to yourself it may be rare, but possession of it by someone else once someone else copies it or discovers it does not prevent you from possessing it.

Ideas can be rare, as in few people can posses them, but under no circumstance does possession of an idea by one person prevent possession of an idea by another person.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard