[Update: See also Letter from a UK Grad Student; Yet another Randian recants on IP; Does Cato’s New Objectivist CEO John Allison Presage Retrogression on IP?; “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism”]
From the Mises Blog, 12/4/2009. Archived comments below.
An Objectivist Recants on IP
On the Mises blog, I noticed one of the frequent commentators on IP-related blog threads, one Bala, used to defend the IP position but of late had been taking an anti-IP position. We discussed this privately and I asked him to give me a short write-up about his thought process as he changed his mind on this issue. I find such “conversion” stories interesting, and have seen it in others as well–myself, Jeff Tucker, etc. He sent it to me; I append it below.
Pro-IP to Anti-IP: The Transformation of an Objectivist
by S Balasubramanian
[The author resides in Chennai, India, and has a B Tech (Aerospace Engineering)–Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras (’94), PGDM (equivalent of an MBA)–Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Ahmedabad (’98). He is a businessman, running a test prep company that trains students for competitive examinations for admissions to institutions of higher education, especially for those aspiring to get into the top B-Schools in India. He also recently started a pre-school which he hopes to build into a full-fledged school. His email is bala.hfca@gmail.com]
It was in August of 2009 that I stumbled, or rather fumbled, my way into mises.org. I was guided to LvMI by none other than the Ayn Rand Institute, which referred LvMI as the place to go to if I wanted to get any understanding at all of economics, especially capitalism. As a long-time fan of Ayn Rand, having read a lot of her fiction as well as non-fiction and actually applying the basic principles of Objectivism in my daily life, I decided to take the tip seriously.
Pretty much to my shock, almost the first thing I came across was a little Rand-bashing and, worse, a denunciation of an idea Rand had explained as being the cornerstone of property rights – that of Intellectual Property.
The ideas I came in with
My ideas on intellectual property were formed almost completely based on Rand’s arguments justifying the idea. It all begins with the fundamental premises that:
-
- Ideas are legitimate property;
-
- Ideas owe their existence to the person who originated or “created them” and hence morally “belong” to the creator.
-
- It is important for a reader to understand that Objectivists use the term “morally” differently. Morality, to an Objectivist, is a code of values that guides man’s actions in the face of choices. It is rationally derived starting with recognition of the Objective reality that we are a part of. It is not a set of edicts or diktats from a higher authority.
-
- Those who copy ideas deprive the creators of the value that should rightfully accrue to them and are hence guilty of stealing (the emphasis is on “rightfully” as it flows from point 2 above).
-
- It is the fundamental responsibility of government to protect individual rights, property rights being the most important of man’s rights.
-
- A system of patent & copyrights is a way by which creators register their claim to creating ideas, a means by which they inform all interested parties as to whose property an idea is
-
- Infringement of patents and copyrights is a violation of property rights and government enforcement of patent & copyright laws is legitimate protection of property rights.
-
- Ideas owe their existence to the person who originated or “created them” and hence morally “belong” to the creator.
Questions that troubled me
In the course of some heated discussions, a few interesting questions came up for which I had to reach deep inside to find the answers
-
- How do you reconcile the facts that recognising and enforcing IP essentially gives some people a right to the physical property of others?
-
- How can ideas and patterns be property?
-
- How do you propose to enforce IP except through the State machinery? Considering that the State has never demonstrated any tendency other than for evil, how is this consistent with the advancement of Liberty?
What made me realise the error in my (and the “orthodox” Objectivist) position on IP
To cut a long thing short, the moment I realised that there is a conflict between rights to intellectual property and rights to physical property, I also realised that something is wrong about the whole thing. Such a contradiction usually means that something is wrong with the premises of the person facing the contradiction – me.
Restricting a person from giving physical shape to an idea he has in his mind is clearly a violation of his Liberty and Property Rights. However, this is precisely what implementation of IP means. IP proponents typically tent to retort saying that what I am calling “violation of Liberty and Property Rights” is actually implementation of the property rights of the owner of the idea/pattern that is the subject of the IP.
If it is true that in the name of protecting Intellectual Property Rights, one is actually violating the Liberty of some individuals, in effect one is also saying that the holders of Intellectual Property have an undefined lien on the Liberty of the individuals of the other part. Translated, this gives some individuals the right to enslave others by virtue of being holders of Intellectual Property rights. This made the notion all the more bizarre to me. It was in direct contradiction of the most basic principles of Objectivism that no man may claim the right to initiate force against another.
This led me to realise that there is a fundamental problem in the way different people were defining the concept “property”. At least, the way Objectivists seem to be defining “property”, they are setting themselves up for a conflict between the right to physical property and the right to Liberty on one side and the right to Intellectual Property on the other.
The answer, to me, was to obtain clarity on the relationship between the Right to Liberty and the Right to Property. The question I was trying to answer was “Which of the 2 rights is more fundamental to human nature?”. If Liberty is more fundamental to human nature, it would be futile to define Property independent of Liberty because such a definition is bound to lead to a contradiction.
Liberty or Property – Which is more fundamental?
To me, the answer was obvious – Liberty. The Right to Liberty is a logical corollary of the Right to Life and is in fact a restatement of the latter focusing on a specific part of it. The Right to Liberty, as per Objectivism, is nothing more than the freedom to act as per the judgement of one’s rational mind. Action being essential to life and in fact being an integral and inviolable part of the definition of the concept “Life” (a sequence of self-generated self-sustaining actions), violation of the Right to Liberty is a violation of the Right to Life itself.
Once again taking from Rand herself, value is that which you act to gain or keep. Thus, gaining or keeping value is impossible unless one is free to act. Thus, it is futile to place “property”, which is nothing more than the value one acts to gain or keep with the aim of sustaining one’s life, above that which is a prerequisite to the process of gaining or keeping value, i.e., action. Translating this into a simple inequality,
Right to Life > Right to Liberty > Right to Property
Therefore, the choice was clear – to define the concept “property” in terms of the more fundamental concept “liberty”. The outcome is bound to be a non-contradictory system of Property Rights where it is possible for Liberty and Property Rights to coexist.
Defining the concept “Property”
(The most fundamental premise I used in this discussion is that initiating force against another is a violation of his Right to Liberty. As per my limited understanding of Objectivism, this is how Ayn Rand defined Liberty.)
Objects exist in 3 states – existent, possession and property. An apple exists. When I hold the apple in my hands, it is in my possession. When my possession is morally justified, i.e., when the apple “ought” to be in my possession, it is deemed my “property”.
Clearly, not every “possession” is “property”. That raises the question how and when a “possession” becomes “property”. The answer to the question is to be found by a study of the morality of the actions that went into gaining and keeping “possession”. If you obtain possession the “right” way, it is morally yours, i.e., you are better off with it than without. On the other hand, if you did something “wrong” in the process of gaining possession, it is not morally yours, i.e., you are better off without it than with it. Objectivists in particular should have no difficulty evaluating issues from a moral perspective and to talk of issues like “right” and “wrong” because they ought to be used to deriving these logically from reality, which they consider absolute.
From an Objectivist perspective, there is only 1 “wrong” that a man can commit in the process of gaining possession of an existent – that is to initiate force against other men in the process. Thus, possessions to gain which man has to necessarily initiate force against others will not get moral sanction. Such possessions cannot be considered property.
Equally fundamental to the concept “property” is the right to exclude others from total or partial enjoyment of the value that the property holds. Exclusion of others requires specific actions from the person in possession of an object. The nature of the actions one needs to undertake in order to exclude others from one’s possessions also influences the moral status of the possession in question. If excluding others requires retaliatory force only, such exclusion would be a morally sound action. If, on the other hand, exclusion itself involves initiation of force, it would naturally be immoral and the author cannot exclude and be right at the same time. Such possessions that create contradictions by their very nature cannot and should not be deemed property.
Applying this idea to the 2 broad categories of property – physical and intellectual, physical possessions clearly justify the use of the term “property” to denote their ownership. The taking possession of or the exclusion of others from physical objects does not necessarily involve initiation of force. On the other hand, the taking away of a physical good without the consent of the legitimate owner always involves the initiation of force. Thus, the statement “no man shall take away the physical property of another man without his consent” is equivalent to saying that “one man may not initiate force against another”. In this sense, it is no different from the basic Objectivist principle of non-initiation of force.
Ideas and patterns, on the other hand, presented a problem when I tried to treat them as “property”. While there is no denying the value of ideas in human advancement, exclusion of other individuals from an idea or pattern necessarily involves the initiation of force. For instance, how else is A to prevent B from incorporating A’s idea in his B’s product other than to force himself upon B’s property and coerce B to prevent him from doing so, thus violating B’s Liberty? In effect, recognising ideas and patterns as property is tantamount to saying that A has a moral right to initiate force against B simply because he has coined an idea. Thus, as an Objectivist, classifying ideas and patterns as “property” takes me into dangerous territory where I am ready to label the initiation of force as legitimate.
Even worse than the above is to codify IP into law and giving the State and its machinery additional legitimacy engage in rampant violation of Liberty. As an Objectivist, I hate the State as much as anyone else can. To see the State as an ally just because it is the only agency capable of enforcing Intellectual Property Rights is downright immoral. I realised that once there, there was no turning back. I become as evil as the very collectivists and statists that I am trying to condemn and fight against.
I am now left with a very moral choice – do I or do I not recognise ideas and patterns as “property”. If I should remain true to my Objectivist roots (which I value for good reason), my only option is to apologise to Rand for disagreeing with her strongly and telling her that she was wrong on this one and that I am not ready to apply the label “property” to ideas and patterns.
(While in the above analysis, I might appear to be going in circles around essentially 1 idea, the non-initiation of force, given that that principle is the most important Objectivist social principle, the one that defines how an individual ought to deal with the society he lives in, I do not think I am guilty of circular reasoning. Rather, I am making my axioms clear and validating all my conclusions against my axioms.)
Conclusions
An Objectivist cannot and should not support the notion of Intellectual Property because it violates fundamental Objectivist principles. Rejecting the validity of “Intellectual Property” does not mean that one is rejecting Objectivism. Anyone who claims otherwise needs to be reminded of Ayn Rand’s warnings against package deals. He who wishes to say “Rand said otherwise” needs to be reminded of Rand’s other very important point – that no human may consider himself or any other human being to be infallible, not even Ayn Rand herself.
@Peter_Surda: Very true — you can’t have conflicts over resources that never come into existence in the first place, and you will starve to death if one of those never-produced resources (e.g. a new agricultural method) happens to be necessary for continued food production after some point in time.
…and?
@Silas:
In order not to look like a fool, it is useful to first actually comprehend what you write. In your case, I seriously doubt it.
Legal systems developed due to the necessity for conflict resolution. Obviously, they often serve other purposes too, but conflict resolution is the defining one. There is no need for conflict resolution in immaterial goods. If you actually attempted to analyse the case more thoroughly, it would have been plainly obvious. IP systems do not resolve consumption conflicts, nor is it possible for them to do that in any hypothetical legal system, since there are no consumption conflicts. IP is only possible in a legal system that has features other than conflict resolution. Which would not be libertarian.
If you look at current IP systems, you see that they target production and not consumption (at least not to a large extent). Even if we recognise the ownership of ideas and their spread over the whole universe, such an implementation still turns the idea of property on its head. A consistent implementation would not target producers but consumers. This would require the control of thoughts. Unlikely to happen without a government.
@Silas:
> Very true — you can’t have conflicts over resources
> that never come into existence in the first place,
You commit the same error that you accuse your opponents of: you assume your conclusion.
In addition to that, it’s irrelevant. With the same logic one can claim that you need to pay taxes because otherwise there will be war.
> and you will starve to death if one of those never-
> produced resources (e.g. a new agricultural
> method) happens to be necessary for continued
> food production after some point in time.
You skip over to empirical area (and prove nothing). Like I said many times before, IP merely shifts the investment. Just like it happens with artificially low interest rates in central banking, some investments are made which wouldn’t have, and some aren’t which would have.
Existence of physical property, on the other hand, does not shift investment (versus non-existence of physical property). In fact it is difficult to imagine a world without a system of physical property.
silas barta says:
“Probably the same way that patterns of EM waves can be property…”
petitio principii.
John Donohue,
” You start with the anarchist premise. You are an anarchist. All government, law, objectified protection against aggression is evil and illegitimate. ”
You got it all wrong. I never said anything about anarchy. I spoke only of the danger of giving legitimacy to state-initiated actions of violations of individual liberty. So, your subsequent attack related to anarchy appears completely irrelevant.
” You start with the anarchist premise. You are an anarchist. All government, law, objectified protection against aggression is evil and illegitimate. ”
‘Individual Rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law’ – Ayn Rand in her essay “Man’s Rights” (1963)
My point is that morality is independent of, pre-exists and overrides “law” (as you use it). Law that contradicts (objective) morality is bound to be an abomination. When you define that which is morally “wrong” as legally “right” and vice versa, you know you are headed for a disaster.
MichaelM: “Whatever number of Rand’s ideas Bala has adopted and lives by, in the context of this post and these comments, he and Kinsella are perpetrating a hoax by referring to him in the title as an “Objectivist” sans some qualifying adjective. When all is said, read, and done, it is abundantly clear that Bala is not recanting agreement with an Objectivist tenet, he is recanting his agreement with what he mistakenly thought the Objectivist position is but actually is not.”
It is not a hoax; people are free to click and read the whole thing. This kind of whining has become increasingly hollow in hte modern age. I get whining like this often when I include a hyperlinked article for a contention, and people whine that I’m misrepresenting what’s said… hey, I provide the link. Peole can click thru and read for themselves.
In any event, Rand’s basic philosophy was:
1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: CapitalismIf you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed†or “Wishing won’t make it so.†2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.†3. “Man is an end in himself.†4. “Give me liberty or give me death.â€
I agree with all 4. How to apply them, and the details, get more interesting. That’s why some of us realize that if you oppose aggression (implied by #4) you have to oppose the state; thus the most consistent Objectivists become anarchists (indeed Galt’s Gulch is anarchist). And likewise, a really consistent adherent to these principles would have to oppose not only the state, but legislation and all artificial rights such as IP.
Quick replies:
@Bala: Excellent responses to my position. Oh wait, you don’t have any reply.
@newson: More like petitio mensi — normal, well-adjusted libertarians accept the validity of EM spectrum rights.
@Peter_Surda: clearly, there are goods that exist that fit the profile of a good that can’t exist without IP — specifically, if no entrepreneur can expect to recoup costs without exclusion rights despite the production and use of the idea being pareto optimal even given IP restrictions. Clearly, it’s a possibility, and it’s easy to see why it’s a likely one — because there are very similar scenarios involving large-scale investment in physical capital that need an environment in which random people won’t just grab it from you. (Please don’t point out how such goods are more tangible or physically scarce; it’s doesn’t affect this particular point that certain goods need certain rights enforced in order for entrepreneurs to want to make them.)
Just as you can come up with scenarios where people are deprived of goods because of IP, I can show scenarios where people are deprived of goods because of its absence.
I don’t see the relevance of your comparison to justification for war taxes, mainly because you didn’t present the corresponding argument, and also because any argument you’d make would not be isomorphic to the one I made for IP.
MichaelM,
” Ayn Rand explained …….. the Objectivist position is but actually is not. ”
So, what you are essentially saying is that Objectivism is whatever Rand said (irrespective of any inner contradictions that may exist). This reveals the thought process of a “Randite” rather than an Objectivist.
“Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.”
Yeah!! It “should” be. But what if it “cannot” be? What do we do if “should” meets “cannot”? “Should” to me indicates a wish or a whim. “Cannot” indicates reality. I would never place my whims over reality.
In effect, what if the very nature of the “object” prevents it from ever being regarded as “property”?
“Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object.” [The Virtue of Selfishness, p.94]
My point precisely. If it is a right to action, it can only be that you be free to act and that others may not prevent you from acting. It cannot be that you alone that shall be free to act that way and no one else shall. It definitely cannot be that anyone else who acts that way should surrender a portion of the value they gain to you or that if they do not, you may initiate force against them to get at the value.
” Thus, there is no conflict between the rights to intellectual property and the rights to physical property. ”
You conveniently forget that when it comes to physical property, either you act to possess, use and dispose of them or I do. We can’t both do it simultaneously. Take an apple for instance. Either you eat it or I do. We can’t both eat the same apple.
With an idea or pattern, on the other hand, we can both simultaneously act on it. My acting on an idea does not prevent you from acting on it.
This is the difference that I am trying to highlight.
” Also pertinent here is the error of holding … the underlying metaphysics and epistemology. ”
You are sounding very much like a mystic out here. Which part of the underlying metaphysics and epistemology am I missing out here? Please elucidate rather than just accuse.
” The source of the ethical principle … both those that define “ownership” and “property” as well as those that regulate the use of physical force. ”
If it is reason and a commitment to reality that we are talking of, why are you neglecting the reality that exclusion of others from an idea necessarily requires the initiation of force? How then do you have the courage to use it as a “moral” concept?
Silas Barta,
I’m sorry, but am left with no option but to say that you make no sense.
” Probably the same way you recognize that all property rights place limits on other property rights, and homesteading only gets you some rights (not e.g. the rights to all the heavens above the plot of land). ”
Placing limits is not the same as being given a right over another person’s property. One is a natural limitation and the other is a redistribution of rights.
” Probably the same way that patterns of EM waves can be property, I’m guessing. ”
A lot of people have tried to tell you this before. So let me just reiterate it. You are incorrectly mixing up IP with EM spectrum rights.
” Probably the same way civilization always developed, I’m guessing — by mutual recognition of social conventions…. ”
So, morality is all about “social conventions”, is it? Thanks for the clarity. You have discredited yourself completely in just 1 phrase.
Silas, your little “tu quoque” fails miserably because we libertarians are very explicit aout what property rights we respect and the system in which rules can be refined. We specify clearly what abstract property rights are, and because the basic idea has been used in decentralized legal systems in the past, so we can at least consult and draw on those bodies of law by analogy; and we can see how in a private society decentralized legal systems can refine and apply these abstract principles. But these same theories that tell us what property righst are say that IP rights are not legitimate. Silas casually says that IP rights “have been” generated in private legal systems. I call bullsh*t. Where, silas? How?
Now is time for you to put up or shut up. Where have they been developed, and in accordance with sound libertarian principles? Please tell us. Where were monopoly rights to inventions found? (patents) Where were copyrights found? The only thing I’m aware of is common-law copyright, which is more like trade secret than modern copyright.
And tell us, Silas: what is the natural, libertarian right to innovations? Just give us a general description. What is patentable subject matter? What is the standard of nonobviousness? What counts as prior art for purposes of novelty? What should the patent term be? Penalties for violation? If you don’t know, kindly [refrain from commenting].
silas barta says:
“…normal, well-adjusted libertarians accept the validity of EM spectrum rights.”
appeal to authority. “mensi”?? i guess this is your oblique compliment to kinsella.
Mr. Kinsella [sic, spelled correctly], for someone posting so intensely against Ayn Rand, this ignorant statement…
“Objectivists are supposed to be against aggression.”
. . . invalidates any credibility you might have. At least make the opposition’s case accurately before you thrash it, otherwise you are just a spitter, not a smart person.
Just in case (and I doubt it) there is anyone reading this that does NOT know the ACTUAL Objectivist politics: The proper function of government is the rectification of cases in which a citizen initiated force against another. Moreover, the government itself may not initiate force against a citizen. That is not a government based on aggression.
Your comment on what governments currently “are” is also revealing. You imply “THIS IS GOVERNMENT” as if metaphysically given by nature. This is a fallacy.
Which of the supposed Mafia/gang governments you spoke of is the one Ayn Rand would point to as an example of proper government under her philosophy?
John Donohue
John Donohue,
” for someone posting so intensely against Ayn Rand ”
Mr. Kinsella is not posting against Ayn Rand. He is just saying “IP is one idea on which Ayn Rand was wrong.”. You are confusing an intellectual discussion for a personal attack. If you read his previous post, he agrees with the basic Objectivist principles on Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and Politics as identified by Rand. How then could he be attacking Rand herself?
” You imply “THIS IS GOVERNMENT” as if metaphysically given by nature. This is a fallacy. ”
This is not the point. His idea is that a single entity having a monopoly over the initiation of force is not consistent with the preservation of Individual Rights. The only logical extension of such a monopoly is a single world government – a rather dangerous and scary situation.
Incidentally, do you favour one world government?
That apart, my argument against IP is NOT based on a rejection of the State. It is a rejection of the notion that ideas and patterns can be legtimately considered under the concept “property”. I am basically saying that the term “Intellectual Property” is an oxymoron. If you are arguing with me, that’s what you need to be disputing.
brian macker says:
“if someone from Kinsellaville steals a book from Mackerville and then copies and publishes it. Not different than if someone from Kinsellaville murdered a member of Mackerville…”
nobody from the anti-ip camp would endorse the theft of a physical book. the person who buys a copy of the stolen book, and who has not participated in the original theft has not deprived the original holder of his book, only perhaps some opportunity profits. a life is irreplaceable, so the murder comparison is invalid.
If owning a concept gave you the rights to the concept, then do I need permission to use the concept of owning a concept?
@Bala: Thanks for making an effort to respond! I’ll go through your errors now:
[1]Me:” Probably the same way you recognize that all property rights place limits on other property rights, and homesteading only gets you some rights (not e.g. the rights to all the heavens above the plot of land). “
You:Placing limits is not the same as being given a right over another person’s property. One is a natural limitation and the other is a redistribution of rights.
Do you remember what this was responding to? It was your first point (1) that IP is problematic because it places restrictions on “other people’s property”. My response was that — well duh, so do rights that you agree with, so this aspect actually isn’t problematic. How is your response, to arbitrarily declare a difference between limits and rights to “others’” property relevant? How is your response that one is a “natural limitation” relevant? Remember, your entire point was that IP infringes on other people’s property rights.
But I’ve shown that this begs the question as to *which* property rights can be justly claimed. By saying that IP infringes others’ rights, you’re assuming away the problem, not seriously addressing it. (Though in fairness, Stephan_Kinsella does the same.)
[2]Me: ” Probably the same way that patterns of EM waves can be property, I’m guessing. “
You: A lot of people have tried to tell you this before. So let me just reiterate it. You are incorrectly mixing up IP with EM spectrum rights.
Is that supposed to be a response? Declaring, by fiat, that these are two different topics? That’s not how logic works, Bala. IP and EM spectrum rights are identical in the critical respects, as I have explained here and elsewhere. You don’t get to dodge this by observing that they’re two different topics. (And I’m *totally* sure that in following this blog’s discussions about IP, you followed through to the many links to that post, right? Because you’re like, serious about this topic and everything? Yeah … didn’t think so.)
[3]Me: “Probably the same way civilization always developed, I’m guessing — by mutual recognition of social conventions…. “
You: So, morality is all about “social conventions”, is it? Thanks for the clarity. You have discredited yourself completely in just 1 phrase.
Again, you seem to have forgotten what I was responding to there. I was responding to your question (number 3) about how IP can arise — what actual *mechanism* allows it — without the state. This wasn’t addressing the basis of morality, just the question you asked (the one you just conveniently forgot about) about how IP arise without the state.
Sheesh, can you *ever* keep track of your own arguments? If you could, that would prevent me from having to remind you of what they were!
@newson: appeal to authority. “mensi”?? i guess this is your oblique compliment to kinsella.
mensi = mind, I think (don’t know Latin that well). petitio mensi = small mind, I think.
It’s an appeal to things that are pretty obvious to everyone. Don’t agree with them? Fine, but you’re far enough out of the realm of common agreement a to be irrelevant to this debate. It’s like trying to rehash what’s bad about the state before getting to anything else. If you want to question fundamental assumptions everyone here already shares, find the appropriate forum for it, which isn’t here.
Silas Barta,
” Remember, your entire point was that IP infringes on other people’s property rights. ”
That was just a point that bothered me. It was not my POINT. So much for your reading. The way I resolved it for myself was to figure out that it is absurd and monstrous to elevate ideas and patterns to the level of the moral concept “property”. Guess you either missed that out completely or are refusing to address it.
” IP and EM spectrum rights are identical in the critical respects, as I have explained here and elsewhere. ”
Very simply put, they are NOT identical. EM waves are EXISTENTS. Ideas are a particular way of understanding reality. They exist only in our minds. There goes your argument.
” This wasn’t addressing the basis of morality, just the question you asked (the one you just conveniently forgot about) about how IP arise without the state. ”
Oh!!! And pray tell me how IP will arise without the State when the very concept of IP is fundamentally immoral? In the absence of a State to enforce your notions, how do you plan to get a lot of people (society) to agree with you that initiating force is an acceptable means to exclude people from what you claim is YOUR idea? Where are you going to get your social convention from? A group of barbarians and savages who do not think it is wrong to initate force against a fellow human being? That’s the kind of people whose support you are likely to get. Go ahead and give it a try. Just leave me out of it.
@Stephan_Kinsella: Silas casually says that IP rights “have been” generated in private legal systems. I call bullsh*t. Where, silas? How?
Easy. Names. From prehistory on, each person could use a certain designation as referring to himself. For others to claim someone else’s name as their own (in sufficient detail to assert that they are the other person) would be in contravention of social conventions. These were precursors to clan/tribe designations and trademarks.
You … weren’t aware of these?
Oh, right, I forgot, “trademarks don’t count. They’re, um, well, more of a *fraud* issue. Yeah, *fraud*. They’re too uh, uh, different from *normal* IP, yeah, that’s it, they don’t count as a valid example, YEAH!”
Okay, fine, then look at medieval guilds. Some had state endorsement, most didn’t. Their members expended vast resources in innovation. They claimed a species of IP in those innovations. Mainly, they use a kind of Omerta (code of silence) to keep free riders from using copying, but inevitably the secret would get out and they’d use more, forceful methods, in the context of a legal system — with social support — outside of the official state-endorsed one.
Now, we may disagree with their methods — heck, I certainly do — but it’s a clear case of social conventions supporting the right of innovators to their (large scale) innovations, external to official state approval.
Ah, check out the money quote: “The modern patent system was set up to break the power of the guilds.”. Hm … patents better than guild enforcement of innovation rights. go fig.
Not that this is a crucial point — as long as we realize that it’s possible in theory for social conventions to protect IP-type rights, the “omg teh statezors would enforce IP!” is a red herring.
Silas, your little “tu quoque” fails miserably because we libertarians are very explicit aout what property rights we respect and the system in which rules can be refined. … And tell us, Silas: what is the natural, libertarian right to innovations? Just give us a general description. What is patentable subject matter? What is the standard of nonobviousness? What counts as prior art for purposes of novelty? What should the patent term be? Penalties for violation? If you don’t know, kindly STFU.
I’m no more obligated to answer these questions in defense of IP, than you are obligated, in defense of physical property, to answer the questions: What EXACTLY counts as “first use” for purposes of homesteading? What uses of the land and adjacent resources do which acts of homesteading entitle one to which rights in? How low can aircraft be before you get to gun them down? Which interactions with new “land” (and how is that defined when it comes to new environments like space and orbits) count as a use sufficient to give a superior claim? How long must something be abandoned before others can claim it? What should be the penalties for which kinds of trespassing and property infringement, including those with no calculable monetary harm?
One standard for IP, another for the rights that you like. Conclusion assumed in advance, arguments fabricated to fit it.
Silas Barta,
I missed this out
” Remember, your entire point was that IP infringes on other people’s property rights. ”
Wrong as usual…. My point was that IP is immoral because exclusion of others from an idea NECESSARILY involves the initiation of force.
to silas:
“mens” is the latin word for mind, and “petitio” is appeal, not small.
“It’s an appeal to things that are pretty obvious to everyone…assumptions everyone here already shares”
appeals to (imagined) majorities don’t shore up your arguments. this is far short of your best.
@Bala: That was just a point that bothered me. It was not my POINT. So much for your reading. The way I resolved it for myself was to figure out that That was just a point that bothered me. It was not my POINT. So much for your reading. The way I resolved it for myself was to figure out that it is absurd and monstrous to elevate ideas and patterns to the level of the moral concept “property”. Guess you either missed that out completely or are refusing to address it.Guess you either missed that out completely or are refusing to address it.
Well, see, that’s still not how it works. The position that: “it is absurd and monstrous to elevate ideas and patterns to the level of the moral concept ‘property’.” would be your *conclusion*. But a conclusion needs, well, actual *arguments* to support it. And one of those arguments was the “point that bothered [you]“. Which was, of course, “that IP infringes on other people’s property rights.” But since I have shown this ground-level assmption to be in error (in being no different from cases you support), you conclusion is weakened to such an extent as well.
Is it starting to make sense now? Again, I can help you with putting arguments together and all.
Very simply put, they are NOT identical. EM waves are EXISTENTS. Ideas are a particular way of understanding reality. They exist only in our minds. There goes your argument.
Great! You’ve gone a little further this time. Instead of just trying to declare the topics irrelevant to each other by fiat, this time, you’re offering up a *reason* why they’re different.
However, it’s still in error. IP rights — just like EM spectrum rights — most emphatically do NOT protect “ideas in themselves”, whatever those are. Instead, they restrict the *physical instantiation* thereof. So this is clearly not a different: both the physical instantiation of the EM spectrum, as well as the physical instantiation of ideas are, under your terminology, “existents” in exactly the same sense.
How about giving this one another go?
Oh!!! And pray tell me how IP will arise without the State when the very concept of IP is fundamentally immoral?
Assuming your conclusion: not good reasoning.
Anyway, I welcome your approaching of this topic. It looks like you’ve done a lot of soul-searching before making the news bigtime by changing your mind. However, now that I’ve presented arguments you haven’t quite given full attention, it looks like you need to do the same thing all over again and put the interviews on hold before you reach your *next* solid position.
That would only be fair, don’t you think?
@Bala: Wrong as usual…. My point was that IP is immoral because exclusion of others from an idea NECESSARILY involves the initiation of force.
Great. So does keeping trespassers off your land.
Are you against that, too? Okay then. Moving on…
@Silas:
> Just as you can come up with scenarios where
> people are deprived of goods because of IP, I
> can show scenarios where people are deprived
> of goods because of its absence.
And this proves what? You yourself admit that it can go both ways. How that is supposed to confirm your argument is beyond me. Besides, you switched to empirical area when it showed that your theory is flawed.
> I don’t see the relevance of your comparison to
> justification for war taxes, mainly because you
> didn’t present the corresponding argument, and
> also because any argument you’d make would
> not be isomorphic to the one I made for IP.
Silas, you apparently can’t read. I wrote, quote: ” … you need to pay taxes because otherwise there will be war.” How anyone would describe the example as “war tax” I fail to see. The example fits exactly.
Silas Barta,
I’m actually getting a little tired and am beginning to understand why a lot of people just prefer to ignore you.
” Well, see, that’s still not how it works…..you conclusion is weakened to such an extent as well. ”
What I said is that the point that IP rights seem to infringe upon physical property rights bothered me.
This forced me to dig deeper and check my premises. This helped me come up with an understanding of the immorality of treating ideas as “property”. Once that was done, I could understand why the conflict existed earlier. How you see my original statement as a part of my arguments still beats me.
” IP rights — just like EM spectrum rights — most emphatically do NOT protect “ideas in themselves”, whatever those are. Instead, they restrict the *physical instantiation* thereof. ”
Ah!!!! Physical instantiation….. Now the light dawns upon me….. So, you are saying that IP “rights” restrict the freedom to represent a particular abstract concept by a concrete or tangible example. How do you restrict the freedom to represent a particular concept by a concrete or tangible example without physically preventing a person from doing so? How is this not just another act of initiation of force of the kind I had originally referred to?
In case you haven’t yet figured out, this was my original argument too – that calling ideas as property necessarily means restriction of the freedom of individuals who have not initiated force against anyone. I wonder how this “defeats” my argument in any way.
” Assuming your conclusion: not good reasoning. ”
My conclusion: I doubt if you will get your “social convention” going
My assumption: Treating ideas as property is an immoral choice and most people would recoil from it.
Now please show me where I have assumed my conclusion. Incidentally, your statement would be justified if one assumes that morality is a social convention. That’s what I said the last time around.
” Great. So does keeping trespassers off your land. ”
Explain the word “trespassers” and the phrase “your land”. Please also explain what the trespasser would have to do to trespass on my land. Assume that I have put a suitably high wall all around my land with suffiecient announcements that it is private property. I get the sneaky feeling that the trespass is the initiation of force and my force would be retaliatory. You have an alternative opinion?
Incidentally, ever heard of how tigers mark off their territory and what happens when one tiger trespasses upon the territory of another? Is that what you wish in human societies too? Nice world view.
Silas,
“@Stephan_Kinsella: Silas casually says that IP rights “have been” generated in private legal systems. I call bullsh*t. Where, silas? How?
Easy. Names. From prehistory on, each person could use a certain designation as referring to himself.”
Nonsense. If you are named Silas Barta, others can be named Silas Barta too.
Further, even if this is prohibited in some situations this has noting to do with copyright and patent; it would be more a variant of trademark law, whihc I have explained has a more defensible basis (moored in fraud) than patent or copyright. You need an example of how a decentralized legal system protects rights to original works (copyright) or practical inventions (patent), in a way compatible with libertarian principles.
“Okay, fine, then look at medieval guilds. Some had state endorsement, most didn’t. Their members expended vast resources in innovation. They claimed a species of IP in those innovations. Mainly, they use a kind of Omerta (code of silence) to keep free riders from using copying, but inevitably the secret would get out and they’d use more, forceful methods, in the context of a legal system — with social support — outside of the official state-endorsed one.”
Medieval guilds cannot stop outsiders from using whatever patterns they want on their own properyt.
“‘Silas, your little “tu quoque” fails miserably because we libertarians are very explicit aout what property rights we respect and the system in which rules can be refined. … And tell us, Silas: what is the natural, libertarian right to innovations? Just give us a general description. What is patentable subject matter? What is the standard of nonobviousness? What counts as prior art for purposes of novelty? What should the patent term be? Penalties for violation? If you don’t know, kindly [refrain from commenting].’
I’m no more obligated to answer these questions in defense of IP, than you are obligated, in defense of physical property, to answer the questions: What EXACTLY counts as “first use” for purposes of homesteading?”
See, Silas, this is more of you dodging the qeustion. You have no idea. Hre’s what I think. You obviously have no idea about what you are in favor of. None whatsoever. You basically are opposed to abolishing the state’s patent and copyright law. You are basically a defender of the status quo–of statism
Silas, just give an *example,* how about that? I can give one for real property. A guy walking thru the wilderness sees an apple on an unowned tree. He plucks it. He is now the owner. He breaks off a branch to use as club. Now he owns the club. Until he abandons it. He then fences in a 1-acre tract of land, puts a farm and a cabin on it. Silas, he owns that tract of land and improvements on it–in perpetuity, or until he sells or abandons it. The ownership of these items means that others need his permission before using these things–before entering the house, etc. Before invading the borders thereof.
Now, how about you give a very simple but waht you regard as clear-cut example of exactly what kind of original work or invention leads to what kind of ownership cliam and how. Let’s hear it.
Stephan,
” Silas, just give an *example,* how about that? I can give one for real property……Before invading the borders thereof. ”
Thanks for the explanation. It makes the meaning of the term “trespass” obvious to me. It also makes it clear as to why “trespass” as understood from this example is an initiation of force. I wonder if it does to Silas.
@Stephan Kinsella:
He can’t provide an example, because he still didn’t realise that IP prevents production, not consumption (apart from minor exceptions). If ownership of ideas was implemented the same way as physical property, it would have to penalise consumption. As far as I know, it is not illegal to read an unauthorised book copy or listen to unauthorised music reproduction, but it is illegal to create them. It is not illegal to use unlicensed software, but it is illegal to install it (i.e. owner of the computer is prosecuted rather than the computer user). It is not illegal to buy a patent-protected drug from an unauthorised manufacturer, but it is illegal to manufacture and sell the drug.
How can someone claim that this is anything else but market regulation is beyond me. Sure, in theory, one could create a system that penalises consumption instead of production. That would be consistent with the concept of ideas being a property. But such a system would be so much different from what we have now that it’s impossible to predict its features, apart from one: it would have to control thoughts. Certainly saying that “just like other systems would without government” is utterly insufficient.
Bala,
Your last post spends it’s first third addressing an irrelevant point, just blowhard showing off, leaving my refutation of Kinsella undisturbed. Here, I’ll help you out by rephrasing on the dubious hope you have an actual answer, although it is not addressed to you: For someone posting against Rand’s identification of property rights as protected by a proper government, Mr. Kinsella displays abject ignorance. . .’ then return to the point.
Me to Kinsella: ” You imply “THIS IS GOVERNMENT” as if metaphysically given by nature. This is a fallacy. ”
Bala: This is not the point. His idea is that a single entity having a monopoly over the initiation of force is not consistent with the preservation of Individual Rights. The only logical extension of such a monopoly is a single world government – a rather dangerous and scary situation.
Me: Don’t tell me what the point is. The point of my objection in this sentence, addressed to Kisella, not you, is that he makes an exaggerated case for all current and past governments being thieves, murderers, etc (the full anarchist boring litany) and concludes that because governments have exhibited that behavior any future government would. That is begging the question and other fallacious thinking.
Bala: Incidentally, do you favor one world government?
Me: Yes, I would favor a world government based on Objectivist/Enlightenment principles of individual rights with a government monopoly on the rectification of initiation of force. That is called freedom and peace on earth. I do not favor one-world gang warfare based on anarchism.
John Donohue: “‘Bala: Incidentally, do you favor one world government?’
“Me: Yes, I would favor a world government based on Objectivist/Enlightenment principles of individual rights with a government monopoly on the rectification of initiation of force. That is called freedom and peace on earth.”
Wow, it is almost creepy how these guys will actually admit it. They are in favor of one-world government. Jesus, they admit it!
@ Bala
“So, what you are essentially saying is that Objectivism is whatever Rand said (irrespective of any inner contradictions that may exist). This reveals the thought process of a “Randite” rather than an Objectivist. ”
Yes, just as Aristotelianism is whatever we know Aristotle said, contradictions included. Misinterpretations of what Aristotle said are ipso facto not Aristotelian. Everyone is free to cherry pick any philosophy, but no one may alter another person’s philosophy. You may reformulate Objectivist ideas in your own philosophy, but those reformulations will not be Objectivist any more. No one may add to or subtract from Objectivism. And I have no idea what you think a “Randite” is, but whatever it is it cannot have any relevance to the content of Objectivism. That is a body of ideas that is entirely independent of the actions of any person, including Rand herself. Ideas stand or fall on their own merit.
————————
“In effect, what if the very nature of the “object” prevents it from ever being regarded as “property”?”
Such as?
————————
“If it is a right to action, it can only be that you be free to act and that others may not prevent you from acting. It cannot be that you alone that shall be free to act that way and no one else shall….”
A right to an action is not a blank check, it is ever and always contextual. Put it back into the context in which she said it and we’ll talk.
————————–
“Yeah!! It “should” be. But what if it “cannot” be?”
Not every new application of reason/effort is worth the effort of a creator to protect it. The concept of intellectual property is not incompatible with the concepts of open source and public domain.
—————————
“You conveniently forget that when it comes to physical property, either you act to possess, use and dispose of them or I do. We can’t both do it simultaneously. Take an apple for instance. Either you eat it or I do. We can’t both eat the same apple.”
No one else can eat your apple because you own the share of all applications of reason/effort that are embodied in that apple and give it value. All of the wealth you possess, you earn by applying your reason/effort to objects and trading the product thereof with others who gained their wealth in the same manner. Then you trade some of your wealth with the apple’s grower, picker, transporter, packer, distributor, trucker, grocery and all of the creators and producers of products and machines they use that put it within your reach. Subject to all voluntary contracts of others involved, you are now its sole owner and violate no rights in consuming it in its entirety including the shares of their reason/effort embodied in it, and you do so simultaneously with hundreds of thousands of others who will consume their embodied shares as well.
But note that when you partially acknowledge this here, …
“With an idea or pattern, on the other hand, we can both simultaneously act on it. My acting on an idea does not prevent you from acting on it.”
“This is the difference that I am trying to highlight.”
… you assert that there is a difference that does not exist.
Think of the concept property having two contexts. One is the context of applied reason/effort that is the owned source of value. The other context is possession of otherwise unowned matter by the right of having created/exerted or purchased the sum of all reason/effort embodied in it.
The geneticist’s property is the idea of how to combine matter into a more delicious apple and the demonstration of its viability that is the product of his reason/effort. The apple picker’s property is the idea of how to pick efficiently or faster than others and his intellectual and physical ability to apply it. Both of them sell to the grower shares of their property to be embodied in the apples that neither of them ever possess. Your apple is first possessed by the grower whose reason/effort purchases the reason/effort of all others involved and applies it to the land and resources similarly acquired and thus causes the sum of reason/effort to be embodied in the particular combination of matter that becomes the apple. The matter that constitutes the apple becomes private property only by default from the fact that it embodies all the owned reason/effort that has been earned.
—————————
“If it is reason and a commitment to reality that we are talking of, why are you neglecting the reality that exclusion of others from an idea necessarily requires the initiation of force? How then do you have the courage to use it as a “moral” concept?”
The moral principle that mandates an individual’s autonomy over the product of his reason and effort establishes the ownership of his ideas and labor. Exclusive access and use of that which is owned does not constitute an initiation of force. To deny that relationship between the ethical concept of autonomy and political concept of ownership is to embrace the politics of statists and the morality of thieves.
First of all, don’t call me a “they.” Others will speak for themselves.
What is creepy — no worse than creepy — is your betrayal of Ludwig von Mises, Mr. Kinsella. Shame on you. You are a parasite. Go get your own website and spew your hatred for civilization, rule of law, and individual rights.
I will visit it and excoriate you for admitting your rampant, militant hateful anarchy.
Thank you everyone who participated here. It was a very fascinating read.
Stephan,
” Wow, it is almost creepy how these guys will actually admit it. They are in favor of one-world government. Jesus, they admit it! ”
Frankly, it was the recognition that this was THE logical conclusion that truly scared me.
while I do not withdraw my violent objection to Mr. Kinsella’s post that sparked my outburst, I will temper any future posts with more moderate language.
bala, the logical conclusion to your abandonment of rule of law is world chaos and war. That is what is scary here.
You and Mr. Kinsella are not just admitting it, you are trumpeting it.
John Donohue,
Take a red, dude.
@John Donohue:
While I don’t think I was ever an objectivist, I used to be a minarchist. What persuaded me to switch to anarchocapitalism was mainly prof. Hoppe’s application of Mises&Hayek’s economic calculation problem to the production of protection (policy and military). You can read it e.g. in Democracy – The God That Failed. Maybe you can try to confront that before you complain.
Allow me to summarise: in order to provide services such as protection of property, deterrance of violence or conflict resolution, one has to first produce them. Production requires to spend capital and to determine the product portfolio. From this point of view, there is no difference to any other service. A government holds a monopoly in those areas, one cannot freely enter into competition with them. However, without the feedback from market (prices), the producer cannot determine what product mix to create and how to spend the money. Should everybody be provided a tank or is a police car that drives around the block every hour more suitable? Without the price mechanism and free market in the protection services, there is no way to determine that. Therefore, just like in any other cases of monopoly, the service quality will decline and costs increase.
I observed that a lot of adherents to ideologies (not limited to objectivism, also the green, communists and religious fundamentalists) seem to think that if the adherants to their ideology had the power in their hands, that will fix all the problems. However, as the example above demonstrated, that is not the case. Ideology can’t calculate.
It is not surprising that Bala “coverted” seeing as his grasp of the Objectivist concept of property was tenuous at best.
An Objectivist knows that rights do not conflict. An Objectivist does not look for a hierarchy of rights and choose one to vitiate. Asking the question “Liberty or Property – Which is more fundamental?” is a red flag.
In reality, Intellectual Property rights do not generate any conflict – just as the right to life does not conflict with the right to liberty.
Why does the individual right to life not conflict to the right to liberty? Is the fact that you cannot shoot a man in the head not a limit on your freedom of action?
This apparent contradiction is dispelled by proper understanding of what rights are: the means to replicate in society the same freedom one would have outside of it.
Outside of society there is no “other man”. Thus in society the fact that you cannot shoot another man in the head is not a reduction of your freedoms – you never had the freedom to shoot another man in the head.
The same applies to IP. If you create a mixture of chemicals that happens to cure the aging process and patent it, that does not reduce my freedom of action with regard to the chemicals I own.
Before your invention I could arrange those chemicals in any useful combination I knew. The crucial fact is: I did not know the combination you invented. I could not concoct that medicine.
After your patented invention I am in the same situation I was before – I cannot concoct your medicine. I have lost nothing. I have actually gained something: with your authorization I can make the compound.
The creator of an invention does not reduce the freedom of any other man. By definition those other men could not make what he invented before he invented it – they lose nothing.
Two issues remain: independent invention and “the freedom to invent”.
Independent invention must be recognized. However the burden of proof rests on the person claiming independent invention to show that he did not have access to the original. Patent systems usually circumvent this issue by publishing patent requests and assuming everyone has read them (the merit of this solution is debatable).
And there is the argument that when one person invents something and patents it the freedom of other people who might have invented it instead in the future. Rights are about what is, not about what one could imagine to be. There is the person who did invent something. That is the fact.
Forwarding the “freedom to invent in the future” argument undermines the very concept of homesteading – which most Austrians consider uncontroversial when it comes to physical property.
Well said Peter.
John Donohue wrote:
“bala, the logical conclusion to your abandonment of rule of law is world chaos and war.”
Why is it that so many people equate anarchy with chaos and war? We have just come out of the bloodiest century in human history, yet the majority of people are simply incapable of recognising that such chaos and war are a result of the state.
Another thing I have never quite been able to fathom is how someone can call themself an objectivist and yet not be an anarchist. Anarchy is the logical conclusion to true objectivism.
How can someone believe in the non-initiation of force and at the same time advocate the existence of an organisation that initiates force?
Anyone who takes such a position must have made contradictory assumptions in the formation of their philosophy. Bala discovered one such contradiction, that in the concept of IP. Ayn Rand made some excellent contributions towards objectivist thought, but she made mistakes. A true objectivist should know that nobody is infallible, not even Ayn Rand. Unfortunately, most people who call themselves objectivists are not true objectivists.
@Pedro Carleial:
> Before your invention I could arrange those
> chemicals in any useful combination I
> knew.
You could also arrange it into those that you didn’t, although you might not have known the outcome. If your assumption was correct, noone would be able to invent anything, ever, because it would depend on someone else having developed it before.
> The crucial fact is: I did not know the combination
> you invented. I could not concoct that medicine.
Those two sentences are not identical.
> By definition those other men could not make
> what he invented before he invented it
Incorrect. They could have, they merely didn’t.
If I was to generalise the argument, I could claim that anything that can be causally related to some action requires permission from the one that caused it. Me writing this reply would not have happened if you didn’t write yours. Does it mean you have the right to prevent me from replying?
Therefore, a reasonable approach would be to restrict the rule to only property & contract violations. Which brings us back to the original problem of definition of property.
“They could have, they merely didn’t.”
This is really the crucial point. They couldn’t. Human action requires knowledge. Until the prerrequisite knowledge is created, purposeful action is not possible.
You are arguing against what is based on what is not (but you imagine could have been).
We cannot cure cancer. There certainly is some combination of chemicals that has that effect – but untill someone invents it we cannot produce the cure for cancer.
Pedro Carleial wrote, “Outside of society there is no “other man”. Thus in society the fact that you cannot shoot another man in the head is not a reduction of your freedoms – you never had the freedom to shoot another man in the head. […] Before your invention I could arrange those chemicals in any useful combination I knew. The crucial fact is: I did not know the combination you invented. I could not concoct that medicine.
After your patented invention I am in the same situation I was before – I cannot concoct your medicine. I have lost nothing. I have actually gained something: with your authorization I can make the compound.”
If I happen to see your invention, my mind is poisoned with your idea. Now I have to avoid thinking along those lines or risk infringing. Before, I could have thought along those lines without restriction. Humans have a drive to use any ideas they happen to glean from their surroundings, especially other humans. Alone, I could make full use of any ideas I come across. But in your society, I have to constantly suppress this.
Shay and Surda: very good responses to Pedro.
Pedro:
Your reply is typical of IP advocates who are fairly clueless about the nature of the system they advocate, about the nature of the ideal system they would propose, and who are quick to give in on obvious injustices we point out but have no idea what an ideal system would look like.
You seem to favor an independent inventor defense, but for some reason put the burden of proof on the accused. And you talk about proving no-access. How do you prove no-access? And this is a copyright concept. You seem to be unaware that permitting such a clean-room defense would largely gut patent law–which I’m in favor of but which the patent bar would fight tooth and nail; they would call you one of the IP nihilists. do you even realize this?
Further, you then undermine your independent inventor defens with a tepid defense of the constructive notice aspect of the patent publication system–you may be in favor of it, maybe not. Who knows? You don’t know what kind of system you favor. Anyone who favors justice and understand the system realizes the constructive notice presumption of the patent system is complete BS, akin to the BS notion of the “social contract.” It’s just a statist legal fiction. Yet if you accept it, you undermine your independent inventor defense. I think you must really be thinking of prior use rights, not an independent inventor defense… further proof you don’t know what you are talking about.
Your post is a set of question-begging and mutually inconsistent ideas. You say that patenting a recipe doesn’t take anything away from others–sure it does, it prevents them from independently inventing it later and being able to use the idea for free. And you seem to be utterly unaware of how common simultaneous invention is. Do you konw why? Because certain technology makes no sense until other technical or market prerequisites appear… and when they do, the innovation becomes virtually inevitable.. so to award a monopoly to one of these people is obscene and absurd–not to mention, each patentee also learned and built on work of countless others in society, and in the past. Why he gets a monopoly for merely making an inevitable improvement on what others thought of is a mystery.
“The creator of an invention does not reduce the freedom of any other man. By definition those other men could not make what he invented before he invented it – they lose nothing.”
You could say the same of abstract or scientific theories, even philosophical ideas. Patent law currently does not cover these. By the insane IP-mania of the Randians and Galambosians, all would be covered by IP. There is no stopping point. At least the law is tempered by unprincipled, pragmatic utilitarianism… which is what Rand implicitly adopts too, in her fumbling justification of a finite, fixed term for copyright and patent.
“Forwarding the “freedom to invent in the future” argument undermines the very concept of homesteading – which most Austrians consider uncontroversial when it comes to physical property.”
qustion-begging nonsense. HOmesteading is a way to determine which person owns a given contested scarce resource: the idea is the first user has a better claim than latecomers. This rule is preferred by civilized people because it is the only rule that can be adopted if one seeks to find a conflict-free way for resources to be used in society. But by this very rule, if I homestead or own by contract from a homesteader certain chemicals, I am already the owner of this; I am the first user. The property is no longer unowned, no longer homesteadable. To give an outsider a veto right over how I use my own property is to give him rights in my already owned property. this contravenes the idea of homesteading. So any IP socialist who tries to justify IP based on homesteading undercuts himself, because homesteading is contrary to IP.
@Pedro Carleial:
> This is really the crucial point. They couldn’t.
Of course they could. Let’s say we have 1000 doors and behind one of them is the answer. If someone manages to open that door first, that doesn’t mean anyone else couldn’t have done that either. It merely means they didn’t.
> Human action requires knowledge.
It doesn’t.
> Until the prerrequisite knowledge is created,
> purposeful action is not possible.
Of course it is. We see it all around us. People hold all kinds of misguided, even obviously incorrect, views, or do things for the wrong reasons. More often even their knowlege is incomplete. Yet it doesn’t stop anyone from acting. What is rather necessary is the belief that one’s actions are going to bring about the desired results.
You seem to treat “knowledge” as something that has an existence on it’s own and is objectively determinable. There is no such thing.
> We cannot cure cancer.
Let’s reformulate it: so far we haven’t cured cancer.
> There certainly is some combination of
> chemicals that has that effect
See, this is a belief. There is no such certainty.
> but untill someone invents it we cannot produce
> the cure for cancer.
This argument it flawed, because, as I demonstrated above, you can apply it recursively to show that nothing can ever be invented.
Your arguments feature what I call the fallacy of reverted implication and see it in a lot of debates. In math speak, the incorrect argument goes like this:
A => B, therefore ‘A => ‘B
Whereas the correct argument would be:
A => B, therefore ‘B => ‘A
Also, you need to reply to the other argument I wrote about. Causality is not a sufficient justification for property claim.
Pedro wrote:
**********
This apparent contradiction is dispelled by proper understanding of what rights are: the means to replicate in society the same freedom one would have outside of it.
Outside of society there is no “other man”. Thus in society the fact that you cannot shoot another man in the head is not a reduction of your freedoms – you never had the freedom to shoot another man in the head.
**********
Your so called “proper” understanding of rights is the source of a major flaw in your reasoning. The fact that tangible materials are scarce automatically disproves your definition of rights.
Outside society I can take a bite out of every apple I see, build huts wherever I want, hunt cook and eat any deer I find, and so forth.
Within society I certainly do not have these same rights. I do not have the right to eat another person’s apple. I do not have the right to build houses on another person’s land. I do not have the right to kill someone else’s deer.
It is the scarcity of tangible materials that requires us to even invent the concept of property. I’ll explain more below.
Pedro also wrote:
**********
And there is the argument that when one person invents something and patents it the freedom of other people who might have invented it instead in the future. Rights are about what is, not about what one could imagine to be. There is the person who did invent something. That is the fact.
**********
Rights are not about “what is”. Rights are what you are entitled to do. Rights are all about ‘what can be’.
Every individual has the right to act in any manner so long as they do not initiate force against another individual.
This includes anything you can possibly imagine, such as researching technologies, rearranging chemicals or placing words on a piece of paper. As long as you do not initiate force against another in the process, your rights are virtually limitless.
Consider the following:
In order to survive, we must act.
Inaction would result in death.
In order to sustain ourselves, we must consume and manipulate tangible materials.
No two individuals can both use the same item.
Therefore, the concept of property is required in order to prevent conflicts.
Hence, it is the scarcity of tangible materials which logically leads us to the necessity of developing rules for assigning property rights to individuals.
Without scarcity, there would be no need for the concept of property.
However, you wish to assign property rights to specific configurations of tangible materials, ie ‘patterns’.
To do so is to place limitations on what others can do with their own property.
The only justification for this would be to demonstrate that they are initiating force against you.
They are not interfering with any of your physical property (which includes your body).
Hence, they are not initiating force against you.
In fact, in order to protect your ‘ownership’ of a particular pattern, you would need to initiate force against them.
Therefore, to grant individuals ownership of ‘patterns’ directly violates the rights of others.
Hence, ‘patterns’ cannot be considered a form of property.
The above line of reasoning demonstrates two clear reasons why patterns should not be considered a form of property.
Firstly, they are not scarce. They are infinitely reproducible. There can never be a conflict between two individuals trying to simultaneously use the same pattern. Since the concept of ‘property’ was required to deal with scarcity, applying it to non-scarce things like patterns is a completely unnecessary and non-fundamental step to make.
Secondly, and most importantly, assigning property rights to patterns is a direct contradiction to the assignment of property rights to tangible materials. You must initiate force against others if you wish prevent them from using their own physical property. This contradiction clearly demonstrates that physical property rights and intellectual property rights cannot coexist.
Great piece!
Objectivism was also my first encounter with these ideas, so to speak. While I have since rescinded from the belief in Intellectual Property and known the righteousness and the full logical coherence of it, I haven’t been able to reconcile it with my former Objectivist roots. This, you have now accomplished for me.
And in true Liberty-rooted fashion, I will now proceed to reproduce your ideas in as many copies as I can! 
If I had twice as much time as I do now, I couldn’t individually respond to all the fallacious arguments directed against me.
Let me just point out what I’m dealing with here. In this comment, Stephan_Kinsella gave the responses I already expected and anticipated in the very comment he was responding to, and doesn’t seem to be aware he was making arguments that were addressed before he even posted!
Furthermore, we see that Bala’s “conversion” isn’t grounded in any kind of deep understanding of the issues. A cursory cross-examination of his thinking quickly revealed that he thought he could get out of the EM spectrum comparison by calling it — labeling it — a different topic.
To but it bluntly, that’s just not how it works. Your principles need to be consistent across nominally different topics, and it appears Bala didn’t give any consideration to the EM spectrum issue, in which he probably still believes in exclusive rights to make certain (EM wave) patterns, in direct contradiction of his supposed disagreement with IP.
Bala’s la-la intellectual journey is not something IP opponents should point to.
Silas, God forbid you have *any* more time to spew your nonsense here.
December 8, 2009 at 3:00 pm
December 8, 2009 at 3:31 pm-
@Stephan_Kinsella: Yes, it most certainly does matter, for the reasons I have given numerous times in the past. Want the links, including links to your concession of the relevance, or would you rather just take back the point you just tried to make?
Btw, why is it you post so close to when Lord_Buzungulus,_Bringer_of_the_Purple_Light does? Hm…
- December 8, 2009 at 3:58 pm
- December 8, 2009 at 4:27 pm
-
@Stephan_Kinsella: Silas, the point is you have not and cannot justify the socialism and aggression that underlie your amorphous, incoherent defense of statist IP.
Begging the question, and strawman — I don’t defend statist IP.
You yammer and spit and squirm, but you just can’t do it. So have fun trying.
Ad hominem.
Unlike you, John Sharp, Richard Harding, Person, I never post under nyms.
Then you wouldn’t mind deleting Lord_Buzungulus,_Bringer_of_the_Purple_Light’s off-topic and incivil posts, would you?
Oh, right…
- December 8, 2009 at 4:52 pm
December 8, 2009 at 4:59 pm-
Silas, nothing compares to your rank stupidity. That’s what should be deleted.
And for the tenth time, I am NOT Stephan.
December 9, 2009 at 5:51 am-
*** Let’s say we have 1000 doors and behind one of them is the answer. ***
This person sees rational thought as random chance.*** [Human action requires knowledge] It doesn’t. ***
This person also sees humans as automatons. Or perhaps as animals like any other acting automatically.It is pointless do discuss such a complex issue as property with someone who doesn’t even understand what a human being is.
This is typical of the “economicist” libertarian. Much like the argument that scarcity is the basis for property.
Kinsalla in particular is interesting. The fact that you cannot argue the principle of property (as it applies to knowledge) without discussing the mechanics of how you imagine enforcement of such a principle would be is entirely consistent with my previous experience with you – and typical.
You don’t really reason, you just run simulations of what you think would happen in a given situation and classify them as “me like” or “me no like”. That is why you cannot argue principle, only system.
The term Ayn Rand coined for such mentalities is “concrete bound”.
Bala, at least, should have a clue and be able to understand my argument in principle. I’m curious about his take on it. Engaging you others is not worth the effort.
December 9, 2009 at 6:14 am-
>> Let’s say we have 1000 doors and behind one of
>> them is the answer.
> This person sees rational thought as random
> chance.
No action has a 100% chance of achieving the intended result. Does that mean no action can be purposeful? Often gaining an answer requires to perform a large amount of tests that all prove negative before reaching the one that is positive. Does that mean this type of action is not purposeful?>> [Human action requires knowledge] It doesn’t.
> This person also sees humans as automatons. Or
> perhaps as animals like any other acting
> automatically.
No. This person is claiming that purposeful action does not require the assumptions leading to the action to be true. It merely requires that the actor believes they are true.Yet another troll missing elementary things of everyday life and instead dreaming up theories in disconnect?
December 9, 2009 at 7:29 am-
Pedro wrote:
“… Much like the argument that scarcity is the basis for property.”So what is the basis for property then Mr Smarty-Pants?
Why oh why would we assign ownership of material things to individuals if not due to scarcity?
Scarcity is the key to the entire concept of property.
Scarcity is the reason we have conflicts.
Scarcity is the reason why socialism encounters calculation problems.If you do not understand the importance of scarcity then you simply do not understand economics.
December 9, 2009 at 7:48 am-
I almost wholly agree with Pedro, except for
“Independent invention must be recognized. However the burden of proof rests on the person claiming independent invention to show that he did not have access to the original. Patent systems usually circumvent this issue by publishing patent requests and assuming everyone has read them (the merit of this solution is debatable).”
The burden of proof rest on the accuser not the accused. Copying without consent is an act of aggression and the person claiming the other person didn’t independently discovered, but copied his original has the burden of proof.
Many people can not seem to comprehend what Pedro is saying because they don’t have a sense of a natural rights ethics based on objective reality. Also Rothbard is a better source than Rand regarding Ethics and I suggest everyone to read more Rothbard regarding property rights, in general.
Whoever uses the the word “assigned” regarding rights, is a positivist that thinks rights are based on social contracts.
December 9, 2009 at 10:02 am-
“objective reality”
oxymoron to all but a randian.
- December 9, 2009 at 11:12 am
- December 9, 2009 at 11:53 am
December 9, 2009 at 9:14 pm-
@Bala:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Your argument was always constructive. I too came to Mises by way of a footnote in Ayn Rand book. It changed my life as well.@Stephan Kinsella:
Great work on this topic. You are a fascinating guy. But… IMHO your use of STFU is not conducive to moral-suasion.@All:
How about we all stick to making our own points and skip the time wasted trying to label others or put them in a box?@Peter Surda,
Great summary of the situation on IP. Looking at comsumer/producer angles brings things into focus. The problem of using an idea is not that I create something that embodies the idea, it is that I try to sell it and therefore devert monopoly rents from the inventor. I can still create my interpretation of my concept of the idea that I picked up from the inventor’s creation. Afterall, I do own the materials used to create it.@Jay Lakner:
You laid out a great exposition on rights! Loved it. I think history shows how patents and IP have been used as a means of enforcing monopoly rents on the rest of us.@Pedro:
Jay is right, in a one man world, the concept of rights does not exist. It is similar to Mel Brooks proclaiming, “It is good to be the King”. If you are the King, there is only one of you and you are superhuman, so you own everything. It is only when humans come into contact with each other on an equal footing that conflict arises. Due to scarcity, we must figure out how to peacefully allocate resources. Property rights are an extension of the ownership of your own body, as Hoppe states.My use of an idea in no way impinges on your simultaneous use of that idea. Therefore the idea is not scarce. The concept of a single inventor of an idea is silly; it would only apply if a new born babe conceptualized the idea, with no prior knowledge. All ideas are built on the ideas that came before.
If IP is valid, then why would it have a time limit? What other property rights have time limits? A time limit is a utilitarian solution to an invalid premise.
The use of IP is a hold over from the mercantilist days of King granted monopolies. Let’s move on to new ways of collecting rents for ideas! If I write a book and post it online for anyone to read, and then contract with companies to advertise on my site, then I am collecting rents on my content without resorting to IP. If someone want to copy my content off to their site, then they are free to compete, but I am free to inform the public of this fact and intice them to be loyal to my brand.
Does anyone have any good ideas on replacing IP rents? Oh, and anarchism does not have to mean lawlessness, just no government authority. Associations would be fine.
- December 9, 2009 at 9:51 pm
December 10, 2009 at 3:59 am-
Stephan,
” This is nonsense–and clearly unlibertarian. ”
You can’t convince an Objectivist who thinks Libertarianism is nonsense by telling him that this statement is “unlibertarian”. IMO, you need to show him that it is contradictory to basic Objectivist principles themselves (that’s what I tried to do). Just wanted to highlight this for all Libertarians who are still reading this.
- December 11, 2009 at 5:10 am
-
* Due to scarcity, we must figure out how to peacefully allocate resources. *
Scarcity is not the basis of property right. Property rights are a political concept, they must be based on something hierarchically antecedent. Economics – a special science – is not it.Property rights, as all valid rights, are based on Ethics, not on Economics.
Since libertarian ethics all branch off an arbitrary (i.e. ungrounded, not rationally derived) “non aggression principle”, it is quite obvious why libertarians cannot understand the actual nature of property rights. Their ethics can’t support them – so they try to ground them in economics.
Since the “non aggression principle” is actually right (and an Objectivist knows WHY it is right, and in what context), it is easy to see why the discussion between Objectivist and libertarian becomes so charged.
To use an exagerated metaphor to illustrate the point:
Let us say two people are discussing baseball. One of them understands the principle of gravitation, while the other simply assumes “the falling principle”.
While the discussion is restricted to Earth, they agree completely – their concepts produce the same results. But one day they start talking about how it would be to play baseball on the Moon.
At this point the guy who simply uses “the falling principle” is out of his depth, but he doesn’t know it. The claims of the other guy will seem absurd (mile long home run hits???).
The fact that his “principle” is not grounded in solid understanding, but a floating abstraction, renders him incapable of following the guy who actually understands gravitation. And makes that guys claims seem quite absurd.
In this case the Objectivist, who’s concept of rights is firmly grounded in a coherent ethics derived from basic facts and actual philosophical axioms is like the person who understands gravitation. The guy who blindly applies “the falling principle” because he doesn’t know better is the libertarian.
And when the Objectivist tries to explain to the libertarian that in certain contexts his understanding is incorrect, the libertarian answers “ah so you are in favor of aggression!”. Or, in our metaphor, “ah, so you are saying things don’t fall!”.
December 11, 2009 at 9:32 am-
Pedro Carleial that is a good example, hope you don’t mind if I use it myself.
You are correct to pinpoint that because libertarians and Objectivists share a certain set of agreement that when we move off of that set there is a jarring disjoint.
The same thing happens between Christians and Objectivists and Conservatives and Objectivists and even Lefties and Objectivists! Just because the paths travel together in certain places does not mean they start from the same place, end in the same place or fully validate each other.
- December 11, 2009 at 9:33 am
-
Mr. Kinsella, I’ve read this over a few times. Can’t parse it. You are saying two different things about Objectivists, first that we have one point of view, but then “flip it.”
“In capitalist systems favored by Objectivists, you can do anything you want, except initiate force against others. It’s an ocean of permissibility or freedom, with little islands of prohibitions–things you may not do. You do not need to ask permission to do something. You may do whatever you want, so long as it does not initiate force–commit aggression–invade the borders’ of others’ property.
The Objectivist flips this presumption and adopts one akin to that of communism: you can’t use your property for “whatever you want”–you have to make sure the way you are using it isn’t similar to some other way someone else used their own property before, and if it is, you have to get permission. This is nonsense–and clearly unlibertarian. The only limit on my use of my property is that I cannot engage in aggression–using this property or other resources as means. ”
Do you stand by the full syntax of this or do you wish to clarify?
- December 11, 2009 at 9:44 am
-
While I’m not Stephan, I think it’s a typo and the first paragraph should say “Austrians” instead of “Objectivists”.
- December 11, 2009 at 10:15 am
- December 11, 2009 at 12:10 pm
-
Well, the writing was unclear. Now that you clear it up it is nothing new, just your same erroneous claim. Your error continues to be the false claim that ownership of the value embedded in a tangible product that made it possible/valuable in the first place is transferred to the purchaser of said product.
This IP issue is a red herring. Avoidance. Obsessing on it masks the bankruptcy of the underlying conjectured condition of man under anarchism, which is: victim of multiple gangs/agencies/states frequently at war with each other.
Until that is cleared up, the issue of IP — although denying intellectual property rights would still be wrong — is trivial.
December 11, 2009 at 1:30 pm-
Pedro Carleial, your posts display a kind of supriority where you assume that you are correct and that others are wrong, even though the reverse could just as well be true. It’s ill to read because you put down those you’re discussing with. Might I suggest that you simply recognize that there is a conflict between participants, and try to find the cause of it, without assuming it lies in others? If the goal is to truely understand, then you must be open to the flaws being in your own understanding.
- December 11, 2009 at 2:31 pm
-
@Stephan_Kinsella:
The fallacy here is assuming that the prohibition on being able to whack your neighbor on the head with your two by four is a limitation or restriction on your ownership of the two by four. It is not. The prohibition on your harming your neighbor has nothing to do with your property–it is a restriction on your right to action.
Step back for a minute here: look at what you are trying to do: you are trying to refute a position by a relabeling of an event. That should cue you in on something — that you made a mistake somewhere. The person you were responding to was saying that IP’s restrictions on “other people’s property” is not unique, in that physical property rights do this too. It is a point I have made before as well. You think that by shifting the focus of your description of the event — from the two-by-four to the neighbor’s head, you have refuted this. You haven’t. The prohibition pertains to both the 2×4 *and* the neighbor’s head.
As usual, we can see the problem most clearly in the EM spectrum. Like IP, it restricts people
Moreover, you’re begging the question when you call it “already-owned property”. The very question at stake is, who owns what? How far do those rights extend? You are assuming your conclusion when you say someone *already* owns the right to do this or that with “their” property. Even when someone owns e.g. land, it doesn’t mean they get to gun down aircraft above it. Someone who assumed it did in a debate about property rigths would be likewise begging the question. As when assuming that land gets you the right to EM radiation passing through. As when assuming property gets you all IP rights.
By the way, I will repeat my objection to Lord_Buzungulus,_Bringer_of_the_Purple_Light, whoever he is. You need to delete his incivil posts and those which do nothing but insult without adding to the discussion. Don’t try to excuse his behavior by saying you’d “have to” delete mine too. I *want* you to delete the posts of mine that are incivil. But keep in mind, just because they irritate you doesn’t mean they’re agains the rules of this forum. My remarks contribute to the discussion, while Lord_Buzungulus,_Bringer_of_the_Purple_Light’s do not.
Your frustration at the strength of my arguments is not the same as incivility.
If you don’t have a reason to grant Lord_Buzungulus,_Bringer_of_the_Purple_Light special privileges, then please remove the offending comments, because that’s exactly what it looks like.
- December 12, 2009 at 12:10 am
-
In case anyone is interested in the response of Objectivists (at least some of them) to this little piece of mine, I’m just about wrapping up a discussion with some of them on the Objectivist blog “Noodle Soup”
http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/12/objectivist-recants-on-ip.shtml
The discussion was fairly intense and (I think) I have managed to dissect the traditional Objectivist position on IP and shown it to be contradictory to basic Objectivist principles themselves.
I am mentioning this so that it enables more people to engage Objectivists they meet and try to bring them around by showing them the folly of treating ideas & patterns as “property” the way Ayn Rand did and Objectivists have been doing since that.
Hope it helps.
December 26, 2009 at 12:00 pm-
@Pedro Carleial,
Your gravity/baseball analogy was brilliant. I think it’s a perfect illustration of the disparity between a deep and principled understanding, and a more superficial one. However, you’ve applied it in reverse. It’s only a superficial understanding of the concept of property that misapplies it to patterns and ideas.
You wrote:
“Property rights are a political concept, they must be based on something hierarchically antecedent. Economics – a special science – is not it.”Ethics presupposes purposeful action, and any system of ethics is based on an understanding of human action, as such.
Ethics answers the question: “given that action works the way it does, which are the right actions to take?”While the Objectivist ethics, like your “falling principle” is of course correct, it is based on the science of human action. In other words, it is based on economics (or more generally, praxeology).
The science of human action is not only prior to politics, but it’s required for ethics as well. Mises showed how it was derivable from epistemology. 
January 23, 2010 at 7:31 pm-
This argument and reasoning being raised by Bala are false. I have debunked it in posts starting here:
http://www.solopassion.com/node/7285#comment-83769
Then further developed here:
http://www.solopassion.com/node/7285#comment-83773
Finally a tail piece here:
http://www.solopassion.com/node/7285#comment-83800
Objectivism does not support a no-IP position – from the founder of objectivism on up – just as the no-IP position could not support a capitalist economy, and is the enemy of individual liberty. I put it to you Mises would also be appalled at the duplicitous anarchist position being promoted on this site.
March 26, 2010 at 2:13 pm-
Given Up On Finding A Great Looking Woman Who Likes You? Follow My Guaranteed Step-By-Step System for Success with Women and I’ll GUARANTEE Your Success!
***
Update: See also Jeff Tucker, The Great IP Breakthrough:
Some insight here:
While Objectivists, libertarians and conservatives strongly agree on the principle of physical property rights, the picture is much more divided when it comes to ‘intellectual property’, a catch-all phrase for several different items, including patents, copyright and trademarks. In a landmark essay by Stephan Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property, argues that ‘Intellectual property’ is not only meaningless and harmful, it is in direct violation of the general principle of private property, and primarily constitutes a state-sanctioned creation of artificial scarcity, leading ultimately to poverty, not job creation and wealth.
The wider libertarian movement accepted the argument, put it into action (see www.mises.org/books) and moved on. Objectivists, on the other hand, maintain that what Ayn Rand spoke and practiced on the subject remains the unalterable truth.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
December 25, 2009 at 7:56 pm-
The catch-all phrase “intelectual property” is most definitely mercantilistic. I wonder if as part of her zeal (and of her followers) to keep her works under strict scrutinnee is the reason why objectivists rationalize the whole IP issue.
December 25, 2009 at 10:49 pm-
“. . . leading ultimately to poverty, not job creation and wealth.”
Wouldn’t know it.
December 26, 2009 at 8:57 pm-
“The wider libertarian movement accepted the argument”
What? Is anyone who disagrees an “IP denier” equivalent to a holocaust denier?
Jesus H. Christ.
J. Neil Schulman, author
Informational Property: Logorights
at http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com/2009/12/classic-j-neil-informational-property-logorights/ 
December 26, 2009 at 10:14 pm-
J. Neil Schulman wrote of “The wider libertarian movement accepted the argument”, ‘What? Is anyone who disagrees an “IP denier” equivalent to a holocaust denier?’
No, that’s overstating it. Rather, anyone who currently disagrees is not typical of the wider group – no more and no less. It’s not as though that would trigger a torrent of abuse, given the nature of that group, although of course such a person might not like the initiatives the others took.
January 5, 2010 at 8:41 pm-
I’m very much interested in emerging myself into libertarian view of intelectual property rights. Where I can find comprehensive compendium on this subject?
“The wider libertarian movement accepted the argument, put it into action (see mises.org/books) and moved on. ” is not really helping
January 5, 2010 at 9:06 pm-
Boniek,
Here is a good start:
http://mises.org/daily/3682Also, I recommend this book:
http://mises.org/books/against.pdf 
July 30, 2010 at 9:05 am-
“No, that’s overstating it. Rather, anyone who currently disagrees is not typical of the wider group – no more and no less. It’s not as though that would trigger a torrent of abuse, given the nature of that group, although of course such a person might not like the initiatives the others took.”
Really? Where have you been hanging out?
{ 128 comments }
Gabe December 4, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I look forward to hearing the conversion story from “step back”.
Interesting! Not only has S Balasubramanian discovered why Objectivism, rightly applied, should oppose Intellectual “Property”, but that Objectivism, properly speaking, should object to the State itself as a prime violator of rights.
Here’s hoping this particular meme spreads widely!
Up until the Sony Rootkit debacle, I was pretty much ambivalent. I had casually observed how so-called intellectual property was becoming a game of extortion. Since then, I have been ridding the pendulum towards IP Nihilism.
Over the last couple of years I have also become to believe that Ayn Rand’s concept of “Objectivism” is contributing to the demise of the US. The near collapse of our financial system is anecdotal evidence that “Objectivism” essentially allows anyone to feel justified in their actions even if means collateral damage to society. To reword this a bit: “I am free to cheat you. If I succeed, it is your fault. Tough luck.”
Very good analysis. I’m sort of in the same boat, as I’ve always been an admirer of Ayn Rand, but disagree with her mainly on those same two points: Intellectual Property, and the need for a state. But like Terry said above, I think my positions, rather than Rands, actually follow logically from the tenets of Objectivism.
Wait till he figures out that Objectivism itself is a flawed philosophy.
I’ll answer his questions.
1) Copying rights do NOT give you control over other peoples property unless they commit the act of co-mingling their property with yours. They have to trespass against you (or your agents) first, and any control obtained is in terms of restitution to the copying right holder.
2) Ideas and patterns can be property when they are instantiated in a physical object. An object over which you have physical property rights and that no one has the right to use for any purpose without your permission (which includes using it to copy it).
3) The same way that any other right would be enforced under any system. How do you propose to enforce land titles, laws against murder, etc. without the state. Whatever answer you come up with can be used to enforce the property rights one has in the object that was criminally copied.
This is a wonderful reflection. I especially like it because it takes us step by step through a difficult thought process, and it is a process unique to the person here. I came about the anti-IP conclusion through a different route – my own path was less theoretical and more practical. The theory I became convinced of after I understood the practicalities. The point is that 1) this is a hard issue to think through and so it takes time (it took me some 6 years or more), 2) every path to this realization is slightly different, and 3) the subject is deeply challenging to everyone, no matter your starting point.
IP, like socialism generally, necessitates a global regulatory apparatus (global government) to actually enforce IP claims, because a piece of IP concomitantly exists in all languages, cultures and societies on earth as soon as it is created. Otherwise, one could simply flee one IP domain to another country where IP is laxly enforced (as is currently the case between US and China, for instance) to produce based off the IP there.
Do Objectivists/IP-supporters call for One World Govt to be consistent with their principles?
Additionally, IP can result in a person committing an IP-crime without even being aware that they’ve done so, for example, if the IP was created at a far enough distance that they were unaware of its creation, or furthermore if the IP was created in a language they did not understand so they were unaware of the significance of its creation.
I have also struggled with the issue of IP. Having had some practical experience with “real” capitalism during the emergence of the Internet as a popular medium, I have come to believe that IP runs contrary to the natural course of capitalist enterprise. When a new “thing” comes along (such as the Internet), many people see the potential of it. Some jump in and commit capital to it. Those who get there first tend to do very well for some period of time. Inevitably, more and more people get into it (increasing the supply) until demand is met and then prices begin to fall. They fall until an equilibrium is reached between the (broad) return on capital demanded by investors and the price. At this point, the system has achieved a high level of efficiency and profits are comparatively modest. Similarly, the holders of intellectual property can and should be rewarded by bringing their ideas to market. By virtue of being first, they will experience a period of high profitability. As others copy and implement their idea, their profits will fall, just as they do in all other areas of capitalist endeavor. Only through coercion can they artificially prolong the period of high profitability.
Taylor: “Do Objectivists/IP-supporters call for One World Govt to be consistent with their principles?”
Unfortunately, yes.
Steve R.,
I’m not sure how you’re connecting Objectivism with the financial collapse. Is it Greenspan? It’s Greenspan, isn’t it. If so, you should know he’s strayed a long way from the guy who wrote “Gold and Economic Freedom,” for Rand’s newsletter, where he describes the Fed as an instrument of tyranny. (it’s also in “Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal”)
No one who could reasonably call himself an Objectivist thinks he has a right to cheat others. As S.B. points out above, the non-initiation of force is one of the central ideas in Rand’s philosophy.
Side note: Rand was friends with Henry Hazlitt, who introduced her to Mises, whom she greatly admired. She was influential on Rothbard, Ron Paul, and other Austrians.
It’s clearly Austrian theory that informs the economic ideas in Atlas Shrugged, and I’ve always suspected that the name “Hugh Akston” (the philosophy professor) was a reference to Mises’ “Human Action,” though I’ve never heard that it was.
In the absence of IP, a creator becomes like a worker in a commune: the fruits of his labour are distributed equally among the communists.
Bala’s arguments are legit. Macker’s objections are legit, too.
If the State were to vanish, Bala and Tucker and Kinsella might want to form a society in which IP plays no part. Macker might want to form a society that recognises some form of IP.
As long as there is a State, our arguments are somewhat moot.
“I am free to cheat you. If I succeed, it is your fault. Tough luck.”
A very, very odd interpretation of Rand, indeed.
Now, just because Alan Greenspan threw over whatever objectivist views he’d once held (I blame Andrea Mitchell) about sound currency, we’ve no reason to conclude that Rand’s philosophy is destroying the country.
I should also add that it’s good to see Objectivists questioning the philosophy. You don’t need to renounce it to bring up points that could use refinement. One of the great weaknesses of Rand’s personality cult has been to attempt to squelch dissent.
After all, if she could build on Aristotle, we can certainly build on her.
i, too, was surprised by bala’s change of position. he had argued his support for ip along the usual objectivist lines, and very doggedly, too.
it’s generally the case that once angry words have been exchanged over an issue, the parties’ views become entrenched and thereafter there’s no budging them. loss of face tends to close the minds, and with insults the key’s get tossed.
bala’s damascene conversion is proof that blogging is not always a dialogue of the deaf. and i feel a little sheepish for having judged all objectivists as refractory cultists. mea culpa.
that he came around to the anti-ip view is an added bonus!
abr says:
“f the State were to vanish, Bala and Tucker and Kinsella might want to form a society in which IP plays no part. Macker might want to form a society that recognises some form of IP.”
mackerville then rallies an army to conquer kinsellaville, where the rampant “stealing” of ideas has gone unpunished.
@Jesse Forgione and Graig: Very legitimate questions and ones that I have been thinking about. It seems to me that Ayn’s perspective was from the “self”. Balasubramanian wrote “Morality, to an Objectivist, is a code of values that guides man’s actions in the face of choices. It is rationally derived starting with recognition of the Objective reality that we are a part of. It is not a set of edicts or diktats from a higher authority.” I take this to mean that “I am always right and I am not constrained in my actions by the opinions (laws) of others”.
Now in terms of the financial crisis/destroying our country, our corporate and elected leadership seem to be making the majority of their decision based on their self interest to the exclusion of the social good. Yea gads, I must be a socialist. I guess to a degree I am, but my point is that our leaders are using their free will to make decisions irrespective of the damage it causes others.
As a minor illustration, the Washington Post ran a sob story of how a single(?) Mother who seemed to be essentially on welfare was able to buy a $600,000+ house. Of course, she is now in foreclosure nightmare. The Post also interviewed the realtor who sold the woman the house. What was the response of the realtor? A very arrogant: “I was simply trying to help her”. Seems to me that the realtor lacked any ethical conscience (moral break) to assure that the woman was qualified to buy the house.
From what I understand of “Objectivism” the realtor did nothing wrong since she maximized her income and she had no responsibility to the other person. But from what I understand of Libertarianism, she (the realtor) was wrong because she “damaged” the other person by selling a house that she obviously could not afford.
“our leaders are using their free will to make decisions irrespective of the damage it causes others.”
They are using state power to do so.
@JL Bryan, in a sense you are correct. All you have to do is look at the influence lobbyists at the Congressional Supermarket.
But the state does not FORCE corporate leaders to pay themselves excessive compensation or to make loans to people that can’t afford them. If you have free feel, accept the responsibility for your actions.
Brian,
” Copying rights do NOT give you control over other peoples property unless they commit the act of co-mingling their property with yours. ”
Your statement assumes that the idea is legitimate property. That is the very notion I tried to point out as an error. The way I see it, there is no comingling of my property with yours but rather an enhancement of my property with an idea.
” Ideas and patterns can be property when they are instantiated in a physical object. ”
What happens when you sell a product in which you have incorporated your idea to me? The product is now my property. By studying it carefully (even if it means taking it apart), making observations and reconciling them with my current store of knowledge, I could get the idea without any violation of your property rights. How would you address that?
” The same way that any other right would be enforced under any system. ”
Rights do not require a system for them to be valid. Rights exist as a concept irrespective of whether or not other people or society in general (which is nothing more than a certain unspecified number of people) recognise their validity and “enforce” them. A society which recognises and respects rights can prosper. One that doesn’t necessarily slides into poverty and strife.
Steve R.,
” I take this to mean that “I am always right and I am not constrained in my actions by the opinions (laws) of others”. ”
That would be a very incorrect interpretation. The correct one would be as below.
I need to act because failure to act means death. I need to place my selfish interests above those of others while I act because failure to do so will again eventually lead to death. This, however, does not mean that I deliberately act to harm others because doing so is against my rational long-range selfish interests.
As long as my actions incorporate a recognition of and respect for the Rights to Life, Liberty and Property of others, my actions are absolutely moral and right. Rights also happen to be a means of aligning my selfish interests with the selfish interests of all people who constitute society. So, when I act within the limits of my rights, I am not and cannot be harming the interests of society at large.
Commenting on the specific example of the single mother on welfare who borrowed $600,000 to buy a house, why are you so keen to absolve her of the error of borrowing a sum as big as $600,000 when her known (to her) sources of income do not indicate an ability to repay? Why are you trying to place the blame for the irrationality of the buyer on the real estate agent?
Secondly, if you bother to stop and ask yourself the question “What made it possible for the financial system to extend credit to absolutely unworthy people like this woman on welfare?”, you will realise that the entire problem stems from the corruption of the financial system thanks to fractional reserve banking and fiat money. The latter being substantially a result of Imperialist, Mercantile and Welfare State policies adopted by governments, it is a wonder that you are quick to absolve the State of its blame and instead blame the real estate agent who sealed the deal.
Stop blaming Objectivism for the moral weaknesses of a few people. A true Objectivist would not have become a fractional reserve banker because he would recognise FRB as fraud and an immoral act.
Steve,
Rand wrote at great length (her favorite way to write) about what she called “rational selfishness,” and how it differed from simply acting on irrational whims. The Fountainhead is, in part, a comparison of her model of an independent “man of ability” (Roark) to Neitche’s “superman” (Wynand) which she saw as parasitical, rather than self-interested (she would say they are exclusive). The concept is akin to Hazlitt’s “mutualism” in that it recognizes the fact that when rightly understood, the interests of individuals do not conflict, but tend to be aligned, which allows for the division of labor, and ultimately, civilization, itself.
The financial collapse is the necessary correction to an artificial expansion of easy money and credit from the Fed. In a free market, no selfish person would lend their money, unless they thought they were getting it back with interest. Lending standards are not the result of charity, but of self-interest. For more on the housing bubble, and the moral hazard created by the Fed through the GSE’s, just go to youtube and type “Peter Schiff.”
…besides which, denying her a $600 000 mortgage for her own good, smacks of paternalism. what if that welfare-mum actually flipped the property before the melt-down, and made a pile? many hoped to do so, and some actually did.
even to argue that the broker was unethical one would have to assume an ability to predict the exact timing of the melt-down.
the customer is always right, even when she’s not.
socialism infantilizes.
this is not hard to explain. Just read Bala’s “Thoughts Questions that troubled me”
1) the purchaser of a product has purchased a manifestation of the duly-owned thought of the originator. The limits of usage are defined by law. Bala already has this upside down on entry. If Bala want to give away or manufacture an item so purchased, let him remove that which belongs to another in the first place and then have at it.
2) The law, informed by reason, adjudicates if someone’s idea proffered as unique indeed is unique and would not exist — at the moment of thought — without the thinker. Any thinker of a unique thought, product or process not wishing to be a useless dreamer will create tangible existents that have no meaning without the “Thought.” This ipso facto imbues the originator with right to control the limits of use of that product a priori.
3) He is already an anarchist totally convinced the state is evil qua state.
The only astonishment is that he took so long to flip over to his true colors.
Also, I wouldn’t get so proud of one “convert.” Please take note of the thousands and thousands of people who have come from Ayn Rand hoping to discover a supporting soul in Ludwig von Mises only to find his house full of thieves. The anarchism rampant is vivid and virulent. We turn away totally from your world view. So that is an un-Convert. Add ‘em up.
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
…as opposed to john donohue, who assumes that all law is necessarily good (provided it’s informed by somebody’s concept of reason).
with that premise, there’s nothing you can’t justify.
John Donohue,
” the purchaser of a product has purchased a manifestation of the duly-owned thought of the originator. ”
The question that I am raising is on your use of the phrase “duly-owned”. Your next statement reveals your mistake.
” The limits of usage are defined by law. ”
How does “law” get defined in the first place? Are you not placing the cart before the horse?
” Any thinker of a unique thought, product or process not wishing to be a useless dreamer will create tangible existents that have no meaning without the “Thought.” ”
What happens when the tangible existent incorporating the unique thought becomes my property because I bought it? What is “wrong” in my studying my property, understanding how it works and then using my newly acquired knowledge to acquire value?
On the other hand, how would you be “right” in preventing me from inspecting my property, acquiring the understanding and then incorporating the knowledge in my property (the raw materials/components that I acquire), given that all this requires you to trespass upon my property and then physically assault me?
” If Bala want to give away or manufacture an item so purchased, let him remove that which belongs to another in the first place and then have at it. ”
Assuming it is your idea you are talking of, you come over and remove it. I would not want to rob you of the privilege of feeling like a modern day Shylock. Just remember – your idea and nothing more. Not a milligram of what would constitute my property.
Oh. So Bala came from ARI to LvMI and before reading about Rothbard and his theory of property based on natural rights, he was bombarded with Kinsella nonse.
That explains a lot.
Tell me Bala. In all your personal exchanges with Kinsella has Rothbards name ever been mentioned?
I can assure you. If you read Rothbard regarding Ethics, you will no longer make contradictory claims such as, “individuals rights are both natural and are only meaningful in a social context”.
bala can rest easy. apostacy is a basic human right according to the unhcr.
“Your statement assumes that the idea is legitimate property.”
No it can depend completely on the physical object and agreements we have made on how you can use it.
For example, I could say that you can read my diary if you sign this agreement never to divulge any of the information therein without paying me a half million dollars. You can agree or not.
Now you could use your property, a copy machine, and some paper, to copy my diary and distribute that. However, you have co-mingled my property, the diary, with yours the machine and paper, to produce the copies. My diary was a factor in the production of the goods you produced.
The original is always a factor of production. The copied goods cannot be created without it (a causal relationship), and it is a physical object so is covered by property rights.
“What happens when you sell a product in which you have incorporated your idea to me? ”
If I retain copying rights then we are co-owners. Just like if I sold you land while retaining mineral rights. Or I could “sell” it to you as a kind of rental agreement. This is about freedom of contract. There isn’t only one single way to transfer property.
“By studying it carefully (even if it means taking it apart), making observations and reconciling them with my current store of knowledge, I could get the idea without any violation of your property rights. How would you address that?”
I wouldn’t “sell” to you unless you agreed not to do such things.
“Rights do not require a system for them to be valid.”
I wasn’t justifying their validity. You were questioning their validity on the grounds that one might need a state to enforce them. Well that goes for any valid right. You might just need a state to enforce them.
Copying rights, as I have described them in detail before in the comments sections of other articles, are based on rights we already have. The right to private property, the right to freedom of association, the right to form private contracts, the right to self defense, the right not to be defrauded, etc.
Murray Rothbard understood this and if you somebody wants to claim he was a Statist then go ahead. It will be real funny to watch him being called a Statist when he liked to call others socialists at the drop of a hat.
The problem I have with the incessant attacks on IP here is that it lumps too many things together. Sure the government has created patents (which are not based on property rights), and have overextended copyright law beyond what is justified by rights, however that doesn’t mean one should throw out the baby with the bath water.
I think everyone here would agree that government granted monopolies are wrong. That doesn’t however mean that every kind of monopoly is. Some kinds of monopoly are justified by natural rights. For example if I sell Macker Pies and sign an agreement with you that you will be sole distributor of my goods. Then you have a monopoly on the distribution of Macker Pies.
Newson,
“mackerville then rallies an army to conquer kinsellaville, where the rampant “stealing” of ideas has gone unpunished.”
Might have to send in an anarchist style enforcement team if someone from Kinsellaville steals a book from Mackerville and then copies and publishes it. Not different than if someone from Kinsellaville murdered a member of Mackerville. [Remember that it could be that there are no “villes” and that these might be competing protection agencies and judicial systems in a anarchist society]
You see no one from Mackerville is willing to sell goods with any valuable level of intellectual content to Kinsellaville because they have been found to violate copyright contracts. Thus the people of Kinsellaville have taken to stealing from Mackerville because the standard of living is higher where property rights are enforced.
Of course the people of Mackerville don’t care if the communists in Kinsellaville voluntarily share their innovations. In fact, there are communes within Mackerville where some groups have decided to share innovations and mental product originated internally, between themselves but not externally. For example the IEEE.
Of course there is absolutely no reason to set up an commune within Mackerville for those individuals who wish to share their work product with everyone. They can share their writings, ideas, and inventions freely without the overhead of contracts and organizations.
Simply said, your argument reads: Objectivism implies the non-aggression principle and the non-aggression principle is incompatible with intellectual property. However, Objectivism does not imply the non-aggression principle, and the principle has been clearly rejected by Rand and other prominent Objectivists.
@Bala, Jesse, and newson: Single examples that I have used will not “prove” that “Objectivism” is a bankrupt philosophy. Single examples are also flawed as they are open to a lot of “what if or that or but” speculative spin.
We seem to agree that our financial meltdown is the result of “bad” behavior on the part of some. The question then becomes whether those who formulated the “bad” behavior were influenced by Rand to act in that manner. Since I do not have any facts that would document this, I can’t go further.
So I guess we are at the agree to disagree stage. Good discussion.
Olve,
You said
” However, Objectivism does not imply the non-aggression principle, and the principle has been clearly rejected by Rand and other prominent Objectivists. ”
I don’t know what other prominent Objectivists have said but here is what Rand said in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness” (Centennial Edition, Page 36)
‘The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man may initiate the use of physical force against others’
In case she has withdrawn this or said something to the contrary elsewhere, please do give me the references.
Steve R.,
” The question then becomes whether those who formulated the “bad” behavior were influenced by Rand to act in that manner. ”
I’m not sure you could blame Rand for behaviour that started being displayed a couple of centuries before she was even born.
@Bala: True you cannot blame someone for pursuing a “behaviour that started being displayed a couple of centuries before she was even born.”. But what I said were people who “were influenced by Rand to act in that manner.?
There are many people who purport to be living withing the context of a particular philosophy, but their actual free will actions belay that. In the case of “Objectivisim”, I am having a serious philosophical credibility gap. However, my belief in the flaws of “Objectivism” does not negate it, witness all the people who believe it to be valid.
“For example, I could say that you can read my diary if you sign this agreement never to divulge any of the information therein without paying me a half million dollars. You can agree or not.
Now you could use your property, a copy machine, and some paper, to copy my diary and distribute that. However, you have co-mingled my property, the diary, with yours the machine and paper, to produce the copies. My diary was a factor in the production of the goods you produced.”
In this case, the copier has violated contract, similar to violating a nondisclosure agreement. You are introducing a contract situation on top of the IP issue, then focusing on that and ignoring the IP issue itself.
“You see no one from Mackerville is willing to sell goods with any valuable level of intellectual content to Kinsellaville because they have been found to violate copyright contracts. Thus the people of Kinsellaville have taken to stealing from Mackerville because the standard of living is higher where property rights are enforced.”
What if someone from Mackerville decides to sell his product in Kinsellaville anyway? How will he be penalized? Who has a legal claim enabling them to come between this voluntary seller and voluntary buyer?
What if someone from Mackerville sells his product to a third town, then someone from Thirdtown re-sells that product to Kinsellaville?
Bala: “How does “law” get defined in the first place?”
This goes to a glaring omission: you did not address my Point3 against your ‘Trouble3.’ You start with the anarchist premise. You are an anarchist. All government, law, objectified protection against aggression is evil and illegitimate.
So, you are the horse, in all your savagery, and want no cart of objective law. Okay. Those are your true stripes.
I have a saying that those who insist on perfection have not surrendered to objective reality on it’s terms. Well, man is a finite being. His context is living on earth with others and possessing a mode of cognition and will that fails (kills himself) under either force or wishful thinking. Perhaps if you read Ayn Rand you might come to grasp this and respect it.
The anarchist’s lust for civilization with no government is a Platonic wet dream. They want the “ideal” to come to earth by magic and trump reality. Well reality is that man requires a culture of protection from aggression. The “Law” is the best attempt by rationals to fix the dividing line of property, both physical property and intellectual property. Where does my property end and yours begin? In your addiction to perfection you declare ‘no matter what, it will be imperfect so I am going to go ideal and declare that all law is aggression/murder/theft’. Juvenile petulance.
You are surrendering reality to your fantasy wishes. Instead of contributing to an ever more accurate body of objective law, you opt for the law of the jungle, kill or be killed.
So be it.
If you have an idea that you don’t want others using, don’t tell it to them (and no one may force you to). But no one has the right to stop someone else from using what they know to improve their own property. If I solve some problem with a new idea, it doesn’t grant me the right to go around stopping others from using the same idea, or similar ideas they may have that are based on it.
If I taste Macker’s delicious pies (without stealing them, of course), and I’m inspired to improve upon my own pies, he doesn’t become a partial owner of my pies. Of course it would be fraudulent for me to call my pies “Macker Pies,” if he doesn’t endorse them, but he certainly may not tell me to make pie less delicious than I know how to.
I agree with the philosophy of Objectivism, but I don’t call myself an “Objectivist” because I have no patience for the unthinking cult that sprang up around Rand and her associates, and because I held basically the same philosophy (though perhaps less well defined) before reading Rand. The philosophy itself is far from “bankrupt” but applying it consistently would lead one to disagree with some of Rand’s conclusions. She didn’t fully appreciate that the State is criminal by definition, or that IP constitutes the initiation of force.
John Donohue,
It’s you who hasn’t understood Rand. Her’s was a philosophy of uncompromising ideals. She opposed the kind of short-sighted pragmatism that you’re advocating, and would never have conceded that the world simply had to continue on whatever destructive path it happened to be on. She said that “evil has no power but the sanction you give it.”
Pragmatism is essentially the sacrifice of long-term interests for short term laziness.
Well, let me help you out, Bala:
How do you reconcile the facts that recognising and enforcing IP essentially gives some people a right to the physical property of others?
Probably the same way you recognize that all property rights place limits on other property rights, and homesteading only gets you some rights (not e.g. the rights to all the heavens above the plot of land).
How can ideas and patterns be property?
Probably the same way that patterns of EM waves can be property, I’m guessing.
How do you propose to enforce IP except through the State machinery?
Probably the same way civilization always developed, I’m guessing — by mutual recognition of social conventions that eventually get codified. Some groups of people establish claims to property, enough respect for and enforcement of others rights is established, and courts (and thus the public) oppose you if you act in contravention of these.
It can happen — and has happened — for IP just as for other kinds of property.
Glad I could help resolve your intellectual crisis, Bala. Just give me a holler whenever you have another one.
Jesse Forgione, nope.
Even beyond you not grasping my context of “idealism” as a Platonic reference, you are so far off base that your post cannot even be considered to have responded to mine in any way.
Rejected.
John Donohue,
“The State” is not synonymous with “objective law,” any more than “God” is synonymous with “morality.”
You place the same irrational faith in a gang of criminals that mystics place in the supernatural. In this sense you are no different from the socialist who places irrational faith in a central planner.
In both cases the object of faith performs the function opposite to that which the faithful expect it to. Just as the concept of God negates the concept of free will, and thus morality, The State is the negation of objective law, as it places absolute power in the hands of criminals.
You assume, as Rand did, that the there is no alternative but “the law of the jungle.” To that I would say “check your premises.” The market has proven to be better than government in every conceivable way, and people admit this, while in the same breath saying that some things are too important to leave to the market. But these are the MOST important things to allow the market to solve. They are too important to leave to government.
A ‘free market’ in justice = unrestricted gang warfare.
That is enough to negate your post and all of anarchism.
JL Bryan,
“In this case, the copier has violated contract, similar to violating a nondisclosure agreement. You are introducing a contract situation on top of the IP issue, then focusing on that and ignoring the IP issue itself.”
What IP issue? I already said it all rests on property rights, contract rights, etc. There is no “IP issue” in the sense you understand. This is NOT patents. This isn’t about mystical ideals but about real world instantiations.
Just as if you stole my mold to make copies of my original work using your casting materials then their shape (intellectual content) would provide evidence of your crime, and my melting of those statues a restoration of your resources to their original state, or a payment of restitution to me of the added value my mold provides above and beyond the raw materials. Of course you pay court costs, investigative fees, etc.
“What if someone from Mackerville decides to sell his product in Kinsellaville anyway?”
You mean what if someone in Kinsellaville decided to agree to a copyright contract because that is the only way he could by copyrighted materials? Then he would be bound by it.
The seller cannot “sell” that which he doesn’t own, the copying rights. Therefore if he is trying to sell something already under copyright contract to anyone anywhere it will still be bound by the copyright contract.
If the seller did not inform the buyer then the “buyer” would be treated the same as any receiver of stolen goods. However in this case with much more assurance that he is NOT the owner of the right to copy the object.
“Who has a legal claim enabling them to come between this voluntary seller and voluntary buyer?” The copyright holder, of course, but only if the seller fails to inform the buyer of the co-ownership, or buyer fails to respect that co-ownership.
If somebody had sold his mineral rights on his property then he cannot just resell to destroy those rights. He no longer owns those rights to sell. Or perhaps he never had them because he bought the property with the original encumbrance. Likewise the right to copy the object was never bought by the owner of the copyrighted object. So he cannot sell it to a third party.
“What if someone from Mackerville sells his product to a third town, then someone from Thirdtown re-sells that product to Kinsellaville?”
What if you sold your land but retained mineral rights via contract. What does it matter how many times the land title is sold? Answer none.
Jesse,
Macker’s pies was an example of a free monopoly contract. It was not my intention to argue you couldn’t taste my pies and try to make your own recipe. Of course we could always come up with such a contract before I agree to let you have one of my pies. It could stipulate that only you can eat the pie and that you agree never to create any of your own pies, of any kind. The contract can read in whatever fashion we can come to an agreement.
“It’s you who hasn’t understood Rand.”
No it is Rand who hasn’t understood Rand.
donohoe: “A ‘free market’ in justice = unrestricted gang warfare.
That is enough to negate your post and all of anarchism.”
An assertion is not enough to “negate” anarchism–especially a confused and false one like this. First, what we have now is gang warfare–every state in the world is criminal, nothing but a mafia, a gang. And they have wars with each other, and with their own citizens, in the form of forced used to control and tax them. Second, Objectivists are supposed to be against aggression. Yet the state that you support uses aggression. It is unjustified even in your own terms. The fact that you don’t see how a stateless society might work is irrelevant; your own confusion or ignorance doens’t justify the aggression the state needs to commit in order to exist.
Silas:
Spoken like someone who has no clue as to the nature of actual IP systems. Typical libertarian IP advocate: Silas, you have no idea of what a libertarian IP right would look like–every time we point out an injustice in the current system, you amateurs crawfish and say, “well, I’m not in favor of that!” So if we say, what does your ideal IP system look like? You say “I’m not an expert!” The only ones who try to concoct a system end up with obviously unjust, unworkable systems (Galambos’s crankish ideas, Schulman’s logorights) or just something based on today’s legislated schemes (Rand).
And now, not only do you have no idea what IP rights should look like, now you have no idea how they could arise on the free market, absent legislation. How? we ask. You say–somehow!
Ayn Rand explained that Objectivism was the title she gave to her personal philosophy and warned that she was the only Objectivist, simultaneously advising those who agreed with her ideas and adopted them into their own personal philosophy to refer to themselves as “students of Objectivism”. While in the burgeoning prominence of her ideas today, that distinction appears to have disappeared altogether, the underlying principle still opts.
Whatever number of Rand’s ideas Bala has adopted and lives by, in the context of this post and these comments, he and Kinsella are perpetrating a hoax by referring to him in the title as an “Objectivist” sans some qualifying adjective. When all is said, read, and done, it is abundantly clear that Bala is not recanting agreement with an Objectivist tenet, he is recanting his agreement with what he mistakenly thought the Objectivist position is but actually is not.
“Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.” [Capitalism The Unknown Ideal, p.122]
“Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object.” [The Virtue of Selfishness, p.94]
There is no evidence here that Bala has ever fully understood or wholly adhered to the Objectivist principle that objects per se cannot be physical property without the application of the reason and action that causes the consequence of their value. They cannot be owned by anyone, because they are not caused by anyone. They become property rather as the embodiment of that which is owned — the reason and action applied to them that causes the addition of value.
Thus, there is no conflict between the rights to intellectual property and the rights to physical property. Both are rights to possess, use and dispose of the consequences of reason and effort. The only difference between the two is that intellectual property does not require any application of reason and effort by subsequent owners to maintain its value like physical property does. Consequently, to enable a creator to benefit from his intellectual property, it must be protected for but also limited to the creator’s lifetime plus whatever time would be required for a purchaser to profit from it if the creator died on completion of the sale (Rand suggested 50 years).
Also pertinent here is the error of holding that the non-initiation of force principle is “the most important Objectivist social principle” but then applying it as a primary principle independent of its derivation and purpose. When Rand refers to it as “The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics,” it is in the context of dependence on ethical principles. In the philosophy of Objectivism, politics is regarded as an extension of ethics in the context of the life of individuals into the context of their life in a society.
It is the failure to grasp that inexorable link between those two philosophical sciences that is the reason for Rand’s rejection of any libertarians and anarchists who seek to implement, benefit from, and defend her radical capitalism without acknowledging its ethical base, not to mention the underlying metaphysics and epistemology.
The source of the ethical principle that is the source of the non-initiation of force principle is the fact that the existence of living creatures is contingent on self-generated actions specific to the nature of each. The means specific to our nature — our rational and volitional (hence fallible) capacities — enable us to choose existence in accordance with our nature (life) as our goal and standard of value and simultaneously necessitate our individual autonomy in the application of reason and action to the production and trade of values in the service of that life. It is this primary ethical requirement of individual autonomy over value produced by the application of reason to action that is the source and standard for all social (political) principles, both those that define “ownership” and “property” as well as those that regulate the use of physical force.
@Silas:
You forgot one thing. A system of physical property is necessary in order to consume the said property, no matter who ends up consuming it. It exists in socialism, in capitalism, theocracy and anarchy. If a system didn’t arise, no consumption would be possible and everyone would die of starvation.
There is no such necessity in IP, because of its non-rival aspect. There is no conflict in consumption, therefore no need for conflict resolution. Just like other immaterial goods that have value (e.g. reputation, loyalty, love) it should be handled by social norms rather than the legal system.
@Stephan_Kinsella: Spoken like someone who has no clue as to the nature of actual property systems. Typical libertarian property advocate: Stephan_Kinsella, you have no idea of what a libertarian property right would look like–every time we point out an injustice in the current system, you amateurs crawfish and say, “well, I’m not in favor of that!” So if we say, what does your ideal property system look like? You say “I can’t predict all the exact details!” The only ones who try to concoct a system end up with obviously arbitrary rules (bizarre definitions of “use”, disputes over how low aircraft can be before you can gun them down with impunity) or just something based on today’s legislated schemes (Kinsella).
And now, not only do you have no idea what property rights should look like, now you have no idea how they could arise on the free market, absent legislation and given the huge history of injustices behind most existing property rights. How? we ask. You say–somehow!
Tu quoque — Making people recognize their own hypocrisy, since before the fall of Rome ™.