From Mises Blog, a year ago (archived comments below):
Have You Changed Your Mind About Intellectual Property?
December 19, 2009 by Stephan Kinsella
It’s my impression that in the last 5-10 years, there has been a striking movement towards the anti-IP camp among libertarians and Austrians. This is a result of the mounting everyday evidence of injustice resulting from the digital age magnifying the baleful effects of IP that have always existed; and the mounting scholarship, from a pro-property rights, pro-free market perspective, against both the moral and principled case and the utilitarian case for IP (resources listed in the final section of my “The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide“).
I’m personally aware of dozens of people who have changed their minds or seen the light on this issue–including, say, myself, Jeff Tucker, and many others. For some things I’m writing and just for general curiosity it would be interesting to get a better idea of this trend. Please feel free to add a brief comment to this post specifying whether you have moved toward the anti-IP position in recent years.Update: Some here may also find of interest the Patent Rights Web Poll I did a while back, pasted below. Feel free to take it if you haven’t:
***
On a patent practitioner email list I posted the following:
It seems to me that many small/medium companies live in fear of a big patent lawsuit. Even if they had their own IP, I suspect many companies would gladly give up forever their right to sue for patent infringement, in exchange for some kind of immunity from patent liability–at least, if they could eliminate the threat of an injunction, so that the worst penalty they might face is some kind of mandatory royalty. Surely IBM et al. would not take this deal, but I bet a lot of other companies would. What do you think?Second, in view of this, does this mean there is some kind of market for a service that would let a bunch of companies get together and “pool” their IP and have some kind of agreement (a) never to sue each other; (b) to have access to this pool of patents to countersue any company that sues any of the members.
This post drew some interest so I am doing a simple webpoll. I think the results might be interesting. (DIGG it here.)
In Seen and Unseen Costs of Patents, Jeff Tucker notes, “Intel’s CEO spoke for many when he said he would be glad to cut patents to a tenth of its current rate provided that others did the same.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20091222194222/http://blog.mises.org/archives/011288.asp
Comments (164) 
{ 195 comments… read them below or add one }
December 21, 2009 at 2:23 pm-
Didn’t have strong pro-IP thoughts, but accepted the mainstream “guilt” associated with “stealing” software/music/movies/etc…
Read Kinsella’s “Against IP” and was instantly convinced.
I’ve come to see all human conflicts in terms of property rights and found fictional property rights (IP) to be incompatible with real property rights.
But, as Walter Block is fond of saying, just because something should be “criminal”, doesn’t mean it’s “good” and desirable. I don’t advocate prostitution or recreational drug use, but don’t see those as criminal acts either. Fraud is crime (as trademark infringement can be), but even non-fraud plagiarism is “not cool”. But that’s a personal morality issue, not a legal one.
May 10, 2011 at 6:47 am-
It is correct. I am agree with you Brain.
December 21, 2009 at 2:50 pm-
Kerem Tibuk wrote:
**********
I claim rights are natural and individual. They exist and they are carried over to the society. Crusoe doesn’t need Friday to exist or have rights, mainly property rights. Crusoe is the ultimate free man. He can not be freer if he wanted to. But he needs division of labor to better his life and that requires society. So the point is keeping the liberties he had, carrying them to the society and also take advantage of the society.
**********But Crusoe doesn’t keep the liberties he had. You said yourself, “he can not be freer if he wanted to”. Now that Friday has arrived, he needs to give up many of his liberties. He is clearly not “keeping the liberties he had”. Therefore, the above paragraph is illogical nonsense.
Kerem also wrote:
**********
To me the premise “property rights are established to resolve conflict regarding scarce resources” is as arbitrary as “property rights are established to resolve conflict regarding movable resources” and don’t think there are nobody that thinks the second premise is true, either.
**********That’s because of the way you word it. You make it sound like a social contract when, in fact, it is not.
A more correct way to word it would be:
Since tangible materials cannot possibly be consumed by more than one person, the concept of property must emerge.A truly arbitrary definition is: “property is extension of mans sovereignty to the external”.
This statement is extremely broad and does not explain how a man “extends” his “sovereignty to the external”. The “mixing one’s labor with resources” isn’t much better either. You need to define “mixing labor”. Both attempts fail on the basis of subjectivity and arbitrariness.
Does looking at a waterfall give you rights of ownership? Aren’t I extending my sovereignty to things I look at? What about if I gain pleasure by looking at it? What if I think very hard about ways to use it? Isn’t ‘thinking very hard’ a form of labor? Isn’t ‘thinking very hard’ about something a way of extending my sovereignty to that thing? What if I go to the efforts of placing a fence around the waterfall? Haven’t I “mixed my labor with the resource”? Do I have to physically alter the waterfall in order to own it? To what extent do I need to alter it to “extend my sovereignty” to it? Put a roof over it? Put a fence around it? Rearrange the rocks that it consists of? Urinate on it? Yell at it? Shine light on it? And whatever your answer to this question is, why exactly does it give me some sort of right to the waterfall?And you still haven’t seemed to grasp the fact that, using your definition of property, there is no way to differentiate between “ownership” and “possession” in a one-man society. By your definition of property, both terms are equivalent and only diverge in meaning when additional humans become present.
But this is illogical. They have two different definitions. They cannot be the same thing. So we have to consider what is it that differentiates between possession and ownership.
Ownership establishes the difference between “mine” and “yours”. There cannot be a “mine” if there is no such thing as a “yours”. Therefore, “ownership” cannot exist if there is only one human.And you treat this line of reasoning as somehow illogical in the context of natural law. You say things like “rights are individual and natural” as if laws that rely on the existence of prerequiste conditions are not natural. The dependency of property rights on the existence of multiple human beings does not mean they are unnatural. The existence of prerequisite conditions does not render something unnatural.
The laws of physics combined with a large concentration of hydrogen results in the existence of stars. The concept of a “star” does not make any sense if these conditions are absent. It is obviously absurd to claim that a “star” exists prior to the prerequisites that give rise to its existence. And stars are certainly natural. It’s just that they require specific conditions to form. In this case, the laws of physics and the existence of a large concentration of hydrogen.
Similarly, the reality of the scarcity of tangible goods combined with multiple humans results in the existence of “rights”. If one of the prerequisites is not present, then the concept is meaningless. But this does not make rights unnatural. It is a natural consequence arising when certain prerequisite conditions exist. In this case, the law of scarcity and the existence of two or more humans.
December 21, 2009 at 2:53 pm-
Odd that I would have forgotten plant patents especially when I spent a portion of my career in the field of horticulture.
Re: plant patents. I will be the first to argue against any plant patent that might occur by accident. As an example, the crossing of two different broccoli strains in a garden. Therefore if it can happen in nature, it must NOT be patentable. On this I assume we have some agreement.
“Patent and copyright have nothing to do with authenticity and attribution. That is more trademark and reputation rights–the latter of which are unlibertarian and the former of which are also unlibertarian to the extent they give a right to the markholder instead of the defrauded consumer.”
Herein is where the argument gets slippery. If the idea has no ownership, then any and all matters subsequent to the idea have no ownership. There must be a foundation to build the house on. Reputation is but an idea often not shared by other consumers. The customer/consumer can’t be defrauded unless and until claims are ascribed to the product or idea by an owner. We can easily claim a product is owned, but any and all ideas associated with the product are not; by definition of “non-ownership of an idea.”
Hence the failure of the consumer to correctly identify the utility of the idea and its subsequent product to meet the consumer’s needs MUST be the consumer’s fault exclusively. The idea has no ownership (by definition) and consequently no party can claim fraud when the party willingly purchased the product based upon the idea. Is advertising not just an expression of an idea? If so, it can not be claimed that the tenderence of the idea is fraudulent. “Truth in advertising” is meaningless when it comes to claims. Witness TV advertising claims: Voted #1 by …, increase the size …, get a better night’s sleep …, yada, yada.
I wouldn’t tender the claim that ethics shouldn’t be a concern to the manufacturer of the product based upon the idea. In a perfect marketplace, the consumer would boycott the maker of any product who misrepresents the utility of the idea and its subsequent product. However we can all see that the marketplace readily spends ever more money for perpetually broken goods. An example: computer operating systems.
Does the whole IP system need retooling? Of course. Does the IP system serve utility? Usually. Is utility neccessary? Undoubtedly. Does this debate serve a useful purpose? Most assuredly and it needs more debate. IP rights laws are broken and need major realignment with the reality of “just what constitutes “new and novel” rather than some obscure tweaking of a previous idea.
I seem to recall that during the 18th and 19th century, England use to award monetary prizes to inventors. Perhaps this has some not-so-small merit when it comes to inovation and renumeration.
Admittedly, utility has a purpose that often fails the test of one or more philosophical arguments. Keep in mind that philosophy is just an idea. No owners and therefore “no harm-no foul.”
——————–
Insert standard disclaimer here:I have no beliefs. Everything is just data to be assimilated, analyzed, cataloged and perhaps implemented. All ideas are subject to change as new data becomes available.
I may disagree, but I welcome the disagreement in the pursuit of logical reasoning.
December 21, 2009 at 5:07 pm-
Gil wrote:
“But Russ isn’t the ‘labour theory of ownership’ the basis of ‘homesteading’?”
Sure. And homesteading involves something *material*!
Kerem Tibuk
“I find the issue of scarcity irrelevant. It has no bearing on the concept of property and it is a purely arbitrary prerequisite.”
Scarcity has *everything* to do with the concept of property, because if material property weren’t scarce, the concept of property would be unnecessary for human survival, and completely irrelevant to human life. Also, when thinking about a thing, you must consider its nature. When thinking about material property, part of its nature is that it is economically scarce. When thinking about “intellectual” property, part of its nature is that it is *not* economically scarce. If you ignore fundamental differences in the nature of the two things, you’re not really thinking about them seriously.
I truly think this is where you’re getting stuck. You seem to think along the lines of “Mr. Smith created this wheel, therefore it should be his property”. That’s perfectly valid for a material object, like a wheel, that Mr. Smith creates. That’s because of, I hate to break it to you, a basically utilitarian argument. If wheels are scarce goods, then Mr. Smith can’t get any use out of a wheel he made if Mr. Jones takes it. If Mr. Smith can’t get any use out of the wheel, he won’t bother to make it. Extend this propertyless state of affairs to all other material goods, and people wouldn’t do much of anything to improve their environment, and we’d all still be living like animals. Therefore, we came up with the idea of property as a way of ensuring that Mr. Smith does get use out of things he improves, like tree trunks he’s turned into wheels, or land he’s cultivated.
But you don’t consider the reasons why we came up with the idea of property. You seem to think it’s just a moral axiom of the universe. Then you treat the case of “intellectual property” as if it is exactly the same as the concept of material property, when it is not. Material property is scarce, intellectual property is not. This difference in scarcity is not an irrelevant difference; it is fundamental to the concept of property, because scarcity is why the concept of property is necessary in the first place.
If material property and intellectual property should be considered similarly, then whoever first had the idea for the number zero and wrote it down on a slate tablet, would not only own the tablet, but the concept of zero itself. Do you really think it would benefit mankind if, every time somebody used the number zero, they had to pay a royalty to this man’s decendants? And if you say that there should be a time limit involved, how can you pick a limit in a non-arbitrary way?
“Also it is contradictory in the sense that it doesn’t follow cause and effect.”
I have absolutely no idea what you’re getting at here.
December 21, 2009 at 5:23 pm-
Several ideas greatly influenced my thinking about IP. The first was software patents — I have been writing and working with computer code for about 37 years now, and every time I hear about another software patent, I think “there is nothing new under the sun” — it’s just a modification or combination of ideas which, while interesting, can not be patentable under any reasonable definition of “unique” or “creative.” I conclude that the folks at the Patent Office have little knowledge of “Prior Art” in the field of computer software.
Second, I’ve been seen Open Source or Free Software thrive in a way that demolishes the notion that copyright and patent are the only way to encourage creativity.
Third, I’ve watched one attempt after another of locking data and code fail, up to and including today’s DRM efforts. Such codes take away value from the customers – they make it difficult to back up one’s “stuff”, they sometimes fail to work, they make it harder to use multiple computers; for those reasons, people discover hacks to break the DRM codes.
I’d be happy to pay authors through some sort of PayPal or micropayment system. Just don’t lock up my digital “stuff.” I should be able to copy, use, lend, or give away, without having an eye over my shoulder for a patent or copyright troll.
December 21, 2009 at 11:41 pm-
Kerem Tibuk,
” Property is the extension of an individuals sovereignty (self ownership) to the external. ”
With such a poor definition, it’s no wonder you are drawing truly meaningless conclusions. By using the word sovereignty in a loose manner, you are guilty of using the concept “property” to define the concept “property”. My point will become clear if you try defining the term “sovereignty”. Especially if you ask yourself the question “Why sovereignty over a specific entity?”, you will realise that the concept “property” is already embedded in your “definition”.
In other words, sovereignty is an OUTCOME of the application of the term “property” to an existent. You have “sovereignty” because it is your “property”. But then why is it your “property”?
That’s why I prefer Ayn Rand’s position on man’s nature (which I paraphrase) – that he is a rational animal with a volitional consciousness whose values are not automatic and given and who needs to act to gain/keep the value needed to sustain his life.
To this, I added the point that it is the value that man acts to gain or keep that become his possessions. When these possessions are gained and kept in a morally sound manner (which I have further defined as without the initiation of force), it becomes his “property”.
In my definition, I have sovereignty over my “property” BECAUSE it is MY property. No one else has a moral locus standi to use those values that are morally mine except with my permission.
(This is apart from the lacunae Jay Lakner pointed out.)
December 22, 2009 at 12:34 am-
“Imaginary Property”
Nice. Gonna use that for sure.
December 22, 2009 at 5:35 am-
Jay,
“But Crusoe doesn’t keep the liberties he had. You said yourself, “he can not be freer if he wanted to”. Now that Friday has arrived, he needs to give up many of his liberties. He is clearly not “keeping the liberties he had”. Therefore, the above paragraph is illogical nonsense.”
See, this paragraph says a lot. I have heard this many many times over the years, and not really about IP but about rights and liberties in general. It is the cliche of the statists, that claim “society” comes before the individual and rights are derived from scoiety by some kind of contract. Whenever a someone talks about limiting a type of liberty this line is used. And “take it or leave it” usually comes after it.
And to tell you the truth, it is complete bullshit. Crusoe does not have to give up any liberties that he had when joining in a society or in most cases for many different people, choosing to stay in a society.
I challenge you to name one liberty that Crusoe had and then lost when Friday came to the island and both formed a society.
And for the rest of your post you claim that you have problem with the concept of homesteading. Extension of self ownership, or sovereignty, is the act of homesteading.
I also challenge you to explain how property comes into being without homesteading.
Many people who take this famous premise as true, which H. H. Hoppe formulated and Kinsella used and applied to IP problem, do not really think about the origin of property.
They don’t worry about homesteading and how property came to being among real humans but use it as an abstract justification regarding legitimacy of property rights, in a world where private property is already established to some degree and there aren’t really much unowned resources left.
Imagine Crusoe, or the people colonizing unowned lands and the absurdity of the premise becomes clearer.
Firstly an individual finds an unowned natural resource and homesteads it. There is no other way of property coming to existence. It is necessarily one man homesteading and making something his property. It is never the case that two or more people coming to the said resource at the same exact time and start debating who should own it because they have conflicting desires, as the premise suggests.
So the concept of “conflict” is a useless and arbitrary concept too. There is never a genuine conflict regarding property. There is one man homesteading, and only after this fact, there is a possibility of another individual coming and aggressing against the homesteaded property.
So if we replace “conflict” with “aggression” we can see the absurdity of the premise because aggression necessarily has to come AFTER the homesteading of property. What must necessarily come AFTER (being an effect) can not be a prerequisite (being the cause).
You may say that, Person B can come to the homesteaded property and challenge the owner, Person A, regarding his ownership. But this is a non issue because there are only two options. Either person A owns the property or he doesn’t. There is no genuine conflict but a case of judgment regarding what really happened. There is one truth and judgment may acknowledge it or fail to give the right call and this would have no relevance to the ethical principle.
Also, I am very comfortable with the calculation argument. But I don’t like to use it because it is an utilitarian argument and even if you agree regarding the validity, which anyone with an economics knowledge would, you can easily avoid it by claiming that “the production of IP wouldn’t need this much commercialization anyways”. You could concede to the fact that there wouldn’t be a sophisticated industry regarding IP based on division of labor but you could be ok with that. You could be happy with a smaller music industry for example.
My view of property is based on ethics not economics.
- December 22, 2009 at 5:50 am
-
Bala,
“With such a poor definition, it’s no wonder you are drawing truly meaningless conclusions. By using the word sovereignty in a loose manner, you are guilty of using the concept “property” to define the concept “property”. My point will become clear if you try defining the term “sovereignty”. Especially if you ask yourself the question “Why sovereignty over a specific entity?”, you will realise that the concept “property” is already embedded in your “definition”.”
I dont know how else to say it. But I will try again.
Private property stems from self ownership. You extend your self ownership to the external and by doing this you extend your ownership. This is how you homestead.
Or you can use the concept of sovereignty. You extend your self sovereignty to the external and by doing this you extend your sovereignty. This is how you homestead.
So if you want to deny this you have to deny that individuals are self sovereign, that they are not really in control of themselves (they may act on instinct or randomly, or they may be in control of some other external force like a deity or another human). I don’t think you would deny this and that is why I didn’t dwell on it, but you are still having a hard time, like Jay, with the extension of this self ownership, which is called homesteading.
“In other words, sovereignty is an OUTCOME of the application of the term “property” to an existent. You have “sovereignty” because it is your “property”. But then why is it your “property”?”
Self sovereignty is not an outcome it is a fact, Extension of this sovereignty to the external can be viewed as an outcome, but since it is natural outcome it is part of the natural law ethics.
In short,
Why? Because it is. Because A is A.
“That’s why I prefer Ayn Rand’s position on man’s nature (which I paraphrase) – that he is a rational animal with a volitional consciousness whose values are not automatic and given and who needs to act to gain/keep the value needed to sustain his life.”
I agree but why aren’t you asking “why” regarding this premise, like you were asking about the premise before. You are not asking why because you are aware that “why” is meaningless.
Also my answer to the previous question stems from this premise which I also agree and plus self ownership.
It is because it is. This is the basis of natural law.
- December 22, 2009 at 6:56 am
-
Russ,
You are repeating the same argument based open the same wrong premise. Please read the responses I gave to others like Jay an Bala. I don’t want to repeat myself over and over again.
In short that premise you base your views on property,
“Property rights are established to resolve conflict regarding scarce resources” is an arbitrary and wrong premise, which doesn’t even cover self ownership and homesteading and views property. It may be useful in questioning the legitimacy of IP arbitrarily but it does nothing about the theory of property. And since the premise is about property in general, this means it is a useless and wrong premise.
- December 22, 2009 at 7:28 am
-
Kerem Tibuk,
” Private property stems from self ownership. ”
and I do not think very highly of the concept of self-ownership because ownership is a moral concept and cannot itself be the basis of a system of morals/ethics. In addition, this is circular logic. Even worse, you are treating the concept “ownership” as an axiom. Sounds pretty absurd to me.
” You extend your self ownership to the external and by doing this you extend your ownership. This is how you homestead. ”
Wrong. You gain possession of existents and then exclude others from using them. That’s how it becomes property. Homesteading is a term that encapsulates this entire process.
” You extend your self sovereignty to the external and by doing this you extend your sovereignty. ”
Over what is it appropriate for me to extend my “sovereignty” and over what is it not? (For instance, your “sovereignty’ cannot extend over other people even by your definition).
What is the metaphysical nature of ideas and what is the relationship of ideas/patterns to man? How do men form “ideas” or develop “patterns”?
Given all this, is it moral to extend the concept of sovereignty to ideas/patterns? I am asking this because I see claiming sovereignty of ideas/patterns as tantamount to claiming sovereignty over other human beings’ minds. The mind being an inseparable part of a human being, you are in effect asking for sovereignty over another human being.
” Self sovereignty is not an outcome it is a fact, ”
A fact is verifiable. Self-sovereignty is not. Hence, it is absurd to call it a fact. In fact, self-sovereignty is an “ought” and not an “is”.
” You are not asking why because you are aware that “why” is meaningless. ”
This is getting hilarious and I see you clutching at straws. Existence exists. There is no “why” associated with it. To ask a “why” is to presuppose the existence of a consciousness apart from and independent of existence.
” Also my answer to the previous question stems from this premise which I also agree and plus self ownership. ”
Arbitrary, unnecessary and unjustified addition.
- December 22, 2009 at 9:06 am
-
Kerem Tibuk wrote:
“It is because it is. This is the basis of natural law.”
The basis of *natural* law is the *natures* of the things under consideration. In the case of ownership, the things under consideration are the owners (men), and the things owned (material or intellectual property). If the natures of these things are ignored, then the “natural law” will not mesh with “nature” (i.e. reality).
For instance, Rothbard, in my opinion, was guilty of this with respect to children. He built up a political system based on the nature of (adult) mankind. Then he applied that system to children as if children are just miniature versions of adults, completely disregarding the fact that adults and children have very different natures. Thus, his political and ethical views on children don’t mesh with reality; they are absurd.
I believe you are doing something similar with IP.
- December 22, 2009 at 11:34 am
-
Kerem Tibuk,
Bala has hit the nail on the head when he says “you are guilty of using the concept “property” to define the concept “property””.
Let’s look at the case where only one human being exists.
You assume here that the concept of self-ownership automatically becomes true. In your mind, this human “owns” himself. I am trying to show you that this is not true. This human has “possession” of himself, but he does not “own” himself.
Why? Because “owning” yourself automatically implies that you are preventing another person from “owning” you. If there is no other person in existence, then the concept of “ownership” is clearly the incorrect description to use. “Possession” does not require another human being to exist. Therefore, what you have been describing as “self-ownership” has in fact actually been “self-possession”.Now, if we bring a second human being into existence, suddenly things need to change.
Since it is impossible for both human beings to use the same resource, “possession” becomes inadequate. We need a way to determine what is “yours” and what is “mine”. This is where the concept of “ownership” emerges. “Self-possession” is not sufficient anymore because there is nothing that says the other human can’t “possess” you. But if we decide that each human now has “self-ownership”, that places the necessary limitations on how these humans can interact in order to ensure cooperation.Kerem wrote:
**********
I challenge you to name one liberty that Crusoe had and then lost when Friday came to the island and both formed a society.
**********You’re kidding right?
Before Friday came to the island Crusoe could walk anywhere, climb any tree, pick and eat any apple, drink from any water source, kill any animal, urinate on any rock, set anything on fire, dig holes anywhere, etc, etc.
Now that Friday has arrived, Crusoe cannot walk on Friday’s land, climb Friday’s trees, pick and eat Friday’s apples, drink Friday’s water, kill Friday’s animals, urinate of Friday’s rocks, set Friday’s property on fire, dig holes in Friday’s land, etc, etc.
The scarcity of the resources on the island results in Crusoe’s liberties being greatly reduced. As I tried to explain in my last post:
scarcity + muliple humans —> rightsKerem wrote:
**********
Firstly an individual finds an unowned natural resource and homesteads it. There is no other way of property coming to existence. It is necessarily one man homesteading and making something his property.
**********Person A finds a resource and takes possession of it. Person B tries to take possession of that same resource. Person A demonstrates that he has a better claim to ownership than person B because he possessed it earlier. Person C comes along and demonstrates without doubt that he possessed it before either person A or person B. Since person C is the earliest possesser, person C has the most rightful claim to ownership.
Possession precedes ownership. “Property” does not come into existence until there exists other human beings who wish to take possession of your possessions.
Kerem wrote:
**********
So the concept of “conflict” is a useless and arbitrary concept too. There is never a genuine conflict regarding property.
**********You are using the wrong definition of “conflict”.
I generally avoid the word conflict because it has multiple meanings. That is why I often use words like “impossibility” or “contradiction” in its place. For example:
– The impossibility of multiple human beings using the same resource leads to the concept of property.
– The concept of property emerges due to the contradiction created when multiple human beings try to utilise the same resource.As you can see, “conflict” is not meant to mean “fights” or “wars”. It means a contradiction or an impossible event.
Kerem wrote:
**********
You could concede to the fact that there wouldn’t be a sophisticated industry regarding IP based on division of labor but you could be ok with that.
**********You simply refuse to address my arguments. The only conclusion I can come to is that you do not understand the calculation argument at all.
Removing monopolies on intangible entities will in no way affect the ability to calculate.
There would still exist a sophisticated industry based on the division of labor.
Intangible entities would still have prices. They do not need to have an owner to have a price. Intangible entities merely need to have a “possesser” to have a price. Ownership is not required because no contradiction occurs when multiple human beings try to use the same intangible entity.Stop completely evading this issue and address the arguments being made.
- December 22, 2009 at 1:14 pm
-
I will give one more try and start from the basic premise and this time I will not assume that you guys have any knowledge on basic concepts like self ownership and homesteading.
And I will address both Bala and Jay because they are having the same difficulty interpreting the natural rights position regarding property.
Every human is the absolute sovereign over his actions. This means he is in absolute control. This is a fact of the universe and a fact. It is an undeniable axiom. Even when some other individual coerces another, the coerced person is the ultimate decision maker. He may comply with the coercer but not because he has no choice as if he is a puppet or an Avatar, but because he choses to do so after evaluating the consequences of his actions. That is why there is a difference between the concepts of “slave” and “puppet”. As Rand put it, you can not make some other think. You may prevent him to think by the use of drugs, for example but he thinks and acts according to his own decisions.
This is not an “ought” propoposition but an “is” proposition. This is based on the nature of humans thus a natural law.
This natural law is called different things, like self ownership or self sovereignty. It doesn’t really matter, you can call it anything you want.
Another human being “ought” to respect this fact. If he doesn’t and defy natural law there will be consequences. Maybe not a direct consequence like defying a natural law of physics but an indirect one.
This main “ought” is called many things. The non aggression principle, or non initiation of force principle but I don’t thing any one covers all the possible meanings.
Now, coming to external. Humans are not spirits or ghosts either. According to their nature, they need to occupy space, they need clothing, food, etc.
This is why they extend themselves, thus their sovereignty, to the external and homestead unowned natural resources. This is called homesteading. By doing this they gain property. Whatever is true for the individual extends to the property. Thus aggression against an individuals property is the same as aggression against himself.
Self ownership concept, doesn’t take the “ownership” part from the external, quite the opposite the external takes the concept of ownership from the individuals. Ownership of the external is process of mimicking the self ownership.
Homesteading only needs an individual and a nature given resource. It doesn’t need a second or third party to be present, or some arbitrary condition like movability or scarcity. It is a purely natural outcome of being a human just like breathing air.
Once the extension of the self ownership, in other words homesteading, happens, the external becomes the individuals property until he abandons it. Just as the individual has complete and absolute control over himself, and this should be accepted and respected, he also has absolute and complete control over the external and that should also be accepted and respected.
This parts sometimes gets confusing because we pass from “is” to “ought”. So sometimes people equate the ability to control the external, or the might to control the external with the moral right to control the external. And they fall in the trap of “might makes right”. That is why we constantly hear things like “if he wanted to keep owning the idea he should have kept it to himself”. But this is the same as saying “if he wanted her jewelry not stolen she should have kept them in a safe”.
This is the property theory of natural rights based on objective reality.
December 22, 2009 at 1:44 pm-
@Jay LAkner,
You wrote:”Removing monopolies on intangible entities will in no way affect the ability to calculate.
There would still exist a sophisticated industry based on the division of labor.
Intangible entities would still have prices. They do not need to have an owner to have a price. Intangible entities merely need to have a “possesser” to have a price. Ownership is not required because no contradiction occurs when multiple human beings try to use the same intangible entity.”Without trade there is no price.
Without price there is no calculation.
Without calculation there is no co-operation.
However, trade is always preceded by due diligence. But due diligence of an idea infects the mind of the potential buyer (and transfers ownership by your standards). Who, in their right mind, would want to offer any original ideas for due diligence without any protection? Only the altruists.
Do you want to build your system on altruism?For me this is the calculation argument!
December 22, 2009 at 2:07 pm- December 22, 2009 at 3:21 pm
-
Kerem Tibuk,
Did it ever occur to you that we understand your viewpoint on the origins of property and that we are simply trying to demonstrate that there is more complexity to it?
In your last post, you nicely laid out the natural law definition of property as you would to someone uneducated in these matters.
But it is not entirely correct. The situation is more complex than that. Bala, Russ, Peter Surda, myself and others have been trying (in vain it seems) to demonstrate the areas which need to be more precisely defined.
The definition of property you laid out is not the most fundamental starting point. It may be sufficient for a general discussion with laymen. But you need to be aware of its implicit assumptions.Firstly, the natural law definition of property as expressed by you is already assuming a world in which more than one human being exists. How do I know this? Because the use of the word “ownership” automatically implies that there are others who can own things. Furthermore, “extending to the external” and “homesteading” are subjective concepts as I tried to point out earlier. Your reply to me earlier saying, “you claim that you have problem with the concept of homesteading”, is not true. I have no problems with the concept of homesteading at all. I was merely trying to demonstrate its subjectivity. This is necessary to show that both “ownership” and “possession” are not aspects of objective reality but are simply constructions in the human mind.
Furthermore, the concept of “Possession” can exist in the mind of a human in the absence of all other humans. However, the concept of “ownership” requires at least two humans to make any sense.Secondly, the natural law definition of property as expressed by you does not define “external” and does not define “extending”. If we follow your logic, there are two types of “external” entities, tangible and intangible. Ignoring the differences between these leads to illogical conclusions. I would more precisely define “extending to the external” as, “the application of intangible entites to tangible entities”. Here we can see that I consider the “external” to only mean tangible entities and “extending” to mean the application of intangible entities. Also, only “externals” can be homesteaded. You cannot homestead an “extension” because the act of homesteading is an “extension” itself.
It should be noted that this does not rule out the possibility of new intangible entities being produced. Applying an intangible entity (a thought process of some kind) to a tangible entity (your brain) can result in a new intangible entity (an idea, pattern or new thought process) being produced. This would not be considered an “externality” but an additional “extension” that you can utilise.The property theory of natural rights, as you define it, is certainly not based on objectively reality. It can’t be. It makes implicit assumptions, contains subjectivity and imprecise definitions.
Natural law is only be based on objective reality when formulated in more precise manner. - December 22, 2009 at 3:26 pm
-
Stephan,
You always find a way to cite out of context. Again, you conveniently left out my last sentence “For me this is the calculation argument!” and connected to property rights somehow. I have to believe that you do it on purpose. On property rights please consult Kerem’s great replies.Calculations are no more of a problem for me on IP than for Mises when he discusses the impossibility of economies under socialism. Jay Lakner presupposed the existence and maintenance of sophisticated industries without the potential ability to calculate. I just saw another contradiction.
- December 22, 2009 at 4:39 pm
-
Andras wrote:
**********
However, trade is always preceded by due diligence. But due diligence of an idea infects the mind of the potential buyer (and transfers ownership by your standards). Who, in their right mind, would want to offer any original ideas for due diligence without any protection?
**********Firstly, “transfers possession” is the correct wording. “Ownership” of an idea is impossible.
Secondly, you can describe what your idea does rather than reveal the idea itself. That is the purpose of book reviews, blurbs, advertising, etc.
Thirdly, “protection” of your idea does not require a monopoly on it. When meeting with someone (eg a publisher) to produce tangible manifestations of your idea, you can contract with them not to release your idea. If it does get released, and if you have been very careful, it shouldn’t be difficult to prove who leaked the information. For example, you can purposely make slight modifications to your work when dealing with different publishers. That way, if a third party gets hold of your idea and spreads it around, the existence of those modifications reveals exactly who it was that broke the contract. This is just one of many ways to protect your idea.
Fourthly, all this has very little to do with the economic calculation argument.
Try to understand the following:
The monopoly price of idea A does not give you information regarding the success, and therefore viability, of uninvented idea B. All it does, is give you information as to the viability of re-creating idea A, which you do not need to do because idea A has already been created.
The monopoly price of idea C does not improve the calculation of the viability of producing entity D that requires idea C. All it does is decrease the viability of producing entity D because the monopoly price is always going to be higher than the free-market price (which, given enough time, will become zero).Andras, you haven’t seemed to grasp the fact that intangible entities do not need to be “owned” to have a price. “Possession” is all that is required. Why? Because intangible entities are “indestructible” and “multiply” when communicated to another person. There is no need for “ownership” in order for prices to emerge.
Tangible entities can be modified, damaged, consumed, destroyed, etc and do not multiply when given to another person. We need a further condition, “ownership”, in order for the trade of tangible entities and therefore the emergence of prices. - December 22, 2009 at 5:26 pm
-
@Jay,
You are always using examples of copyright issues where creations of single contributors enter the market. I agree, in those cases it might work, especially when the creator is an altruist.
However, I see the impossibility of cooperation where creative minds come together with each other, with investors, with managers and marketers. E.g., a scientific project. In this case inventor’s ideas are competing for capital then capital competes for the professionals of ideas in a whirlwind of feed backs. The tangible product is somewhere decades away, you can not use them as reference. How do you keep track who did what and most importantly when. How do you rank them. The patent system is a catalogue of this information as well. How do you do research in cooperation without becoming all of this activity just something like herding cats? It might be trivial for you but if you knew scientist this single question would give you pause.
Some say “IT” is currently a mess. I don’t care when biotech works. You want to throw away centuries of evolution to satisfy your “revolutionary” quest. It is never abolish IT patents. It is always abolish patents (and IP)!
By the way, when I know something, however “intangible” it is, that saves your life, your existence depends on it, that is ownership. You will be happy to trade it for almost any price. Possession is what you have if you wanted it free.
September 11, 2010 at 5:25 pm-
“By the way, when I know something, however “intangible” it is, that saves your life, your existence depends on it, that is ownership. You will be happy to trade it for almost any price. Possession is what you have if you wanted it free.”
Now this is random.
You have possession of the idea. You are the only one who have possession, so you have absolute control. This is not ownership. This is being the only one with the idea.
If he also gets the idea somehow, he possess it as well, at the same time as you.
And there are still no contradictions with lack of ownership, because you could choose to prove to him that your idea works by only applying it in a limited way, and asking him to pay a certain price and/or sign an agreement of not sharing the idea with others in order to get the full treatment.
- December 22, 2009 at 5:40 pm
-
Kerem Tibuk wrote:
“Now, coming to external. Humans are not spirits or ghosts either. According to their nature, they need to occupy space, they need clothing, food, etc.”
Very good. According to the nature of men, they need food, clothing, etc. But why do they need *exclusive* access to articles of clothing, pieces of fruit, etc.? In other words, why do they need *ownership* of these things? Why can’t men share the clothing, fruit, etc.? Because these things cannot be used by two men at the same time. Only one man at a time can benefit from any given article of clothing, piece of fruit, etc. (In fact, since a piece of fruit is consumed when it is eaten, two men can’t even eat it in succession, as they could wear an article of clothing in succession.) If these goods were superabundant, like air, there wouldn’t be a problem. But they are not superabundant, they are limited in supply; they are scarce. If they weren’t scarce, if we lived in a world of superabundance of material goods, then private property wouldn’t be necessary. In fact, if we lived in this land of Cockaigne, then claiming something as your own private property would probably be considered rude and unethical! It’s only because of the scarce nature of material goods that this is not the case.
Once again, the ethical concept of ownership specifies the right relationship between different individuals with respect to material goods. That being the case, it must take into consideration both the nature of men and the nature of material goods. If you take into account only the nature of the men, your analysis in incomplete, one-sided, and thus necessarily incorrect.
“Homesteading only needs an individual and a nature given resource. It doesn’t need a second or third party to be present, or some arbitrary condition like movability or scarcity.”
The concept of ownership may not need multiple individuals or economic scarcity to be *present*. But it does need both multiple individuals and scarcity in order to be *relevant*. Ownership is a claim to the exclusive right to control a given object. If there are no other men in the world, then this exclusive right is superfluous; there are no other men in the world to contend with you over the object. If the object is not an economically scarce object, then this exclusive right is again superfluous, because superabundance renders this right unneseccary.
In short, your mistake is your contention that scarcity is an “arbitary condition”. Scarcity is an *essential* property of material goods with respect to the concept of ownership, because without it, ownership is not necessary. That is, scarcity is part of the *essence* of material goods with respect to the concept of ownership, not just an accidental property, like whether or not the object is blue.
- December 22, 2009 at 5:41 pm
-
Kerem Tibuk,
” Every human is the absolute sovereign over his actions. This means he is in absolute control. This is a fact of the universe and a fact. It is an undeniable axiom. Even when some other individual coerces another, the coerced person is the ultimate decision maker. He may comply with the coercer but not because he has no choice as if he is a puppet or an Avatar, but because he choses to do so after evaluating the consequences of his actions. That is why there is a difference between the concepts of “slave” and “puppet”. As Rand put it, you can not make some other think. You may prevent him to think by the use of drugs, for example but he thinks and acts according to his own decisions. ”
To say that a person who is being coerced is a “decision maker” is downright hilarious. When a hold-up man points his gun at me and says “Your life or your money” and I give him my money, are you saying that I am making a choice? Even if so, do you realise that I am making the choice between existence and non-existence? Do you realise that I had made this choice long before, that it is the reason I earned money and that the hold-up man is pushing me back in time to make that same choice again? Do you realise that this is a false choice because of the presence of force? Do you realise that the metaphysical nature of force is essentially that it eliminates the volition in man and reduces him to a sub-human existence (at least during the period of initiation of force)? Do you realise that man whose volition is being disabled by force is not man (consult my earlier definition of man)?
” This is not an “ought” propoposition but an “is” proposition. ”
The only “is” propositions here are
1. Man needs to act to gain value if he chooses to survive
2. Material goods are “value” to man since their appropriate “consumption” enhances his life (this is part of the metaphysical nature of man and the material goods themselves)
3. To “consume”, man must first take act to take possession
4. Man’s mind is his sole guide to action for he is not born with an automatic mechanism that helps him choose the right course of actionOwnership or sovereignty is not implied in these “is” statements.
” This natural law is called different things, like self ownership or self sovereignty. ”
No. These are called suitably as “existence” or “identity”. To bring in “ownership” or “sovereignty” is to introduce stolen concepts.
” Humans are not spirits or ghosts either. According to their nature, they need to occupy space, they need clothing, food, etc. ”
That’s why they need to act. The proximate goal of action is to gain value. The ultimate goal of action is the sustenance of life (happiness being a standard to measure one’s success in doing so in consonance with one’s values).
” This is why they extend themselves, ”
This is where you are losing the plot. This whole concept of “extending themselves” is balderdash; poppycock; unadulterated nonsense; a figment of your fanciful imagination.
The reality is that man acts to gain value. Since man’s range of concept formation is very wide and includes temporal concepts too, he is capable of acting to gain value not just for today but for an entire life-time and even for his progeny, their progeny and so on.
Once he has gained value (actually, possession of material goods that are “value” because they make it possible for him to implement his choice to live), he needs to keep them. When he is the sole living being on an island that can consume that value (actually the material good), he has no need to act to keep it. The only “keeping” he needs to do is to protect it from degradation by the forces of nature.
It is only the presence of other living beings that too could consume the material good (and thus deprive him of the value he has acted to gain) that makes him realise that he needs to protect it from them. This act is what we call exclusion.
Even here, there is a difference between man’s dealing with other men (rational animals with a volitional consciousness) and other animals. With other animals, the only way to protect one’s material possessions is to deny access and if that fails, use force to drive them away. An example of this is when I use a moat-like arrangement (on a plate of course) to prevent ants from getting to a box of sweets that I wish to consume slowly.
When this act of exclusion is applied to rational human beings, we call it staking claim or “homesteading”. Tigers do it too when they spray their urine on trees and rocks to mark out the boundaries of their territory but we do not call it homesteading. That’s because a concept such as homesteading can only be formed by a rational mind. However, the tiger example is useful to show that it is the realisation that there are others who would otherwise attempt to use the same material goods that leads to attempts to mark out what is “mine”.
Even after homesteading, man exists only within the boundary that we call his body. What you call “extensions” are only metaphors that describe how closely he feels related to certain elements of his physical environment. To treat a metaphor as a part of physical reality is a grave error and you are guilty of indulging in it. You are guilty of raising “feelings” to the level of “facts”.
” By doing this they gain property. ”
Sorry!!! They gain possession combined with on-going attempts to exclude. Using the word “property” is a brazen act of smuggling in a concept without defining it in the first place.
” Homesteading only needs an individual and a nature given resource. It doesn’t need a second or third party to be present, or some arbitrary condition like movability or scarcity. It is a purely natural outcome of being a human just like breathing air. ”
Nonsense. Why do human-beings not homestead air? That apart, how conveniently you forget that the need to homestead arises ONLY when there is competition for limited material resources and that man is not capable of forming concepts that he has not experienced directly or indirectly through perception/abstraction/abstraction from abstraction!!! If I am Robinson Crusoe and I find an apple tree on my island, I would not even realise that I need to put a fence around it until Friday comes along and starts eating the apples that grow on that same tree. I take it for granted that the apples shall be available to me whenever I choose to pluck them off the tree.
How conveniently you also forget that “homesteading” is the very act of excluding others from a resource and it is utter stupidity to try to define it in the absence of “others”.
- December 22, 2009 at 5:52 pm
-
Andras,
” Without trade there is no price.
Without price there is no calculation.
Without calculation there is no co-operation.
However, trade is always preceded by due diligence. But due diligence of an idea infects the mind of the potential buyer (and transfers ownership by your standards). Who, in their right mind, would want to offer any original ideas for due diligence without any protection? Only the altruists. ”You are really missing a lot out here. An idea can enhance the value of a material good. As long as I can convince someone of the value my idea can give him (I don’t need to reveal my idea to do this), calculation is possible since the recepient can calculate the additional profits he can gain in the time it takes for his competitors to get the idea and incorporate it in their products too. This calculation makes the calculation of the worth of an idea possible.
So, as long as the producer of an idea is careful enough to withhold it till the price is fixed and the money transfer guaranteed, it is possible to gain by sharing ideas.
So, to say that only altruists would offer original ideas without IP protection is contrary to reality.
- December 22, 2009 at 5:53 pm
-
Russ wrote:
“Scarcity is an *essential* property of material goods with respect to the concept of ownership, because without it, ownership is not necessary. That is, scarcity is part of the *essence* of material goods with respect to the concept of ownership, not just an accidental property, like whether or not the object is blue.”
I should probably have used the word “attribute” instead of the word “property” here. Using the word “property” in two different senses may be confusing:
Scarcity is an *essential* attribute of material goods with respect to the concept of ownership, because without it, ownership is not necessary. That is, scarcity is part of the *essence* of material goods with respect to the concept of ownership, not just an accidental attribute, like whether or not the object is blue.
- December 22, 2009 at 7:13 pm
-
@Bala,
When only one potential inventor tries to improve the existing product your suggestion might work. In that case there is no need for IP protection since you have monopoly by default. But what happens when two show up or, hundreds. How do you rank them? Who promises more? Real due diligence would want to know the background, the idea.
And that is just in the context of the inventor of an original idea and the investor. Every time you reveal it to a (potential) cooperator you will face the same dilemma. Also you have to rank the potential labor force and be sure they don’t become your competitors. Ultimately you spend more time and resources on protection than under the current system with much less efficiency. Just imagine the billion dollar magnitude of drug developments.
(But that is just utilitarian even if it makes cooperation impossible). Welcome to the Manhattan Project of the Science Gulags.
You just need to attach a cardinal number, a price to every competing ideas to rank them. - December 22, 2009 at 8:15 pm
-
For all you pro-IP’ers:
Let’s say I write out a number that nobody has ever written out before. Let’s say it’s a simple counting number, a positive integer to be precise, but in order to avoid all counting numbers that have actually ever been used, let’s say that it’s very large. Do I own this number? Is it my intellectual property?
- December 22, 2009 at 9:03 pm
-
Andras,
” When only one potential inventor tries to improve the existing product your suggestion might work. ”
Firstly, it was not a suggestion. I was trying to show how men of the mind will extract monetary benefit in exchange for their ideas in an IP-free society.
Secondly, what I said is relevant irrespective of whether it is a new product or an improvement of an existing product.
” Just imagine the billion dollar magnitude of drug developments. ”
Interesting to note that IP proponents always come around to this point. How conveniently you ignore the point that in an IP-free market, innovations would be more often incremental in nature and would not involve multi-billion dollar investments.
Further, you are taking the present structure of the market for granted in your discussion without even realising that the present structure is in itself a product of an IP-regime. This is no different from the way IP proponents defend the concept of protecting movies being sold on CDs/DVDs/Blu Rays since millions need to be invested to produce a movie. Since there is a very good parallel, I suggest that you read this article to understand how the healthcare industry (including pharmaceutical research) is likely to work in a free market.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=178
If you doubt the existence of the parallel I am speaking of, ask yourself 2 sets of questions.
1. Would producers of movies release their movies on DVDs if there were no copyright protection? If not, how would they organise the production and distribution process? Has it ever been done in the past and is there room to consider the alternatives feasible? If it has happened in the past, why did it stop happening? (The answer to the last question is obvious – Anti-Trust)
2. Similarly, would manufacturers of drugs release their drugs into the market as they do now in the absence of patent protection? If not, how would they organise the production and distribution process? As in the previous case, has it ever been done in the past and is there room to considering the alternatives feasible? If it has happened in the past, why did it stop happening? - December 23, 2009 at 1:14 am
-
@Bala,
You wrote:”Interesting to note that IP proponents always come around to this point. How conveniently you ignore the point that in an IP-free market, innovations would be more often incremental in nature and would not involve multi-billion dollar investments.”
-Multi-billion dollar investments show the size of co-operations. I believe it is a great thing. I think by saying what you said you assume that an anti-IP regime will be a limitation to co-operations. I agree, it will be, down to close to zero.
I do not know the entertainment industry so I would not be so arrogant to try to regulate it. You should also learn at least the basics of drug research if you want to regulate it. After a short study you would not use an argument of the generic drug industry as the foundation of original research like in your point 2.
IP opponents usually forget that patent life is only 18 years but practically no more than 5-10 years left to capitalize on an innovation. That is the price you pay now for the innovations of multi-billion dollar co-operations. After that it is free prey under the current system.- September 11, 2010 at 5:40 pm
-
“-Multi-billion dollar investments show the size of co-operations. I believe it is a great thing. I think by saying what you said you assume that an anti-IP regime will be a limitation to co-operations. I agree, it will be, down to close to zero.”
You seem to intentionally ignore the point.
Situation 1: One big company spends billions on product A.
Situation 2: Everybody collaborate around making something out of an idea, and that results in Company A, B and C making products that are slight variations and combinations of the present ideas that have been shared. Think how it is with Linux – billions HAS been spent, but not by one single company. It has been spent by so many that the individuals that participate don’t care about the to them minimal effort they spend. - September 11, 2010 at 5:42 pm
-
“IP opponents usually forget that patent life is only 18 years but practically no more than 5-10 years left to capitalize on an innovation.”
Oh, and that is totally not the point. It is the abuse that we want to get rid of, and it is nearly impossible to get rid of the patent trolls’ abuse without getting rid of the entire patent system.
- December 23, 2009 at 4:04 am
-
Jay,
“Did it ever occur to you that we understand your viewpoint on the origins of property and that we are simply trying to demonstrate that there is more complexity to it?”
No it didn’t occur to me because you are still demonstrating that you do not understand what I am trying to say. It probably is my fault to communicate, that is why I still take the time.
“Firstly, the natural law definition of property as expressed by you is already assuming a world in which more than one human being exists. How do I know this? Because the use of the word “ownership” automatically implies that there are others who can own things. ”
Now this is the point where you demonstrate that you do not understand me. “Ownership” doesn’t imply more than one person. You still believe this because you can not cope with the idea that rights arise from the state of the individual. This is the reason I keep saying that you are wrong, when you imply that rights arise from the society. You are not claiming this outright but you are implying it..
Ownership means having sovereignty or control over something. As in self ownership it implies only the individual is in control over himself as I tried to explain above. The second individual doesn’t add anything to the concept of ownership and is not a prerequisite. The second individual only adds the possibility of aggression against ownership.
Let me try to put it with the concepts you use. You keep making a distinction between “property” and “possession”. Lets say we need two different concepts. In that case we can say that, “ownership” is a case of “possession” where there is no aggression towards it by another individual. But I honestly think this distinction is meaningless. I use it only because it might help you understand my point.
Even if we put it this way the sequence of causality remains. First there has to be one individual homesteading and take something in his “possession”. Then and only then another individual may come with two choices regarding that possession. Either he respects it or he agresses against it. This is the point where a choice is present, thus an ethical dilemma.
Lets put it in context.
Catching a fish is an act of homesteading. When I catch the fish, I make the fish mine. Then you come along and you have two choices. Either you accept my sovereignty over the fish or you may aggress against it. I am saying you “ought” to respect it, because this is natural law and if you defy natural law there will be consequences.
OR
Writing a novel is an act of homesteading. When I write the novel I make it mine. Then you come along and you have two choices. Either you accept my sovereignty over the novel or you may aggress against it. I am saying you “ought” to respect it, because this is natural law and if you defy natural law there will be consequences.
December 23, 2009 at 4:24 am-
@Andras:
> By the way, when I know something,
> however “intangible” it is, that saves your life, your
> existence depends on it, that is ownership. You will
> be happy to trade it for almost any price. Possession
> is what you have if you wanted it free.
Do you realise you just proved yourself wrong? If one is willing to pay a price voluntarily, why do you claim that a price doesn’t exist? And why do you need a law that established a supply monopoly? - December 23, 2009 at 4:38 am
-
Bala,
You are having trouble with “is-ought” dichotomy. I can understand this because this subject is controversial in its own right, and because Randian concepts are sometimes confusing.
I believe “ought” can be derived from “is”. Many people don’t but that is ok because in essence all natural rights theorist, including Rand also believes this in essence. Since you claim to be an Objectivist and believe in natural rights, we can say “ought” can be derived from “is”.
Between the two propositions “is” is based on objective reality and no there is no place for “choice”. As in the proposition of A is A. You don’t say A ought to be A, you say A is A.
“Ought” propositions on the other hand assumes there is an agent capable of making a choice.
Rationality of humans is an “is” proposition. This part may confuse an Objectivist because Rand uses the concept of irrational. I think this is a wrong concept and Mises uses it better You can not be irrational. You are either rational or (a)rational. Humans are rational, cats are (a)rational.
What Rand means by irrational is in fact “immoral”. You can be immoral because morality, or ethics in general is about human choices thus they are about “ought” propositions. And on this you can not be amoral although that is a concept that is used as much as irrational. You are either moral, or immoral. You either made the right choice (what you ought to do) or a wrong choice.
Coming back to the self ownership. The proposition that “humans makes their own choices” is an is proposition. A proposition regarding these choices are “ought” propositions.
For example a human can choose life or death. This is necessarily so and an “is” proposition.
A human ought to choose life, is an ought proposition and is about ethics.
“To say that a person who is being coerced is a “decision maker” is downright hilarious.”
No it is not.
“When a hold-up man points his gun at me and says “Your life or your money” and I give him my money, are you saying that I am making a choice?”
Yes, you are choosing life.
“Even if so, do you realise that I am making the choice between existence and non-existence?”
Yes.
“Do you realise that I had made this choice long before, that it is the reason I earned money and that the hold-up man is pushing me back in time to make that same choice again?”
It doesn’t matter when you make the choice, what matters is can you make a choice or not. Humans make this choice in every action they take. If they are acting immorally (or irrationally in Randian terms) they are in fact choosing death.
“Do you realise that this is a false choice because of the presence of force?”
It is a very real choice. It may be immoral on the part of the coercer but the choice is real.
“Do you realise that the metaphysical nature of force is essentially that it eliminates the volition in man and reduces him to a sub-human existence (at least during the period of initiation of force)?”
It doesn’t eliminate volition. But I agree that it in way reduces him because it is an act of defying natural law.
“Do you realise that man whose volition is being disabled by force is not man (consult my earlier definition of man)?”
He is still a man he still makes choices and acts upon them.
“The only “is” propositions here are
1. Man needs to act to gain value if he chooses to survive
2. Material goods are “value” to man since their appropriate “consumption” enhances his life (this is part of the metaphysical nature of man and the material goods themselves)
3. To “consume”, man must first take act to take possession
4. Man’s mind is his sole guide to action for he is not born with an automatic mechanism that helps him choose the right course of action”What you miss here is the concept of “action” you use as a premise presupposes self ownership whether you realize it or not. So in a way my premise is a more basic premise that “human action” premise.
The rest we have be over before. You can also read my responses to Jay because it covers them.
- December 23, 2009 at 4:50 am
-
@Andras:
> On property rights please consult Kerem’s great
> replies.
Do you realise that Kerem opposes patents? How come that you agree with his arguments but come to different conclusions?> Jay Lakner presupposed the existence and
> maintenance of sophisticated industries without the
> potential ability to calculate. I just saw another
> contradiction.
It has been shown several times that the calculation argument does not fit your / Kerem’s descriptions. Allow me to reiterate:1. You have been shown that calculation is empirically possible.
2. Even if you don’t see that as sufficient, you need to show that bundling is an insufficient remedy. If you do this, however, a lot of material goods that cannot be unbundled (for practical or principal reasons) or assigned to outputs on a 1 on 1 basis will also be drawn into the problem, and therefore you would invalidate large parts of existing cost accounting and business processes.
3. Even if you manage that, you need to prove that the calculation argument is causally related to the ability to exclude, and not causally related to the ability to use and to trade.
4. Once you overcome this hurdle, since current laws do not implement ownership of immaterial goods (only restrict their expressions), you would need to propose an alternative implementation that fixes this.
5. Even if you overcome all those hurdles, you still face the problem that trading immaterial goods without the transfer happening on the material level is theoretically impossible, i.e. pure immaterial goods cannot be traded anyway.In my book, I call this epic fail.
> -Multi-billion dollar investments show the size of
> co-operations. I believe it is a great thing. I think by
> saying what you said you assume that an anti-IP
> regime will be a limitation to co-operations. I agree,
> it will be, down to close to zero.
Allow me an alternative interpretation, to show you the things not seen. Huge costs could be also interpreted as a result of protectionism and a stagnating development. Progress is accompanied by a reduction of prices. - December 23, 2009 at 6:53 am
-
I think the discussion is pointless. Kerem has managed to drag you (Russ, Jay, Bala) into the irrelevant. Why? Because even if there was an agreement on whether ownership makes sense with only one person, and on whether non-scarce goods can be owned, that still doesn’t solve any of the issues. There is no explanation forthcoming how that definition helps to demarcate immaterial goods and to determine ownership boundaries, how to decide what portion of the causality scale is relevant for property, why copying word order (copyright) is a no-no but copying composition or functionality (patents) yes-yes, and why the pro IP theory does not at all match the actual implementation.
The agreement on the definition would not solve anything and would not reduce the arbitrariness of conclusions of the pro-IP crowd.
Obviously, to me, it is evident that property is an emergent feature of a society that faces rivalry of goods and has nothing to do with ethics. However, it is also true that the other “definitions” are just a convoluted narrative that explains nothing, just like the debates here demonstrate. To paraphrase Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, if you eliminate the irrelevant, whichever remains, no matter how unappealing, must be the relevant.
- December 23, 2009 at 8:02 am
-
Peter,
The one most important fact of this universe is the law of causality. Everything follows something else. This is also true for arguments. You may find it convenient to jump in the middle assuming axioms you haven’t proved right or thought about and deduce from there but it is not helpful.
That is why we are trying to agree on premises and then go from there.
With you our problem is more fundamental. You do not believe in objective reality. As far as I can tell Bala, Jake or Russ don’t have problem with this but you do.
For us to argue we even have to go farther back. You think you can deny objective reality just in the case of IP but if you try to remove your contradictions and keep your premise, you will see that you will eventually question objective reality regarding tangible objects.
Like when you said,
“Obviously, to me, it is evident that property is an emergent feature of a society that faces rivalry of goods and has nothing to do with ethics. ”
This conclusion, I believe, is the result of our arguments. If we argue further you may, actually will, even question the existence of, or need for ethics in general and claim actions of humans in general is an emergent feature of a society and there is nothing to talk about.
- December 23, 2009 at 8:58 am
-
@Kerem
Yet again you demonstrate all my objections. Half of your post contains tautologies and the rest is dragging the discussion into the irrelevant, the vague and the arbitrary.On a more general scope, there are two problems with your arguments. The first one is that you do not follow your claims to their logical conclusions. The second one is that you fail to address the holes of your arguments.
As I said before, logic trumps ethics. Your arguments fail in the logic area, therefore it makes no sense to discuss your ethical groundwork. On the other hand, my objections to you do not require any ethical framework, they merely show logical inconsistencies. As I hope to have demonstrated sufficiently, these inconsistencies remain even if I accept (for the sake of your discussion) your ethical premises.
- December 23, 2009 at 9:04 am
-
Kerem Tibuk,
Kerem, it seems that every time someone replies to you pointing out 4 or 5 faults in your argument, you pick the one which you feel is the weakest and reply only to that.
You completely ignored my other criticisms and only addressed the one where you felt we could have a “yes it is, no it isn’t, yes it is, no it isn’t” argument on.
And even with this argument you are completely wrong. You seem to be unable to put yourself in the mind of a human living in the world without any other humans. If you managed to do so, you would immediately realize that “ownership” becomes a nonsensical concept.
I’m also beginning to think the problem might be that you don’t know the definition of the word “ownership”.But no matter. It is more important to point out your complete refusal to address the following:
– “Extending” is not defined.
– “External” is not defined.
– Homesteading is a subjective process.
– You make the assumption that “external” refers to both tangible and intangible entities, yet you have not accounted for their different objective characteristics.The property theory of natural rights, as you expressed it, can NOT be based on objective reality with the above problems present. If you cannot understand this, then you simply do not understand what “objective reality” means.
December 23, 2009 at 6:59 pm-
I’ve become just about 100% anti-IP. I’m pro actual-property. And the lameness and shallowness of the pro-IP arguments are just astounding.
- December 23, 2009 at 7:57 pm
-
Kerem Tibuk,
” You are having trouble with “is-ought” dichotomy. ”
I am not because I see no dichotomy. However, I see the real problem as your derivation of utterly laughable “oughts” because of ridiculous choices of what “is”.
” It is a very real choice. It may be immoral on the part of the coercer but the choice is real. ”
This is going from ridiculous to ludicruous. “Choice” requires the possibility of more than 1 option to choose from. To a person who has chosen life, death is NOT at option. Your stubborn insistence does not make it one.
” It doesn’t eliminate volition. ”
It does. That is the metaphysical nature of force. The presence of force always introduces disvalue into the value equations and eliminates the very possibility of acting on one’s own volition. Left to myself, I would not even consider the disvalue as one of the options available. It would always be OUTSIDE my value equations. It is the gun and the threat to pull the trigger with the certainty that the bullet would pass through me terminating my life that brings it in. That this escapes you explains a lot of your errors.
” He is still a man he still makes choices and acts upon them. ”
He is a shell of a man. A rational animal with a consciousness is not “man” as fits the nature of man. By his nature, volition is an inalienable aspect of man. Go ahead and deny it to support your nonsensical theories.
” What you miss here is the concept of “action” you use as a premise presupposes self ownership whether you realize it or not. ”
Unadulterated nonsense. Life by the very defnition I am using is a sequence of self-generated, self-sustaining actions. Action is a basic attribute of life – a a part of the very definition of the concept “life”. Life is an EXISTENT. There is at this stage no room or necessity for the concept of “self-ownership” (whatever that nonsensical term means).
” The rest we have be over before. You can also read my responses to Jay because it covers them. ”
Yeah!! And I have repeatedly shown that every “argument” of yours is utter garbage. Your “theory” of natural rights is garbled nonsense because your definition of the “nature” of man is laughable at best. Your concepts of “homesteading” and “morality” are a monstrosity because they are incomplete and are rooted in certain arbitrary constructs rather than on reality. You have not given a a definition of “extending”. Your concept of “sovereignty” has no morality attached as shown by the lack of an answer to my question on what it is (and is not) proper for a man to extend his “sovereignty’ over. You have failed to identify what is “external”. Above all, the epistemology you seem to display is just not man’s. You fail to understand that there is no existent that you can call “property”. You are unable to see that “property” is only a concept that describes man’s relationship to physical existents, specifically the moral aspects of the possession of (and the subsequent exclusion of others from) specific existents by specific individuals. You therefore talk as though property “exists”.
You fail to recognise that the concept of non initiation of force is extremely fundamental because it is a logical corollary of the Right to Life – the fount of all rights. You therefore have no problem defining the concept “property” in an arbitrary manner irrespective of the clashes such a definition has (and has to have) with the concept “Right to Life”.
I tried showing the flaws, but you insist on repeating the same thing and avoid addressing my criticism (probably because it stings). Unless you show some honesty and address my criticism, there is actually no point in continuing the discussion. The only reason I am arguing with you is that I think you are polluting these comment threads with high-sounding nonsense which irks me.
- December 23, 2009 at 8:08 pm
-
Kerem Tibuk,
I forgot to add one point. Your concept of “causality” is mystical. I have only one point to make on causality. Existence exists. That is axiomatic. It is utterly ridiculous to talk of a “cause” for existence. To talk of a “cause” for existence, you need to look outside of existence, i.e., in non-existence and say that existence sprang from non-existence. Like saying that it is the “0″ that explains the concept “1″. Reification of the zero is what Ayn Rand called that (and so do I).
There can only be a cause for existence of a particular kind/form, but that falls in the realm of science, not of philosophy.
- December 23, 2009 at 8:53 pm
-
Kerem Tibuk,
” I think this is a wrong concept and Mises uses it better You can not be irrational. ”
The cause of your confusion is obvious. “Human Action” was a treatise on ECONOMICS, not on philosophy. His statement was apt as a foundation for economics and does not in any way contradict Ayn Rand’s position on rationality. Frankly, it is you who are guilty of taking Mises’ statement out of context and twisting it completely out of shape.
May 18, 2011 at 4:25 am-
There are actually loads of particulars like that to take into consideration. That may be a great level to bring up. I offer the thoughts above as normal inspiration but clearly there are questions like the one you convey up where crucial factor might be working in sincere good faith. I don?t know if greatest practices have emerged around issues like that, but I am positive that your job is clearly identified as a fair game. Each boys and girls feel the impact of only a second’s pleasure, for the remainder of their lives.
{ 195 comments… read them below or add one }
December 20, 2009 at 8:21 pm-
@C.H. Hellström: I was actually quite fascinated with the writings of Ayn Rand during college. I read Fountainhead, Atlus Shrugged, and every essay compilation I came across (including other contributors like Greenspan). I read nothing associated with Rand with any thorough contemplation of the relation of rational adults to children, other than the broad claim that children and inheritance acted like a preferential-property right of the parent. The general sense I got is that she viewed children as property. That’s why I got over Rand. Please direct me to anything written by Ayn Rand that counters that view.
Second, I apologize for the double-post — I got an error on the first attempt, that looked like some sort of Windows file permission error.
Last, I wouldn’t mention this, but the Radio Frequency as property comments keep creeping in here. SK is correct that any EM debate is unrelated to IP. However, OFMDA encoding, as any form of frequency time-sharing, negate any arguments made here on EM ownership alone. That is sufficient to end the usefulness of further debate on the issue. Newer technologies like UWB, MIMO, beamforming, and Cognitive Radio drive the EM property argument further into the ground. This is also ignoring the basic physical fact that RF has the same properties as visible light spectrum EM, except for wavelength, meaning it is subject to the same properties of reflection and occlusion that make the camera obscura (i.e. human eyes) possible. Thus “owning RF” is no different than “owning colors”, which I hope is obviously ridiculous. The problem isn’t the nature of RF, but the current sensing and sending equipment, which is held back by both IP and attempts to force unnatural ownership rights on RF. Eliminate both, and suddenly invisible waves are a lot more useful. Google “Open Spectrum” for some succinct sources on the issue.
December 20, 2009 at 8:39 pm-
Fred McTaker wrote:
“Last, I wouldn’t mention this, but the Radio Frequency as property comments keep creeping in here. SK is correct that any EM debate is unrelated to IP.”
I think that Silas’…. persistence in pestering Kinsella causes many to either not see, or forget, that he does have a valid point. With *any* property right, including the normal kind that applies to physical property, a limitation on the rights of others to do as they might wish with their property is implied. For instance, my property right to my real estate implies a limit to your ability to use your bulldozer to drive through it. Part of Silas’ point, I think, is that if it is OK to limit peoples’ rights to do as they wish with their own property in the case of bulldozers, there can be no *principled* reason why the same cannot be said for radio transmitters or computers. So, I can see his point that, if I believe that it’s OK to restrict other peoples’ rights to use their bulldozers as they wish, then I should not object *in principle* to to the restriction of other peoples’ rights to use their computers as they wish, and if I argue that regular property rights are valid but IP is wrong *in principle*, then I am contradicting myself.
Having said that, I don’t find his arguments equating IP and EM spectrum rights *in practice* to be at all convincing, because EM spectrum and IP don’t have the same fundamental nature, Silas’ “pattern instantiation” argument notwithstanding.
December 20, 2009 at 9:28 pm-
Kinsella’s writings convinced me some years ago on the issue of IP. It was the last step in my movement to anarchism/voluntaryism from unprincipled minarchism (but I repeat myself).
- December 20, 2009 at 9:51 pm
-
RWW wrote:
“It was the last step in my movement to anarchism/voluntaryism from unprincipled minarchism (but I repeat myself).”
Didn’t we just recently have a discussion about the meaning of the words “intelligent and civil”?
December 20, 2009 at 10:23 pm-
I started my career as a software engineer in 1999 and by 2002 I was certain technology patents (specifically software patents) caused more harm than good. What I’ve seen over the last 6 years has only made me more certain.
December 20, 2009 at 10:59 pm-
I came to be against intellectual monopoly mostly on my own. The lack of scarcity in ideas resonated with me.
I was aware of Stephan’s work, but he is an imposing intellectual figure, and his style is not at the level of a layman, which I was and continue to be to this day.
Since that time, I have watched Kinsella and others debate this on the Mises blog, as well as being affected by the ideas and works of Jeffrey Tucker, Boldrine and Levin. Also, we have had many extended debates in the Mises Community Forum, which I feel is a great place to masticate ideas until they are nothing more than truth.
The arguments against intellectual monopoly are very simple. If you support monopoly or privilege, you are working against liberty.
December 21, 2009 at 1:00 am-
I read Kinsella’s “Against Intellectual Property” about a year ago, very skeptical going in, and completely persuaded by the end. The indisputable fact that supposed intellectual property rights usurp tangible property rights was the major factor (but by no means the only one) in my conversion. Carrying IP to its logical conclusion would produce a situation so absurd as to render human life and action effectively impossible.
As an aspiring novelist, recognition and acceptance of the illegitimacy of IP has some pretty far-reaching implications, but I’ve reached the point that I find the possibilities exciting rather than disturbing.
December 21, 2009 at 1:03 am-
I believe K. Tibuk is right in saying “property rights means owning the fruits of your labour” as opposed “resolving conflicts” as J. Lakner reckons. Tibuk’s notion of property rights hones in on the ‘homesteading’ principle – you only gain ownership over unowned resources you can actually use rather than Lakner’s concept of ‘territoriality’ – the first to fence off land owns it regardless if they will then leave 99% idle except to defend it from trespassers.
At least Saerden has the honesty to say “if people can’t get return on their inventions/innovation without I.P. protection then it’s not going to get done in the free market. After all, if Libertarians hate current I.P. why would they like a similar I.P. system if it could emerge in the free market – you will still have someone telling you what you can and can’t do with your own property. If drugs couldn’t operate without I.P. as they can’t recoup their costs then their innovations won’t occur. Then again, reading what Libertarians think of disease at LewRockwell.com they assume any cure rests in their garden or doesn’t the disease doesn’t exist at all.
December 21, 2009 at 1:13 am-
“You are describing possession, not property.
If there is only one human being, there are things he does possess and things he does not possess. But there is no property.It is only when additional human beings are added to the equation that the concept of property emerges.
The distinction between possession and property is clearly where this difference of opinion lies.”
The reason you are making this distinction is, you still assume the main premise I am trying to refute. You have to able to check your premises and at least assume the opposite but you are not doing that.
You are still assuming rights are derived from the society. You think Crusoe can possess (whatever that really means) something he homesteaded but can not own it (owning implies property) and only after Friday comes to the island there can be some kind of social contract regarding resources.
I claim rights are natural and individual. They exist and they are carried over to the society. Crusoe doesn’t need Friday to exist or have rights, mainly property rights. Crusoe is the ultimate free man. He can not be freer if he wanted to. But he needs division of labor to better his life and that requires society. So the point is keeping the liberties he had, carrying them to the society and also take advantage of the society.
To me the premise “property rights are established to resolve conflict regarding scarce resources” is as arbitrary as “property rights are established to resolve conflict regarding movable resources” and don’t think there are nobody that thinks the second premise is true, either.
Also the premise is absurd on so many levels.
Who established this rule? When was it established? Was it established at some specific time, or is it an ongoing process? Since nobody challenged you regarding the shirt you wear, does this mean the shirt is not your property but merely in your possession now? Why would there be conflict regarding scarce resources only? Is it because scarcity is a condition of supply and it implies there should be value to things with limited supply thus a desire? Isn’t this bringing value, economics, into a field of ethics? What if something is scarce but not demanded at all? It should be property according to the premise, but whose property will it be?
- December 21, 2009 at 1:15 am
-
Peter,
I don’t thing your knowledge in economics is sufficient for a debate on the calculation argument. We tried it and failed.
- December 21, 2009 at 1:20 am
-
Dixie,
” If you support monopoly or privilege, you are working against liberty.”
Fine. Then go to the logical conclusion and advocate full blown socialism because private property means having monopoly privilege regarding an object.
Lets abolish all property and liberate everyone.
These are all Freudian slips and you get upset when I use the term “IP socialist”
- December 21, 2009 at 1:23 am
-
Russ,
“You are conveniently forgetting one little thing about IP vs. regular property. When a real socialist government decides that a person’s property should be socialized, then that person no longer has the ability to use his property. When an “IP socialist” government decides that a person’s “intellectual property” should be “socialized”, that person still has the ability to use that “property” himself. He may not be able to *profit* from it as he would like, but he can still *use* it. Only by ignoring this fundamental difference between real property and “intellectual property” can one conclude that the socializing of real property and “intellectual property” are equivalent.”
Nobody is talking about the right to profit. Property is about extending your sovereignty. One may profit if others value it or one may not. This doesn’t change the fact regarding ownership.
- December 21, 2009 at 1:27 am
-
Russ,
“You are conveniently forgetting one little thing about IP vs. regular property. When a real socialist government decides that a person’s property should be socialized, then that person no longer has the ability to use his property. When an “IP socialist” government decides that a person’s “intellectual property” should be “socialized”, that person still has the ability to use that “property” himself. He may not be able to *profit* from it as he would like, but he can still *use* it. Only by ignoring this fundamental difference between real property and “intellectual property” can one conclude that the socializing of real property and “intellectual property” are equivalent.”
Nobody is talking about the right to profit. Property is about extending your sovereignty. One may profit if others value it or one may not. This doesn’t change the fact regarding ownership.
- December 21, 2009 at 1:36 am
-
I agree with the argument that property is meaningless as a concept in the case of one person living in complete isolation. That doesn’t make it a “social contract” or negate its status as natural law or anything of the sort. It simply requires the context of human interaction to have any real meaning, just as a second point is required for the concept of distance to have any meaning.
December 21, 2009 at 2:39 am-
First stumbled upon Kinsella’s arguments 2 years ago, then gradually worked my way to an anarcho-capitalist position. Property rights are (I think) derived from man’s identity (his nature). There is nothing natural about restricting the free flow of ideas/information, because ideas are not naturally scarce.
Illegitimate property is that which is gained at the expense of another. But “gaining” an idea does not diminish that idea as it is held by anyone else. It does nothing to infringe on them.
- December 21, 2009 at 3:26 am
-
Kerem Tibuk wrote:
“Nobody is talking about the right to profit.”
Well, that’s certainly what most people in the software or “digital content” industry care about.
“Property is about extending your sovereignty. One may profit if others value it or one may not. This doesn’t change the fact regarding ownership.”
I am assuming that you are coming from a sort of Lockean angle here? That is, by virtue of the labor that you put into something, you “extend your sovereignty” over it? When it comes to physical property, I would certainly agree that this is a reasonable argument, but that is because physical property is economically scarce. For instance, when the first man put his labor into a tree trunk and made a wheel out of it, he can be said to then own that wheel, and others can’t rightfully take it. If he could not, then that wheel would have been of no use to him. He did not, however, own the *idea* of the wheel. Someone else could then take that idea, and apply his labor to another tree trunk and own another wheel. To use Silas’ terminology, when the first man “instantiated the pattern” of a wheel on a tree trunk, he owned that instance of the pattern, but not the pattern itself. It’s the same with software, for instance. When you instantiate a pattern on a hard disk (you write a program), you certainly own that instance of the pattern (because it’s on your hard disk), but I can’t see how it justifies you owning the pattern itself.
In short, I think you’re applying the “labor theory of ownership”, which works well enough for regular physical property, to a case where it doesn’t properly apply. The reason it doesn’t apply is because, while regular property is a scarce economic resource (i.e. it can’t be easily copied), intellectual “property” isn’t (i.e. it can be easily copied).
December 21, 2009 at 3:27 am-
@Kerem Tibuk:
What a convenient excuse. - December 21, 2009 at 4:23 am
-
But Russ isn’t the ‘labour theory of ownership’ the basis of ‘homesteading’?
December 21, 2009 at 4:38 am-
Kerem Tibuk,
” You are still assuming rights are derived from the society. ”
Still dishing out the same “argument”. That “rights” are a moral concept defining and sanctioning man’s freedom of action in a social CONTEXT does not mean that rights originate from society. It only means that absent a society (read other people), the concept “property” has no meaning to a rational human being (sorry about the redundancy). To Robinson Crusoe, there are only “existents” and “possessions”. For instance, Crusoe himself exists as do all the plants, trees and animals as well as inanimate objects that are found on the island. They are all existents. Only those things which Crusoe has in his physical grasp constitute his possessions. He is free to take possession of any existent at any point in time (as long as it exists when he decides to take possession).
It is only the fact that one is dealing with other rational animals that can lead Crusoe (as it would any man) to the moral concept that we call “property”. It is only the question “who ought to be in possession of a given existent?” that defines the concept “property”. The “ought” here is a moral one. It is only when an existent could be in your hand or mine but “ought” to be in yours, as determinable based on a rational moral framework, that the existent is deemed to be your “property”.
Please also bear in mind that talking of a concept “property” w.r.t. Robinson Crusoe (defined here as the concept of a man who has always been isolated from other human beings) reflects a very poor epistemology.
The source of the concept “right to property” is still man’s nature – that of a rational animal with a volitional consciousness, whose values are not automatic and given but need to be gained and then kept. In the absence of a society, i.e., other men, there is no possibility of “taking” of a man’s possessions by another rational animal and hence no concept “property”.
How you take this to be a “social contract” theory still beats me!!!
- December 21, 2009 at 4:44 am
-
Kerem Tibuk,
How about stating your definition of the concept “property” (since you know mine)? I am quite certain that that would be a good point to continue the discussion.
- December 21, 2009 at 4:49 am
-
Even if one approaches the property definition from the homesteading angle rather than scarcity, the argument doesn’t finish here. As I explained several times before, if you allow homesteading of immaterial features, anything causally related to an action can be potentially claimed to be homesteaded by that action. So you face the dillemma of demarcation. You need to specify where on the causality scale the property ends. If you draw it at the maximum, all positive externalities become property rights violations. Since this is not a claim IP proponents are making, it means that while causality might be a necessary homesteading condition, it is not a sufficient one and additional rules are required. IP proponents have not described those rules.
- December 21, 2009 at 5:14 am
-
Russ,
“I am assuming that you are coming from a sort of Lockean angle here? That is, by virtue of the labor that you put into something, you “extend your sovereignty” over it? When it comes to physical property, I would certainly agree that this is a reasonable argument, but that is because physical property is economically scarce”
I find the issue of scarcity irrelevant. It has no bearing on the concept of property and it is a purely arbitrary prerequisite. Also it is contradictory in the sense that it doesn’t follow cause and effect.
As I said, one can also say and has said that “property is established regarding only movable objects” and deny land can be property.
In that case I would state my case the same way and say movability has nothing to do with property and whoever advocates abolishment of land property is a “land socialist”.
And then, the “land socialist” would claim, assuming his conclusion, since land can not be property, the term “land socialist” is an insult, and this would go on and on.
- December 21, 2009 at 5:17 am
-
Peter,
I dont know what to say. I stated at the beginning of the calculation argument that,
Without private property there can be no exchanges. Without any exchanges there can not be prices. Without prices there can not be any signals, directing production regarding scarce resources. And I applied this to the production of IP:
And you talk about cost accounting and how costs determine prices.
In order for us to argue on this line we have to go all the way back and argue economic theory first, and that is a taunting task for me.
- December 21, 2009 at 5:22 am
-
Kerem Tibuk,
” Without private property there can be no exchanges. ”
Wrong right there. Only “possession” is required for exchange. “Property” is the recognition that a particular state of “possession” (by a particular person and not by any other) is morally sound.
- December 21, 2009 at 5:40 am
-
Bala,
I repeated my understanding of property many times. I assume we all agree man is sovereign over his own mind and body and this is a fact of this universe. This is generally called self ownership. Property is the extension of an individuals sovereignty (self ownership) to the external.
The defining characteristic of property is not that if the individual can protect this extension or not. If someone stronger comes and aggres against it this is a violation of natural law, just as jumping of a cliff and expecting to fly is violation of natural law. Both violations have consequences.
I define property, and Jay for example calls it “possession” and makes a distinction because he thinks rights originate in society.
You are making the same mistake. You are both talking about natural rights and also deny rights originate in isolation (from the individual not necessarily in deserted island) and they are carried to the society. If you claim rights aren’t meaningful to the individual, you are in fact claiming they originate from society.
We know there are people who actually claim rights originate from society and and individual is only a part of the society. These people mostly have inner consistency but of course their view contradict with reality.
If you claim rights are only meaningful in social context how do you think two views can be distinguished. They are saying the same thing, but they are at least more consistent and don’t just stop with the property, and extend this rights based on social context further.
If “property is established to resolve conflicts regarding scarce resources” is a type of social contract what can possible be a social contract?
What is missing when Robinson Crusoe homesteads and makes something his regarding property? What ever is meant by owning property Crusoe has it.
The only thing that is missing is the possibility of aggression coming from another individual.
And that is the twisted logic of putting effect before the cause.
There has to be a homesteading (which means means making something nature given your property) before any possibility of aggression arises. Thus possibility of aggression can not come before homesteading of property.
- December 21, 2009 at 5:48 am
-
Peter,
Your problem with IP (regarding ethical issue not the calculation argument) is your views regarding objective reality.
At least in the case of IP you don’t believe in objective reality.
As you remember, you asked me to read your book review and tell you the book in subject.
You are assuming your vagueness or my ignorance regarding the book you read prior to the review is relevant to the fact you read a certain book or not.
I can say to you that I just ate a round sweet fruit and ask you if I have in fact ate a pear or an apple.
You may know the fruit or may not know. But the fact is I ate an apple doesn’t change. That is the objective reality.
A poem written by Crusoe doesn’t depend on other people to exist. It exits where someone reads or not.
And if you mean when someone take an idea, and mixes it with something he has in his head that is unique to him, that is not different than taking someones apples and making an apple pie, or taking someones marble and making a state out of it.
- December 21, 2009 at 5:50 am
-
Should have been,
“If “property is established to resolve conflicts regarding scarce resources” is NOT a type of social contract what can possible be a social contract?
- December 21, 2009 at 5:58 am
-
Bala,
“Wrong right there. Only “possession” is required for exchange. “Property” is the recognition that a particular state of “possession” (by a particular person and not by any other) is morally sound.”
Have you read Mises at all or at least “Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth”?
- December 21, 2009 at 6:17 am
-
Kerem Tibuk,
Please explain why distress sales happen at prices far below market prices.
Please also explain sales of stolen goods because by no stretch of imagination can you call a stolen good as the thief’s “property”.
- December 21, 2009 at 6:47 am
-
@Kerem Tibuk:
> Your problem with IP (regarding ethical issue not the
> calculation argument) is your views regarding
> objective reality.
Your problem is that you see objective reality where there is only subjective one. Not only that, but you even fail to characterise its features (i.e. fail to demarcate).> At least in the case of IP you don’t believe in
> objective reality.
I believe to have proven sufficiently that immaterial goods do not have objective features.> As you remember, you asked me to read your book
> review and tell you the book in subject.
Yes, I remember that vividly.> You are assuming your vagueness or my ignorance
> regarding the book you read prior to the review is
> relevant to the fact you read a certain book or not.
No. I am assuming that, since having all the facts is objectively insufficient to make a conclusion, you would finally come to the realisation that the immaterial features are subjective. I read both Harry Potter and Ender’s Game. I am not hiding it. You have all the facts. There is nothing else hidden from you. Again: if you have all the facts, and that is insufficient to determine the answer, that means the connection between the answer and the facts is subjective.The only thing you don’t know is what was happening in my head while I was writing the summary. But for you that should be irrelevant, because that would also only prove that the summary doesn’t have an objective meaning, but depends on my thought processes.
> I can say to you that I just ate a round sweet fruit and
> ask you if I have in fact ate a pear or an apple.
You horribly misrepresent my question. You claim that missing facts lead to inability to make a conclusion. Which is perfectly fine and has nothing to do with my argument.I have already explained this before, yet you ignore it once again.
> You may know the fruit or may not know. But the fact
> is I ate an apple doesn’t change. That is the objective
> reality.
And this relates to my counterargument how?> A poem written by Crusoe doesn’t depend on other
> people to exist. It exits where someone reads or not.
Let us assume that the immaterial entity “Crusoe’s poem” exists. How do you objectively determine its boundaries?> And if you mean when someone take an idea, and
> mixes it with something he has in his head that is
> unique to him, that is not different than taking
> someones apples and making an apple pie, or
> taking someones marble and making a state out of
> it.
Since it is impossible to take an idea into one’s head without mixing it with something that is already there, the whole sentence makes no sense. - December 21, 2009 at 6:57 am
-
Bala,
“Please explain why distress sales happen at prices far below market prices.”
No sale happens below market prices. Market price is the price a sale is made.
But if you mean ask the reason why some people sell below prices that have been observed in the near past, the reason is simple. They value the money more than the goods they let go at that moment. If you wonder why this happens, there can be many reasons but I don’t think it is relevant.
“Please also explain sales of stolen goods because by no stretch of imagination can you call a stolen good as the thief’s “property”.”
You are getting confused by two issues in two different contexts.
A context where private property rights are recognized and there is theft (theft implies there are property rights but they are violated) and the sale of the stolen good,
is not the same as,
A context where no private property rights are recognized and not exchange can take place. In this construct it is imagined that we are dealing with the perfect socialist man, a voluntary slave to the society with no problems of greed and motivation. Even then it doesn’t work as Mises showed.
December 21, 2009 at 7:11 am-
Bala,
“Please explain why distress sales happen at prices far below market prices.”
What do you mean when you say “below market prices?” Distressed sales necessarily alter the market price to a lower level. Additional buyers, who previously lacked adequate purchasing power, are now able to engage in exchange. That comment is pure confusion.
“Please also explain sales of stolen goods”
You’re presupposing the existence of property rights in order to validate your absurd argument. Either way, property rights can be violated. I can be enslaved, and my watch can be taken from me forcefully. The former condition implies that I’m not given a wage (the price of labor) for my productions. Kerem Tibuk’s argument holds.
- December 21, 2009 at 7:12 am
-
@Kerem Tibuk:
> I dont know what to say.
Maybe instead of writing you should read a book about cost accounting and how it is used in order to facilitate business decisions. Even before that, maybe you should try to apply your own theory into simple things of everyday life and see if anything is missing.> I stated at the beginning of the calculation argument
> that,
> Without private property there can be no exchanges.
Objection 1: immaterial goods cannot be exchanged, only their manifestations (B&L point that out)
Objection 2: current legal system does not implement ownership of immaterial goods
Objection 3: bundling is sufficient to allow exchange
Objection 4: cost accounting teaches you to calculate prices even if unbundling and 1 on 1 assignment is impossible or impracticalEach of the objections is sufficient to poke a hole in your argument.
> Without any exchanges there can not be prices.
This is true. But see above.> Without prices there can not be any signals, directing
> production regarding scarce resources.
This can be interpreted in multiple ways. Allow my own interpretation: absent prices, the business owner cannot use calculations to help him make business decisions.> And you talk about cost accounting and how costs
> determine prices.
I think you drag the discussion into the irrelevant. It would be more clear to you if you understood cost accounting and its applications in business decision making, for example how one can assign indirect costs to outputs, do a return on investment analysis or determine the optimal production plan.> In order for us to argue on this line we have to go all
> the way back and argue economic theory first, and
> that is a taunting task for me.
You arguments fail on basic things of everyday life. Understanding economic theory has nothing to do with it. - December 21, 2009 at 7:12 am
-
“No. I am assuming that, since having all the facts is objectively insufficient to make a conclusion, you would finally come to the realisation that the immaterial features are subjective. I read both Harry Potter and Ender’s Game. I am not hiding it. You have all the facts. There is nothing else hidden from you. Again: if you have all the facts, and that is insufficient to determine the answer, that means the connection between the answer and the facts is subjective.”
Me knowing the facts is irrelevant. What matters is if you can distinguish between two books, or rather distinguish a book given by nature, a book you have written and a book written by someone else.
Because ethical choice of acting regarding the three options and which is actually the case, is yours and yours only.
If it is nature given, you may homestead it.
If you wrote it, it is yours and you may do whatever you wish with it..
If someone else wrote it, it is his/her property.
- December 21, 2009 at 7:24 am
-
Peter Surda,
“Objection 4: cost accounting teaches you to calculate prices even if unbundling and 1 on 1 assignment is impossible or impractical”
You can’t calculate costs if there are not prices. Cost and supply curves are merely older demand curves–which are contingent upon property ownership.
“I think you drag the discussion into the irrelevant. It would be more clear to you if you understood cost accounting and its applications in business decision making, for example how one can assign indirect costs to outputs, do a return on investment analysis or determine the optimal production plan.”
That can only tell you the optimal production method for that period–it’s static. Without private property and free exchange you cannot have meaningful prices which allocate scarce resources in a dynamic economy.
- December 21, 2009 at 7:32 am
-
Kerem Tibuk,
All I am saying is that for AN exchange (in the singular) to happen, I need to be in possession of something you want while simultaneously you need to be in possession of something I want. All that is required for an exchange to happen is that the subjective valuations of the two individuals should be such that each thinks he gains.
No concept of property is required for this. All it requires is for both of us (you and me) to either realise that exchange is the only way of getting what we each want or to decide that exchange is a better way (“better” here meaning that which will serve my interests more effectively) of dealing with the other person than snatching that which we want using brute force.
- December 21, 2009 at 7:36 am
-
Bala,
“All I am saying is that for AN exchange (in the singular) to happen, I need to be in possession of something you want while simultaneously you need to be in possession of something I want. All that is required for an exchange to happen is that the subjective valuations of the two individuals should be such that each thinks he gains.”
Really? Do they not require possession over the goods they wish to exchange? What are they exchanging, their thoughts?
- December 21, 2009 at 7:39 am
-
@Kerem Tibuk:
> Me knowing the facts is irrelevant. What matters is if
> you can distinguish between two books, or rather
> distinguish a book given by nature, a book you have
> written and a book written by someone else.
Again, you drag the discussion into the irrelevant. Allow me first finish the first part and than show the error in your objection.My summary experiment showed that immaterial goods do not have objective features or boundaries. Since they do not have objective boundaries, you cannot claim they are natural. End of story.
Now, I also showed that under certain circumstances, you cannot distinguish between two books. Yet you claim that they are different books. Why?
The whole situation demonstrate issues with you arguments. In some cases, you claim good A and good B are the same, and it’s obvious, without any explanation or evidence. Then you claim that good C and good D are different, and it’s obvious, again without any explanation or evidence. You have yet to explain how you draw these seemingly arbitrary conclusions.
- December 21, 2009 at 7:46 am
-
@Kerem Tibuk:
> You can’t calculate costs if there are not prices.
In order for that to be correct in the way you mean it, it would also apply to all goods that cause indirects costs. Which is obviously not true, cost accounting teaches you how to calculate using indirect costs.Why don’t you address objections 1-3?
- December 21, 2009 at 7:46 am
-
Peter Surda,
“Now, I also showed that under certain circumstances, you cannot distinguish between two books. Yet you claim that they are different books. Why?”
Oh god, another attack on reason. How boring.
December 21, 2009 at 8:31 am- December 21, 2009 at 8:35 am
- December 21, 2009 at 8:36 am
-
@Stephan Kinsella,
“Semiconductor maskwork designs?”
I learned in industrial economics that they already did this. See, Scherer’s “Industry Structure, Strategy, and Public Policy.”
- December 21, 2009 at 8:42 am
- December 21, 2009 at 8:44 am
December 21, 2009 at 8:46 am-
Hello Stephan,
In regards to your earlier comment:
Your pro-IP view is noted (and it’s convenient you are in a technical field where you or your employer can benefit from patents, right?).
This was actually the opposite in my case. I am an engineer who has worked for a patent-happy company in the past. I always thought it was rather silly to waste so much time and resources on patenting every last thing. However, I had never heard the anti-IP argument, and just thought that’s the way things were supposed to work.
I listened to a podcast of one of your speeches, and you were not even halfway through the lecture when you convinced me.
There are still several reservations I have (MBrown summarized them well in the first post) but I have not spent sufficient time working my way through them yet. Someday I will….
December 21, 2009 at 10:26 am-
I no longer feel any guilt when downloading. Thank you.
December 21, 2009 at 11:11 am-
Kerem Tibuk,
It completely baffles me that you continue to assert that there are economic calculation arguments in the absence of IP.
It has repeatedly been demonstrated that “ownership” is only a prerequisite for the exchange of tangible goods and that “possession” is all that is required for the exchange of intangible goods. Intangible goods clearly can have prices, despite being “owned” by nobody.
Despite the fact that one can produce unlimited examples to back up this claim, you stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge it, let alone attempt to disprove it.
You have some reasonable arguments for your beliefs in the fundamental origin of property. Maybe you should just stick to them. Your calculation argument is bust.
December 21, 2009 at 12:23 pm-
I’m for limited duration IP rights.
December 21, 2009 at 1:32 pm-
@Kerem Tibuk,
I admire your patience. Thank you for being sanity in the asylum. Please do not give up.
MBrown
Ok. I have to be clear that I’ve not fully made up my mind. Some elements I agree with, some I don’t. I just haven’t read enought about the whole matter to made a decision. Let me see if I can explain.
* owning an idea. While I can accept that someone comes up with an idea/concept, I can’t accept that someone can thus ‘own’ the idea such that no one else can use it. I prefer going with the idea of doing research where you cite your sources, but there is no concept of getting permission/paying for citations.
I am kind of reminded of Ayn Rand who felt that libertarians had ‘taken her ideas’ without her permission, when really the ideas existed before her.
* ownership of inventions. Ok, so maybe these are just like ideas, but to me they are a little different, in that someone can invest a lot of time, energy in building something. So why shouldn’t they be re-compensated? Its one thing if you do this work as part of your job, and so your company is successful and you reap that, but what about the ‘lone inventor’? Should not they be compensated?
On one hand am reminded of the case of the guy who came up with the car wipers but the car companies took his idea and never paid him (which I feel was unethical of them regardless of any legality of not paying him, something that lawyers can’t seem to get). On the other hand, I am also reminded of people who made minor little tweaks in a concept, then act like they created the whole idea (Eli Whitney, etc)
* ownership of written material. To me, if you write something, you own it. No one should be able to publish it without your permission. To me, this is no different then plagiarism. If that’s not ok, why should publishing something that someone wrote be ok? Now, I will accept that this ownership can expire after a period of time, and it goes into the public domain. The thing about this is that some people write for a living. How can you do this if you write stuff and its ok for others to publish it without paying you for it?
Published: December 19, 2009 11:15 AM
Jeffrey Tucker
When your article came out, I thought it was nuts and wacky and had no practical relevance – not that I knew what was wrong with it. I think I took a position sort of like Callahan: this stuff has evolved and the world would be chaotic without it. It took me six years to process the reality and significance. Then the dam broke and I see that statist IP mentality everywhere. Now I see just how incredibly important this is, and how innovative your initial article was. It holds up after all these years.
Published: December 19, 2009 11:25 AM
Josh Hanson
I’m not sure if I’ve “moved” toward an anti-IP position, but I certainly have adopted one. It’s not a topic I had ever really thought about before reading Kinsella/Boldrin/Levine.
Published: December 19, 2009 11:27 AM
Jelly
I was conflicted before I read AIP. I always ‘felt’ that IP laws were wrong but feelings are not principles. AIP gave concrete examples and explained why IP should not exist. My only complaint is that the book is very utilitarian in its reasoning. An austro-libertarian book on the evils of IP would be brilliant.
I used to believe that it was a ‘necessary evil’ and that the music, movie and games industry we have would not exist if we did not have ‘protection’ of intellectual ‘property’. Boldrin/Levine put it best when they compare pre-IP music (Mozart, Beethoven) to today’s pop music. D:
Published: December 19, 2009 12:04 PM
T. Ralph Kays
Kinsella has made a brilliant addition to the understanding of property rights in general, not just to IP. Kinsella/Boldrin/Levine have definitely corrected my understanding of IP laws. Great job!
Published: December 19, 2009 12:07 PM
jon
if you can own an idea, then who owns that idea?
Published: December 19, 2009 12:16 PM
Matt
I hadn’t thought about this issue until reading your articles. Those articles changed my view, though I never had a strong opinion on IP.
Published: December 19, 2009 12:27 PM
August
Yes. I now see those initials and think ‘imaginary property.’ Imaginary property people use to take other people’s real property.
Published: December 19, 2009 12:32 PM
MZ
I’ve moved from a pro-IP position to… agnosticism. Not the best position to take when undertaking an LL.M. in IP law in Cambridge, but there you go.
Published: December 19, 2009 12:41 PM
Silas Barta
I used to agree with Stephan_Kinsella’s Against Intellectual Property but then realized how it doesn’t actually hope up to scrutiny, and then further moved in the pro-IP direction when I realized how two-faced the libertarian IP opponents can become on this issue, advancing arguments they would reject in any other context.
As I’ve argued before:
– Libertarians intuitively recognize that there is a scarcity when it comes to the EM spectrum, even though it’s “rights to form a pattern”, and “your broadcasting does not prevent me from using my own property to broadcast”, yet refuse to see the parallels to IP.
– Libertarian use the calculation argument all the time to explain how only the market can know how many resources to commit to what, and then suddenly decide this is a non-issue when the question revolves around how much to devote to idea production. And they do it by defining away the problem.
Published: December 19, 2009 12:53 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Silas, this forum is not intended for arguing about IP, but just to survey trends in libertarians’ and Austrians’ thinking about IP. As for EM–not every libertarian agrees with EM-as-property, and anyway it does not imply IP. As for calculation–this is the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever heard for IP–property rights are not based on the “need to calculate.” But this should be debated elsewhere. Your pro-IP view is noted (and it’s convenient you are in a technical field where you or your employer can benefit from patents, right?).
I know my friend Gil Guillory moved to the anti-IP position about 8-9 years ago too. I know a lot of people who have.
Published: December 19, 2009 1:28 PM
Jay Lakner
Silas,
There is no calculation argument for IP.
You simply need to look at the specific differences between tangible and intangible entities to see why.
Intangible materials are indestructable and ‘multiply’ when communicated to another person.
Tangible materials are fragile and cannot multiply. (Exchanges are a zero sum game)
You can sell an intangible entity which is in your possession without actually owning that entity.
You cannot sell a tangible entity which is in your possession unless you actually own it (without breaking some prior contract with the true owner)
An example: I can sell the information on how to start a fire with two sticks. I do not own this information but it is in my possession. However, I cannot sell a public telephone, even if it’s in my possession. I need to own it as well.
Ownership is required for tangible entities to be exchanged, and therefore have a price.
However, possession is all that is required for intangible entities to be exchanged, and therefore have a price.
As long as a price system imputed from consumer desires can emerge, there is no economic calculation problem.
…
I just read Stephan’s reply to Silas (it wasn’t there when I started typing this). I’m sorry to argue this here but I just put all this work into writing this, it feels a waste to not send it…
Published: December 19, 2009 1:37 PM
J. Kane
I just took an IP Law final exam yesterday, so this topic is fresh in my mind. I began the course with a lot of skepticism for IP. I took issue with corporations being allowed to patent human genes, breeds of corn, etc. But after studying the actual IP laws, I believe they are both necessary and drafted fairly reasonably. (One exception would be patent laws protection of both devices and methods. I am uneasy about the idea of property rights to a “method.”)
What I have a problem with is some of the applications of IP law, but I’ve concluded that its not the concept of IP rights that is to blame. As I’ve studied this subject over the semester, I read some critiques arguing that IP law is being heavily skewed in favor of patentees primarily by judicial application and enforcement of IP laws.
Specifically, patent litigation usually goes through a separate channel in the federal courts that is allegedly biased in favor of expansively granting IP rights. First of all, the federal trial court in the Eastern District of Texas is widely known as a favorable venue for patent plaintiffs’ suits (no idea why). And instead of appealing to a regional circuit court based on where they held the trial, patent cases are appealed to the Federal Circuit court in DC. The supposed rationale is that the Federal Circuit judges can be selected for their expertise in the complexities of patent law, and/or develop that expertise during their tenure on the bench.
It’s said that the Federal Circuit has developed a bias toward an overly-expansive view of what qualifies for protection as “intellectual property” whenever modern technology or science blur the traditional concepts in our IP laws. It certainly wouldn’t be surprising, given the countless other “special” government agencies that have fallen captive to the very interests they purport to regulate.
From the Federal Circuit, the only appeal is to the Supreme Court which is said to lack the expertise to effectively resolve many of these cutting edge, and often technically or scientifically complex issues.There were some interesting examples of the Supreme Court justices’ ignorance of patent law on display during the oral arguments of In re Bilski last month. (The case was about patenting a “business method”)
My ultimate conclusion is that we need legal protection for property rights, but that we also need to rid the laws of the ambiguity that disables it from being applied to 21st century technology and science consistently. I think it would be a big mistake to throw away the concept Intellectual Property rights just because the federal government has allowed its administration of those rights to become a magnet for litigation and protectionism.
Published: December 19, 2009 1:46 PM
Silas Barta
@Stephan_Kinsella:
Silas, this forum is not intended for arguing about IP, but just to survey trends in libertarians’ and Austrians’ thinking about IP.
I was giving you my trend in thinking! I had to give the reasons, for it to make sense.
EM … does not imply IP.
Sure. It only implies “the exclusive right to form a specific kind if pattern.” What does *that* have to do with IP?
As for calculation–this is the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever heard for IP–property rights are not based on the “need to calculate.”
Good thing I didn’t say that then! I just said that the calculation argument is just as applicable to IP as to other goods. Whatever argument you make for the irrelevancy of calculation per se applies just the same to Mises’s and Hayek’s argument.
But this should be debated elsewhere. Your pro-IP view is noted (and it’s convenient you are in a technical field where you or your employer can benefit from patents, right?).
What is this? You say this should be debated elsewhere, and then throw an ad-hom that isn’t even very clever? Guess what, Stephan_Kinsella: you too have a lifestyle that benefits from physical property rights. Can I introduce that as evidence of your bias?
I know my friend Gil Guillory moved to the anti-IP position about 8-9 years ago too. I know a lot of people who have.
Really? Remind him of my request that he refute the three points I linked to, since so far he can’t even come up with a brief summary of why any one of those points is in error. That’s why you haven’t seen him say all that much on the issue over that period.
Published: December 19, 2009 1:48 PM
Matthew
I have surely moved to the anti-IP position.
As a firm believer in property rights I had always thought that you should indeed be able to own ideas.
When I realized that in enforcing IP meant exercising control over other’s physical property, it was game over.
Thanks for helping me to see the truth!
Published: December 19, 2009 1:55 PM
Michael Barnett
Luckily, my first study of the issue took place without my having any preconceived notions about IP i.e. in Dr. Deborah Walker’s Intro to Economics class at Loyola, New Orleans back in the early 1990s. Therefore, I never held anything but the correct position on the subject as she is an anarcho-capitalist. (No offense, Silas.)
Published: December 19, 2009 2:03 PM
Seattle
Silas, to me your weird “calculation” argument sounds like the old incentive argument with sorry attempts to throw back to Mises and Hayek.
But honestly none of this matters. No matter how many arguments from the pro-IP crowd we refute, the IPers will just change the definition of whatever the hell it is they support.
As for the actual discussion at hand, I’ve never really felt “comfortable” with IP, but I never had a very strong opinion on it until I started hanging around here.
Published: December 19, 2009 2:14 PM
TH
Yes I have, thanks to you.
Published: December 19, 2009 2:14 PM
Nick
In my opinion, we should sell the *access* to the information;the physical access and the intellectual access (separately perhaps).
Different people will understand the same material differently based on what definitions and referents they hold for what they makes up of the symbols they perceives.
I think the ‘conversation’ that create understanding and mastery of an idea in another person could be sold and be considered as ‘labour’.
Published: December 19, 2009 2:14 PM
Anonymous
Before I became a libertarian, I was (in sharp contrast to most people of my generation) strongly in favor of IP (even though I occasionally felt guilt for having violated copyrights very similar to how I felt when I believed in God when I acted contrary to the Bible). After becoming a libertarian through the Ron Paul campaign (although I had strong libertarian instincts even during my days on the left and hated Bush for all of the right reasons; in retrospect, I think I was engaging in evasion during my pre-libertarian days), I realized that the arguments in favor of copyright were ridiculous and that copyright is theft, rather than the ridiculous allegation that copyright infringement is theft.
I think Silas’s core argument has long needed to be refuted, so here’s my attempt to do so:
Property rights in the TV and radio spectrum are justified because 2 stations cannot broadcast on the same frequency at the same time. If I stick a broadcast tower up and broadcast libertarian propaganda on the same frequency as my local Fox affiliate, I am violating their property right to the spectrum and am violating the rights of the people who expect to watch American Idol rather than learn serious intellectual ideas. This is not the case with copyright. If I copy the contents of an audiobook CD onto a web server I paid for (and the hosting company doesn’t prohibit me from doing this) and offer this audiobook as a free download to anybody who wants it, I am violating nobody’s rights. My copyright infringement does not stop the person who sold me the audiobook CD from continuing to sell the CDs to anybody who wants them, nor do I engage in fraud by alleging that the contents are something that they are not.
The premise that spectrum rights and copyrights are equivalent is invalid.
Published: December 19, 2009 2:20 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Jay et al.–nevermind on my comment about arguing. I simply meant that was not my intent. I hope people here will just stick to answering the question mostly, so the comments can easily be skimmed to get a feel for the trend. As long as a response is civil and intelligent, it’s permitted (Silas: n.b.: being a perpetual gadfly is not civil.)
Published: December 19, 2009 2:20 PM
Beefcake the Mighty
Stephan, if by “gadfly” you mean staggering ignoramus, then I agree, Silas is a gadfly.
Published: December 19, 2009 2:45 PM
Jay Lakner
My own personal story:
The very moment I realised the importance of private property in economics, I immediately saw the contradiction concerning IP. After a few days of thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that copyrights/patents were invalid. However I felt that trademarks/business names/logos were not invalid.
It was only later that I learned of Stephan’s work and was delighted to find out that my line of reasoning was very similar to his. (Although I’m not sure where he stands on trademarks)
Published: December 19, 2009 2:45 PM
Stephan Kinsella
J. Kane: “after studying the actual IP laws, I believe they are both necessary and drafted fairly reasonably. ”
One needs to study libertarian theory too, to decide this. To say a statute enacted by a subset of a criminal gang is “drafted fairly reasonably” is to accept that state legislation can be legitimate. It cannot be.
Published: December 19, 2009 2:47 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Jay, re trademarks-I cover this in Against Intellectual Property.
Published: December 19, 2009 3:04 PM
overtheedge
I remain limitted duration pro-IP.
Human nature being what it is, the need for IP protections serve a utilitarian purpose. Time, effort and expenses of creation must not be stolen from the creator. Without some form of limitted duration protections, each creator would be forced to defend their creation at gunpoint.
That being said, the need for the protection MUST be limitted in duration. IMO, 7 years for an invention and 20 years on a copyright are quite sufficient. The very idea of renewals is contrary to the furtherence of creation. Hence, the IP protections MUST NOT prevent the non-commercial testing and analysis of the designs. The very idea that a creation with its subsequent IP protection prevents anyone from inventing a better mousetrap unless and until the IP protection expires for the basic design is grossly stupid. This currently exists and effectively halts any furtherence of science and technology.
I concur with the premise that automatic rights must be held as invalid. If a person has an idea and shares it, it no longer is theirs to claim any right of ownership. Tendering the concept that the idea existed prior to being stated is just a mental exercise and holds no validity.
Were we to accept the thesis of prior existence of the idea, we are forced to accept the notion that the idea existed prior to the emergence of man. Effectively, the idea is renamed conceptual possibility. This leads us towards the premise that there is nothing new and therefore deserves no protections.
Therefore, the utilitarian requirement for a limitted duration IP protection must be preserved only to the extent needed to allow a prudent person to recover expenses and profits from their labors. If the creator can’t make a profit within the timeframes stated above, perhaps they failed to create what the market was willing to purchase. Things are tough all over.
Were human nature more ethical, perhaps we could formulate a mechanism for rewarding the creator and then making the idea public knowledge and available for anyone to use without penalty.
The the reason behind the original concept of the Constitutional right of IP protections being limitted in duration was to permit improvements and competition in the marketplace.
Monopoly isn’t neccessarily bad. Extending the duration of the monopoly by renewals of IP protections is contrary to the Constitution that states, “… , by securing for limitted Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right … .” Mayhaps I’ve misread this, but the wording states creators and not buyers of the IP nor the heirs. Exclusive right is the right to sell, but the idea that the sale also transfers IP rights appears false. Does exclusive not mean exclusive?
Admittedly, this notion has its own line of arguments both for and against. I have no answers. Reason can only uphold IP protections if and only if the duration is severely limitted. If the life of a mouse is but 3 years at best, why should any cartoon depiction last 50 years of more?
Human nature, being what it is, dooms every philosophy to existence only as a mental exercise. Portions might be incorporated if they serve utility. The individual may use a hammer to drive a nail, but they might just as quickly use a rock. Few would argue against the utility of the hammer. Utilitarianism meets the needs of the people. For better or for worse, human nature demands a utilitarian viewpoint to philosophy.
I would submit that IP protections MUST be rethought with careful attention to duration of protections and just what should be protected. Ideas alone shouldn’t be protected, but rather the product. If no product exists, then no protection can or should exist.
This posting is NOT under any IP protection. It was my idea until I posted it. In posting it, I relinquished any and all rights I might have had. Furthermore, as I no longer have any rights to it, I can NOT held to bear any responsibility for its use or misuse.
Published: December 19, 2009 3:07 PM
Jay Lakner
Stephen,
Just did a quick search, found an online version in Journal of Libertarian Studies here on Mises.org and skimmed through to the section on trademarks. Exactly the same conclusions I came to!
Actually, I’m going to read the whole thing now. I’ve only ever read your articles before, I didn’t know “Against Intellectual Property” would actually be online … Maybe you should sue Mises.org for copyright infringement… 😛
Published: December 19, 2009 3:36 PM
Deefburger
I was a raving Randian and Constitutionalist in IP until several things happened that changed my mind completely.
First off, Stefan Kinsella and Jeffery Tucker made several convincing arguments concerning the effects of the monopoly of and of the problems associated with concurrent invention.
Second, I had been working on my own project, not directly related to the IP issue, but rather Metaphysics and Physics. This project worked from the basic assumptions that all “things” are conciousness, and those things experience time. An interesting starting point to say the least. I was actually looking for flaws in the logic in order to refute some of the arguments of Physicist Dr. Thomas Campbell, but to no avail. His Big TOE stands un-vanquished, at least by my work. I have only managed to expand on it!
From those basic assumptions, I found justification for many natural laws, both physical and non physical including natural law justification of Identity (A is A), as well as a re-arraigngement of E=mc^2. I was very surprised by this.
But the source of an idea or a thought is not necessarily from within, in that all of the potential one must experience as time, has a source that is outside of the self. This fact of Being, (you can check Heidegger if you have any doubts), means that you can not OWN a thought, any more than you can OWN the air you breath.
So much for IP! What you can own is your Identity, your brand, your signature. But not the “substance” of conceptual reality. That space has access to every mind, not just your own.
Published: December 19, 2009 3:44 PM
Russ
I didn’t always have a thought-out stand on IP, but looking back at my actions in the past, I was an intuitive anti-IP person even 25 years ago. When I first found out that I was supposed to pay for a copy of software that I could get for free from my place of work or a friend, and that Microsoft or whoever could theoretically punish me for “pirating”, my mental response was always “Yeah, good luck with that.” I’ve always thought it’s intuitively obvious that software is not “property” in the same sense that, say, a computer is. All I’ve done in the intervening years is add to my intellectual arsenal arguments for why that is the case. I haven’t actually changed my views.
Published: December 19, 2009 3:54 PM
Curt Howland
I came at this from an angle I don’t see mentioned anywhere.
Copyright and patent were created by statute. Unlike tangible property like my body, land, house, car, the rules of I.P. are entirely creatures of lawyers and politicians.
Remove the laws supporting I.P., and I.P. vanishes. Gone. And good riddance.
I see a use for fraud in the protection of reputation, and even a social norm of what we presently call “trademark” the same way we utilize signatures. And that’s about it.
The principled stand against I.P., the detailing of the abuses of I.P. that the laws promote, have made it possible to better detail reasons for objecting to I.P.
Because I.P. is the result of statute law, it is arbitrary. Reforming the rules to make them work “better” is irrelevant, because they are arbitrary. “Better” has no objective basis, it’s entirely opinion. One arbitrary structure or another, they remain arbitrary.
The only objectively “better” answer is to repeal the statutes that create I.P. and let the market find answers that work the same way that market evolution of services finds answers to everything else: By solving real problems that people actually want solved.
Published: December 19, 2009 3:59 PM
Curt Howland
Hey, Russ, try Linux. Stealing Windows is like stealing cow dung. Why bother?
Free Libre Open Source Software still relies on copyright to keep the code available for everyone, but that’s because we live in an environment of I.P. so they deal with it.
Like Kinsella says about his customers, they file patents in self defense more than to try to gain some overt benefit.
Published: December 19, 2009 4:08 PM
Aaron
I’m the opposite Stephan. In college I was essentially an ‘anarchocapitalist Objectivist’. Among a few other political disagreements with mainstream Oism was not believing at all in IP and regarding the only way to try to simulate it being contractualist agreements among all parties involved. It was always unsettling not recognizing the ‘mixing of labor’ of developing an idea or creative work, however, and in the past decade I’ve moved to a far more pro-IP stance.
Despite the ‘devils being in the details’ and still having non-trivial objections to some Oist viewpoints on the matter and especially modern US law on IP, I have come to regard the fundamental ideas underlying trademark and copyright (if not patents) as valid. However, I recognize it as a complex and difficult area and not just a matter of self-evident ‘IP is bullshit’ or ‘copying is stealing’ extreme. I still appreciate reading contrasting viewpoints such as from you and from Oists on Noodlefood and elsewhere. Anyway, I at least serve as evidence that there’s not solely a move to more anti-IP views :).
Published: December 19, 2009 4:32 PM
Steve R.
Technically, I have not changed my mind. Its been an evolutionary learning experience in observing how distorted copyright/patent law has become.
The Sony rootkit debacle inspired me to walk the path towards radicalism. While the Sony rootkit debacle exposed the evils of DRM through a spectacular “blow-up”, the onerous evils of DRM do not really become apparent until you begin to experience it. So as I became increasingly dependent on my computer, have suffered from DRM, and began to read blogs exposing the evils of DRM; I easily walked down the path of accepting that so-called intellectual property is a fiction.
Published: December 19, 2009 4:35 PM
Russ
Curt Howland wrote:
“Hey, Russ, try Linux.”
Hey, Curt. I also have several Linux boxen, but since most of my hardware is older, and because the distro I use (Slackware) is getting so bloated that I can’t easily install it on my old hardware, I am still in the land of 2.4.
“Stealing Windows is like stealing cow dung. Why bother?”
I have to have Windows for compatibility with work-related software. Beside, although Windows does have its problems (I recently had my browser throw up a search provider error apparently related to a corrupted registry, which magically went away!), it’s actually not so bad, as long as I am behind a firewall and am careful what I download. I’m not religious about software. If it makes my life easier, I use it.
Published: December 19, 2009 4:59 PM
Allen Lewis
I am completely convinced that the concept of “intellectual” property is incompatible with private property rights. Against Intellectual Property and the Mises Institute blog are the two drivers of this change in my beliefs. It took about 6 months of really thinking about the issues to come around. What really tipped it for me was the non-utilitarian arguments against IP laid out in Mr. Kinsella’s book.
The legitimacy of “intellectual” property is one of those subjects that is just taken for granted by 99% of Americans because it is never questioned or challenged. For this reason, the anti-IP position is one that I think will take a very long time to become mainstream.
Published: December 19, 2009 5:04 PM
Shay
I guess I used to sort of accept patents and copyright as necessary legal tools for companies to protect their investments in coming up with ideas, but never thought much about it. But the more I heard about their application in the software field, with the ridiculous things that were patented, I could see that they just created problems. It wasn’t until I started reading mises.org earlier this year and came to understand the basic “non-aggression” principle that I became strongly anti-IP. Understanding non-aggression started the dominoes falling on my previous view of most government as legitimate, and made the inherent conflict of IP with physical property evident, thus solidifying my opposition to IP.
Published: December 19, 2009 5:06 PM
Jake Witmer
I’m neutral on this issue, but favor attacking IP after the DEA, FDA, IRS, and BATFE have been abolished.
My tendency is to favor IP and copyright. I believe that the time invested in learning something should not be negated by a bunch of worthless losers (such as people who download “free” copyrighted music) taking advantage of ways around paying you.
If there were no copyrights, then even hit songs would never pay their creators. The song could be used in a movie without paying its creator or performer. Most people are only as good as the system they live under, and lack of ownership over patterns would disincentivize the creation of new patterns.
In fact, there should be more and better IP as we progress into the future, but that IP agreement should be contractually-entered-into and obeyed as a contract. This is the final frontier for voluntaryist law, and it would put an ocean of parasitic and government-force-wielding lawyers to good use.
My views on IP are not yet fully formed. A friend of mine, Dick Clark, who was convinced by Kinsella is one of the smartest libertarians I know. In honesty, I have not yet read the book, Against Intellectual Property. It is on my short list of books I need to read.
A few thoughts.
1) I don’t personally benefit much from IP laws, and IP laws are largely unenforced and unenforceable.
2) Keeping the laws on the books doesn’t make them more enforceable, but new technology continually does.
3) The primary benefit I get from IP laws is the benefit any artist gets from them: They are not put in the position of writing a hit song, hearing it blaring from every streetcorner, and dying of starvation on their way to the homeless shelter, because they never got a cent in royalties. In fact, many artists never got the benefit of royalties, had their contracts violated, and never benefitted at all from the music they wrote (nearly the entire genre of the blues comes to mind).
4) Expanding IP enforcement into the domain of filesharing would allow an immense tyranny to declare all things private to be public, and would allow for the immense violation of property rights, and privacy rights.
So, I am conflicted on this issue.
That said, I trust the government to do nothing right, so I am leaning slightly against IP. Of course, every time I think about that, I think of the guy who designed the windshield wipers, and Ayn Rand.
Why should the useless (meek) inherit the earth?
Some arguments strike me as weak, such as “Artists should make music because they love to make music, not because they are being paid.”
(This is a lot like the common argument for socialized medicine: “Doctors should cure people because they want to help people, not so they can make a buck…”). Both arguments deny the creator capital reinvestment caused by parasitic use of their product.
Also: there is an abundance of material on earth that is likely to be conquered by man’s mind at the advent of strong nanotech (See: “Engines of Creation” by K. Eric Drexler). At that point, intellectual property transactions will likely be the dominant means of exchange. Instead of a song, you will download the IP for a great tasting hamburger, and it will rise out of the same desktop factory-assembler that created your bulletproof jacket and your personal computational assistant.
Once thought is the scarcest commodity on earth, do we really want to disincentivize creativity?
A great paper on this is available here:
http://www.kurzweilai.net > Big Thinkers > Robert Freitas (the paper on concentrations and calculated values of the rare earth elements based on extraction rates).
Just my admittedly underinformed .02. I think IP will be the last thing attacked by libertarians, since it is not obviously destructive, and we are small in number, even in our greatest concentrations.
Jake Witmer
907.250.5503
Published: December 19, 2009 5:31 PM
Seattle
Jake,
You raise up something which I think is of utmost importance not only in the issue of IP, but in all issues of all the social sciences. In transhumanist thinking especially, considering you bring up strong nanotechnology.
What does it mean that something “should” happen? When we say “Artists should be paid for their work” what do we really mean?
I am beginning to suspect those words are empty, outside of our subjective judgements of value. When we say “Artists should be paid for their work” we mean “I want Artists to be paid for their work.” In the objective sense, there’s no such thing as something that “should” or “should not” happen. Only things that will and will not, can and can not; Reality doesn’t want, it just is.
However when people say “should” they don’t mean “I want.” They mean “It is Right for this to happen and for it to not happen is Wrong.” And this is all well and good, so long as we know what Right and Wrong means.
However, I have not yet found any consistent way of defining morality without including subjective value judgments. Ultimately our sense of “justice” depends on chemical compositions in our brains. Change the chemicals, and that sense can change or go away entirely.
I think it’s more useful to make our reasoning about the world (Social Sciences included) without introducing morality.
Published: December 19, 2009 6:14 PM
Russ
Jake Witmer wrote:
“I believe that the time invested in learning something should not be negated by a bunch of worthless losers (such as people who download “free” copyrighted music) taking advantage of ways around paying you.”
My take on it is that if a person intends to become rich by making and selling something that is easily copied, then he has a poor business plan. If he then tries to compensate for the poverty of his business plan by having jack-booted thugs shove people around as “punishment” for the fictional “crime” of “stealing” his “intellectual property”, even though it is the nature of the thing that it is easily copied, then it is he that is the worthless loser, not the person doing the copying.
Published: December 19, 2009 6:19 PM
AJ Witoslawski
I have become fully anti-intellectual monopoly. The idea that one can fully own ideas or that the ownership of ideas is beneficial to society is plainly absurd. Freedom of ideas means that in the marketplace of ideas, good ideas spread quicker and are able to replace bad ideas in a timelier fashion. That spurs innovation and societal change, among other things.
Published: December 19, 2009 6:41 PM
Brian Macker
I’m sure I’ve changed my mind plenty of times over the years.
I’m currently completely anti-patent and pro-copyright, although I think actual copyright law is incorrect. It’s both too broad and too narrow. Too narrow because you should be able to copyright any physical object and with no time limit. Too broad for several reasons. One in that if someone uses copyrighted materials to assert claims against others then that should put them in the public domain (e.g. temperature data).
Published: December 19, 2009 6:48 PM
Steve R.
Jake reminded me of a very critical point that I did not mention in my post. That is that those who claim an intellectual property are doing so by “stealing” your property right. People do not have a “right” to protect their property by “stealing” or other wise depriving you of your property writes.
Jake, speaks of the need for content creators to protect their rights. As a motherhood type statement, no one can argue against it. But as the Sony rootkit scandal pointed out, the content creators are not simply doing things to protect their rights but are actively depriving you of your rights. In the case of the Sony rootkit scandal, partially disabling your computer.
Furthermore, the content creators in their quest to “protect” their rights, are “inventing” ever more rights that must be protected by increasingly onerous legislation and enforced by the State. Clearly, if I find my rights being stripped away, I do not feel much sympathy or respect for the supposed rights of the content creators.
Published: December 19, 2009 6:52 PM
Curt Howland
Why was copyright (just to pick one) rationalized? To “reward creative works”.
But it doesn’t. It rewards sitting on one’s seat and collecting royalties.
To say that copying “deprives” someone ignores the fact that the person who created it has already sold it or otherwise made it available. It’s done. If they didn’t make “enough” from the original sale, why did they sell it?
I don’t give away my work, but I don’t claim remuneration from anyone that copies my network designs either.
Published: December 19, 2009 6:53 PM
overtheedge
As any philosophical debate needs balance, not just by the teams, but also by each debater, I present a slightly different approach to IP as it applies to utility patents.
Patents come in two flavors: utility and design.
A design patent is shape and color, in other words aethetic appeal. A table lamp is a table lamp. It is the details of the design that sets one apart from another.
A utility patent is for something new and novel that has not existed before. Part of the patent requires a set of claims as to its utility. These claims can be held as primae facie evidence in a court of torts. It is effectively a warrant as to its use. If IP rights to utility patents were suspended, there could be no claims made against the product manufacturer. That waffle-headed 32 ounce framing hammer was designed and marketted as a whas-it. That a person crushed their thumb with it wasn’t anyone’s fault but their own. Bye-bye tort.
In one fell swoop, we could eliminate all warrantees, guarantees, royaltys and licensing. We could market stuff and let the buyer determine its suitability. Oh gosh. This would force people to think.
If a person makes a new and novel product, they could use methods to insure proprietary knowledge is kept secret. Afix a destructive device inside that acts as way of insuring the innards are kept secret. With no implied warrantee or guarantee, if the buyer attempted to open up the gizmo and it caught fire, blew up or spilled corrosive material all over the place, there could be no tort claim. Caveat emptor.
Though I intended to confine this to patents, another thought hit. If I have no IP right to anything I say or write, then I can’t be held accountable for anything I say or write. I could ascribe it to Stephan Kinsella, Albert Einstein or Barrack Obama. Let the market of public opinion determine the authenticity, value or what-ever.
BTW anyone looking into music industry and artists regarding IP will quickly find that the artist is just a trained monkey. The creation of the music needs no particular artist to perform it. For every monkey that makes it to the top, hundreds are playing one-nighters in taverns and night-clubs. This in no way implies that the artists playing one-nighters are in anyway inferior to those who made it to the top. Good thing the one-nighters aren’t being forced to pay royalties.
Both sides of the argument have a measure of validity. The problem is in finding a balance between furtherence in the field of endeavor versus renumerating the creator for their efforts. I have no answers. I trend towards the need for re-thinking IP laws and substantially reducing the duration of the protections.
Published: December 19, 2009 7:36 PM
Scott D
I suppose that it began with the RIAA lawsuits from several years back. Before that point, IP had my tacit approval as a concept that was necessary and important. From there, the abuses just got worse and the scope of IP more ridculous. Patents on software, on genes?
By the time I read “Against Intellectual Property”, my skepticism was firmly entrenched, though it was directed until that point not at IP itself, but at those who would use it as a tool to intimidate and extort. Kinsella’s paper convinced me that it was IP itself that was the problem, not just those who abused it.
Published: December 19, 2009 7:38 PM
newson
where i come from it’s illegal to smoke dope, but you can legally buy bongs from “smoking paraphernalia” stores. ha!
long before i knew anything about things austrian, this is how alice-in-wonderland ip laws appeared to me.
yes, you can buy a blank vhs tape, but god forbid you copy a favourite tv show! go ahead, photocopy 5% of a book under fair use, but 13% makes you an evil thief. everybody is a criminal, but nobody seems to debate the legitimacy of the laws. as others have said, the pure arbitrariness of it all should alert anyone with half a brain that something is seriously awry. borrow a book from the library or a friend, and steal the food from the artist’s mouth.
kinsella helped form my inchoate distrust of ip into a more logical opposition, so a thank-you for his dogged persistence. mises didn’t embarass himself much over ip, but everytime i think of rothbard and his mousetrap i cringe. a real clanger. i think this is one area where there has been major progress post-rothbard/mises.
i’d like to think debate on em rights is still a work-in-progress, as i don’t see em frequencies as something one can control outside one’s own property borders.
i think it’s best treated as a pollution/nuisance issue. that silas barta grasps at this one straw (the “silas-calculation-problem” is laughable), should suffice to cause reconsideration.
Published: December 19, 2009 7:52 PM
Andras
I am pro-IP for biotech and drug discovery. It works fine and makes it possible.
By the way, why not decrease the time monopoly gradually and see what happens?
Published: December 19, 2009 8:28 PM
Jeffrey Quick
I’m a composer, and I like those checks from BMI. This has been an impediment to fully hopping on the anti-IP bandwagon. But I’ve also had cases where IP law was an impediment to distribution of my own work. And I was in sheet music sales when Russia joined GATT and the price of Shostakovich quartets doubled, and the Sonny Bono nonsense. Much of the updating of music copyright was a bailout of publishers who had backed the wrong horses post WWII, and were about to lose the Ravels, Coplands etc. that were keeping them afloat.
My chief problem with IP is that the notion is intellectually incoherent; there can be no natural right to IP, which is created solely by government. And if something that was “property” can become “not property” and then become property again, was it ever property?
Mr. Tucker has been more of an influence here than you, Stephen, because of his writings on church music. I’ve got to take exception with Mr. Howland however: “It rewards sitting on one’s seat and collecting royalties.” I find collecting royalties to be wonderfully inspiring. If I’m not being compensated, it doesn’t necessarily mean I won’t create, but it does mean that I’m more likely to spend time on more remunerative activities. Also, royalties are the only way that the quality of an artwork can be market-compensated. If I sell a work for a set fee, I may not know its true worth to society, and sell too low, particularly if I’m in dire straits financially. If a piece becomes valuable to many people, both my publisher and I can benefit, instead of all the money accruing only to the publisher.
Published: December 19, 2009 8:52 PM
Jayel Aheram
Yes.
I went from being skeptical about it to completely opposing it. And the state.
The issue of Intellectual Property is what introduced me to this website and along the way, the rest of libertarian thought.
Published: December 19, 2009 9:08 PM
Ken
MBrown’s anecdote about the windshield wiper inventor puts me in mind of what is supposed to have happened to Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster (creators of Superman) or Jack Kirby (creator or co-creator of most of Marvel’s popular characters). The publisher would stamp “for all rights,” or terms to that effect, on the back of the artist/writer’s first paycheck, and boom! Work-made-for-hire, on one’s own creation.
Have I moved toward an anti-IP position? Yeah — at least, I’m certainly giving the argument a lot more attention.
Published: December 19, 2009 11:03 PM
Julien Couvreur
There seems to be a change, but I wonder if it’s practical and generational rather than an actual change of opinion.
The ease of copy of digital content increased some existing practices and raises some new question around copyright. The web and the open-source movement surely had an effect on the patent debate too.
Published: December 19, 2009 11:12 PM
Sag
Stephan,
You might be interested to know I moved to an anti-IP position after coming across Mises on money and banking. That’s also how I discovered this site (Alta Vista-ing Mises). It might seem unrelated but Mises’ type of reasoning got me to react to pro IP arguments when I heard them. I didn’t think about them one way or the other before that and I hadn’t then come across Mises’ thoughts on the matter either. Yet, hearing pro IP arguments about how the government needed to protect IP in order for there to be innovation struck me as anti economics and anti innovation in spirit. Public (or private) IP regimes didn’t seem part of the great innovation and liberation stories throughout history. It seemed crazy to imagine innovators as concerned with restricting other people’s use of ideas. The whole notion that no one would innovate unless IP police were around seemed completely absurd and not in the least bit convincing. Later, on this site, I read more researched and sophisticated arguments…
Published: December 19, 2009 11:44 PM
J. Kane
Stephan Kinsella: “One needs to study libertarian theory too, to decide this. To say a statute enacted by a subset of a criminal gang is “drafted fairly reasonably” is to accept…”
Done that as well, and frankly I’m more interested in what works in practice than trying to deduce what might be a “purist” libertarian position on IP rights from literature or theory that does not explicitly contemplate it.
If you remove a person’s ability to generate economic value from things like written works or new inventions by guaranteeing that competitors all around the world will immediately be able to appropriate your work and commercially exploit it, that is a huge incentive removed from the self-interest equation. The school of libertarianism to which I subscribe posits that human beings respond to incentives and I believe you are far too cavalier in dismissing the consequences that scrapping IP rights would have on those fundamental incentives.
There are definitely major issues that should be debated regarding the scope of what should and should not be entitled to IP rights. But to argue for doing away with IP rights altogether because government has distorted the system, almost seems like arguing to scrap real property rights because of eminent domain abuses.
Published: December 19, 2009 11:48 PM
Sag
Stephan,
You might be interested to know I moved to an anti-IP position after coming across Mises on money and banking. That’s also how I discovered this site (Alta Vista-ing Mises). It might seem unrelated but Mises’ type of reasoning got me to react to pro IP arguments when I heard them. I didn’t think about them one way or the other before that and I hadn’t then come across Mises’ thoughts on the matter either. Yet, hearing pro IP arguments about how the government needed to protect IP in order for there to be innovation struck me as anti economics and anti innovation in spirit. Public (or private) IP regimes didn’t seem part of the great innovation and liberation stories throughout history. It seemed crazy to imagine innovators as concerned with restricting other people’s use of ideas. The whole notion that no one would innovate unless IP police were around seemed completely absurd and not in the least bit convincing. Later, on this site, I read more researched and sophisticated arguments…
Published: December 19, 2009 11:48 PM
Sag
Sorry for the double post. Not sure how that happened. One other thing: I found many pro IP people being so because they were very sympathetic to the idea of someone clinging to their one chance of being able to make lots of money. Presumably a way to ensure economic security. Probably another effect of a massive regulatory, tax and inflationary environment.
Published: December 20, 2009 12:00 AM
Sag
Sorry for the double post. Not sure how that happened. One other thing: I found many pro IP people being so because they were very sympathetic to the idea of someone clinging to their one chance of being able to make lots of money. Presumably a way to ensure economic security. Probably another effect of a massive regulatory, tax and inflationary environment.
Published: December 20, 2009 12:03 AM
T. Ralph Kays
J. Kane
You are very close to saying that it might be immoral but you don’t care because it makes money. Kinsella raises very important points, and they need to be confronted on their merits. Your concerns regarding ‘practicality’ are addressed very completely by Boldrin and Levine in their book. Their book complements Kinsellas so well that they should be published in a single volume.
Published: December 20, 2009 12:13 AM
Les
I haven’t read Mr. Kinsella’s book, but I have read Boldrin and Levine’s Against Intellectual Monopoly and, if a I had any lingering doubts about IP, their book cured me of it.
Published: December 20, 2009 12:46 AM
Silas Barta
@Curt_Howland:
Why was interest (just to pick one) rationalized? To “reward postponing consumption“.
But it doesn’t. It rewards sitting on one’s seat and collecting interest payments.
To say that borrowing “deprives” someone ignores the fact that the person who created it has already lent it or otherwise made it available. It’s done. If they didn’t make “enough” from the original transaction, why did they lend it?
Published: December 20, 2009 12:55 AM
Mike
I have moved completely towards the anti-IP stance. As a former professional musician, part of getting a ‘name for yourself’ was that you always wanted as many people as possible to be exposed to your music / ideas and IP (via exclusive record deals) just created monetary and geographical hurdles for people to jump to get to you. Artists have traditionally made the lions share of their money through live performances and merchandise sales anyway. Its the record companies that are the main beneficiaries of IP.
Published: December 20, 2009 1:37 AM
newson
what’s your point silas, that no borrowing/lending took place before legislators got busy? (that no credit existed because the parties couldn’t calculate their security risk?)
Published: December 20, 2009 1:38 AM
Fred McTaker
At first I just had a problem with U.S. Copyright for the same reason I’m against unencumbered estate transfer to progeny: it smacks of tribalism or minimally Social Darwinism, to automatically grant “ownership” of anything other than genetics based on genetic relationship status. I’m fairly libertarian when it comes to adults, but socialist when it comes to children, especially in their early formative years. That is my main aversion to Randians and knee-jerk anti-statist Libertarians — that the whole philosophy seems to forget children both exist and do not choose their parents, nor their upbringing. Any acknowledgement that children exist by Ayn Rand seems to smack of Social Darwinism, including which children live or die, are able to receive secular education, basic nutrition, and other basic development factors. Any theories of “rational actors” of any sort fall in the face of a world of people raised by the insane or acutely religious (do I repeat myself here?).
Then I was against Software Patents. For a while I thought software should be Copyright alone, but I realized that was flawed too since Copyright was so useless due to Sonny Bono, and later the DMCA. I also though Fair Use protections were stronger at the time, than they are in reality.
Before I read anything about Against Intellectual Monopoly (A.I.M.), I was well on the road to Anti-IP in general, thanks mostly to the overreach by organizations like RIAA, MPAA, and BSA against their respective users (and potential future producers). Through their evil they revealed what little was good about IP enforcement, as it is ALWAYS enforced against the weak by the strong and/or (at least) annoying bullies, and never really the other way around. The RIAA sued clueless teenagers, while big-name labels openly steal from originating artists on a whim.
By chance I also came across a BBC series last year called “Inventions That Changed the World” hosted by Jeremy Clarkson. It revealed some surprising things about how little any “inventor” really deserved any patent received, or if the *real inventive person* involved actually received the patent, how little it really helped them to profit (Charles Babbage is one easy example). The example of the thief Alexander Graham Bell receiving a patent on the telephone system he didn’t invent is representative, and I encourage everyone to look up how he stole the most important piece of the puzzle (the microphone) completely from another inventor.
By the first couple of chapters of A.I.M., that finally settled me for good. Patents and Copyright are worthless to everyone except bullies and thieves. I still believe that Trademark and Attribution rights are important, but primarily for consumer protection and transparency purposes, and they don’t necessarily constitute IP on their own. All other IP is less than worthless: it’s a drain on both true invention, discovery, and novel production of any form. Anyone who argues otherwise just doesn’t know (or refuses to see) the history — IP has always been used in the name of evil and never good. I don’t care what your politics are, other than saying IP is just as useless as religion — empirical and historical evidence is all against it.
Published: December 20, 2009 1:40 AM
Fred McTaker
At first I just had a problem with U.S. Copyright for the same reason I’m against unencumbered estate transfer to progeny: it smacks of tribalism or minimally Social Darwinism, to automatically grant “ownership” of anything other than genetics based on genetic relationship status. I’m fairly libertarian when it comes to adults, but socialist when it comes to children, especially in their early formative years. That is my main aversion to Randians and knee-jerk anti-statist Libertarians — that the whole philosophy seems to forget children both exist and do not choose their parents, nor their upbringing. Any acknowledgement that children exist by Ayn Rand seems to smack of Social Darwinism, including which children live or die, are able to receive secular education, basic nutrition, and other basic development factors. Any theories of “rational actors” of any sort fall in the face of a world of people raised by the insane or acutely religious (do I repeat myself here?).
Then I was against Software Patents. For a while I thought software should be Copyright alone, but I realized that was flawed too since Copyright was so useless due to Sonny Bono, and later the DMCA. I also though Fair Use protections were stronger at the time, than they are in reality.
Before I read anything about Against Intellectual Monopoly (A.I.M.), I was well on the road to Anti-IP in general, thanks mostly to the overreach by organizations like RIAA, MPAA, and BSA against their respective users (and potential future producers). Through their evil they revealed what little was good about IP enforcement, as it is ALWAYS enforced against the weak by the strong and/or (at least) annoying bullies, and never really the other way around. The RIAA sued clueless teenagers, while big-name labels openly steal from originating artists on a whim.
By chance I also came across a BBC series last year called “Inventions That Changed the World” hosted by Jeremy Clarkson. It revealed some surprising things about how little any “inventor” really deserved any patent received, or if the *real inventive person* involved actually received the patent, how little it really helped them to profit (Charles Babbage is one easy example). The example of the thief Alexander Graham Bell receiving a patent on the telephone system he didn’t invent is representative, and I encourage everyone to look up how he stole the most important piece of the puzzle (the microphone) completely from another inventor.
By the first couple of chapters of A.I.M., that finally settled me for good. Patents and Copyright are worthless to everyone except bullies and thieves. I still believe that Trademark and Attribution rights are important, but primarily for consumer protection and transparency purposes, and they don’t necessarily constitute IP on their own. All other IP is less than worthless: it’s a drain on both true invention, discovery, and novel production of any form. Anyone who argues otherwise just doesn’t know (or refuses to see) the history — IP has always been used in the name of evil and never good. I don’t care what your politics are, other than saying IP is just as useless as religion — empirical and historical evidence is all against it.
Published: December 20, 2009 1:41 AM
Kerem Tibuk
I always had problems with patents in general but I haven’t really thought about the general IP issue before being bombarded on the Mises blog about the issue.
I read Kinsellas paper, and firstly as an instinct I knew something was wrong because at the end it called for abolition of type of private property.
Then I noticed the argument was equating IP with nature given abundant, thus free goods and that didnt sound right either.
Then I noticed the problem with the whole IP socialism.
It was a premise taken from Hoppe that said,
“Property rights are established to resolve conflicts regarding scarce resources”
Firstly this premise is a positivist premise that implies humans came up with the property rights to live better lives. It is clearly against the natural rights position at the root of libertarianism. This positivist approach can be seen when you actually use a better concept than “property rights”, which is “law of private property”.
“Law of property is established to resolve conflicts regarding scarce resources.”
It is like saying, “law of gravity is established to keep things flying off to space”.
Second, this premise doesn’t cover “self ownership”. Which is odd on Hoppe’s part. Because Hoppe also tries to prove self ownership with another argument “ethics of argumentation”. In natural rights theory azll property is extension of the indivual thus it always starts with the self ownership.
Third, an economics concept was being used in the premise regarding an ethical concept, property.
“Scarcity” is an economics concept, about the condition of supply. In economics it is a useful concept no doubt because the concept of “supply” is important.
But using this concept to justify private property, or use it as a prerequisite for private property is wrong and if you follow up to its logical conclusion, contradictory. It is putting the cart in front of the horse.
All of the ultimate goal of production is getting rid of scarcity regarding as many things as possible. But the production must be based on private property(even IP production) Thus this premise is more fitting to communism that says “capitalism will produce so much, removing scarcity in everything, communism will eventually follow”. IP socialist similarly argues that, “since IP can be reproduced so abundantly there is no need for private property”, but somehow they stop right there. They are not even as consistent as the communist.
And finally, IP socialists almost always use logical fallacies while arguing. They are never able to follow a contradiction free thought process. That should say something.
All in all, I think this many libertarians are confused and support IP socialism because they dont have a good understanding of natural rights theory based on objective reality. Of course one may claim there is no objective reality, and laws must be based on the whims of the people but both claiming to be a libertarian and a supporter of private property rights and also be an IP socialist is a contradiction.
Published: December 20, 2009 1:49 AM
newson
will someone please explain how ktibuk can approve of the socialization of costs for protecting ip, and yet have the gall to call those who don’t want to shoulder this burden “communists”? i guess when he fences his property, he sends an account to all the shire residents.
time to change epithets.
Published: December 20, 2009 2:28 AM
Peter Surda
@Silas:
– I showed multiple times the error in your broadcasting-non-interference argument. The fact that broadcasts do not prevent each other is nothing specific to EM and completely irrelevant with regards to property violations. You can find the same behaviour with material goods (e.g. painting a wall, shooting a gun at your property, etc). The problem is that/when broadcasts prevent reception, not other broadcasts.
– calculation argument is moot, and I also explained several times why (as long as cost accounting is possible, there is no argument). It is actually double moot, because current laws do not implement ownership of immaterial goods, they only implement kind of “agreement not to sue”, they do not allow you to sell immaterial goods and do not grant anybody permission to use them. Does that mean that calculation is impossible even now and only possible in some hypothetical scenario which none of the IP proponents is willing to describe?
Published: December 20, 2009 2:44 AM
Peter Surda
My first issue with IP began when the push for software patents and anti-circumvention copyright provisions began creeping into Europe. The reason was very simple, it threatened to suddenly make what I was doing illegal. For a while, I was concentrating my thinking about these issues. I haven’t really thought about IP in broader spectrum, but there were times when I was sceptical. After I came to this website, it was a pleasurable experience to find people sharing my scepticism. I am not sure what tipped the scales, probably trying to find theoretical backing and realising the consequences.
While I have some disagreements with Stephan Kinsella on methodology, I arrive at the same conclusions as he.
Published: December 20, 2009 3:15 AM
Charlize
Why are libertarians always quite concerned with private property rights, but when it comes to intellectual property want to return it all to the public domain?
Should not contracts be viable? The Great Ormond Street Hospital should be entitled to royalties from performances of Peter Pan as JM Barrie designated. When did the public gain control of his work? What arbitrary number of years have you settled on? The state says life of the author plus 70 years? 120 years for corporate authorship?
It seems most Anti-IP folks are just anti-patent system from over one hundred years ago.
Published: December 20, 2009 5:02 AM
C.H. Hellström
@ Fred McTaker
“I’m fairly libertarian when it comes to adults, but socialist when it comes to children, especially in their early formative years. That is my main aversion to Randians and knee-jerk anti-statist Libertarians — that the whole philosophy seems to forget children both exist and do not choose their parents, nor their upbringing.”
Ayn Rand was well aware of the fact that children exist and that they don’t choose their parents etc. What gave you the idea that she didn’t know that?
“Any acknowledgement that children exist by Ayn Rand seems to smack of Social Darwinism, including which children live or die, are able to receive secular education, basic nutrition, and other basic development factors.”
There is nothing within Objectivism that warrants calling Ayn Rand’s view on children Social Darwinism. She wasn’t a Social Darwinist. She did say, however, that you don’t have a claim on other people’s property for your sustenance, but that doesn’t make Rand a Social Darwinist.
“Any theories of “rational actors” of any sort fall in the face of a world of people raised by the insane or acutely religious (do I repeat myself here?).”
Rand never talked about “rational actors”, but she did refer to man as the “rational animal”; a being that is capable of being rational.
Published: December 20, 2009 5:11 AM
C.H. Hellström
@ Kerem Tibuk
“All in all, I think this many libertarians are confused and support IP socialism because they dont have a good understanding of natural rights theory based on objective reality. Of course one may claim there is no objective reality, and laws must be based on the whims of the people but both claiming to be a libertarian and a supporter of private property rights and also be an IP socialist is a contradiction.”
Goodpost – I completely agree!
Here we clearly see how many problems that are caused by having a flawed philosophical system.
Published: December 20, 2009 5:23 AM
Jay Lakner
Kerem Tibuk’s arguments make very little sense to me.
If there are no humans, there is no such thing property.
If there is only one human, there is no such thing as property.
There is only property if two or more humans exist.
“Property” is a logical consequence of the action axiom when applied to the existence of two or more human beings in a world containing scarce resources.
Yes “property” is a law of nature. But it only exists because the world contains multiple human beings which need to consume scarce goods to maximise their satisfaction.
Hence the statement, “Property rights are established to resolve conflicts regarding scarce resources”, is logically derived from “objective reality”.
I don’t know what other sort of “objective reality” Kerem Tibuk imagines to exist, but it certainly isn’t the same one I live in.
Published: December 20, 2009 5:29 AM
Ryan
I’ve always been sensitive to both sides of the issue, and so I continue to be undecided. Kinsella’s arguments have not been helpful to me at all, but I think this is because – unlike most people around here – I’m not much of a Rothbard fan and I think anarchism is silly.
I do have some experience with indoctrination, and some of the comments above remind me “bearing testimony.”
I will probably never really make up my mind on this issue, but if I do, it will likely not have much to do with the discussions on this website.
Published: December 20, 2009 5:41 AM
Kerem Tibuk
Newson,
I know the term “IP socialist” bothers you but you don’t have to be silly just to get back at me. Nobody is advocating the socialization of protection costs for IP. iP can exist in a free society and can ve protected by the producers, you don’t need to worry.
Also I am not using the term to piss anybody off. What you are advocating is socialization of privately produces property, thus you are an IP socialist. If you would advocate socialization of all property you would be called just a socialist.
Published: December 20, 2009 6:53 AM
steve masteller
Absolutely, as an engineer I was naturally raised as part of the pro-ip camp. However, in the course of my study, I have come to recognize ip as a positive right telling other people what they may or may not do with their own property.
Published: December 20, 2009 8:47 AM
steve masteller
i.e. you may not take advantage of that law of nature because I noticed it first.
Published: December 20, 2009 8:53 AM
steve masteller
Thank goodness Newton didn’t get a patent.
Published: December 20, 2009 8:58 AM
Jay Lakner
Kerem Tibuk,
You, and everyone else on this site for that matter, know very well that you use the term “IP socialist” is a silly ad hominem attack. The consequences of doing this are a general detriment to your credibility and other’s estimate of your intellectual capabilities. Rather than be annoyed or angered by your use of this term, I simply pity you.
Kerem Tibuk wrote:
“What you are advocating is socialization of privately produces property, thus you are an IP socialist.”
Is this intellectual dishonesty?
Or are you truely incapable of understanding the position of others?
Anyone who believes that intangible goods should be considered a form of property, but are against IP laws, could be called an “IP socialist”.
Those who argue that intangible goods are not a form of property and are against IP laws clearly can NOT have the name “IP socialist” applied to them.
By pretending that the position, ‘intangible goods are not a form of property’ does not exist, you simply demonstrate that you are either dishonest, ignorant, spiteful or a combination of these traits.
Published: December 20, 2009 9:04 AM
Stephan Kinsella
Kerem Tibuk — you are certainly free to your opinion that IP is justified and a legitimate type of property. But you are arguing dishonestly here and simply engaged in question-begging. E.g., you write: “I read Kinsellas paper, and firstly as an instinct I knew something was wrong because at the end it called for abolition of type of private property.”
The question is whether this *is* a type of private property. Just because something is law does not mean it is justified. This is yet another example of how the Randian mentality tends toward legal positivism.
Published: December 20, 2009 9:08 AM
steve masteller
The biggest practical problem I see with my position is preventing plain old theft. Reverse engineering is one thing, but what is to prevent an unscrupulous engineer from just walking away from a company with a completed design on a memory stick. This is the primary issue in my mind.
Published: December 20, 2009 9:20 AM
steve masteller
Even if the engineer uses his own memory stick, to split hairs, I see no reason a company couldn’t write contracts with their employees too agree not to physically remove a design from the premises.
Published: December 20, 2009 9:25 AM
steve masteller
Barring some other obvious solution, I would have to say my current answer to this practical problem is that it poses a fantastic business opportunity to anyone that can solve it.
Published: December 20, 2009 9:36 AM
steve masteller
There would also seem to be a large market for anti-reverse engineering measures. Seems like a waste, but would also seem to be inevitable.
Published: December 20, 2009 9:43 AM
steve masteller
And I can’t imagine what would happen to software.
Warning Label: any attempt to view the contents of this software will release a malicious viris onto your computer. you have been warned.
Published: December 20, 2009 9:59 AM
steve masteller
Follow this line of thinking down a trail like biology and things get positively scary.
While I agree with the anti-ip crowd that it is a positive right. All I can say is careful what you wish for. Currently, I would be content with just constraining ip to shorter time limits.
Published: December 20, 2009 10:08 AM
steve masteller
…. much shorter.
Published: December 20, 2009 10:41 AM
Curt Howland
Silas Barta wrote,
“Why was interest (just to pick one) rationalized? To “reward postponing consumption”.”
No. Interest is the fee paid to satisfy time preference. It is agreed to up front, prior to the money being loaned.
“It rewards sitting on one’s seat and collecting interest payments.”
Correct. Prior postponed consumption has its later rewards, and bully for them! And so long as two people agree to a transaction, even if you want to call it “interest”, who am I to tell them they can’t?
The issue is the statute laws known as copyright/patent and their destructive and involuntary nature. Not voluntary transactions.
If you like, I wrote an article for The Libertarian Enterprise which just came out:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle549-20091220-05.html
It’s not “scholarly” so it’s likely just a bunch of stuff other people have already said somewhere else. Such is life. Hope I don’t get sued because I didn’t read their stuff first.
Published: December 20, 2009 10:52 AM
steve masteller
Basically, I would be afraid of turning every company into a fortress of impenetrable secrecy.
Published: December 20, 2009 11:08 AM
Kerem Tibuk
Jay,
I will try to make more sense.
“If there are no humans, there is no such thing property.”
True
“If there is only one human, there is no such thing as property. There is only property if two or more humans exist.”
False. Property doesnt need conflict or “aggression against property” to exist. That is clearly contradictory and putting the horse before the cart.
Property is extension of mans sovereignty to the external. You do not need another human being to to homestead and extend your sovereignty and make something your property.
“Property is established to resolve conflict regarding scarce resource” is false.
“Conflicts arise when one individual disregards and aggresses against anothers property” is true.
Also about “IP socialist”, I am sincerely not trying to agrevate anyone, but point out that what you argue for is a type of socialism.
You are talking about something produced by an individual and you claim it should be owned by “everyone”, the “society”. That is IP socialism.
Published: December 20, 2009 11:42 AM
Andras
@Steve Masteller,
I agree, testing the time limit would be a good start.
However, that would unveil that we are just social engineers and not philosophers. We are more arrogant than that, let’s talk revolution!
IP socialists of the world unite!
Published: December 20, 2009 12:08 PM
David C
I hate to say it, but Stephan Kinsella is my mini hero on this issue.
In 92, I strongly believed in IP, because I believe in property rights. However, I was in college as a computer science major, and anybody in that field could clearly see that software patents were pure evil satanic dirt. At first I took the position, that IP is good, but that patents don’t really apply to software. But that was logically inconsistent, and forced me to think about all IP in general. It took me till 98, and years of thinking about it to finally conclude that all copyrights and patents were evil.
It was a very personal and hurtful journey for me, because I so strongly believed in free markets and property rights. I always hoped that someone would make a compelling argument in favor of it. They never did. Having libertarian sympathies was already enough to isolate me philosophically from 95% of the population … and now I took a position that isolated me from 95% of libertarians.
I tried very hard to take my case against IP to the public, I even owned the ipnot.org domain for a while, which I believe at the time was the only anti-IP pro free market site on the internet. It was an exercise in uselessness. Stephan brought it to the intellectual mainstream in a way that I never could. So in my book, he’s an intellectual a legend.
Published: December 20, 2009 12:09 PM
Jay Lakner
Kerem Tibuk wrote:
**********
Property is extension of mans sovereignty to the external. You do not need another human being to to homestead and extend your sovereignty and make something your property.
**********
You are describing possession, not property.
If there is only one human being, there are things he does possess and things he does not possess. But there is no property.
It is only when additional human beings are added to the equation that the concept of property emerges.
The distinction between possession and property is clearly where this difference of opinion lies.
**********
You are talking about something produced by an individual and you claim it should be owned by “everyone”, the “society”. That is IP socialism.
**********
No I do not.
I am saying that intangible entities cannot be “owned” at all.
They can be possessed by anyone, but nobody owns them.
Once again, you need to acknowledge the difference between possession and ownership.
Let’s actually look at this ridiculous term of yours. What would be the fundamental beliefs of an “IP Socialist”?
a) Intangible entities are a form of property. (called IP)
b) IP is “owned” by everyone.
The logical ramifications of these beliefs are absurd:
– Every individual has a right to the information in every other person’s brain.
– Secrecy would be illegal.
– Privacy would be illegal.
Taken to logical extremes, absurd conclusions abound, for example, every man would have the right to view nude pictures of any woman on the planet. If you continue with these illogical assumptions, it’s obvious that physical property rights will rapidly break down completely.
I don’t know anyone who believes both a) and b). “IP socialism” is a ridiculous idea that does not in any way describe the anti-IP positions of anyone on this site. Your use of the term is either very insincere or completely ignorant of the fact that anti-IP people do not classify intangible entities as a form of property. Either way, you are embarrassing yourself every time you use the term “IP socialism”.
Published: December 20, 2009 12:57 PM
JL
ignore this post … trying to fix an error…
Published: December 20, 2009 1:16 PM
Saerden
Never liked the practical implications of IP, but considered it a necessary evil for progress. Changed my mind as more and more evidence (both practical and theoretical) surfaced showing that IP of all forms hinders innovation and prosperity.
I consider the libertarian case against (universal) IP to be rock solid now.
Im not sure on the inalienability of “ideas”. The same way one can (via contract) sign away his (non-)right to jump or shout on someone`s property, or agree to wear a bowler hat, one could agree to respect the contract framework for IP on a voluntary basis.
What is clear is that IP contracts could never apply to third parties who did not sign the contract. If A invents a mouse trap, and sells the plans for this trap to B under the condition that B does not, under any circumstances, reveals this information to anyone else, this contract might be viable and enforceable. However, if A and B discuss this trap (for example, in a bar), and C overhears it, neither A nor B have any right to aggress against C if he builds those traps and sells them for half the price.
Something like IP could arise naturally over time, as everyone signs in to the IP contract to get acess to the latest technology.
On a totally different note, i noticed that the pattern of libertarian resistance to abolishing IP is very similar to the statists resistance to abolishing state monopols.
The statist asks “how can there be stealth bombers in anarchy?” and the proper answer is – “there probably wont be any”.
“How can there be artists the way they are today in anarchy?” should honestly be answered with “there probably wont.” However, the same way that abolishing the government shoe monopole does not ruin the shoe market, because people still want shoes, abolishing the government innovation monopole will not ruin the innovation market, because people still want innovation.
The argument for IP is the typical “protect the market from itself” argument.
As for IP socialism – any oxygen socialists in here? If not, please consider paying fees for breathing oxygen produced by the plants on my property. Breathing is theft!
Published: December 20, 2009 1:36 PM
Brian Gladish
Property rights are functions of markets, and do not exist independently of them. If ways to monetize and protect ideas within a market framework are developed, they will be treated as property. If not, they won’t. Any amount of arguing beforehand is simply speculative. I tend to think that there are market pressures for such monetization and protection, but they aren’t a sine qua non for a free society.
Published: December 20, 2009 1:54 PM
Peter Surda
Kerem Tibuk, I think you would be taken more seriously if you wouldn’t avoid confronting counterarguments. Especially Jay Lakner and me presented you with several crucial ones.
I’ll provide you more. One I realised a couple of days ago. Current IP laws do not implement ownership of immaterial goods, merely pose restrictions on their manifestations. This is not my idea, I remember reading it long time ago somewhere, however if you look at the actual laws you’ll have to agree. Since according to you, ownership of immaterial goods is necessary for the economic calculation, does that mean calculation is impossible even now? If central planning wasn’t able to come up with a system of immaterial property, what makes you think it would happen on a free market?
If we are IP socialists, what is Andras who support patents? I guess he sees you as an IP socialist too.
Published: December 20, 2009 2:34 PM
Jim Fedako
I have changed, mainly due to your Against Intellectual Property.
Published: December 20, 2009 2:37 PM
AJ
I’ve definitely moved more strongly anti-IP since seeing Kinsella’s arguments and others.
Published: December 20, 2009 2:41 PM
ABR
I’m against the State, so in that sense I’m against State-sanctioned IP.
I think Kinsella’s argument against IP is valid, based on the premise noted earlier: “Property rights are established to resolve conflicts regarding scarce resources.” I agree with the premise as one reason to establish property rights. Not so sure it’s the only reason.
In a Stateless world, I’d be amenable to discussions regarding some form of IP. And I would favour frequency rights over a radius.
Published: December 20, 2009 3:26 PM
Matt Bianco
I’ve been converted! And, I’ve converted at least three more people in talking to them about it, and met at least three others who already were!
Definitely keep up the dialog!
Published: December 20, 2009 4:19 PM
Russ
Kerem Tibuk
“Also about “IP socialist”, I am sincerely not trying to agrevate anyone, but point out that what you argue for is a type of socialism.
You are talking about something produced by an individual and you claim it should be owned by “everyone”, the “society”. That is IP socialism.”
You are conveniently forgetting one little thing about IP vs. regular property. When a real socialist government decides that a person’s property should be socialized, then that person no longer has the ability to use his property. When an “IP socialist” government decides that a person’s “intellectual property” should be “socialized”, that person still has the ability to use that “property” himself. He may not be able to *profit* from it as he would like, but he can still *use* it. Only by ignoring this fundamental difference between real property and “intellectual property” can one conclude that the socializing of real property and “intellectual property” are equivalent.
Basically, what pro-IP libertarians are saying is that they would like it to be possible for the creators of “IP” to be able to profit from it, therefore we must create a legal fiction where this fundamental difference in natures between real property and “IP” is ignored. That way, an artificial scarcity of “IP” is created, and it can then be bought and sold as any other scarce economic good is. But government can’t change the fundamental difference in nature between real property and “intellectual property”.
Published: December 20, 2009 8:04 PM
Fred McTaker
@C.H. Hellström: I was actually quite fascinated with the writings of Ayn Rand during college. I read Fountainhead, Atlus Shrugged, and every essay compilation I came across (including other contributors like Greenspan). I read nothing associated with Rand with any thorough contemplation of the relation of rational adults to children, other than the broad claim that children and inheritance acted like a preferential-property right of the parent. The general sense I got is that she viewed children as property. That’s why I got over Rand. Please direct me to anything written by Ayn Rand that counters that view.
Second, I apologize for the double-post — I got an error on the first attempt, that looked like some sort of Windows file permission error.
Last, I wouldn’t mention this, but the Radio Frequency as property comments keep creeping in here. SK is correct that any EM debate is unrelated to IP. However, OFMDA encoding, as any form of frequency time-sharing, negate any arguments made here on EM ownership alone. That is sufficient to end the usefulness of further debate on the issue. Newer technologies like UWB, MIMO, beamforming, and Cognitive Radio drive the EM property argument further into the ground. This is also ignoring the basic physical fact that RF has the same properties as visible light spectrum EM, except for wavelength, meaning it is subject to the same properties of reflection and occlusion that make the camera obscura (i.e. human eyes) possible. Thus “owning RF” is no different than “owning colors”, which I hope is obviously ridiculous. The problem isn’t the nature of RF, but the current sensing and sending equipment, which is held back by both IP and attempts to force unnatural ownership rights on RF. Eliminate both, and suddenly invisible waves are a lot more useful. Google “Open Spectrum” for some succinct sources on the issue.
Published: December 20, 2009 8:21 PM
Russ
Fred McTaker wrote:
“Last, I wouldn’t mention this, but the Radio Frequency as property comments keep creeping in here. SK is correct that any EM debate is unrelated to IP.”
I think that Silas’…. persistence in pestering Kinsella causes many to either not see, or forget, that he does have a valid point. With *any* property right, including the normal kind that applies to physical property, a limitation on the rights of others to do as they might wish with their property is implied. For instance, my property right to my real estate implies a limit to your ability to use your bulldozer to drive through it. Part of Silas’ point, I think, is that if it is OK to limit peoples’ rights to do as they wish with their own property in the case of bulldozers, there can be no *principled* reason why the same cannot be said for radio transmitters or computers. So, I can see his point that, if I believe that it’s OK to restrict other peoples’ rights to use their bulldozers as they wish, then I should not object *in principle* to to the restriction of other peoples’ rights to use their computers as they wish, and if I argue that regular property rights are valid but IP is wrong *in principle*, then I am contradicting myself.
Having said that, I don’t find his arguments equating IP and EM spectrum rights *in practice* to be at all convincing, because EM spectrum and IP don’t have the same fundamental nature, Silas’ “pattern instantiation” argument notwithstanding.
Published: December 20, 2009 8:39 PM
RWW
Kinsella’s writings convinced me some years ago on the issue of IP. It was the last step in my movement to anarchism/voluntaryism from unprincipled minarchism (but I repeat myself).
Published: December 20, 2009 9:28 PM
Russ
RWW wrote:
“It was the last step in my movement to anarchism/voluntaryism from unprincipled minarchism (but I repeat myself).”
Didn’t we just recently have a discussion about the meaning of the words “intelligent and civil”?
Published: December 20, 2009 9:51 PM
Nick
I started my career as a software engineer in 1999 and by 2002 I was certain technology patents (specifically software patents) caused more harm than good. What I’ve seen over the last 6 years has only made me more certain.
Published: December 20, 2009 10:23 PM
DixieFlatline
I came to be against intellectual monopoly mostly on my own. The lack of scarcity in ideas resonated with me.
I was aware of Stephan’s work, but he is an imposing intellectual figure, and his style is not at the level of a layman, which I was and continue to be to this day.
Since that time, I have watched Kinsella and others debate this on the Mises blog, as well as being affected by the ideas and works of Jeffrey Tucker, Boldrine and Levin. Also, we have had many extended debates in the Mises Community Forum, which I feel is a great place to masticate ideas until they are nothing more than truth.
The arguments against intellectual monopoly are very simple. If you support monopoly or privilege, you are working against liberty.
Published: December 20, 2009 10:59 PM
waywardwayfarer
I read Kinsella’s “Against Intellectual Property” about a year ago, very skeptical going in, and completely persuaded by the end. The indisputable fact that supposed intellectual property rights usurp tangible property rights was the major factor (but by no means the only one) in my conversion. Carrying IP to its logical conclusion would produce a situation so absurd as to render human life and action effectively impossible.
As an aspiring novelist, recognition and acceptance of the illegitimacy of IP has some pretty far-reaching implications, but I’ve reached the point that I find the possibilities exciting rather than disturbing.
Published: December 21, 2009 1:00 AM
Gil
I believe K. Tibuk is right in saying “property rights means owning the fruits of your labour” as opposed “resolving conflicts” as J. Lakner reckons. Tibuk’s notion of property rights hones in on the ‘homesteading’ principle – you only gain ownership over unowned resources you can actually use rather than Lakner’s concept of ‘territoriality’ – the first to fence off land owns it regardless if they will then leave 99% idle except to defend it from trespassers.
At least Saerden has the honesty to say “if people can’t get return on their inventions/innovation without I.P. protection then it’s not going to get done in the free market. After all, if Libertarians hate current I.P. why would they like a similar I.P. system if it could emerge in the free market – you will still have someone telling you what you can and can’t do with your own property. If drugs couldn’t operate without I.P. as they can’t recoup their costs then their innovations won’t occur. Then again, reading what Libertarians think of disease at LewRockwell.com they assume any cure rests in their garden or doesn’t the disease doesn’t exist at all.
Published: December 21, 2009 1:03 AM
Kerem Tibuk
“You are describing possession, not property.
If there is only one human being, there are things he does possess and things he does not possess. But there is no property.
It is only when additional human beings are added to the equation that the concept of property emerges.
The distinction between possession and property is clearly where this difference of opinion lies.”
The reason you are making this distinction is, you still assume the main premise I am trying to refute. You have to able to check your premises and at least assume the opposite but you are not doing that.
You are still assuming rights are derived from the society. You think Crusoe can possess (whatever that really means) something he homesteaded but can not own it (owning implies property) and only after Friday comes to the island there can be some kind of social contract regarding resources.
I claim rights are natural and individual. They exist and they are carried over to the society. Crusoe doesn’t need Friday to exist or have rights, mainly property rights. Crusoe is the ultimate free man. He can not be freer if he wanted to. But he needs division of labor to better his life and that requires society. So the point is keeping the liberties he had, carrying them to the society and also take advantage of the society.
To me the premise “property rights are established to resolve conflict regarding scarce resources” is as arbitrary as “property rights are established to resolve conflict regarding movable resources” and don’t think there are nobody that thinks the second premise is true, either.
Also the premise is absurd on so many levels.
Who established this rule? When was it established? Was it established at some specific time, or is it an ongoing process? Since nobody challenged you regarding the shirt you wear, does this mean the shirt is not your property but merely in your possession now? Why would there be conflict regarding scarce resources only? Is it because scarcity is a condition of supply and it implies there should be value to things with limited supply thus a desire? Isn’t this bringing value, economics, into a field of ethics? What if something is scarce but not demanded at all? It should be property according to the premise, but whose property will it be?
Published: December 21, 2009 1:13 AM
Kerem Tibuk
Peter,
I don’t thing your knowledge in economics is sufficient for a debate on the calculation argument. We tried it and failed.
Published: December 21, 2009 1:15 AM
Kerem Tibuk
Dixie,
” If you support monopoly or privilege, you are working against liberty.”
Fine. Then go to the logical conclusion and advocate full blown socialism because private property means having monopoly privilege regarding an object.
Lets abolish all property and liberate everyone.
These are all Freudian slips and you get upset when I use the term “IP socialist”
Published: December 21, 2009 1:20 AM
Kerem Tibuk
Russ,
“You are conveniently forgetting one little thing about IP vs. regular property. When a real socialist government decides that a person’s property should be socialized, then that person no longer has the ability to use his property. When an “IP socialist” government decides that a person’s “intellectual property” should be “socialized”, that person still has the ability to use that “property” himself. He may not be able to *profit* from it as he would like, but he can still *use* it. Only by ignoring this fundamental difference between real property and “intellectual property” can one conclude that the socializing of real property and “intellectual property” are equivalent.”
Nobody is talking about the right to profit. Property is about extending your sovereignty. One may profit if others value it or one may not. This doesn’t change the fact regarding ownership.
Published: December 21, 2009 1:23 AM
Kerem Tibuk
Russ,
“You are conveniently forgetting one little thing about IP vs. regular property. When a real socialist government decides that a person’s property should be socialized, then that person no longer has the ability to use his property. When an “IP socialist” government decides that a person’s “intellectual property” should be “socialized”, that person still has the ability to use that “property” himself. He may not be able to *profit* from it as he would like, but he can still *use* it. Only by ignoring this fundamental difference between real property and “intellectual property” can one conclude that the socializing of real property and “intellectual property” are equivalent.”
Nobody is talking about the right to profit. Property is about extending your sovereignty. One may profit if others value it or one may not. This doesn’t change the fact regarding ownership.
Published: December 21, 2009 1:27 AM
waywardwayfarer
I agree with the argument that property is meaningless as a concept in the case of one person living in complete isolation. That doesn’t make it a “social contract” or negate its status as natural law or anything of the sort. It simply requires the context of human interaction to have any real meaning, just as a second point is required for the concept of distance to have any meaning.
Published: December 21, 2009 1:36 AM
epilp88
First stumbled upon Kinsella’s arguments 2 years ago, then gradually worked my way to an anarcho-capitalist position. Property rights are (I think) derived from man’s identity (his nature). There is nothing natural about restricting the free flow of ideas/information, because ideas are not naturally scarce.
Illegitimate property is that which is gained at the expense of another. But “gaining” an idea does not diminish that idea as it is held by anyone else. It does nothing to infringe on them.
Published: December 21, 2009 2:39 AM
Russ
Kerem Tibuk wrote:
“Nobody is talking about the right to profit.”
Well, that’s certainly what most people in the software or “digital content” industry care about.
“Property is about extending your sovereignty. One may profit if others value it or one may not. This doesn’t change the fact regarding ownership.”
I am assuming that you are coming from a sort of Lockean angle here? That is, by virtue of the labor that you put into something, you “extend your sovereignty” over it? When it comes to physical property, I would certainly agree that this is a reasonable argument, but that is because physical property is economically scarce. For instance, when the first man put his labor into a tree trunk and made a wheel out of it, he can be said to then own that wheel, and others can’t rightfully take it. If he could not, then that wheel would have been of no use to him. He did not, however, own the *idea* of the wheel. Someone else could then take that idea, and apply his labor to another tree trunk and own another wheel. To use Silas’ terminology, when the first man “instantiated the pattern” of a wheel on a tree trunk, he owned that instance of the pattern, but not the pattern itself. It’s the same with software, for instance. When you instantiate a pattern on a hard disk (you write a program), you certainly own that instance of the pattern (because it’s on your hard disk), but I can’t see how it justifies you owning the pattern itself.
In short, I think you’re applying the “labor theory of ownership”, which works well enough for regular physical property, to a case where it doesn’t properly apply. The reason it doesn’t apply is because, while regular property is a scarce economic resource (i.e. it can’t be easily copied), intellectual “property” isn’t (i.e. it can be easily copied).
Published: December 21, 2009 3:26 AM
Peter Surda
@Kerem Tibuk:
What a convenient excuse.
Published: December 21, 2009 3:27 AM
Gil
But Russ isn’t the ‘labour theory of ownership’ the basis of ‘homesteading’?
Published: December 21, 2009 4:23 AM
Bala
Kerem Tibuk,
” You are still assuming rights are derived from the society. ”
Still dishing out the same “argument”. That “rights” are a moral concept defining and sanctioning man’s freedom of action in a social CONTEXT does not mean that rights originate from society. It only means that absent a society (read other people), the concept “property” has no meaning to a rational human being (sorry about the redundancy). To Robinson Crusoe, there are only “existents” and “possessions”. For instance, Crusoe himself exists as do all the plants, trees and animals as well as inanimate objects that are found on the island. They are all existents. Only those things which Crusoe has in his physical grasp constitute his possessions. He is free to take possession of any existent at any point in time (as long as it exists when he decides to take possession).
It is only the fact that one is dealing with other rational animals that can lead Crusoe (as it would any man) to the moral concept that we call “property”. It is only the question “who ought to be in possession of a given existent?” that defines the concept “property”. The “ought” here is a moral one. It is only when an existent could be in your hand or mine but “ought” to be in yours, as determinable based on a rational moral framework, that the existent is deemed to be your “property”.
Please also bear in mind that talking of a concept “property” w.r.t. Robinson Crusoe (defined here as the concept of a man who has always been isolated from other human beings) reflects a very poor epistemology.
The source of the concept “right to property” is still man’s nature – that of a rational animal with a volitional consciousness, whose values are not automatic and given but need to be gained and then kept. In the absence of a society, i.e., other men, there is no possibility of “taking” of a man’s possessions by another rational animal and hence no concept “property”.
How you take this to be a “social contract” theory still beats me!!!
Published: December 21, 2009 4:38 AM
Bala
Kerem Tibuk,
How about stating your definition of the concept “property” (since you know mine)? I am quite certain that that would be a good point to continue the discussion.
Published: December 21, 2009 4:44 AM
Peter Surda
Even if one approaches the property definition from the homesteading angle rather than scarcity, the argument doesn’t finish here. As I explained several times before, if you allow homesteading of immaterial features, anything causally related to an action can be potentially claimed to be homesteaded by that action. So you face the dillemma of demarcation. You need to specify where on the causality scale the property ends. If you draw it at the maximum, all positive externalities become property rights violations. Since this is not a claim IP proponents are making, it means that while causality might be a necessary homesteading condition, it is not a sufficient one and additional rules are required. IP proponents have not described those rules.
Published: December 21, 2009 4:49 AM
Kerem Tibuk
Russ,
“I am assuming that you are coming from a sort of Lockean angle here? That is, by virtue of the labor that you put into something, you “extend your sovereignty” over it? When it comes to physical property, I would certainly agree that this is a reasonable argument, but that is because physical property is economically scarce”
I find the issue of scarcity irrelevant. It has no bearing on the concept of property and it is a purely arbitrary prerequisite. Also it is contradictory in the sense that it doesn’t follow cause and effect.
As I said, one can also say and has said that “property is established regarding only movable objects” and deny land can be property.
In that case I would state my case the same way and say movability has nothing to do with property and whoever advocates abolishment of land property is a “land socialist”.
And then, the “land socialist” would claim, assuming his conclusion, since land can not be property, the term “land socialist” is an insult, and this would go on and on.
Published: December 21, 2009 5:14 AM
Kerem Tibuk
Peter,
I dont know what to say. I stated at the beginning of the calculation argument that,
Without private property there can be no exchanges. Without any exchanges there can not be prices. Without prices there can not be any signals, directing production regarding scarce resources. And I applied this to the production of IP:
And you talk about cost accounting and how costs determine prices.
In order for us to argue on this line we have to go all the way back and argue economic theory first, and that is a taunting task for me.
Published: December 21, 2009 5:17 AM
Bala
Kerem Tibuk,
” Without private property there can be no exchanges. ”
Wrong right there. Only “possession” is required for exchange. “Property” is the recognition that a particular state of “possession” (by a particular person and not by any other) is morally sound.
Published: December 21, 2009 5:22 AM
Kerem Tibuk
Bala,
I repeated my understanding of property many times. I assume we all agree man is sovereign over his own mind and body and this is a fact of this universe. This is generally called self ownership. Property is the extension of an individuals sovereignty (self ownership) to the external.
The defining characteristic of property is not that if the individual can protect this extension or not. If someone stronger comes and aggres against it this is a violation of natural law, just as jumping of a cliff and expecting to fly is violation of natural law. Both violations have consequences.
I define property, and Jay for example calls it “possession” and makes a distinction because he thinks rights originate in society.
You are making the same mistake. You are both talking about natural rights and also deny rights originate in isolation (from the individual not necessarily in deserted island) and they are carried to the society. If you claim rights aren’t meaningful to the individual, you are in fact claiming they originate from society.
We know there are people who actually claim rights originate from society and and individual is only a part of the society. These people mostly have inner consistency but of course their view contradict with reality.
If you claim rights are only meaningful in social context how do you think two views can be distinguished. They are saying the same thing, but they are at least more consistent and don’t just stop with the property, and extend this rights based on social context further.
If “property is established to resolve conflicts regarding scarce resources” is a type of social contract what can possible be a social contract?
What is missing when Robinson Crusoe homesteads and makes something his regarding property? What ever is meant by owning property Crusoe has it.
The only thing that is missing is the possibility of aggression coming from another individual.
And that is the twisted logic of putting effect before the cause.
There has to be a homesteading (which means means making something nature given your property) before any possibility of aggression arises. Thus possibility of aggression can not come before homesteading of property.
Published: December 21, 2009 5:40 AM
Kerem Tibuk
Peter,
Your problem with IP (regarding ethical issue not the calculation argument) is your views regarding objective reality.
At least in the case of IP you don’t believe in objective reality.
As you remember, you asked me to read your book review and tell you the book in subject.
You are assuming your vagueness or my ignorance regarding the book you read prior to the review is relevant to the fact you read a certain book or not.
I can say to you that I just ate a round sweet fruit and ask you if I have in fact ate a pear or an apple.
You may know the fruit or may not know. But the fact is I ate an apple doesn’t change. That is the objective reality.
A poem written by Crusoe doesn’t depend on other people to exist. It exits where someone reads or not.
And if you mean when someone take an idea, and mixes it with something he has in his head that is unique to him, that is not different than taking someones apples and making an apple pie, or taking someones marble and making a state out of it.
Published: December 21, 2009 5:48 AM
Kerem Tibuk
Should have been,
“If “property is established to resolve conflicts regarding scarce resources” is NOT a type of social contract what can possible be a social contract?
Published: December 21, 2009 5:50 AM
Kerem Tibuk
Bala,
“Wrong right there. Only “possession” is required for exchange. “Property” is the recognition that a particular state of “possession” (by a particular person and not by any other) is morally sound.”
Have you read Mises at all or at least “Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth”?
http://mises.org/econcalc.asp
Published: December 21, 2009 5:58 AM
Bala
Kerem Tibuk,
Please explain why distress sales happen at prices far below market prices.
Please also explain sales of stolen goods because by no stretch of imagination can you call a stolen good as the thief’s “property”.
Published: December 21, 2009 6:17 AM
Peter Surda
@Kerem Tibuk:
> Your problem with IP (regarding ethical issue not the
> calculation argument) is your views regarding
> objective reality.
Your problem is that you see objective reality where there is only subjective one. Not only that, but you even fail to characterise its features (i.e. fail to demarcate).
> At least in the case of IP you don’t believe in
> objective reality.
I believe to have proven sufficiently that immaterial goods do not have objective features.
> As you remember, you asked me to read your book
> review and tell you the book in subject.
Yes, I remember that vividly.
> You are assuming your vagueness or my ignorance
> regarding the book you read prior to the review is
> relevant to the fact you read a certain book or not.
No. I am assuming that, since having all the facts is objectively insufficient to make a conclusion, you would finally come to the realisation that the immaterial features are subjective. I read both Harry Potter and Ender’s Game. I am not hiding it. You have all the facts. There is nothing else hidden from you. Again: if you have all the facts, and that is insufficient to determine the answer, that means the connection between the answer and the facts is subjective.
The only thing you don’t know is what was happening in my head while I was writing the summary. But for you that should be irrelevant, because that would also only prove that the summary doesn’t have an objective meaning, but depends on my thought processes.
> I can say to you that I just ate a round sweet fruit and
> ask you if I have in fact ate a pear or an apple.
You horribly misrepresent my question. You claim that missing facts lead to inability to make a conclusion. Which is perfectly fine and has nothing to do with my argument.
I have already explained this before, yet you ignore it once again.
> You may know the fruit or may not know. But the fact
> is I ate an apple doesn’t change. That is the objective
> reality.
And this relates to my counterargument how?
> A poem written by Crusoe doesn’t depend on other
> people to exist. It exits where someone reads or not.
Let us assume that the immaterial entity “Crusoe’s poem” exists. How do you objectively determine its boundaries?
> And if you mean when someone take an idea, and
> mixes it with something he has in his head that is
> unique to him, that is not different than taking
> someones apples and making an apple pie, or
> taking someones marble and making a state out of
> it.
Since it is impossible to take an idea into one’s head without mixing it with something that is already there, the whole sentence makes no sense.
Published: December 21, 2009 6:47 AM
Kerem Tibuk
Bala,
“Please explain why distress sales happen at prices far below market prices.”
No sale happens below market prices. Market price is the price a sale is made.
But if you mean ask the reason why some people sell below prices that have been observed in the near past, the reason is simple. They value the money more than the goods they let go at that moment. If you wonder why this happens, there can be many reasons but I don’t think it is relevant.
“Please also explain sales of stolen goods because by no stretch of imagination can you call a stolen good as the thief’s “property”.”
You are getting confused by two issues in two different contexts.
A context where private property rights are recognized and there is theft (theft implies there are property rights but they are violated) and the sale of the stolen good,
is not the same as,
A context where no private property rights are recognized and not exchange can take place. In this construct it is imagined that we are dealing with the perfect socialist man, a voluntary slave to the society with no problems of greed and motivation. Even then it doesn’t work as Mises showed.
Published: December 21, 2009 6:57 AM
EIS
Bala,
“Please explain why distress sales happen at prices far below market prices.”
What do you mean when you say “below market prices?” Distressed sales necessarily alter the market price to a lower level. Additional buyers, who previously lacked adequate purchasing power, are now able to engage in exchange. That comment is pure confusion.
“Please also explain sales of stolen goods”
You’re presupposing the existence of property rights in order to validate your absurd argument. Either way, property rights can be violated. I can be enslaved, and my watch can be taken from me forcefully. The former condition implies that I’m not given a wage (the price of labor) for my productions. Kerem Tibuk’s argument holds.
Published: December 21, 2009 7:11 AM
Peter Surda
@Kerem Tibuk:
> I dont know what to say.
Maybe instead of writing you should read a book about cost accounting and how it is used in order to facilitate business decisions. Even before that, maybe you should try to apply your own theory into simple things of everyday life and see if anything is missing.
> I stated at the beginning of the calculation argument
> that,
> Without private property there can be no exchanges.
Objection 1: immaterial goods cannot be exchanged, only their manifestations (B&L point that out)
Objection 2: current legal system does not implement ownership of immaterial goods
Objection 3: bundling is sufficient to allow exchange
Objection 4: cost accounting teaches you to calculate prices even if unbundling and 1 on 1 assignment is impossible or impractical
Each of the objections is sufficient to poke a hole in your argument.
> Without any exchanges there can not be prices.
This is true. But see above.
> Without prices there can not be any signals, directing
> production regarding scarce resources.
This can be interpreted in multiple ways. Allow my own interpretation: absent prices, the business owner cannot use calculations to help him make business decisions.
> And you talk about cost accounting and how costs
> determine prices.
I think you drag the discussion into the irrelevant. It would be more clear to you if you understood cost accounting and its applications in business decision making, for example how one can assign indirect costs to outputs, do a return on investment analysis or determine the optimal production plan.
> In order for us to argue on this line we have to go all
> the way back and argue economic theory first, and
> that is a taunting task for me.
You arguments fail on basic things of everyday life. Understanding economic theory has nothing to do with it.
Published: December 21, 2009 7:12 AM
Kerem Tibuk
“No. I am assuming that, since having all the facts is objectively insufficient to make a conclusion, you would finally come to the realisation that the immaterial features are subjective. I read both Harry Potter and Ender’s Game. I am not hiding it. You have all the facts. There is nothing else hidden from you. Again: if you have all the facts, and that is insufficient to determine the answer, that means the connection between the answer and the facts is subjective.”
Me knowing the facts is irrelevant. What matters is if you can distinguish between two books, or rather distinguish a book given by nature, a book you have written and a book written by someone else.
Because ethical choice of acting regarding the three options and which is actually the case, is yours and yours only.
If it is nature given, you may homestead it.
If you wrote it, it is yours and you may do whatever you wish with it..
If someone else wrote it, it is his/her property.
Published: December 21, 2009 7:12 AM
EIS
Peter Surda,
“Objection 4: cost accounting teaches you to calculate prices even if unbundling and 1 on 1 assignment is impossible or impractical”
You can’t calculate costs if there are not prices. Cost and supply curves are merely older demand curves–which are contingent upon property ownership.
“I think you drag the discussion into the irrelevant. It would be more clear to you if you understood cost accounting and its applications in business decision making, for example how one can assign indirect costs to outputs, do a return on investment analysis or determine the optimal production plan.”
That can only tell you the optimal production method for that period–it’s static. Without private property and free exchange you cannot have meaningful prices which allocate scarce resources in a dynamic economy.
Published: December 21, 2009 7:24 AM
Bala
Kerem Tibuk,
All I am saying is that for AN exchange (in the singular) to happen, I need to be in possession of something you want while simultaneously you need to be in possession of something I want. All that is required for an exchange to happen is that the subjective valuations of the two individuals should be such that each thinks he gains.
No concept of property is required for this. All it requires is for both of us (you and me) to either realise that exchange is the only way of getting what we each want or to decide that exchange is a better way (“better” here meaning that which will serve my interests more effectively) of dealing with the other person than snatching that which we want using brute force.
Published: December 21, 2009 7:32 AM
EIS
Bala,
“All I am saying is that for AN exchange (in the singular) to happen, I need to be in possession of something you want while simultaneously you need to be in possession of something I want. All that is required for an exchange to happen is that the subjective valuations of the two individuals should be such that each thinks he gains.”
Really? Do they not require possession over the goods they wish to exchange? What are they exchanging, their thoughts?
Published: December 21, 2009 7:36 AM
Peter Surda
@Kerem Tibuk:
> Me knowing the facts is irrelevant. What matters is if
> you can distinguish between two books, or rather
> distinguish a book given by nature, a book you have
> written and a book written by someone else.
Again, you drag the discussion into the irrelevant. Allow me first finish the first part and than show the error in your objection.
My summary experiment showed that immaterial goods do not have objective features or boundaries. Since they do not have objective boundaries, you cannot claim they are natural. End of story.
Now, I also showed that under certain circumstances, you cannot distinguish between two books. Yet you claim that they are different books. Why?
The whole situation demonstrate issues with you arguments. In some cases, you claim good A and good B are the same, and it’s obvious, without any explanation or evidence. Then you claim that good C and good D are different, and it’s obvious, again without any explanation or evidence. You have yet to explain how you draw these seemingly arbitrary conclusions.
Published: December 21, 2009 7:39 AM
Peter Surda
@Kerem Tibuk:
> You can’t calculate costs if there are not prices.
In order for that to be correct in the way you mean it, it would also apply to all goods that cause indirects costs. Which is obviously not true, cost accounting teaches you how to calculate using indirect costs.
Why don’t you address objections 1-3?
Published: December 21, 2009 7:46 AM
EIS
Peter Surda,
“Now, I also showed that under certain circumstances, you cannot distinguish between two books. Yet you claim that they are different books. Why?”
Oh god, another attack on reason. How boring.
Published: December 21, 2009 7:46 AM
Stephan Kinsella
overtheedge: “Patents come in two flavors: utility and design. ”
They come in three: plant patents too. And that’s just in the US–in other countries, there is a fourth–a sort of “petty” patent (sometimes called “utility model”) that has a shorter term and that is examined for formalities and novely only, not for nonobviousness (or inventive step). And then there are business method and software patents that used to not be available.
Who knows what other artificial classifications the state could come up with to protect legislatively? Maybe boat hull designs? Semiconductor maskwork designs? Maybe database rights? Perfume smells? Fashion sense? Food recipes? Mathematical equations and basic laws of physics and chemistry? There’s so much unmonopolized stuff out there left to confer “property rights” to! Let’s get going!
Published: December 21, 2009 8:31 AM
Stephan Kinsella
overtheedge: “Though I intended to confine this to patents, another thought hit. If I have no IP right to anything I say or write, then I can’t be held accountable for anything I say or write. I could ascribe it to Stephan Kinsella, Albert Einstein or Barrack Obama. Let the market of public opinion determine the authenticity, value or what-ever.”
Patent and copyright have nothing to do with authenticity and attribution. That is more trademark and reputation rights–the latter of which are unlibertarian and the former of which are also unlibertarian to the extent they give a right to the markholder instead of the defrauded consumer.
I address a similar issue in Reply to Van Dun: Non-Aggression and Title Transfer, in the discussion about the mislabeled Rothard burgers etc.
Published: December 21, 2009 8:35 AM
EIS
@Stephan Kinsella,
“Semiconductor maskwork designs?”
I learned in industrial economics that they already did this. See, Scherer’s “Industry Structure, Strategy, and Public Policy.”
Published: December 21, 2009 8:36 AM
Stephan Kinsella
Sag, “You might be interested to know I moved to an anti-IP position after coming across Mises on money and banking. That’s also how I discovered this site (Alta Vista-ing Mises). It might seem unrelated but Mises’ type of reasoning got me to react to pro IP arguments when I heard them.”
This is interesting. Would you care to elaborate? How exactly did Mises on money/banking lead you to be skeptical of the orthodox position on IP?
Published: December 21, 2009 8:42 AM
Stephan Kinsella
EIS: “@Stephan Kinsella,
“Semiconductor maskwork designs?”
I learned in industrial economics that they already did this. See, Scherer’s “Industry Structure, Strategy, and Public Policy.””
Yes, and boat hull designs too. Database rights were proposed but the legislation never (not yet) adopted. The others in my chain of examples are not protected… yet. AFAIK. I didn’t mean to imply that all on that list was speculative. the first two are already law; the next was considered; the rest are other possibilities for the IP totalitarians.
Published: December 21, 2009 8:44 AM
Daniel Hewitt
Hello Stephan,
In regards to your earlier comment:
This was actually the opposite in my case. I am an engineer who has worked for a patent-happy company in the past. I always thought it was rather silly to waste so much time and resources on patenting every last thing. However, I had never heard the anti-IP argument, and just thought that’s the way things were supposed to work.
I listened to a podcast of one of your speeches, and you were not even halfway through the lecture when you convinced me.
There are still several reservations I have (MBrown summarized them well in the first post) but I have not spent sufficient time working my way through them yet. Someday I will….
Published: December 21, 2009 8:46 AM
scineram
I no longer feel any guilt when downloading. Thank you.
Published: December 21, 2009 10:26 AM
Jay Lakner
Kerem Tibuk,
It completely baffles me that you continue to assert that there are economic calculation arguments in the absence of IP.
It has repeatedly been demonstrated that “ownership” is only a prerequisite for the exchange of tangible goods and that “possession” is all that is required for the exchange of intangible goods. Intangible goods clearly can have prices, despite being “owned” by nobody.
Despite the fact that one can produce unlimited examples to back up this claim, you stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge it, let alone attempt to disprove it.
You have some reasonable arguments for your beliefs in the fundamental origin of property. Maybe you should just stick to them. Your calculation argument is bust.
Published: December 21, 2009 11:11 AM
S Andrews
I’m for limited duration IP rights.
Published: December 21, 2009 12:23 PM
Andras
@Kerem Tibuk,
I admire your patience. Thank you for being sanity in the asylum. Please do not give up.
Published: December 21, 2009 1:32 PM
Brian Drake
Didn’t have strong pro-IP thoughts, but accepted the mainstream “guilt” associated with “stealing” software/music/movies/etc…
Read Kinsella’s “Against IP” and was instantly convinced.
I’ve come to see all human conflicts in terms of property rights and found fictional property rights (IP) to be incompatible with real property rights.
But, as Walter Block is fond of saying, just because something should be “criminal”, doesn’t mean it’s “good” and desirable. I don’t advocate prostitution or recreational drug use, but don’t see those as criminal acts either. Fraud is crime (as trademark infringement can be), but even non-fraud plagiarism is “not cool”. But that’s a personal morality issue, not a legal one.
Published: December 21, 2009 2:23 PM
Jay Lakner
Kerem Tibuk wrote:
**********
I claim rights are natural and individual. They exist and they are carried over to the society. Crusoe doesn’t need Friday to exist or have rights, mainly property rights. Crusoe is the ultimate free man. He can not be freer if he wanted to. But he needs division of labor to better his life and that requires society. So the point is keeping the liberties he had, carrying them to the society and also take advantage of the society.
**********
But Crusoe doesn’t keep the liberties he had. You said yourself, “he can not be freer if he wanted to”. Now that Friday has arrived, he needs to give up many of his liberties. He is clearly not “keeping the liberties he had”. Therefore, the above paragraph is illogical nonsense.
Kerem also wrote:
**********
To me the premise “property rights are established to resolve conflict regarding scarce resources” is as arbitrary as “property rights are established to resolve conflict regarding movable resources” and don’t think there are nobody that thinks the second premise is true, either.
**********
That’s because of the way you word it. You make it sound like a social contract when, in fact, it is not.
A more correct way to word it would be:
Since tangible materials cannot possibly be consumed by more than one person, the concept of property must emerge.
A truly arbitrary definition is: “property is extension of mans sovereignty to the external”.
This statement is extremely broad and does not explain how a man “extends” his “sovereignty to the external”. The “mixing one’s labor with resources” isn’t much better either. You need to define “mixing labor”. Both attempts fail on the basis of subjectivity and arbitrariness.
Does looking at a waterfall give you rights of ownership? Aren’t I extending my sovereignty to things I look at? What about if I gain pleasure by looking at it? What if I think very hard about ways to use it? Isn’t ‘thinking very hard’ a form of labor? Isn’t ‘thinking very hard’ about something a way of extending my sovereignty to that thing? What if I go to the efforts of placing a fence around the waterfall? Haven’t I “mixed my labor with the resource”? Do I have to physically alter the waterfall in order to own it? To what extent do I need to alter it to “extend my sovereignty” to it? Put a roof over it? Put a fence around it? Rearrange the rocks that it consists of? Urinate on it? Yell at it? Shine light on it? And whatever your answer to this question is, why exactly does it give me some sort of right to the waterfall?
And you still haven’t seemed to grasp the fact that, using your definition of property, there is no way to differentiate between “ownership” and “possession” in a one-man society. By your definition of property, both terms are equivalent and only diverge in meaning when additional humans become present.
But this is illogical. They have two different definitions. They cannot be the same thing. So we have to consider what is it that differentiates between possession and ownership.
Ownership establishes the difference between “mine” and “yours”. There cannot be a “mine” if there is no such thing as a “yours”. Therefore, “ownership” cannot exist if there is only one human.
And you treat this line of reasoning as somehow illogical in the context of natural law. You say things like “rights are individual and natural” as if laws that rely on the existence of prerequiste conditions are not natural. The dependency of property rights on the existence of multiple human beings does not mean they are unnatural. The existence of prerequisite conditions does not render something unnatural.
The laws of physics combined with a large concentration of hydrogen results in the existence of stars. The concept of a “star” does not make any sense if these conditions are absent. It is obviously absurd to claim that a “star” exists prior to the prerequisites that give rise to its existence. And stars are certainly natural. It’s just that they require specific conditions to form. In this case, the laws of physics and the existence of a large concentration of hydrogen.
Similarly, the reality of the scarcity of tangible goods combined with multiple humans results in the existence of “rights”. If one of the prerequisites is not present, then the concept is meaningless. But this does not make rights unnatural. It is a natural consequence arising when certain prerequisite conditions exist. In this case, the law of scarcity and the existence of two or more humans.
Published: December 21, 2009 2:50 PM
overtheedge
Odd that I would have forgotten plant patents especially when I spent a portion of my career in the field of horticulture.
Re: plant patents. I will be the first to argue against any plant patent that might occur by accident. As an example, the crossing of two different broccoli strains in a garden. Therefore if it can happen in nature, it must NOT be patentable. On this I assume we have some agreement.
“Patent and copyright have nothing to do with authenticity and attribution. That is more trademark and reputation rights–the latter of which are unlibertarian and the former of which are also unlibertarian to the extent they give a right to the markholder instead of the defrauded consumer.”
Herein is where the argument gets slippery. If the idea has no ownership, then any and all matters subsequent to the idea have no ownership. There must be a foundation to build the house on. Reputation is but an idea often not shared by other consumers. The customer/consumer can’t be defrauded unless and until claims are ascribed to the product or idea by an owner. We can easily claim a product is owned, but any and all ideas associated with the product are not; by definition of “non-ownership of an idea.”
Hence the failure of the consumer to correctly identify the utility of the idea and its subsequent product to meet the consumer’s needs MUST be the consumer’s fault exclusively. The idea has no ownership (by definition) and consequently no party can claim fraud when the party willingly purchased the product based upon the idea. Is advertising not just an expression of an idea? If so, it can not be claimed that the tenderence of the idea is fraudulent. “Truth in advertising” is meaningless when it comes to claims. Witness TV advertising claims: Voted #1 by …, increase the size …, get a better night’s sleep …, yada, yada.
I wouldn’t tender the claim that ethics shouldn’t be a concern to the manufacturer of the product based upon the idea. In a perfect marketplace, the consumer would boycott the maker of any product who misrepresents the utility of the idea and its subsequent product. However we can all see that the marketplace readily spends ever more money for perpetually broken goods. An example: computer operating systems.
Does the whole IP system need retooling? Of course. Does the IP system serve utility? Usually. Is utility neccessary? Undoubtedly. Does this debate serve a useful purpose? Most assuredly and it needs more debate. IP rights laws are broken and need major realignment with the reality of “just what constitutes “new and novel” rather than some obscure tweaking of a previous idea.
I seem to recall that during the 18th and 19th century, England use to award monetary prizes to inventors. Perhaps this has some not-so-small merit when it comes to inovation and renumeration.
Admittedly, utility has a purpose that often fails the test of one or more philosophical arguments. Keep in mind that philosophy is just an idea. No owners and therefore “no harm-no foul.”
——————–
Insert standard disclaimer here:
I have no beliefs. Everything is just data to be assimilated, analyzed, cataloged and perhaps implemented. All ideas are subject to change as new data becomes available.
I may disagree, but I welcome the disagreement in the pursuit of logical reasoning.
Published: December 21, 2009 2:53 PM
Russ
Gil wrote:
“But Russ isn’t the ‘labour theory of ownership’ the basis of ‘homesteading’?”
Sure. And homesteading involves something *material*!
Kerem Tibuk
“I find the issue of scarcity irrelevant. It has no bearing on the concept of property and it is a purely arbitrary prerequisite.”
Scarcity has *everything* to do with the concept of property, because if material property weren’t scarce, the concept of property would be unnecessary for human survival, and completely irrelevant to human life. Also, when thinking about a thing, you must consider its nature. When thinking about material property, part of its nature is that it is economically scarce. When thinking about “intellectual” property, part of its nature is that it is *not* economically scarce. If you ignore fundamental differences in the nature of the two things, you’re not really thinking about them seriously.
I truly think this is where you’re getting stuck. You seem to think along the lines of “Mr. Smith created this wheel, therefore it should be his property”. That’s perfectly valid for a material object, like a wheel, that Mr. Smith creates. That’s because of, I hate to break it to you, a basically utilitarian argument. If wheels are scarce goods, then Mr. Smith can’t get any use out of a wheel he made if Mr. Jones takes it. If Mr. Smith can’t get any use out of the wheel, he won’t bother to make it. Extend this propertyless state of affairs to all other material goods, and people wouldn’t do much of anything to improve their environment, and we’d all still be living like animals. Therefore, we came up with the idea of property as a way of ensuring that Mr. Smith does get use out of things he improves, like tree trunks he’s turned into wheels, or land he’s cultivated.
But you don’t consider the reasons why we came up with the idea of property. You seem to think it’s just a moral axiom of the universe. Then you treat the case of “intellectual property” as if it is exactly the same as the concept of material property, when it is not. Material property is scarce, intellectual property is not. This difference in scarcity is not an irrelevant difference; it is fundamental to the concept of property, because scarcity is why the concept of property is necessary in the first place.
If material property and intellectual property should be considered similarly, then whoever first had the idea for the number zero and wrote it down on a slate tablet, would not only own the tablet, but the concept of zero itself. Do you really think it would benefit mankind if, every time somebody used the number zero, they had to pay a royalty to this man’s decendants? And if you say that there should be a time limit involved, how can you pick a limit in a non-arbitrary way?
“Also it is contradictory in the sense that it doesn’t follow cause and effect.”
I have absolutely no idea what you’re getting at here.
Published: December 21, 2009 5:07 PM
terry_freeman
Several ideas greatly influenced my thinking about IP. The first was software patents — I have been writing and working with computer code for about 37 years now, and every time I hear about another software patent, I think “there is nothing new under the sun” — it’s just a modification or combination of ideas which, while interesting, can not be patentable under any reasonable definition of “unique” or “creative.” I conclude that the folks at the Patent Office have little knowledge of “Prior Art” in the field of computer software.
Second, I’ve been seen Open Source or Free Software thrive in a way that demolishes the notion that copyright and patent are the only way to encourage creativity.
Third, I’ve watched one attempt after another of locking data and code fail, up to and including today’s DRM efforts. Such codes take away value from the customers – they make it difficult to back up one’s “stuff”, they sometimes fail to work, they make it harder to use multiple computers; for those reasons, people discover hacks to break the DRM codes.
I’d be happy to pay authors through some sort of PayPal or micropayment system. Just don’t lock up my digital “stuff.” I should be able to copy, use, lend, or give away, without having an eye over my shoulder for a patent or copyright troll.
Published: December 21, 2009 5:23 PM
Bala
Kerem Tibuk,
” Property is the extension of an individuals sovereignty (self ownership) to the external. ”
With such a poor definition, it’s no wonder you are drawing truly meaningless conclusions. By using the word sovereignty in a loose manner, you are guilty of using the concept “property” to define the concept “property”. My point will become clear if you try defining the term “sovereignty”. Especially if you ask yourself the question “Why sovereignty over a specific entity?”, you will realise that the concept “property” is already embedded in your “definition”.
In other words, sovereignty is an OUTCOME of the application of the term “property” to an existent. You have “sovereignty” because it is your “property”. But then why is it your “property”?
That’s why I prefer Ayn Rand’s position on man’s nature (which I paraphrase) – that he is a rational animal with a volitional consciousness whose values are not automatic and given and who needs to act to gain/keep the value needed to sustain his life.
To this, I added the point that it is the value that man acts to gain or keep that become his possessions. When these possessions are gained and kept in a morally sound manner (which I have further defined as without the initiation of force), it becomes his “property”.
In my definition, I have sovereignty over my “property” BECAUSE it is MY property. No one else has a moral locus standi to use those values that are morally mine except with my permission.
(This is apart from the lacunae Jay Lakner pointed out.)
Published: December 21, 2009 11:41 PM
Vanmind
“Imaginary Property”
Nice. Gonna use that for sure.
Published: December 22, 2009 12:34 AM
Kerem Tibuk
Jay,
“But Crusoe doesn’t keep the liberties he had. You said yourself, “he can not be freer if he wanted to”. Now that Friday has arrived, he needs to give up many of his liberties. He is clearly not “keeping the liberties he had”. Therefore, the above paragraph is illogical nonsense.”
See, this paragraph says a lot. I have heard this many many times over the years, and not really about IP but about rights and liberties in general. It is the cliche of the statists, that claim “society” comes before the individual and rights are derived from scoiety by some kind of contract. Whenever a someone talks about limiting a type of liberty this line is used. And “take it or leave it” usually comes after it.
And to tell you the truth, it is complete bullshit. Crusoe does not have to give up any liberties that he had when joining in a society or in most cases for many different people, choosing to stay in a society.
I challenge you to name one liberty that Crusoe had and then lost when Friday came to the island and both formed a society.
And for the rest of your post you claim that you have problem with the concept of homesteading. Extension of self ownership, or sovereignty, is the act of homesteading.
I also challenge you to explain how property comes into being without homesteading.
Many people who take this famous premise as true, which H. H. Hoppe formulated and Kinsella used and applied to IP problem, do not really think about the origin of property.
They don’t worry about homesteading and how property came to being among real humans but use it as an abstract justification regarding legitimacy of property rights, in a world where private property is already established to some degree and there aren’t really much unowned resources left.
Imagine Crusoe, or the people colonizing unowned lands and the absurdity of the premise becomes clearer.
Firstly an individual finds an unowned natural resource and homesteads it. There is no other way of property coming to existence. It is necessarily one man homesteading and making something his property. It is never the case that two or more people coming to the said resource at the same exact time and start debating who should own it because they have conflicting desires, as the premise suggests.
So the concept of “conflict” is a useless and arbitrary concept too. There is never a genuine conflict regarding property. There is one man homesteading, and only after this fact, there is a possibility of another individual coming and aggressing against the homesteaded property.
So if we replace “conflict” with “aggression” we can see the absurdity of the premise because aggression necessarily has to come AFTER the homesteading of property. What must necessarily come AFTER (being an effect) can not be a prerequisite (being the cause).
You may say that, Person B can come to the homesteaded property and challenge the owner, Person A, regarding his ownership. But this is a non issue because there are only two options. Either person A owns the property or he doesn’t. There is no genuine conflict but a case of judgment regarding what really happened. There is one truth and judgment may acknowledge it or fail to give the right call and this would have no relevance to the ethical principle.
Also, I am very comfortable with the calculation argument. But I don’t like to use it because it is an utilitarian argument and even if you agree regarding the validity, which anyone with an economics knowledge would, you can easily avoid it by claiming that “the production of IP wouldn’t need this much commercialization anyways”. You could concede to the fact that there wouldn’t be a sophisticated industry regarding IP based on division of labor but you could be ok with that. You could be happy with a smaller music industry for example.
My view of property is based on ethics not economics.
Published: December 22, 2009 5:35 AM
Kerem Tibuk
Bala,
“With such a poor definition, it’s no wonder you are drawing truly meaningless conclusions. By using the word sovereignty in a loose manner, you are guilty of using the concept “property” to define the concept “property”. My point will become clear if you try defining the term “sovereignty”. Especially if you ask yourself the question “Why sovereignty over a specific entity?”, you will realise that the concept “property” is already embedded in your “definition”.”
I dont know how else to say it. But I will try again.
Private property stems from self ownership. You extend your self ownership to the external and by doing this you extend your ownership. This is how you homestead.
Or you can use the concept of sovereignty. You extend your self sovereignty to the external and by doing this you extend your sovereignty. This is how you homestead.
So if you want to deny this you have to deny that individuals are self sovereign, that they are not really in control of themselves (they may act on instinct or randomly, or they may be in control of some other external force like a deity or another human). I don’t think you would deny this and that is why I didn’t dwell on it, but you are still having a hard time, like Jay, with the extension of this self ownership, which is called homesteading.
“In other words, sovereignty is an OUTCOME of the application of the term “property” to an existent. You have “sovereignty” because it is your “property”. But then why is it your “property”?”
Self sovereignty is not an outcome it is a fact, Extension of this sovereignty to the external can be viewed as an outcome, but since it is natural outcome it is part of the natural law ethics.
In short,
Why? Because it is. Because A is A.
“That’s why I prefer Ayn Rand’s position on man’s nature (which I paraphrase) – that he is a rational animal with a volitional consciousness whose values are not automatic and given and who needs to act to gain/keep the value needed to sustain his life.”
I agree but why aren’t you asking “why” regarding this premise, like you were asking about the premise before. You are not asking why because you are aware that “why” is meaningless.
Also my answer to the previous question stems from this premise which I also agree and plus self ownership.
It is because it is. This is the basis of natural law.
Published: December 22, 2009 5:50 AM
Kerem Tibuk
Russ,
You are repeating the same argument based open the same wrong premise. Please read the responses I gave to others like Jay an Bala. I don’t want to repeat myself over and over again.
In short that premise you base your views on property,
“Property rights are established to resolve conflict regarding scarce resources” is an arbitrary and wrong premise, which doesn’t even cover self ownership and homesteading and views property. It may be useful in questioning the legitimacy of IP arbitrarily but it does nothing about the theory of property. And since the premise is about property in general, this means it is a useless and wrong premise.
Published: December 22, 2009 6:56 AM
Bala
Kerem Tibuk,
” Private property stems from self ownership. ”
and I do not think very highly of the concept of self-ownership because ownership is a moral concept and cannot itself be the basis of a system of morals/ethics. In addition, this is circular logic. Even worse, you are treating the concept “ownership” as an axiom. Sounds pretty absurd to me.
” You extend your self ownership to the external and by doing this you extend your ownership. This is how you homestead. ”
Wrong. You gain possession of existents and then exclude others from using them. That’s how it becomes property. Homesteading is a term that encapsulates this entire process.
” You extend your self sovereignty to the external and by doing this you extend your sovereignty. ”
Over what is it appropriate for me to extend my “sovereignty” and over what is it not? (For instance, your “sovereignty’ cannot extend over other people even by your definition).
What is the metaphysical nature of ideas and what is the relationship of ideas/patterns to man? How do men form “ideas” or develop “patterns”?
Given all this, is it moral to extend the concept of sovereignty to ideas/patterns? I am asking this because I see claiming sovereignty of ideas/patterns as tantamount to claiming sovereignty over other human beings’ minds. The mind being an inseparable part of a human being, you are in effect asking for sovereignty over another human being.
” Self sovereignty is not an outcome it is a fact, ”
A fact is verifiable. Self-sovereignty is not. Hence, it is absurd to call it a fact. In fact, self-sovereignty is an “ought” and not an “is”.
” You are not asking why because you are aware that “why” is meaningless. ”
This is getting hilarious and I see you clutching at straws. Existence exists. There is no “why” associated with it. To ask a “why” is to presuppose the existence of a consciousness apart from and independent of existence.
” Also my answer to the previous question stems from this premise which I also agree and plus self ownership. ”
Arbitrary, unnecessary and unjustified addition.
Published: December 22, 2009 7:28 AM
Russ
Kerem Tibuk wrote:
“It is because it is. This is the basis of natural law.”
The basis of *natural* law is the *natures* of the things under consideration. In the case of ownership, the things under consideration are the owners (men), and the things owned (material or intellectual property). If the natures of these things are ignored, then the “natural law” will not mesh with “nature” (i.e. reality).
For instance, Rothbard, in my opinion, was guilty of this with respect to children. He built up a political system based on the nature of (adult) mankind. Then he applied that system to children as if children are just miniature versions of adults, completely disregarding the fact that adults and children have very different natures. Thus, his political and ethical views on children don’t mesh with reality; they are absurd.
I believe you are doing something similar with IP.
Published: December 22, 2009 9:06 AM
Jay Lakner
Kerem Tibuk,
Bala has hit the nail on the head when he says “you are guilty of using the concept “property” to define the concept “property””.
Let’s look at the case where only one human being exists.
You assume here that the concept of self-ownership automatically becomes true. In your mind, this human “owns” himself. I am trying to show you that this is not true. This human has “possession” of himself, but he does not “own” himself.
Why? Because “owning” yourself automatically implies that you are preventing another person from “owning” you. If there is no other person in existence, then the concept of “ownership” is clearly the incorrect description to use. “Possession” does not require another human being to exist. Therefore, what you have been describing as “self-ownership” has in fact actually been “self-possession”.
Now, if we bring a second human being into existence, suddenly things need to change.
Since it is impossible for both human beings to use the same resource, “possession” becomes inadequate. We need a way to determine what is “yours” and what is “mine”. This is where the concept of “ownership” emerges. “Self-possession” is not sufficient anymore because there is nothing that says the other human can’t “possess” you. But if we decide that each human now has “self-ownership”, that places the necessary limitations on how these humans can interact in order to ensure cooperation.
Kerem wrote:
**********
I challenge you to name one liberty that Crusoe had and then lost when Friday came to the island and both formed a society.
**********
You’re kidding right?
Before Friday came to the island Crusoe could walk anywhere, climb any tree, pick and eat any apple, drink from any water source, kill any animal, urinate on any rock, set anything on fire, dig holes anywhere, etc, etc.
Now that Friday has arrived, Crusoe cannot walk on Friday’s land, climb Friday’s trees, pick and eat Friday’s apples, drink Friday’s water, kill Friday’s animals, urinate of Friday’s rocks, set Friday’s property on fire, dig holes in Friday’s land, etc, etc.
The scarcity of the resources on the island results in Crusoe’s liberties being greatly reduced. As I tried to explain in my last post:
scarcity + muliple humans —> rights
Kerem wrote:
**********
Firstly an individual finds an unowned natural resource and homesteads it. There is no other way of property coming to existence. It is necessarily one man homesteading and making something his property.
**********
Person A finds a resource and takes possession of it. Person B tries to take possession of that same resource. Person A demonstrates that he has a better claim to ownership than person B because he possessed it earlier. Person C comes along and demonstrates without doubt that he possessed it before either person A or person B. Since person C is the earliest possesser, person C has the most rightful claim to ownership.
Possession precedes ownership. “Property” does not come into existence until there exists other human beings who wish to take possession of your possessions.
Kerem wrote:
**********
So the concept of “conflict” is a useless and arbitrary concept too. There is never a genuine conflict regarding property.
**********
You are using the wrong definition of “conflict”.
I generally avoid the word conflict because it has multiple meanings. That is why I often use words like “impossibility” or “contradiction” in its place. For example:
– The impossibility of multiple human beings using the same resource leads to the concept of property.
– The concept of property emerges due to the contradiction created when multiple human beings try to utilise the same resource.
As you can see, “conflict” is not meant to mean “fights” or “wars”. It means a contradiction or an impossible event.
Kerem wrote:
**********
You could concede to the fact that there wouldn’t be a sophisticated industry regarding IP based on division of labor but you could be ok with that.
**********
You simply refuse to address my arguments. The only conclusion I can come to is that you do not understand the calculation argument at all.
Removing monopolies on intangible entities will in no way affect the ability to calculate.
There would still exist a sophisticated industry based on the division of labor.
Intangible entities would still have prices. They do not need to have an owner to have a price. Intangible entities merely need to have a “possesser” to have a price. Ownership is not required because no contradiction occurs when multiple human beings try to use the same intangible entity.
Stop completely evading this issue and address the arguments being made.
Published: December 22, 2009 11:34 AM
Kerem Tibuk
I will give one more try and start from the basic premise and this time I will not assume that you guys have any knowledge on basic concepts like self ownership and homesteading.
And I will address both Bala and Jay because they are having the same difficulty interpreting the natural rights position regarding property.
Every human is the absolute sovereign over his actions. This means he is in absolute control. This is a fact of the universe and a fact. It is an undeniable axiom. Even when some other individual coerces another, the coerced person is the ultimate decision maker. He may comply with the coercer but not because he has no choice as if he is a puppet or an Avatar, but because he choses to do so after evaluating the consequences of his actions. That is why there is a difference between the concepts of “slave” and “puppet”. As Rand put it, you can not make some other think. You may prevent him to think by the use of drugs, for example but he thinks and acts according to his own decisions.
This is not an “ought” propoposition but an “is” proposition. This is based on the nature of humans thus a natural law.
This natural law is called different things, like self ownership or self sovereignty. It doesn’t really matter, you can call it anything you want.
Another human being “ought” to respect this fact. If he doesn’t and defy natural law there will be consequences. Maybe not a direct consequence like defying a natural law of physics but an indirect one.
This main “ought” is called many things. The non aggression principle, or non initiation of force principle but I don’t thing any one covers all the possible meanings.
Now, coming to external. Humans are not spirits or ghosts either. According to their nature, they need to occupy space, they need clothing, food, etc.
This is why they extend themselves, thus their sovereignty, to the external and homestead unowned natural resources. This is called homesteading. By doing this they gain property. Whatever is true for the individual extends to the property. Thus aggression against an individuals property is the same as aggression against himself.
Self ownership concept, doesn’t take the “ownership” part from the external, quite the opposite the external takes the concept of ownership from the individuals. Ownership of the external is process of mimicking the self ownership.
Homesteading only needs an individual and a nature given resource. It doesn’t need a second or third party to be present, or some arbitrary condition like movability or scarcity. It is a purely natural outcome of being a human just like breathing air.
Once the extension of the self ownership, in other words homesteading, happens, the external becomes the individuals property until he abandons it. Just as the individual has complete and absolute control over himself, and this should be accepted and respected, he also has absolute and complete control over the external and that should also be accepted and respected.
This parts sometimes gets confusing because we pass from “is” to “ought”. So sometimes people equate the ability to control the external, or the might to control the external with the moral right to control the external. And they fall in the trap of “might makes right”. That is why we constantly hear things like “if he wanted to keep owning the idea he should have kept it to himself”. But this is the same as saying “if he wanted her jewelry not stolen she should have kept them in a safe”.
This is the property theory of natural rights based on objective reality.
Published: December 22, 2009 1:14 PM