An old Mises post from Skip Oliva.
See also The Fountainhead and IP Terrorism; What Sparked Your Interest in Liberty? (FEE.org)
Stephan Kinsella has previously written regarding Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and intellectual property:
First, note the extreme, almost Galambos-like importance [Objectivists] attach to intellectual property. For example, [Ayn Rand] actually wrote: “patents are the heart and core of property rights.” I kid you not. (See Rand and Marx.) One pro-IP Objectivist even equates humans-as-inventors to “gods” (Inventors are Like Unto …. GODS…..). (The Randians’ deification of intellectual creation reminds of Galambos, who believed that man has “primary” property rights in his thoughts and ideas, and secondary property rights in tangible goods; see Against Intellectual Property.)
Indeed, Rand’s defense of intellectual property outshines even the most litigious pharmaceutical company. Consider a core argument of the Randian canon – Howard Roark’s trial defense in The Fountainhead. Roark manages to justify trespassing and physical destruction of another person’s tangible property, all in the name of preserving the sociopathic architect’s “right” to avoid looking at a building that was similar – but not identical – to one he designed.For those unfamiliar with the novel, Roark is an architect who spends his career in relative obscurity despite his obvious talent. Roark personifies Rand’s concept of pure egoism: He designs and constructs buildings primarily for his own satisfaction. The climax of the novel involves Roark designing a government housing project called Cortlandt. Roark makes a deal with Peter Keating, the architect who actually holds the commission for Cortlandt: Roark will design Cortlandt for Keating anonymously and free of charge provided the complex is constructed to Roark’s exact specifications. Keating cannot change the design. Keating, in turn, secures a similar promise from Cortlandt’s owners, but they ignore this and make changes. When Roark sees the “deformed” Cortlandt, he sneaks onto the property and blows it up with dynamite.
Roark convinces the jury to acquit him despite admitting guilt. Roark claims he had an absolute right to destroy Cortlandt:
I designed Cortlandt. I gave it to you. I destroyed it.
I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist. It was a double monster. In form and in implication. I had to blast both. The form was mutilated by two second-handers who assumed the right to improve upon that which they had not made and could not equal. They were permitted to do it by the general implication that the altruistic purpose of the building superseded all rights and that I had no claim to stand against it.
I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I designed it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.
I do not blame Peter Keating. He was helpless. He had a contract with his employers. It was ignored. He had a promise that the structure he offered would be built as designed. The promise was broken. The love of a man for the integrity of his work and his right to preserve it are now considered a vague intangible and an inessential. You have heard the prosecutor say that. Why was the building disfigured? For no reason. Such acts never have any reason, unless it’s the vanity of some second-handers who feel they have a right to anyone’s property, spiritual or material. Who permitted them to do it? No particular man among the dozens in authority. No one cared to permit it or to stop it. No one was responsible. No one can be held to account. Such is the nature of all collective action.
I did not receive the payment I asked. But the owners of Cortlandt got what they needed from me. They wanted a scheme devised to build a structure as cheaply as possible. They found no one else who could do it to their satisfaction. I could and did. They took the benefit of my work and made me contribute it as a gift. But I am not an altruist. I do not contribute gifts of this nature.
Now let’s stop and think about the message that Rand – via Roark – is trying to convey here. Roark did not own the land Cortlandt was built on, nor any of the materials used in its construction. Roark possessed no tangible property rights here. But he claims that his intangible rights in Cortlandt’s design make him the true owner.
Except for one thing: Roark wasn’t the designer of Cortlandt! The whole impetus for Roark’s actions was that the design was altered – “disfigured” – from the plans he gave to Keating. But the actual Cortlandt wasn’t Roark’s design. It was an amalgamation of Roark’s design and whoever made the alterations. But Roark has no more claim to “intellectual property” in Cortlandt’s design than Keating or anyone else involved with the design.
Then there’s the matter of Roark’s verbal contract with Keating. Roark claims his “payment” for services rendered was seeing Cortlandt built exactly to his design. Since Keating didn’t own Cortlandt any more then Roark, however, such a promise is meaningless. A superior, rational man like Roark should have known this. And even if Cortlandt had been built according to the Roark design, what about future changes made by the owners? If the design is altered five years after Cortlandt opens, can Roark come in one night, demand the evacuation of all tenants, and dynamite the place then?
And let’s not overlook the fact that Roark had an agreement with Keating, not Cortlandt’s owners. Cortlandt owed Roark no payment, intangible or otherwise. Roark doesn’t even have a case against Cortlandt for fraud. Roark complains, “the owners of Cortlandt got what they needed from me.” But they never asked him for anything! Roark voluntarily designed Cortlandt using Keating as a front. Cortlandt’s owners were never aware of Keating’s side agreement with Roark and its implied “right to dynamite” clause.
But the most offensive part of Roark’s defense is that his intangible “right” to destroy a building with a similar-but-not-identical design to his supersedes the tangible property rights of – wait for it – altruists. Since Cortlandt’s owners had an “altruistic purpose,” this effectively negated any rights they had in their own physical property, including their right to change a building design without the permission of an architect they never actually hired.
Just imagine the real-world implications of the Roark Doctrine. In an earlier post today, Mr. Kinsella wrote:
If you carve a statue using your own hunk of marble, you own the resulting creation because you already owned the marble. You owned it before, and you own it now. And if you homestead an unowned resource, like a field, by using it and thereby establishing publicly visible borders, you own it because this first use and embordering gives you a better claim than latecomers. So creation is not necessary.
And suppose you carve a statue in someone else’s marble — either without permission, or with permission, such as when an employee does this with his employer’s marble by contract — then you do not own the resulting statue, even though you “created” it. If you are using marble stolen from another, your vandalizing it does not take away the owner’s claims to it. And if you are working on your employer’s marble, he owns the resulting statue.
Under the Roark Doctrine, however, the carver does acquire the “right” to the marble if he can prove the original owner was really an “altruist” whose stubborn clinging to tangible property rights interfered with the rationally selfish carver’s need to create the statute for his own enjoyment. It takes the “creation as a source of property rights” argument to a whole new level.
Now, when I first raised these concerns about Rand’s arguments to some Objectivists, they dismissed me by saying we shouldn’t take Roark’s speech literally. That’s hardly convincing. The speech itself is part of Objectivist canon, and it’s generally considered Rand’s essential defense of her views on the “virtues of selfishness.” Rand certainly supported intellectual property and state enforcement of patents, copyrights, et al. There’s no reason to believe Rand saw her Roark scenario as metaphorical or allegorical. She clearly believed Roark’s actions were moral given the context of his situation. So why wouldn’t she apply this same standard to a real-world situation?
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
The Roark quote, “I designed Cortlandt. I gave it to you. I destroyed it,” reminds me of this gem from Bill Cosby:
Good to see Ayn Rand on mises.org. This should only help the already robust sales of Atlas Shrugged.
I do have to take exception with your post and would suggest you continue to learn more about Objectivism.
You state “But he claims that his intangible rights in Cortlandt’s design make him the true owner.”
Where does Roark claim that?
He does not say that if a contract is broken you should have the right to go blow up the property under contract or that by right he is the legal owner of the property. In fact he states very clearly his reason for blowing it up and it is not a right. “I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist.”
You are the one that seems to not be taking what she wrote literally.
For anyone interested in Ayn Rand and her philosophy I offer this quote and highly recommend Atlas Shrugged…
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
@Chris: Objectivism is Marxism for the rich. It takes a few ideas from Libertarianism, strawmans them, and misapplies them to non-tangible objects.
Don’t believe me? Property rights. Rand takes them, extends them to non-tangible abstractions, and makes her own reducio ad absurdum argument against herself.
Well first of all, the whole speech here reeks of the Geppetto fallacy. This is when we assume that the first designer of an idea is a magical inventor “Geppetto” whose contributions are automatically valued at infinity. We then conclude that any further improvements should be banned unless Geppetto made them, because it would ‘sully’ the work.
In this case, Howard Roark is Geppetto, and the Cortlandt engineers are the dirty moochers that changed it. Ayn Rand helps us think that by having them being government employees. Thus, the additions and changes to Cortlandt are automatically worthless, should be erased, and never spoken of again, because it sullies this magical building design. Nevermind the actual worth of the changes. They were based on something else, thus they are bad.
The implications of this is that he’s supposedly justified to dynamite a building he doesn’t own, because of a design contract the owners never signed, all because they DIDN’T use his design. That’s right, we’re not claiming ownership over just an idea, we’re claiming ownership over every idea!
It’s gone past the intellectual-monopoly-as-property argument. Inventors aren’t just entitled to things they actually invent, they’re just entitled. Period. Like some kind of intellectual-mutualism.
The title of this article should be “I designed Cortlandt. I gave it to you. You changed the design around, making it no longer mine. I destroyed it anyway out of jealousy.” Thanks again Mises Institute, for reminding me why Ayn Rand is a charlatan.
“Roark will design Cortlandt for Keating anonymously and free of charge provided the complex is constructed to Roark’s exact specifications. Keating cannot change the design. Keating, in turn, secures a similar promise from Cortlandt’s owners, but they ignore this and make changes.”
Roark was right to destroy it: it was a clear case of contract violation.
Chris,
“He does not say that if a contract is broken you should have the right to go blow up the property under contract or that by right he is the legal owner of the property. In fact he states very clearly his reason for blowing it up and it is not a right. ‘I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist.’”
This makes no sense.
If he did not claim that the creation gave him property rights over the building, how could he justify having the decision himself on whether or not to allow the building to exist?
Rather, the justification of his decision to blow up the building is dependent on the assumption that he has the exclusive right to determine the use of the building. In other words, he designed the building
(or something like it), therefore he owns it, therefore he is entitled to destroy it if he wishes. But this is ludicrous!
Btw, I loved Atlas Shrugged.
the only antivenin for the rand syndrome is to download her free on torrents:
http://www.mininova.org/tor/351439
don’t forget to thank the uploader.
Shedplant,
It makes perfect sense. He never justifies his actions based on legal right. Rights govern the actions between two individuals and only exist in a society of rational individuals.(see GM if you don’t believe me).
Roark justifies his actions based on his own rational self interest. Again, the statement is very clear “I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist” He doesnt say “I destroyed it because someone violated my rights(broke the contract) therefore I have a right to destroy the property.”
His mention of the contract violations are demonstrating what led to the monstrosity but no where does he use this for justification. His justification is simple, he would rather face the societal consequences of his actions without Cortland then live in a world with the monstrosity.
@kmeisthax
Do you have any more ad hominem attacks you want to get off your chest?
For more on Ayn Rand’s view of rights I offer this.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html
Socialists,
Are you scared of Atlas Shrugging?
I like Ayn Rand’s novels, and some of her other works, and objectivism has its merits but I don’t treat it like some package deal where I have to agree with Rand on everything.
While I don’t adhere to Rand’s views on IP, in this case I concur with Chris.
Your post is misleading in that, if my memory serves me, it is a necessary condition of Roark’s assistance that Keating promise that Cortlandt will be built exactly as per his design. I see this as a contract, that Keating and company violate in modifying the design.
The speech that he gives in court is another matter, and is more an opportunity for Rand to get across her philosophy; but the whole Cortlandt episode is far more complex that what you make it out to be here. Surely, if Roark is asked for help, and he agrees to enter into the contract under certain conditions, surely the other side has the obligation to uphold its end of the bargain?
He also designs a (what he considers inferior) building for Keating earlier on in the book, with no such contract involved, which he feels no need to destroy.
At any rate, I preferred Atlas Shrugged and We the Living.
Chris is correct. And I cherish both Mises and Rand. It’s not only possible, it’s wonderful.
Chris got it right and it dynamites this entire dreary essay. Repeated for agreement and emphasis:
“Again, the statement is very clear “I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist” He doesn’t say “I destroyed it because someone violated my rights (broke the contract) therefore I have a right to destroy the property.””
Stephan Kinsella, you spent an entire essay being a flathead. If you REALLY wanted to blast Rand you would have started with ‘I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist’ and roasted Rand strictly on the basis of ‘instructing her zealots to do whatever they wanted, what a hypocrite.’
You don’t have the guts to do that, because you know that true Objectivists ‘get it.’ This act by Roark is a supreme literary irony. She has him act so monumentally contrary to individual rights that every true reader says. “Wait a minute, Rand would not advocate this. I think she is trying to shock me to make a point.”
Her point is that there is such a thing as intellectual ownership. I would even call it ownership in the soul. Creators know the fire that comes when you source an original idea, including fresh innovation on previously existing knowledge. The hero does not betray this by pooh-poohing it before it is born, giving it away promiscuously to those incapable of honoring it, or allowing it to be stolen by flatheads.
If you do not grasp this, i have deep pity for you. American law grasps it. That is why patents exist; to rectify violations of immediate ownership and thus prevent theft and rape from deterring the hero and other creators from bringing out their genius — on their terms.
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
P.S. The literary device is called “hyperbole.” Ayn Rand was brilliant in its use.
I have tremendous admiration for Rand, as did Mises and Rothbard and Hazlitt. For all the problems–esp. on IP–she was a woman of great courage. Her writings have been a boon for free markets.
John Donohue,
“American law grasps it”
American law grasps all kinds of garbage and grasps at just about everything under the sun.
“Dynamites the article”?!? Apparently you’re all down with Chris going to the author’s house and blowing up his hard drive. I’m sure Mr. Kinsella hopes Chris is a closer reader than you though, seeing as how it was S.M. Oliva’s article.
Whoops, i blew up the wrong thing.
whoever mplozkill is, by your response I see you are attempting to out flathead the original flathead, whoever it is/was.
My I have your home address, please?
roark’s “contract” (what sort of jury would swallow this, outside of fiction?) was with keating. liability stops there. he should have blown up keating’s house. then keating could have taken dynamite to the perfidious building owners, who dared to impose their “client is always right” nonsense.
wow, keep randians away from matches and flammables.
Chris,
If Roark doesn’t have any claim on the building through his creation but blows it up nonetheless that makes him, not a hero, but a destroyer of another’s property. Is the reader supposed to forgive him?
ShedPlant,
Do you have a right to something if it was obtained through fraud? Do you have a right to something if it was obtained through force?
There are no rights in this case or in America, only the pretension of rights exist. Rights are a value and must be chosen by valuers(individual members of society) if the members of society don’t value rights they don’t exist and are replaced by force and fraud.
Roark can’t violate rights that don’t exist. He shouldn’t be forgiven he should be respected for his pursuit of values in the face of dire consequences.
@Chris: Is it really so hard for you to understand?
There are three parties involved:
1) Roark
2) Keating
3) The company
Roark had NO (!) contract with the company!
Roark had a contract with Keating.
Roark had NOTHING to do with the company.
So Roark had NO RIGHT whatsoever to blow up the building of the company.
If Keating didn’t fulfill his contract with Roark, that is their problem and not the one of the company.
Roark should have hold Keating liable for breach of contract!
If you buy a house from another person (call him X) under some condition and X has another (!) contract with a designer Y with some conditions on the design how in hell could not fulfilling conditions by X of the contract between X and Y allow Y to bomb your house?
Could every manufacturer come to your house an destroy it, because something is not right there?
Really?
“Oh my, he painted the house in the wrong color! Let us take revenge!”
Are objectivists THAT stupid? Because that sounds like terrorist thinking!
newson writes:
[quote]
roark’s “contract” (what sort of jury would swallow this, outside of fiction?) was with keating. liability stops there. he should have blown up keating’s house. then keating could have taken dynamite to the perfidious building owners, who dared to impose their “client is always right” nonsense.
wow, keep randians away from matches and flammables.
[end quote]
But Keating made the same contract with his clients.
Kinsella tried to construct a legalistic case against Roark but it fails on that ground.
Since Kinsella is a lawyer (i.e., a state-franchised parasite) then he is incompetent in his chosen profession.
Yo Mamma and Donahue seem to think I wrote Oliva’s article. Interesting reading comprehension.
Anyway, the Randian take here actually reminds me of a type of copyright in some countries, called “moral rights“–a type of inalienable right of the author in some (ironically mostly socialistic countries, like France), which: “include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work. The preserving of the integrity of the work bars the work from alteration, distortion or mutilation.”
I recall one case where someone had bought a refrigerator with some guy’s painting on it. Later they wanted to get rid of it and he got a court order to stop them from disposing of it. Very … Roarkian.
In the past I’ve made the same argument as this article. However I think it worst for Roarke’s position that he kept this all secret. I’m sure any investors in the project would have backed out had they know about secret side deals with crazy egoists.
From my 2005 article:
“Now, when I first raised these concerns about Rand’s arguments to some Objectivists, they dismissed me by saying we shouldn’t take Roark’s speech literally.”
Sounds like the kind of response you’d get from members of any other religion when confronted with the ridiculous tenants in their holy books. I really do think that Objectivism is an atheist religion.
The author has no clear understanding of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and the concept of intellectual property right. He suggests that intellectual property right, like capitalism, is a necessary evil. IP exists. It is a fundamental part of individual rights. There are goods, ideas and inventions because there are those who are able to create it. To dynamite this misleading essay (which is not even a good essay), we must proceed from the concept of individual rights.
By the way, the author of this farticle exposes himself as a closet socialist… Does anyone agree?