Someone just pointed me to an interesting 1997 FFF article by Sheldon Richman has, Property as the Key to Self-Determination. He has some points, but not sure I agree with every aspect of this sort of meandering piece.
Richman notes that some leftists might object to property because it is a means of oppression. Even if that were so, the question remains, why do they trust the state not to oppress? Richman makes a similar critique of the socialists who are hostile to property near the end of his piece, when he shows that even if capitalism permitted some people to be “tenants” of others, even if some people are at the mercey of landlords or employers, it is even worse if we become subjects of the state. Likewise, if the leftist opposes free enterprise because of the problem of monopolies, it makes no sense to advocate a far greater state monopoly as the cure.Elsewhere Richman note that a question arises as to whether liberty, or property, comes first, or whether some ethical theory is antecedent to them.
Libertarians hurt themselves to the extent they think they can do political philosophy without first doing ethics. A sure sign of that approach is the common reference to the “nonaggression axiom.” An axiom is an irreducible proposition. It is self-validating. How does the nonaggression axiom validate itself? It is unclear. There is no contradiction in denying it (such as there is with the law of identity). Thus it must be derived from something else, in which case it is not an axiom at all.
I tend to refer to it as the non-aggression principle, instead of axiom, for a similar reason. But I think Richman goes astray here:
Nor can we say that property rights are needed to prevent conflict, since there are other ways of doing that. (The government sets rules on the use of parks; that is a conflict-averting measure.) The libertarian slips into danger when trying to define property in terms of liberty and liberty in terms of property. The argument becomes circular. Which comes first — the egg of liberty or the chicken of property?
If the government sets the rules on parks, it is setting up a property right. The state is asserting ownership–property rights. Additionally, this solution is not without conflict since the state has to engage in conflict to come to own the park.
But the point here is that every political system has some property rights distribution and method. What distinguishes these systems is the different rules for assigning property titles. And if one’s goal is to find rules that make conflict-free interaction possible, then it is not the case that any property assignment rule is as good as any other. The libertarian rule (first use) is far superior, for various reasons discussed elsewhere: see, e.g.:
- my articles A Theory of Contracts: Binding Promises, Title Transfer, and Inalienability
- Defending Argumentation Ethics, esp. the section “Objective Links: First Use, Verbal Claims, and the Prior-Later Distinction,” and the links in this piece to various writings by Hoppe on this issue
- blog posts The Essence of Libertarianism? and
- Thoughts on Intellectual Property, Scarcity, Labor-ownership, Metaphors, and Lockean Homesteading
and
{ 35 comments }
The comments in your first paragraph is not uncommon amongst defenders of property rights. Godwin, even though today is considered a communist (he wasn’t, though), wouldm in his comments (and criticisms)about property, state that he was an absolute defender of property rights even though he saw problems with said rights, because denying property ownership was far more dangerous than protecting it. As I recall, Paley held much the same position.
By the way, I do appreciate the method of analysis you use on property theory, and would recommend the writings of the attorney/engineer/social philosopher, Spencer Heath, to you, particularly his book,
‘Citadel, Market and Altar”. You would find material on property theory which is not uncontradictory to yours.
Just a thought.
Just Ken
kgregglv@cox.net
http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com/
http://spencerheath.blogspot.com/
Mr. Gregg, I don’t understand your post. Your comments about my “first paragraph” do not seem to make sense. What exactly are you trying to say?
Do you have any links to any links of this Heath that you could point us to? And what is “the method of analysis” that I use? Which one do you mean?
***
Update: Google led me to some information. I will say that my crank-dar was slightly buzzing just at the mention by Gregg that Heath was an “engineer.” Uh oh. Galambos alert.
Next, I google this page about Heath, a book review. One of the first things I see is the term cosmic destinies and that Spencer Heath was “a lawyer, a businessman, an inventor, and a horticulturist”… Um, okay. Then, “A believer in the de novo approach, he developed basic propeller patents and special machinery for propeller manufacture which were much in demand during World War I. Indeed, some seventy per cent of the propellers used by American planes in that conflict came from Mr. Heath’s factory.”
Okay, the Galambos meter is definitely going off now. Hmm, and inventor and engineer who advocates a “de novo” approach–that means, starting from scratch and coming up with his own system. Hmm, crank alert, a la Galambos (and even Rand, to a degree, though I don’t think she was a crank), but also Hubbard etc.
In other pieces (such as this mini-biography), we see some bizarre, Isabel Patterson-ish pseudo-scientific theory of “energy”. (And this review quotes Galambosian Alvin Lowi, making me think there is more than an accidental connection now between Heathianism and Galmbosianism.)
On one of the pages I’ve googled, I see a mention of Galambos. Aha, I think. Though the reviewer here seems to be a Galambosian who thinks Heath was not Galambosian enough. Or something like that. I don’t know. I could not follow it. My eyes glaze over at the mention of Daddy G.
In the another review, the reviewer, Roy Halliday, notes: “Occasionally throughout the book Spencer Heath revives the idea that all science is empirical and quantitative. He tries to link the sound economic principles that he derives logically to physics and biology.”
Hmmm, shades of scientism and Galambosianism! My crankdar appears to be working fine.
Now, Wikipedia has an entry on Heath, but unfortunately it starts out, “Spencer Heath is an anarcho-capitalist and Georgist dissenter…” And when I see the crank term Georgist, once again, my eyes defocus and I lose the ability to go further. But I try harder, and see he apparently was a Georgist “dissenter”, whatever that means; as Rothbard is quoted as saying, he wanted to stand Georgism on its head. I don’t know. I confess the “horticultural” expert, the crankish “theory of energy that is supposed to span across all sciences,” the de novo approach, the view “that all science is empirical and quantitative,” combined with his being admired by, or even discussed by, Galambosians, is enough to push me over the edge.
I vaguely recall from the days when I used to subscribe to the newsletter “formulations” (yes, affected small-f) of the Free Nation Foundation (now defunct–split into the Libertarian Nation Foundation and some other group I can’t remember). I remember there was a guy Spencer Heath Maccallum who used to talk about his granddad; other names I remember are Roy Halliday, Rich Hammer (who sometimes posts here), and Roderick Long. So it’s not surprising to find a review of Heath by Halliday in formulations.
In any event, let me just say anyone who was an advocate of Georgism, or admired by Galambosians, or who advocated a crankish theory of “energy,” or who was scientistic in the extreme–like most engineers–well, I would not say their views are not uncontradictory to mine.
Kelley suggests that this question is wrongly posed and that, in fact, liberty and property are derived from something else, namely, the right to one’s own life and the value of life and production.
Oddly enough Mr. Richman names his article property and self-determination… yet he criticizes with Kelley, the idea that liberty is the first social principle to be protected. To me, liberty and self-determination is quite the same thing, what’s the need of this distinction?!
What Mr Richman and Kelley imply however, is that self-determination is the key human feature that needs to be protected by all means in society.
So even though I see no difference in those terms liberty/self-determination, I found quite interesting then, that Mr. Richman and Kelley feel uncomfortable with the usual conflict-avoiding principle of libertarian “property”, (even though Richman omits on purpose to state the explanatory libertarian principle of homesteading thereby, which makes his concern flawed and the public park example inopportune at best).
Could it be that they unconsciously address the fact that self-determination does still need something else to first exist though: that is IDENTITY (“self”). And here I am again with my question, Dr. Kinsella:
If identity could be considered in some case a part of the integrity of someone’s property, then wouldn’t it be unethical to damage this identity by any mean? Thus, plagiarism would be unethical, and copyright a simple consequence.
Artisan,
I’m not Kinsella, but I can answer your question. Plagiarism IS unethical. But that does not equal a property right akin to copyright. Plagiarism is fraud, pure and simple. So, if one can prove that he has suffered damages (note that I’m no fan of arbitrary limits on “non-economic” damages) pursuant to a fraud, he gets a remedy.
Unfortunately for your sequence, this gets you nowhere near copyright.
That’s my understanding of Kinsella’s argument, and I think it’s internally consistent. Me, I tend to think that even in Ancapistan, many people would feel like you and would willingly agree to a legal system that provides for a “true” right against copying. Many people find it fundamentally morally wrong to take credit for someone else’s work in such a blatant manner, and I think this subjective morality will override Kinsella’s objectively correct assessment in a large portion of the population. But I think it will tend towards the most limited form possible, likely a prohibition only on completely copying a work.
That’s just my 2 cents worth (and I could be completely wrong about Kinsella’s position – that’s just my understanding of it).
quasibill: Good point. Maybe you should explain the difference between copyright infringement and plagiarism to Curt Howland, who had a hard time with that topic.
Actually, I want to point something out on a similar thread just because it’s so funny, and representative of what it’s like to try to argue with Stephan Kinsella. In that link, Kinsella said
Important thing to note here: Kinsella just claimed that he *didn’t* claim that bootlegging is “fine”, and that CURRENT software publishers can capture rents (return to writing the software specifically as opposed to a bundled service) are proof of the ability to capture software rents without IP. I then replied with:
Important thing to note here:
1)I acknowledged Kinsella is not a utilitarian, and 2) I only claimed that he didn’t show examples of profits-despite-piracy.
Kinsella then responded with:
Important things to note here: 1)Kinsella “reminded” me that the utilitarian concern isn’t relevant, WHICH I HAD JUST PREFACED MY POST BY SAYING.
2) Kinsella acted like I had just denied the existence of ALL intellectual works ever produced, and proceded to condescendingly refute that strawman, even though my claim was SPECIFICALLY about profits.
If you want a better example of why it’s so impossible for me to make any point on this blog, there is no better example.
Thanks for stripping the links from my post.
Person (he who does not want me to mention his strange email address or his off-color pseudonym): no one stripped your links. You had forgot to use ” marks in the URL. I added them for you. You’re welcome.
Somewhat bill:
“Plagiarism IS unethical.”
Maybe. But it’s hard to really define objectively, isn’t it… where do you draw the line between plagiarism and being influenced by others’ ideas? Hell, even a book review or movie review (plot summary) is a type of plagiarism, no?
“Plagiarism is fraud, pure and simple.”
Oh, I disagree; as I’ve noted before, “fraud” is often used carelessly. Plagiarism is not at all necessarily fraud. In fact, I would say it’s usually *not*. It would be fraud in the case of an author turning in a manuscript for money from a publisher, where one condition of this payment is that the work be the work of the author, not of someone else. But I don’t think that is the typical case of plagiarism.
Yes; I agree it would be very limited, if it ever did come to exist; and this would mean it is essentially worthless. Certainly nothing like modern copyright (I tried to get numnuts, I mean Person, to see this in another thread, by emphasizing that without legislation it is inconceivable to imagine modern patent and copyright ever evolving in a decentralized legal system; he did not get it). BUt I think even this would be almost impossible, becuase there would be no one world or even one coutnry or one-state legal system. So even if some local community adopts a limited version of copyright, all you need is one person on the outside in a legal system that does not respect it, to copy the work and publish it. Then it would be available everywhere, probalby even within the copyright enclave.
And this possibility again shows why copyright and patent are not genuine rights. The same thing could NOT happen with respect to real rights, since the protection of someone’s rights to a given thing under one system necessarily means others are respecting it. For example the people on the other side of the world can not all of a sudden start using my house over here, just by changing their law or permitting behavior over there. BUt they can for IP rights. This shows they are not real. HOw real can a right be that could be “infringed” without the owner even in principle not knowing? (Imagine a planet far away receiving broadcasts from earth, and people there showing the latest Star Wars movie for free! Without George Lucas even knowing. But if they beamed away my house, I would at least know someone had taken it!)
Person:
I have no idea what all your hyperventilating and apoplexy is about. My previous point that you are handwringing about is perfectly sensible. When I say I never said bootlegging is “fine,” I am pointing out that just because one holds a view of what rights are, or what the law should be, does not mean one “approves” morally or otherwise of a legal or rightful activity.
In fact, I am sure software producers/sellers/publishers would want a way to capture rents. If they are able to do so absent IP laws, more power to them. Fine by me. As I noted, “who knows what institutions would arise to thwart [bootlegging in absence of IP laws], much like software publsihers now have a variety of ways to capture rents from sale of software in a piracy-laden world.”
What I was referring to were technological means such as encryption, passwords, online verification, time-delayed disabling, verification-required online support and updates, etc. Because piracy is rampant now in most of the world outside the US and Europe, book and software publishers alreayd have to deal with trying to make money there, and as far as I know, they do. I’m simply stating that publishers would try to find ways to capture rents even where there is no IP. And this would not only include technological measures, but various other means, such as cartels, industry-wide agreements and standards, and other tricks and techniques. Who knows?
Person, in his gadfly confusion, marches on, unfazed: He wrote: “I know that you (in your non-utilitaritan philosophy) really couldn’t care less if the repeal of IP laws would result in no for profit software ever being written and marketed”.
This is of not true, and it does not follow at all. I think Person does not understand the difference between saying an activitiy is rightful and saying one approves of it. Just because I oppose IP law does not mean I don’t care about profit for software developers. In fact, to maintain this, as Person does, is to implicitly hold that if one DOES “care” about software developers and other innovators being able to “make a profit” (any profit? enough profit), then one “would” support IP law. But this is merely sophistry, as it is question begging. What else would one expect of a sophomoric gadfly?
Oh? Is this so for countries like Malaysia, China, India, etc.?
Sure. To the extent some rents are captured (I hate that term) by use of technological or business means today, in areas where IP is widely disregarded, it helps establish this. And while there would be no IP in such a world, there might arise various cartels and contractual mechanisms that do not arise today because of IP law.
Stay on topic, pumpkin head.
Surely the author of a book engages in it for profit, even if it’s non-monetary. Are you familiar with Austrian economics, by any chance?
Oh, oh, do you mean monetary profit?
Stephan:(I tried to get numnuts, I mean Person, to see this in another thread, by emphasizing that without legislation it is inconceivable to imagine modern patent and copyright ever evolving in a decentralized legal system; he did not get it).
I didn’t “get it” because you provided NO BAISS WHATSOEVER FOR THIS STATEMENT EXCEPT DEMONSTRABLY TRUE FACTS YOU TRIED TO DENY.
You had forgot to use ” marks in the URL. I added them for you. You’re welcome.
Well, the preview came out okay, and had the links, so I naively assumed the post would also have them.
What I was referring to were technological means such as encryption, passwords, online verification, time-delayed disabling, verification-required online support and updates, etc.
And other things you know nothing about, and will change the topic on, when corrected.
Because piracy is rampant now in most of the world outside the US and Europe, book and software publishers alreayd have to deal with trying to make money there, and as far as I know, they do.
Yeah, they do make profit … OUTSIDE of these places.
This is of not true, and it does not follow at all.
Yes, it does, IF (and this is a big if), you are capable of following context and remembering it all the way to the end of one of my posts. When I said you “couldn’t care less” what I mean is that it wouldn’t affect your opinion on the issue if absence of any IP would eviscerate for-MONETARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-profit production of intellectual works. And I am correct on that point that you didn’t read in context.
To the extent some rents are captured (I hate that term)
Well, learn to like it, because I don’t know of a more succint term for “monetary return accruing from production of an intellectual work rather than a specific service associated with that intellectual work”
by use of technological or business means today, in areas where IP is widely disregarded, it helps establish this.
No, it doesn’t. The IP producer doees not make profit there; the profit from the IP-respecting areas suffices for him to make it, after which these others use it. This says nothing about whether it would happen if there were no IP *anywhere*.
And while there would be no IP in such a world, there might arise various cartels and contractual mechanisms that do not arise today because of IP law.
Yeah, good point, there can be a decentralized no-state IP system. Next time, try to keep your blatant contradictions in separate posts.
Stay on topic, pumpkin head.
The fact that you consider it your obligation to remind me about things I *just stated* will always be on topic.
Surely the author of a book engages in it for profit, even if it’s non-monetary. Are you familiar with Austrian economics, by any chance? Oh, oh, do you mean monetary profit.
Don’t be dense. I was using it in the same context you were, which was monetary profits.
Person:
Do you realize that the burden is on you? If as libertarians we realize that legislation is illegitimate and the only law that is legitimate is that which can be compatible with the non-aggression principle and as it develops in a decentralized legal system, and if we have a set of law that appears to violate the former and that did originate in legislation–we have a good prima facie case against it. You need to show that it could develop in a free market legal system even though it never has and even though it appears to violate the private property rights supported by the non-aggression principle.
You, naive? No!
Again, you’re welcome. Want me to do any other modifications to your post?
Really? No profit at all in “these places”? HOw do you know this?
Meandering?
Sheldon, let’s just say you didn’t end up where I thought you were going. You seemed to zig and zag here and there, touching on various points, without a clear direction. Maybe I read it too quickly. I certainly meant no disrespect and found the article thoughtful and provocative.
Kinsella, you may be right, but you’re acting like a dick. Person may be a gadfly, but he’s attempting to have an intellectual discussion. You seem less interested in trying to convince him of your ideas than in frustrating and annoying him until he goes away. Others here might dissagree, but in my opinion the blog would not be nearly as interesting a read without Person.
Now that guy who posts repetitive ideological poems, I wouldn’t mind shooing him away.
Thank you so much, TGGP. I get little praise here, and that means a lot to me. I’m glad someone else is noticing Stephan’s tactics.
But he’ll still delete your last post.
Person said, re Kinsella;
“I know that you (in your non-utilitaritan philosophy) really couldn’t care less if the repeal of IP laws would result in no for profit software ever being written and marketed”.
Let’s take a breath here.
People have been making crushed limestone into Portland Cement for millenia. Others have been mixing this product with water, sand, and gravel for millenia. Still others have been forming and pouring these materials into building shapes, again for millenia. Any sort of IP that remains in this industry is marginal, at best. Yet all of these players make many times more profits than the quarrier of the limestone. And people continue to find new and innovative ways to form this material, again, with little or no IP protection, increasing both the value of the product to the end user and profits to the producer.
If IP, under a utilitarian world view, is so necessary to the production of things for profit, how is this possible?
(and please, forgive my use of such a ‘concrete’ example, it’s just the medium I am most familiar with).
Yeah, I guess I have been a dick to Person. I guess I felt he deserved it for being a pest both on this forum and in emails. But, what the hell, I’ll take the high road–Person, to the extent anything I said was inappropriate, I apologize. Carry on.
Vince–good point. Notice we are all spending time posting here, without any IP incentive to drive us.
One last comment re Sheldon’s observation that some leftists consider property to be an opressive concept.
I can see how some might believe that (though I of course disagree), since currently property as we understand it is enforced by government force and not primarily by moral sanction.
And one who believes that property equals oppression might logically think that the solution to “property opression” is to have government employ force to PREVENT anyone from owning property.
However, we know that the real solution is natural property rights, conferred by hometead or legitimate trade, secured by moral sanction, following the principle of non-aggression.
For the utilitarians, one result of this may be that many, many acres of land now held by wealthy people and corporations would be released for use by others, since much of it, especially large, remote, undeveloped parcels will be uneconomic to maintain or defend absent government force.
It is likely that only active use of the land will justify the insurance, defense, and maintainance expenditures under that system, the kind of use that would tend to favor individual and cooperative users.
On a utility basis then, the effect of a liberal order of land ownership might resemble the INTENDED order of the Mutualists / Georgists, while also having the low opression quotient intended by the property prohibitionists.
Stephan -
“where do you draw the line between plagiarism and being influenced by others’ ideas? Hell, even a book review or movie review (plot summary) is a type of plagiarism, no?”
Well, as you’ve noted before, there are always going to be fuzzies around property rights. It’s important not to create a totally fuzzy right, granted, but I think some fairly reasonable lines can be drawn in this respect. Such as, a review could not be plagiarism, as you are explicitly reviewing the material. I think that it could fairly easily be reduced to a standard along the lines of “intentionally passing off another’s writing as your own.”
“Plagiarism is not at all necessarily fraud. In fact, I would say it’s usually *not*. It would be fraud in the case of an author turning in a manuscript for money from a publisher, where one condition of this payment is that the work be the work of the author, not of someone else. But I don’t think that is the typical case of plagiarism.”
Actually, we agree on this. My point (no, I didn’t make it clearly) was that under the tort of “fraud”, one important element is that the victim justifiably relied on the defendant’s misrepresentation. That’s why fraud gets you nowhere near copyright – the author generally does not rely on anything a plagiarist does, therefore it would be the very rare case indeed that provided a remedy akin to copyright.
“So even if some local community adopts a limited version of copyright, all you need is one person on the outside in a legal system that does not respect it, to copy the work and publish it.”
Yes, but my point is that it really will be common, even without centralized enforcement, and those that flout it will likely be outcasts in more than that issue, so long as the right is severely limited. The larger the right becomes, the more “normal” people will become outlanders, with the consequences you describe. I just have a gut feeling that most people will not willingly associate with a crude plagiarist, and, as such, the outlanders and their copies will remain relatively secluded from most of society. I freely admit this is nothing more than a feeling based on observation, but I have it nonetheless.
“And this possibility again shows why copyright and patent are not genuine rights.”
Totally agree re: patents. The subjective moral background isn’t there – people subscribe to it for perceived utilitarian reasons (almost always indicating that they have never actually been exposed to how patents work in practice). Patents require a centralized enforcement mechanism to survive. While true for most of copyright (as we now have it) as well, I think there is some subjective moral background to why people subscribe to the theory. That’s a bottom-up rights formation process, not a top-down one. As such, I can see it surviving (in extremely pared down form) in Ancapistan.
Again, I agree that your argument is objectively correct, I just feel that humans aren’t inherently objective – they do all sorts of things for subjective reasons(one reason I could never dig Rand)
Vince,
I agree to an extent, but it might be more accurate to say that leftist critiques see the current allocation of property rights in the world and wrongly blame the market for it. In particular large holdings of land. However, as you note, the reality of true free markets is likely to be much more to their liking. I actually think the mutualists (well, Carson at least) do a good job of showing how much of the centralization of wealth in the world is the direct result of states, and not the market. I agree with you, however, that some of their policy prescriptions aren’t necessary to achieving their goals. Both Mises and Hayek pointed out that such centralization was only possible, and empirically only happened, in the presence of centralized socialist states.
Somewhat bill:
Okay, I agree.
I am not sure about his. I think more research into historical cases could be helpful. I believe I read that some author’s works in the US were out of copyright in Britain (long ago) but he still sold a lot here.
THe big ole’ bad copyright people won’t let us try.
Yes, but the modern bundle of copyright rights–derivative rights, etc.–no way.
Stephan: The cycle repeats again: I make an intelligent comment, you act like a jerk, I call you on it, you act like a jerk, you “apologize”, lather, rinse, repeat. I’m more interested in the improvement of your behavior (and attention span) than any insincere apology.
Vince:Let’s take a breath here.
Indeed let’s. You’ll notice that the comment you’re quoting was not intended to *show* that it was the case (that no IP = no for profit IW production ever), but rather to precisely delineate where Stephan’s views lie, BEFORE showing how his specific claims about the consequences (which he does not care about) are in error. So your little spiel here is kind of missing the point and misreading the context of that comment. Welcome to your place in the club alongside Curt Howland, quasibill, Fred Mann, Stephan Kinsella, and others. But your point below is an interesting one, so I’ll address it anyway:
People have been making crushed limestone into Portland Cement for millenia. Others have been mixing this product with water, sand, and gravel for millenia. Still others have been forming and pouring these materials into building shapes, again for millenia. Any sort of IP that remains in this industry is marginal, at best. Yet all of these players make many times more profits than the quarrier of the limestone. And people continue to find new and innovative ways to form this material, again, with little or no IP protection, increasing both the value of the product to the end user and profits to the producer. If IP, under a utilitarian world view, is so necessary to the production of things for profit, how is this possible?
I don’t know what the point was of referencing the old techniques, since your question is (to the extent that I can discern an unfortunately hidden one) about the new techniques that are continually develop. However, you have still regressed in the Curt Howland “let’s take the most absolutist versions of your statements and mock them” technique. I don’t claim that there will be ZERO intellectual work production in the absence of IP protection for EACH of those works. For example, if some storeowner finds that smiling at his customers as they come in will make them more likely to come back than not doing so, he has produced an intellectual work, and the idea of other storeowners starting to do this has little influence on his behavior. It imposed little marginal cost for him to find this out, and the transient gain in market share more than made it worth his while. Things like this are going to happen regardless.
But at the other end, there are extremely complex innovations that take a long time to discover, and for which every person is made better of by their discovery and sale under an IP regime. By “complex” I don’t mean “difficult to understand”. What I mean is the infinitesimal probability another would come up with it. Books over a hundred words typically meet this. For inventions, a new drug would meet this as well. For that class it is easily conceivable that someone desiring profit would not pursue them but for his ability to maintain a temporary monopoly, as he can be driven out of the market by someone not having to meet those costs. Basic stuff. But I don’t need to resort to utilitarian “summing up utilities” to find out that each and every person is made worse off by the lack of IP. With IP, the entrepreneur-inventor/writer regarded that option as his best, and the buyers, that use of their money as best. Crossing off this option necessarily moves them to a less preferred state.
You are correct that many incremental improvements can be found in which the costs required for the improvement are more than offset by the temporary competitive gain from the new process others will shamelessly copy, but as the difficulty level increases, this ceases to be the case. Not every innovation requires IP, but many Pareto improvements do, and the absence of IP necessarily forgoes these. One needn’t be a rank utilitarian to be concerned about this. After all, the identical reasoning applies to all property rights.
Stephan, feel free to parse all the above into meaninglessness like you love to do.
Look at this:
quasibill:While true for most of copyright (as we now have it) as well, I think there is some subjective moral background to why people subscribe to the theory. That’s a bottom-up rights formation process, not a top-down one. As such, I can see it surviving (in extremely pared down form) in Ancapistan.
Kinsella:Yes, but the modern bundle of copyright rights–derivative rights, etc.–no way.
So, it looks like Stephan’s given up the “IP can only come from the state” argument, so I no longer have to address that issue via email. Thanks for clearing that up, guys.
How does the lack of IP cross off these options? The entrepreneur can simply form an IP-like contract with a bunch of buyers. There are transaction costs to this of course, but introducing IP simply replaces those costs with the (much higher) costs of convincing millions of rationally ignorant voters to pick politicians who will write sane IP laws.
Also IP isn’t strictly Pareto-improving. Anyone who independently discovers the same invention, or a partially overlapping one, is made worse off. This is especially common in the field of software.
Person wrote;
“I don’t know what the point was of referencing the old techniques, since your question is (to the extent that I can discern an unfortunately hidden one) about the new techniques that are continually develop.”
There was nothing hidden about my example or my question. I used this example because it is an industry where any fundamental IP has long since dissipated, if it ever existed, and because it is an extremely important, innovative, and profitable industry in spite of this.
And don’t discount technology or complexity in my example either – pretensioned concrete, new mixes / admixtures and ever more complex designs are just a few areas where this neolithic material is still evolving. But because so little of this innovation is patentable, new technologies spread rapidly throughout the industry. The more successful and profitable companies simply implement these techniques more successfully than others, again, no IP required. (I am leaving out for simplicity some technologies used in application, and in ancillary products such as sealers and coatings, since there are often ready substitutes to the patented item).
My point is that IP rights are neither necessary nor sufficient for profits and innovation. No more and no less.
From a utility perspective, an IP-less software industry might produce less of particular types of software (and indirectly hardware), or more. But these products, and the profitability therefrom will directly derive from the value the product represents to the user, not to an arbitrarily-enforced law.
Person: “I’m more interested in the improvement of your behavior (and attention span) than any insincere apology.”
As long as we’re discussing your interests–how did you like V for Vendetta?
Is the whole world out to get you, Person?
So… you ARE in favor of IP now? Just checking, since you refused to answer earlier, and even got indignant that we inferred this from your other cryptic remarks.
Bully for you, then! You must be a mentat.
Which one?
No, you misread that.
Quasibill (and not quite Kinsella either)
I think this subjective morality will override Kinsella’s objectively correct assessment
The reason why I used the word “unethical”, is because that’s the strongest word I could find, in the context. There’s nothing above ethics. That’s the real law as opposed to the law under a dictatorship. I wanted to make quite clear that I’m not being subjective in any way here. I could be writing “plagiarism is theft”, but that would sound MORE subjective. Ethic is the fundamental principle of libertarian thinking according to Hoppe. Only if you don’t accept that property and freedom necessarily link to identity, you could excuse identity fraud. That’s the REASON why plagiarism is unethical.
Quasibill
Plagiarism IS unethical. Unfortunately … this gets you nowhere near copyright.
the vast majority of copyright regulations that are basically applied in Europe (yes, they write books over there too) are simple declinations of the protection of identity.
It is basically forbidden to publicize w/o consent, existing art creations as such, or partly, and to put your name under it.
It is also forbidden to do so under the author’s name as it feeds on his identity derived homesteaded rights (besides the fact that the publishing act is not innocent and influences the way a work is understood).
Licenses may be granted of course.
Private duplication and the use of quotes in publications are legal.
I don’t understand what in your eyes, brings all this so many miles away from “copyright”?
Thanks, Stephan.
You write: “But the point here is that every political system has some property rights distribution and method. What distinguishes these systems is the different rules for assigning property titles.”
Agreed.
I can’t speak for David Kelley, but all I meant to say is that liberty and property derive from self-ownership (or the right to life). I do not depreciate the conflict-avoidance function of property; I’ve cited it often. I think some folks missed the point.
(It’s nice to see that old articles still have life in them.)
Sheldon,
I may have missed the point. I am more prone to doing this when I’m not being paid
You wrote, “liberty and property derive from self-ownership (or the right to life).” Not sure if I would equate the righ to life with self-ownership. I am skeptical of the notion fo a right to life, as I am a right to free speech. They are all just property rights, as Rothbard argues here.
Ouch! Mea Culpa! That’s what I get for posting while running out the door with my teenaged girls on some last-minute shopping/preparation for school the next day! No wonder it made little sense to you.
I was initially commenting on your second paragraph in which you stated: “…some leftists might object to property because it is a means of oppression. Even if that were so, the question remains, why do they trust the state not to oppress? …even if some people are at the mercey of landlords or employers, it is even worse if we become subjects of the state.”
To which I noted that: “Godwin, even though today is considered a communist (he wasn’t, though), would, in his comments (and criticisms)about property, state that he was an absolute defender of property rights even though he saw problems with said rights, because denying property ownership was far more dangerous than protecting it. As I recall, Paley held much the same position.”
This comment I was making simply to butress your argument with a historical notation that even William Godwin and William Paley made similar arguments.
And then I made the comment which riled you: “By the way, I do appreciate the method of analysis you use on property theory, and would recommend the writings of the attorney/engineer/social philosopher, Spencer Heath, to you, particularly his book, ‘Citadel, Market and Altar”. You would find material on property theory which is not uncontradictory to yours.”
To this, I was primarily referring to your emphasis on property titles in your analyses (here and elsewhere) of ownership theory and contract theory. I do believe that you have a number of quite excellent papers on the subject, and still regard a study of Heath’s “Citadel, Market and Altar” valuable to you, but did not have sufficient time to elaborate further.
There are several of Heath’s essays reprinted on the Spencer Heath blog, amongst which are ones which critique Henry George’s attacks on land ownership:
http://spencerheath.blogspot.com/ I will be continuing to post a number of other essays of his on proprietary community, Christian libertarianism (he was a liberal Christian with later ties to Spiritual Mobilization, one of the leading libertarian organizations of the 1950′s), and science.
Heath, as a libertarian from the turn of the last century until his death in the mid-1960′s, had come to be known by a wide range of individuals, from individualist-anarchists to Leonard Read and F.A. Harper (I do hope you know who he was!), Murray Rothbard, to conservatives like John Chamberlain and Russell Kirk. If you had googled on the Mises.org website, you would have found that Heath is quoted and referenced by Murray in his “Man, Economy and State” and “Power and Market” precisely in his discussions of property title, which should have provided you with some direction on Heath’s importance to Rothbard.
As to Galambos, it is not surprising that he and his circle of associates would have taken an interest in Heath’s proprietary community concepts. Proprietary communities provide viable means for providing private alternatives to various public services which are nonpolitical and libertarian. From what I could discern, this was Galambos’ primary interest in Heath. Galambos made use of Heath’s ideas and sold his book through the Free Enterprise Institute’s bookstore, which explain the familiarity and fame for Heath.
By the way, Heath did not propose some sort of intellectual property schema as did Galambos. He had been, as I think you note in your update, a patent attorney (as you are),
but did not believe in the patent and copyright system (just as you do not). His primary use of patents (at least for his own patents) was to guarantee that he would be able to use his own developments. He did rather like the term “engineer” to describe himself. Having known a number of inventors, I find that a not uncommon description.
As to the “theory of energy” notions, I have a paper intended for Stephen Cox at Liberty which I am currently working on which discusses this matter. Isabel Paterson (not “Patterson”), Rose Wilder Lane, Carl Snyder (in his classic “Capitalism, the Creator”), Leonard Read, Robert LeFevre and a host of other libertarians, including Spencer Heath, used human energy concepts of one sort or another to popularize the “philosophy of freedom” (as both Leonard Read and Robert LeFevre could call it). Part of the reason behind this was that individual rights in philosphy and society in general were held in great disrespect during the period from WWI until well after WWII, and even today in a great many college and university departments, as I am sure that you well know.
Regarding Spencer H. MacCallum, I am surprised that you are unaware of his recent papers published in the Mises Institute’s Journal of Libertarian Studies, Independent Review and elsewhere. Beginning years ago with a paper on “The Social Nature of Ownership” in Modern Age, MacCallum has a rather extensive background in writing about property theory, although at this point I would hesitate to recommend his writings to you. Hoppe, however, does discuss the proprietary community concept of Heath and MacCallum (Heath’s grandson) in his writings (see Hoppe’s “Democracy”–I do believe you are somewhat familiar with it, although apparently you have not read those particular sections).
On a personal note, I still fondly remember Murray’s cackle over my discussion with him about how I was “outed” from NBI (Nathaniel Branden Institute) as a Rothbardian in the late sixties. I have been called Rothbardian, LeFevrian, and now, I guess, Galambosian, too. But I don’t take it too seriously. Ah Well.
Just a {Rothbardian) thought.
Just Ken
kgregglv@cox.net
http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com/
http://spencerheath.blogspot.com/
Gregg:
It was not my paragraph. I was quoting Richman.
After your lenghty comments, I may look up Heath. AS I said, the mention of Galambos and Georgism turned me away. NOw I see, as you say, he was not a Galambosian, he was not a Georgist, and he was even anti-IP. HIs main flaws as I see it now (admittedly, without even having read him) are his Christian libertarianism; and his scientism (which he does seem to share with Galambos), including his use of imprecise, scientistic terms like “energy”. I’m aware that others have used this metaphor; as I recall, either Paterson or Lane used it, and I could not get past the first few pages because of it. I detest when the social sciences try to overdo the scientific metaphors in a vain attempt to gain respectabilty; or maybe it’s just purple prose. I don’t know. But I don’t think the winning team in basketball has “momentum,” I don’t think a crystal helps you channel your “energy,” and I don’t believe in The Force. I would bet good money that his “theory of energy” is as crankish as it seems at first glance.
Sure, I’m aware of SHM, and recall having read a few of this things, despite his annoying use of all three names. I was even aware Rothbard quoted him. Sure. ANd sure I’ve heard of F.A. “Baldy” Harper, though I must admit the nickname has kept me from his writings. I also can’t say I’m a huge fan of Kirk, Chamberlain, or Read, though I do appreciate much of what they say (esp. Read).
SK
Artisan -
“I don’t understand what in your eyes, brings all this so many miles away from “copyright”? ”
My answer is this -
“It is also forbidden to do so under the author’s name as it feeds on his identity derived homesteaded rights (besides the fact that the publishing act is not innocent and influences the way a work is understood).”
No property in your identity. Your identity is really nothing more than your history as others know it. You don’t own what others think they know about you, or feel about you.
What there is, once again, is the concept of fraud, wherein someone misrepresents themselves, someone else materially and justifiable relies on it, and suffers damages from it. But this doesn’t get you the right you’ve laid out above in the vast majority of cases, as it is rare that the author has any relationship with the copier at all, let alone justifiably relied on some representation of the copier.
You have no property rights in your identity, just your body. Identity can mean any intangible aspect of your personality, such as how you walk, or cut your hair, belief in God, cultural preferences/blindspots, etc. It is inherently fuzzy, because it can, and does, change frequently. You are not the same person you were 2 days ago.
Your physical body is what you own. Not what you believe, or what others believe about you.
Now, as I’ve noted above, I can see subjective variations from the objective determination of self-ownership, such that I can see most people agreeing on some minor variations from the objective rule. But the more extensive the deviation, the more likely that it will require a centralized enforcement agency to maintain, and therefore, the less likely it will actually exist in Ancapistan or even a highly decentralized state environment.
I understand the annoying use of the term “energy” (it’s usually non-scientists that use it to mean “something good”, although that “something” is usually just imaginary), but I don’t think the term “momentum” is that bad when used in a non-mechanics (mass, velocity and whatnot). While it is more probabilistic than deterministic, analyzing trends can be a good way to make an educated guess about the future, whether within a single basketball game or over a series of games.
Kinsella, what more precisely was your problem with his Christian libetarianism? Was he saying libertarianism logically follows from Christianity or that vice-versa statism follows from non-Christianity? Or was it more unnecessary bloviating on the subject you could do without?
This is just me, but in my experience scientists seem much more reasonable than non-scientists. It might just be that they tend to know enough to keep their fool mouths shut on certain subjects. Before you start bringing up anecdotes about this or that famous scientist being a Marxist or nihilist, remember I’d talking about a tendency which makes them less leftist than the rest of academia. Some studies done on the subject are here (focuses only on social scientists, but clusters responses into progressive, establishment left, conservative and libertarian) and here (percentage of democrats/liberals vs republicans/conservatives across all fields).
Quasibill
Your physical body is what you own. Not what you believe, or what others believe about you.
True, but that elementary truth has nothing to do with liberty and self-determination (the subject of this article). Your radical dismissal of my reasoning equals saying we’re no better than cows on the field. They just “own their bodies” too. See, if you own a piece of land, it’s an idea, not just a physical extension of your body…
I’m talking property definition. I’m talking Locke. I’m talking ethics. I’m talking homesteading… I’m talking copyright. You may not like it, but it will always be just your personal taste, unless you link your views with some more universal human values.
Quasibill, you also mention
No property in Your identity. Your identity is really nothing more than your history.
Identity is a lot more than that. What about DNA? What does a signature represent? What about a contract tying you? A given word? What about schizophrenia ? If you don’t understand what identity is then you can’t understand the concept of free will.
Copyright means nothing to you if you don’t see your own identity as the product of your own individuality, but why should it untie you from your accountability?
If you start driving drunk and hurt someone, you can consider that you cannot be punished because your body was under the influence of the alcohol. But considering free will, you are responsible.
TGP: >I understand the annoying use of the term “energy”< thank you.
>Kinsella, what more precisely was your problem with his Christian libetarianism?< It is crankish, irrational, and absurd? Hey, Christians call their view "absurd," do they now?
>This is just me, but in my experience scientists seem much more reasonable than non-scientists. It might just be that they tend to know enough to keep their fool mouths shut on certain subjects.<
I disagree. To the extent they start pontificating about policy matters and pretend the answer is obvious from mainstream, wertfrei theory, they are idiots, even worse than the Hollywood actors who spout off on topics they are utterly ignorant of.
On the other hand, ” ‘Freedom’s’ just another word for ‘nothing left to lose’.” There is some truth in this statement. When one has physical property then one must either defend it or lose it.
It is amusing that Christians invoke their religion when defending property rights and anti Christians defend communism. If getting to Heaven is one’s only goal then property rights are immaterial but if this life is all there is then accumulating property is logical.
Comments on this entry are closed.