IP and Anarchy
Over on the Against Monopoly blog, David Levine, author of Against Intellectual Monopoly, gets close to conceding the case for anarchy (which I argued for in a post on that blog, Intellectual Property and the Support of the State) in this thread:
I guess I'd call myself a "practical" libertarian. If the practical alternative to a powerful state is rule by armed gangs, for example on the Somali model, I'm forced to go with the state. ... On the balance I'd go with a lot less state than we have. And more competition between states as well. The great danger is that the U.S. will succeed in eliminating competition between states to innovate.
But as I noted in my reply there,
David you wrote: "the reason we are so strongly against IP is because of the 'camel's nose' problem: a small amount of IP at best provides a small benefit - and is an invitation to have a lot of IP."
This is an excellent point. But isn't it true of the state itself? Even if you think a small degree of "regulation" from the state is better than none, having a state that can provide a little regulation is an invitation to have a lot (and it's bound to include IP, and too much of it, to boot!). So the only choice is to strongly oppose the state, just as you strongly oppose IP.
Comments (10)
David K. Levine
When you say "strongly oppose the state" it makes me feel a little like the dog chasing the car...I like the idea of strongly opposing the state. As a practical matter (I said I was practical) I doubt we can get rid of enough of it that I wouldn't want to get rid of more. However, given the alternatives I wouldn't be so happy if we did succeed in getting rid of it.
Published: August 18, 2008 2:04 AM
Book 'em Danno
Somalia, though the level of home-grown chaos there is overestimated, in all its violence, remains little threat to a society (vernacular) dominated by market relations. Certainly, the US government is much more destructive than war lords, religious chiefs, Ethiopian troops and UN blue hats combined. All this damage it creates in spite of the relative free cooperation Americans enjoy.
Given that capitalistic anarchy requires some common sense among common people about property and exchange, here are some questions. How much general ideological support does a non-government society need? How does a vast dynamic economy keep from falling victim to the formation of government mindedness among its people?
Published: August 18, 2008 11:19 AM
Cosmin
The problem is that the real alternative to the state is hard to imagine, since we've known the state all our lives.
Many people I talk to tell me: "if there was no state, there would be mafias and warlords and whatnot".
I don't see how that's possible. Here's the thought process that allows me to be confident about the benefits of an anarchist society:
Anarchists are opposed to the state, not because they like to oppose stuff, but because they have identified the principles that animate the state. Their opposition can be seen as a rejection of those principles (mainly, the initiation of force).
To be consistent, they would then oppose any other structure that derives its power from the same principle.
Would they have the power to do that?
Of course! If they are clear-headed enough and well-organized enough to eradicate the state, why wouldn't they be able to destroy a band of thugs? Is there any mafia that is stronger than the state? Would mafias even become as strong if they couldn't exploit markets driven underground by the state?
In Somalia, they didn't reject the power of coercion on principle, so they're merely fighting to get on top and have that power. This compromise on principles is why all revolutions have ultimately failed, as Bastiat noted 150 years ago.
Published: August 18, 2008 12:38 PM
Person
I've started to take a different approach. Just a week ago, upon reading this post by Stephan Kinsella, I would have made a few short responses that would appear trite or flippant or rude, but would have actually cleverly and succinctly revealed the non-obvious inconsistencies in Stephan's claims.
But now? Now, I'm just gonna let it go.
Not worth getting worked up about.
Not worth explaining to people who didn't "get it" the first time.
Not worth generating another admission of a critical assumption in Stephan's position that I'll keep linking back to.
Ahhhh ... the pressure ... feel it slowly slide away...
Published: August 18, 2008 2:56 PM
nicholas gray
I think the best approach for decentralisers is to start small. Campaign first at a county or shire level, and deregulate wherever you can. Non-county laws would still be applied by the other tiers of government, but you could repeal as many of your own as you want. A city council in Germeny recently got rid of all speed limits in the city, and had a reduced accident rate!. (And saved money by not needing to maintain or repair those signs!)
Then a libertarian campaign at the state level could point to a successful model of libertarian minimum lawfullness. Take over your own countries, one bite at a time.
Published: August 18, 2008 10:11 PM
Bob Kaercher
"If the practical alternative to a powerful state is rule by armed gangs, for example on the Somali model, I'm forced to go with the state."
It's definitely a testament to the effectiveness of pro-statist propaganda when one can make such a statement without cognitive dissonance splitting one's skull: The state itself is an armed gang.
Isnt' it?
Published: August 19, 2008 9:55 AM
Book 'em Danno
Cosmin,
Nice reply. I suppose there is an ebb and flow to how well people's actions match the ideal principles. So if the world turned inside out and the dominating ideology became capitalist-anarchist, then chaos and destruction, the inevitable results of coercive ideology, would be relegated and occasional aspects in all probability. This is assuming that government is the product of the coercive mindset.
Published: August 19, 2008 10:10 AM
Geoffrey Transom
Etienne de la Boetie hit the nail on the head about 450 years ago; the State only rules because of our voluntary servitude.
Cease to obey and the state withers in hours. Witness the former Soviet Union: one day a couple of thousand people decided "Bugger this... it's just not working." and the whole shebang folded in 48 hours.
Sadly, western economies are sufficiently free (economically) that the power of free(ish) market organisation and the pursuit of optimisational behaviour, have resulted in sharp improvements in living standards - despite the massive parasitism of the State.
Politicians, ever quick to exploit anything positive that happens while they are in office, immediately seize on any growth as the result of policy, as opposed to the reality (that growth and development occurs IN SPITE of government meddling).
But Helas! There will always be a decent slice of any population who will vest awe in whichever lying parasite happens to occupy an impressive palace. Bush, B-liar, Little Prince Sarkoleon, Gordon "Sell Gold at a 20-year low" Brown... in the minds of a decent chunk of the herd these men are considered impressive solely because they have dedicated, without scruple, their entire lives to the pursuit of political office, and they have finally grabbed the brass ring.
That there exist people who could lionise Dick Cheney, makes me think that homo sapiens sapiens has a non-sentient cousin indistinguishable from himself.
It is the same empty-headed awe that animates a lot of religious adherence (ordinarily religious belief itself stems from indoctrination as a child - although a bump on the head or some other brain trauma can have similar effects... think of Ezekiel eating a turd sandwich).
In short, folks like us have known collectively for half a millennium, that we undertake by choice, that which was formally stated by A.J. Nock in "Isaiah's Job". We are - and will remain - voices in the wilderness, unheard until such time as technology drags humanity towards the efficient (ZERO state) outcome.
The Remnant, dearest All. We are the Remnant.
And the law? It's just a set of politician's opinions at a specific point in time. It is absolutely no basis for running a society, and I disclaim any obligation to comply with any law to which I did not formally contract, except insofar as I seek to avoid the threats of death implicit in the State having armed goons roaming the countryside. But I guarantee you this: the State spends an awful lot of money trying to get tax receipts out of people like me - they certainyl spend more than they could ever reasonably hope to collect. I haven't paid tax in my home domicile (or elsewhere, save for indirect taxes) since 2001. We need all to try to withhold the states' sustenance (as a parasite, if you deny it a host it dies. Lovely).
Cheerio,
GT
France (but my home domicile is 'Straya'.. .Australia, tho the rest of the world)
Published: August 19, 2008 1:56 PM
Alan
As I received no reply, and like a poster above I find it tiresome to keep repeating such points, I shall post an email sent to a Lew Rockwell columnist. It referred to an article about some guy claiming ownership of a specific style of yoga, and selling franchises for it:
Much as I love LRW and Austrian SE there is one point that, frankly, pees me off. That's the constant attack on intellectual property.
Firstly, as your own article points out, only by claiming ownership thereby earning from it, was this guy able to "bring yoga to the masses".
You don't like the brand? Buy something else; heck go with some 'open source yoga' if you like. It's available, it's free but why attack commercial yoga? What business is it of yours?
Day after day on LRW I see:
copyright notices
links to buy Amazon copyrighted books
Talk of CATO and the like falsely claiming to be "libertarian" (should have got the trademark huh?)
Not to mention constant talk of how, by producing unbacked copies, the dollar is devalued by central banks, ie the Fed.
So lemme get this straight:
Kinsella or whatever his name is can download Gate's software, make unauthorised copies, breaking his contract with MS, distribute em far and wide and hey, that he devalued Gate's software, so what? Champion of freedom!
The Fed creates unbacked dollars - and the thieving bastards are stealing the value of our money right out our wallets? Bastards!
Kettle, meet Kinsella.
In fact if I were to hack into YOUR bank account and change whatever figure is there to "0.00", that's not theft or damage, cos it's just digital digits, which can easily be reproduced, right? Here, let me be generous:
583858308-28-89-90-9324909290-99403-929492-9493294-2-2
There ya go, lots of digital nothingness, of no value whatsoever. Like your bank account, Gate's or anybody else's software etc?
No, it is WRONG and it is THEFT to devalue the national currency and it is WRONG and it is THEFT to devalue someone else's software, music, literature or whatever.
As for the yoga example, come off it. He's protecting his trademark, not bodily movements that call themselves anything else. YOU want to sell HIS hot yoga, pay him or do your OWN market research, development, production and marketing.
Like I say, I love the site, including your articles but on this point you all fall flat on your face. Being anti copyright may be all trendy and feel good but like physical private property it is PRIVATE and it is PROPERTY.
That it is not "scarce" does not alter that, nor does the fact it is easy to steal or reproduce mean it is OK to do so. Your car is mass-produced in a factory and the windows break easily; would stealing it be OK? Ah, you say, then I would be DEPRIVING you of it? No, it's mass produced, go buy another. All I'd be depriving you off is the VALUE of it. But what's the difference between depriving someone of the value of their car or the value of their music, software or whatever?
It's still theft, it's still harming another and frankly it's none of your damn business. You don't want it? Don't. buy. it. then.
Alan
Published: August 20, 2008 1:10 PM
ToAlan
@Alan:
There is no "intellectual" property. It does not exist because no one can own information itself. Only physical objects can be owned.
This has to do with the following:
There is only selfownership of entities. From the selfownership of an entity does emerge the ownership of other physical (!), unowned things by mixing them with ones own labor. Things previously owned by others can be traded. Why can people trade? Because they own themselves.
People can also make agreements on different things such as trading labor for money.
But you have no right to use coercion to force someone to pay you for information. You can only try to get an agreement with that person before you make your information public.
Published: August 23, 2008 12:14 AM