patm
I take from your reply that you are sincere in this dialogue
– this was my belief until I saw some actions that seemed to indicate
otherwise. Thank you for clarifying.
Before I attempt to answer your question, allow me to offer
some background. For me personally, this
question of IP as property is somewhat interesting from a theoretical
standpoint, but not a terribly important concept to spend energy on. Again, I say for me. Obviously, for some people, it is
tremendously important.
Second, when it seems to me that the market will provide a
reasonably good policing and regulation system, I do not concern myself with
understanding the purity of the theory behind an alternative. One significant example of this is fractional
reserve banking. Both
Mises and Rothbard have offered that the market will regulate this practice
just fine. I agree. So why get so hung up about 100% reserves, or
if it is fraud or not?
For me, the same thing applies to IP. There is no doubt that in a libertarian
society, “inventors” will attempt to control something like the formula for
Coke, or “authors” the words in a book, via agreements of some sort. How will you stop them – by attempting to
demonstrate via a tremendously complex logical construct designed to prove to
them that they cannot? What if they disagree
with your theory and attempt to control it anyway?
So what happens next?
I don’t know. In a free-market
for enforcement, I suspect at minimum there will not even be an attempt to
protect most of the frivolous IP stuff (whistling a tune, copying a written passage
on the internet), as – without the state aid- it will be too expensive to attempt
to do so. But the formula for Coke? Surely, when billions of dollars are at
stake, the attempt will be made. I will
offer, below, my thoughts on how the market might sort this out.
Now to your question:
How you can say an idea is property
that is the result of applying one's brain to the physical world...when
knowledge guides action, and therefore the idea must exist prior to any sort of
action in the physical world?
Too complicated, and would require too much time for me to
deal with (given my view that a market solution will work just fine), whatever
the answer. Call that a cop-out or a
failure on my part – my feelings won’t be hurt.
For me, the answer is simple: I created the formula for Coke. It is mine.
I have authority over control, use, and disposition of the formula. It is no different than if I built a chair –
I built it. It is mine. I have authority over control, use and
disposition of the chair.
You will reply that if someone else produces a bottle of
Coke, it does nothing to stop me from doing the same. But I say it isn’t the bottle of Coke that I
own (or merely the right / ability to produce one), it is the formula. Ownership (control, use, and disposition) of
the formula is indivisible, just as ownership of the chair is.
I concede that your logic might be more elegant than
mine. It is unimportant to me that this
might be so. I return to the beauty of
the market in resolving such issues. I am
certain that in a libertarian world, Coke would attempt to protect its
formula. After that, I say let market
forces figure out the result.
I find it interesting that you
continue to skip over my pointing out the non-rivalrous nature of the Coca-Cola
formula...
I believe I addressed this above, I only include your
statement here for completeness. If not,
I guess that means I have skipped over it again.
…and how your concept of having a
property right in it, allows you to come into my home and dictate what I can or
cannot do with my own ingredients.
You can do what you want with your ingredients, to include
stumbling upon my formula. If you copy
it via obtaining it from an avenue that traces back to me or someone I have
contracted with, however, I guess we will have a disagreement.
How might this be resolved in a libertarian world? I assume that a libertarian world would see
rival insurance companies and all of the stuff of libertarian conflict-resolution
dreams. I suspect insurance companies
that develop a skill at defending intellectual property will win market share
from customers willing to pay the price.
I, for my blog, won’t be a customer at the price demanded. But I suspect Coke would.
For the possibility to earn countless millions in fees, insurance
companies might actually develop a good argument on Coke’s behalf – better than
anything Wenzel might come up with and certainly better than anything I have
written to date. You will certainly be
free to file a pro-bono argument for the other side. You will be free to explain your position to
your heart’s desire – scarcity, non-rivalrous, etc. All of it.
In the end, someone will make a judgment. To the extent the market appreciates this
particular judge's decisions, he will gain market share.
This brings me to Hoppe – whatever your interpretation of his
statement at The Daily Bell, the following seems clear: while he obviously
sees the theoretical case regarding IP in the same way Kinsella does, he also
obviously leaves room for the market to sort it out. When considering the entire statement, can
you truly conclude otherwise?
I have no doubt that my answer is not intellectually
satisfying for you. You won’t get better
from me on this subject – there is little point for you to continue to try;
call me a lost cause, if you like. I find
more satisfaction in thinking and writing about other issues related to NAP,
Austrian economics, and decentralized societal structures. This is where I prefer to spend my limited
intellectual capital.
As always, I appreciate the response.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I'm not completely sure you understand what I'm pointing out about your illogical statement.
Once again, you state: "an idea is property – the result of man applying his brain to the physical world".
This is not complicated: for man to "apply his brain" (which by that I assume you mean metaphorically, his thoughts and ideas) to the physical world, the ideas have to be already in his mind.
Yet you claim that the idea is a result of a man applying his brain to the physical world.
This is not complex, it is simply a matter of chronology.
Do you honestly believe that human action can take place, that purposeful behavior can occur...without the purpose first being understood in the mind?
Further: "Ownership (control, use, and disposition) of the formula is indivisible, just as ownership of the chair is."
How can you say that, when in the sentence prior you freely admitted that we could both use the formula simultaneously without hindering each other's use?
This is the entire difference between rivalrous and non-rivalrous goods. Obviously if you're sitting in the chair, that prevents me from sitting in it. But the formula is a completely different class of good. This is precisely why there is a difference between things that exist in the mind and actual scarce resources that exist outside the mind...and why claiming property rights in the former is incompatible with property rights in the latter.
...Because once you claim a property right in knowledge, you by extension are claiming that you have a right to forcibly prevent a person from performing certain actions...from moving their body (i.e. their property) in a certain way, and interacting with their own ingredients (i.e. their property) in certain ways.
To have an intellectual property right is to infringe on the real property rights of others.
This is why Hoppe and Kinsella clearly say "intellectual property" is incompatible with what all libertarians agree are legitimate property rights.
So once again:
1) Do you honestly believe that human action can take place, that purposeful behavior can occur...without the purpose first being understood in the mind?
2) How can you say that "Ownership (control, use, and disposition) of the formula is indivisible, just as ownership of the chair is.", when in the sentence prior you freely admit that we could both use the formula simultaneously without hindering each other's use?
3) Do you not agree that claiming a right to ownership of knowledge necessarily infringes on the real property rights we both agree on?
Thank you for summarizing:
Delete“1) Do you honestly believe that human action can take place, that purposeful behavior can occur...without the purpose first being understood in the mind?”
No.
“2) How can you say that "Ownership (control, use, and disposition) of the formula is indivisible, just as ownership of the chair is.", when in the sentence prior you freely admit that we could both use the formula simultaneously without hindering each other's use?”
I can decide when, how, and by whom my formula is used, just as I can decide when, how and by whom my chair is used. It is this simple to me, but obviously to you it is not so simple.
“3) Do you not agree that claiming a right to ownership of knowledge necessarily infringes on the real property rights we both agree on?”
No.
Now, can you offer your interpretation of Hoppe’s statement? Why would he answer as he did when DB suggested the market find a solution? Why not say, if Kinsella’s theory is so rock solid, something like: “You must be joking – why would you even suggest private means to enforce something that is not properly enforceable?”
Respectfully, other than my question about Hoppe, I do not believe there is anything to be gained by further dialogue. I am spending too much time on this, and really want to focus on another project which I hope to publish in the next few days.
I will of course post your comments, but likely will do no more than this. I thank you for the dialogue, as it drove me to think a bit more about how the market would solve this problem.
If I may butt in...
Delete1) Do you honestly believe that human action can take place, that purposeful behavior can occur...without the purpose first being understood in the mind?
I am not sure what you mean about a purpose being understood, but it would seem to me to certainly be possible for me to want something without knowing why I want it. It would also seem possible to want something without knowing exactly what I want. I may have a vague idea, and act purposefully, yet aimlessly, towards a goal based on the vague idea. In fact, I would argue this happens quite often.
3) Do you not agree that claiming a right to ownership of knowledge necessarily infringes on the real property rights we both agree on?
This is only a problem if you assume ownership of knowledge is not valid. Take the example of ownership of a particular bandwidth in a given area. Before people started claiming ownership of the EM spectrum, you could use your transmitter to broadcast on whatever wavelength you wanted. But voila, I claim a property right on a certain wavelength, and the courts recognize my claim. Now you are restricted in the use of your transmitter. My new bandwidth property right has infringed on your transmitter property right.
And yes, I know that's a rivalrous resource, but that is not the point of this example. The point of this example is to show that new property rights infringe on previous property rights.
"I may have a vague idea"
Delete...so you admit an idea existed before any action took place. It sounds like you agree with me on that. So perhaps you can explain how something A that exists prior to something B can be the result of something B.
"new property rights infringe on previous property rights."
Bingo. You agree with me again. You literally stated my entire point. You literally just conceded the anti-IP position.
This is exactly what I have said several times and have been saying for quite some time now in this discussion. In fact, ironically for you, the very post you are replying to is one in which I stated that exact point: "To have an intellectual property right is to infringe on the real property rights of others."
I also stated it in the comments of bionic's previous post as well: "this concept of 'intellectual property' creates a new set of rights, that contradict the real property rights that virtually all libertarians recognize as legitimate."
It is precisely what Kinsella and Hoppe mean when they say that "intellectual property rights and real property rights are incompatible" (and Hoppe quote continues: "and the promotion of intellectual property must be seen as a most dangerous attack on the idea of 'real' property (in scarce goods)")
So you admit that ideas cannot be the result of "applying one's brain to the physical world", and you admit that the concept of "intellectual property rights" is incompatible with the concept of real property rights.
I see no disagreement between us, except for the fact that you seem to think infringing on the individual rights of others is an okay thing to do.
But if you don't subscribe to the libertarian philosophy of non-agression, then I suppose that would easily explain the disagreement.
I expected that you would be kind enough to explain your answers.
ReplyDeleteYou'll actually find that I already offered a response to your Hoppe question when I updated the forum post with the changes you implicitly requested.
1) If you agree with me that purposeful behavior cannot occur without the purpose first being understood in the mind, please explain how ideas can be the result of man applying his brain to the physical world.
"I can decide when, how, and by whom my formula is used, just as I can decide when, how and by whom my chair is used."
2) Why should you be able to come into my home and forcibly prevent me from using my ingredients in a certain way? You honestly do not see this as infringement of my rights?
Thank you for pointing out your view on Hoppe's statement.
DeleteAs to item 2, given my answer to item 1 (on which I know we do not agree), how else could I respond? Would it be an infringement of your rights for me to do this if it was the only way to get you to stop using my chair?
If I wasn't clear before, my response assumes I can prove that you came to the formula through means that trace back to me or those I have contracted with.
Hi Bionic,
DeleteWhat patm543 is doing, is he's using "Argumentation Ethics." A.E. is a collection of semi-plausable assertions, supposedly "prove" libertarian homesteading and the non-aggression-principle. Just as "When all one has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail," A.E. advocates will hammer everything with their A.E. and often refuse to discuss in terms of anything but A.E. The A.E.-advocate will typically try to get the "victim" of their A.E. to agree to certain plausable sounding "axioms" and "assertions" before understanding what they're actually agreeing to.
These arguments tend to be "effective" because they are complex enough to "sound intelligent" and confuse/bore most readers, and disputers will tend to "give up" after being unable to understand/communicate with the A.E. person. You were more than right to say "I concede that your logic might be more elegant than mine. It is unimportant to me that this might be so." Unless you're willing to "play by their rules," these discussions will tend to proceed in a very confusing manner - as you've observed.
Other than A.E.'s logical fallacies, this is pretty much why I avoid it like the plague and refuse to engage with them in accordance to their odd nuanced argumentation ethics.
http://jamescarlin.wikidot.com/argumentation-ethics:why-avoid-it-like-the-plague
http://jamescarlin.wikidot.com/critique-of-argumentation-ethics
- JamesCarlin
Mr. Carlin, thank you for this explanation, and further, the provided links.
DeleteUnfortunately, I occasionally practice some portion of what you describe - for example, when I believe some position leads to ends that are immoral, I am rather blunt about saying so. I usually leave it at one statement.
In the case of patm, I tried to limit my replies only to some new point made. Eventually, I decided even this was useless and just stopped.
In any case, for most such discussions I try not to approach it in terms of winning and losing. In this case, the point wasn't to change patm's view, but to ensure that I felt mine was stated well. After this, the reader can decide.
Again, I thank you for the enlightening comment and links.
I'm not sure I got an explanation if you gave it...
ReplyDelete1) You admitted that you agree with me that purposeful behavior cannot occur without the purpose first being understood in the mind, so please explain how ideas can be the result of man applying his brain to the physical world. Again, chronology. Logic dictates that in our normal space-time continuum, something B that is the result of something A, must exist after something A.
2) Once again, we both agree that the chair is your property. I do not have any ownership claim in your chair. I would also assume (that because you believe in private property rights in scarce/rivalrous resources), that we both agree my ingredients in my kitchen are my property...they are mine to use and control how I wish.
But you are literally saying that you get to dictate what I can and cannot do with my own ingredients. Sounds a lot like "control" to me. How is it that you have a right to control something that I presumably own?
1) "...please explain how ideas can be the result of man applying his brain to the physical world."
ReplyDeleteWhat else can an idea be (at least in my Coke example that we have been discussing)? Only God created something from nothing - even the idea of what the something should be.
The formula for Coke? Is it not the result of brainpower applied to physical matter?
2) "How is it that you have a right to control something that I presumably own?"
How is it you have the right to use the formula that I presumably own? There, now we are even once again.
NAP places boundaries on the use of property. I have the right to limit the use of your gun when you have it pointed at my head. There is nothing inherently invalid about such limits.
I have the right to stop you from using my formula because I believe you are violating NAP; this because I believe the formula is my property. You and I will not reconcile this difference because you and I disagree on that which can be labeled property.
This is the root of our difference. I don't believe asking it again will resolve the difference.
"What else can an idea be (at least in my Coke example that we have been discussing)? [..] The formula for Coke? Is it not the result of brainpower applied to physical matter?"
ReplyDeleteSo you're saying that purposeful behavior cannot occur without the purpose first being understood in the mind, but the purpose in the mind can only exist after "brainpower applied to physical matter" (i.e. purposeful behavior) has taken place?
Do you honestly not see the contradiction here?
"How is it you have the right to use the formula that I presumably own? There, now we are even once again."
No, we are not...because we already established that you and I both agree that I own the ingredients. Your claim to own the knowledge is precisely what we are debating. Again, you cannot support the argument that something is property by alleging that you own it. Again, this is a logical fallacy of "begging the question." It is circular reasoning.
This is no different than when the radio evangelists claim the Bible is true because the Bible says so.
Do you honestly not see the fallacy here?
"For me, the answer is simple: I created the formula for Coke. It is mine. I have authority over control, use, and disposition of the formula. It is no different than if I built a chair – I built it. It is mine. I have authority over control, use and disposition of the chair."
ReplyDeleteThis is my problem. Knowledge is a continuum. You used all the knowledge of all the people before you to create Coke. You don't have to pay them a dime. How is it that you claim the right to interject yourself into the middle of this continuum and claim that all knowledge BEFORE you wrote coke was free and was fine for you or anyone else to use. But now that you have done some "work" you get to keep it all for yourself?
You can keep it to yourself actually. Just don't tell anyone and enjoy your coke.
It baffles me how people don't see the clear continuum of knowledge and it's more baffling that they don't see the absurdity of arbitrarily breaking that continuum.
If you had had your way from the beginning of time we'd still be eating our own poop.
Derrick, I don't recall reading anything in history about people eating their own poop. This may pass for effective discussion at some sites, but not here. And your attributing such a statement to "my way" only demonstrates confusion.
Delete"It baffles me how people don't see the clear continuum of knowledge and it's more baffling that they don't see the absurdity of arbitrarily breaking that continuum."
You write as if knowledge is a river, flowing freely and slowly and continuously expanding, like a gift of nature with no intervention by man necessary….
But I digress: Please demonstrate where and when in history that someone prior to Coke took all of the bits of knowledge floating around in your river and made the formula for Coca-Cola – and then effectively secured their position in this property.
Once you do that, let me know.
Derrick has a point in that, (as Kinsella explained in the podcast), every creator relies upon other ideas...because none of us exists tabula rasa in the real world; we all assume knowledge that other generations have come up with before. No idea is brand new "ab nihilo"...it's always built upon other people's ideas. (For a great explication, see Everything is a Remix)
DeleteSo this claim of being an "original creator" is nothing more than a metaphor.
It is therefore necessary for a pro-IP advocate to demonstrate why every single person who ever creates or does anything should not have to obtain the permission of someone who did it before...
For example, gardening is not your original idea. You may have made your own decision about what to plant where in your own yard, but you are simply employing the same idea of voluntarily planting organisms in a purposeful manner and arrangement.
Why do you, the gardener, not owe a royalty to the heirs of the first person to come up with the idea of gardening?
It's their idea is it not? It's certainly not your idea. They came up with the idea, did they not? According to you, it's their property. Why do you have a right to their property without paying them compensation?
That being said, I'm interested to hear your response to my previous two questions. So,
1) You're saying that purposeful behavior cannot occur without the purpose first being understood in the mind, but the purpose in the mind can only exist after "brainpower applied to physical matter" (i.e. purposeful behavior) has taken place?
--Do you honestly not see the contradiction here? Please explain.
2) We already established that you and I both agree that I own the ingredients. Your claim to own the knowledge is precisely what we are debating. You cannot support the argument that something is property by alleging that you own it. Again, this is a logical fallacy of "begging the question." It is circular reasoning.
--Do you honestly not see the fallacy here? Please explain.
3) Why do you not owe compensation to the first person to plant a garden?
"Why do you, the gardener, not owe a royalty to the heirs of the first person to come up with the idea of gardening?"
DeleteHas it come to this?
They have yet to file a claim; they have yet to prove their claim. No court of competent jurisdiction has ruled on their claim. Post a comment when that occurs.
Even if I wanted to volunteer payment (I don't), I have no idea who to pay. Do you? Do the heirs?
"That being said, I'm interested to hear your response to my previous two questions."
As I have said several times already, I see no point to continue in circles on these. Ed Ucation has commented on these above; feel free to engage him.
"They have yet to file a claim; they have yet to prove their claim. No court of competent jurisdiction has ruled on their claim."
DeleteSo you do agree that virtually every second of every day that you do virtually anything, you are stealing the property of others (i.e. making use of their ideas without their permission)...but simply contend that this is acceptable because they have not filed a claim against you, correct?
So quite literally, I could hack into your computer and download the draft of the book you're writing, and the songs your band is composing...and utilize them for myself...and as long as you never find out about it, it's legit? No harm, no foul?
After all, no one ever filed a claim about it. Correct?
Or for that matter...I could literally place a hack into your payroll that would siphon a small amount from each of your paychecks...little enough that you didn't notice. A claim would never be filed.
All good? No problem?
How is this situation of theft of your property different from the theft you are committing by stealing the gardening idea? We're both "stealing ideas", correct? But as long as no claim is filed and no proof is given, no problem? It's moral as long as you don't get caught? Or, at least, as long as the victim doesn't know they're a victim?
"I see no point to continue in circles on these"
It is not circles, these are very simple questions, which you are certainly capable of understanding, but which you simply don't seem to want to answer (I would suspect because you cannot):
1) you admit that purposeful behavior (B) cannot occur without first being understood in the mind (A)...yet you also contend that the purpose in the mind (A) is the result (i.e. comes after) the behavior (B).
You need to explain how something A that exists prior to something B can be the result of something B.
If you cannot do this, then you may admit so.
2) You and I both agree that I own the ingredients. They are mine, and I have a right to control them. By our agreed-upon understanding of property rights, this means you do not have a right to control them.
Where we disagree is whether you have a property right in a bit of knowledge which can guide a person's actions.
You allege that you do have a property right in this knowledge...that you "own" it...and therefore have a right to "control" it and therefore prevent others from utilizing it to guide their own actions.
So in other words you agree that I own my ingredients, and that that means I have a right to control my ingredients, and you do not. But at the same time, you are alleging that you do have a right to prevent me (by force) from performing certain actions with my body and my ingredients in my own home...that is, you have a right to exert some degree of "control" over my body and my ingredients.
Do you see how your alleging a property right in the knowledge that can guide my actions necessarily infringes upon the real property rights we already agreed upon?
Ed Ucation has already admitted this. I'm wondering if the reason you are avoiding doing the same is because unlike him, you subscribe to the non-agression principle, and realize what admitting such a thing would therefore mean.
“So you do agree that virtually every second of every day that you do virtually anything, you are stealing the property of others (i.e. making use of their ideas without their permission)...but simply contend that this is acceptable because they have not filed a claim against you, correct?”
DeleteNo. Maybe no one believes that I stole from them. Don’t you get that "property" and "own" are dictated as much or more by custom as anything?
I use the formula for Coke as an example, and you bring up something silly like gardening? Something that even in this government subsidized IP world no one is stupid enough to try to claim, and would certainly never be attempted in a pay-for-yourself libertarian system? Gardening is the proof of your position?
“Do you see how your alleging a property right in the knowledge that can guide my actions necessarily infringes upon the real property rights we already agreed upon? …I'm wondering if the reason you are avoiding doing the same is because unlike him, you subscribe to the non-agression principle, and realize what admitting such a thing would therefore mean.”
You steal my car but fill the tank with your gasoline. I stop you from driving my car, and now you complain that I am preventing you from using your gasoline. So now I am the one violating the non-aggression principle? Is this right? This is your definition?
As I believe the formula for Coke is my property, it is consistent with the non-aggression principle for me to prevent someone from stealing my property.
The more you type, the more convinced I am of the shallowness of the anti-IP position.
What is certain is this, and you have no way around it: in our libertarian dream-world, the inventor of the next Coca-Cola will try to protect his formula. He will find private insurance companies and other private means that specialize in just such services. They will go up against private companies that specialize in disproving such claims. Then a judge or arbitration panel will decide.
No one will have violated the non-aggression principle in any of these steps, and through this property rights will become better defined – consistent with the custom of the community.
"No. Maybe no one believes that I stole from them."
Deletea) That's not what you originally said. I asked why you felt you didn't owe the first gardener compensation for stealing his idea, and you said "They have yet to file a claim; they have yet to prove their claim" and for me to post a comment when they do. Now that I point out the insanity of that logic, you want to switch it to "well, if no one believes I'm stealing, then I'm not."
b) So apparently you have no real theory of property, it's just whatever the majority decides?
"I use the formula for Coke as an example, and you bring up something silly like gardening? Something that even in this government subsidized IP world no one is stupid enough to try to claim, and would certainly never be attempted in a pay-for-yourself libertarian system? Gardening is the proof of your position?"
It is proof of the silliness of your position.
Please explain the difference between the Coke formula idea and the gardening idea. They're both ideas, and according to you, that means they have original creators, and therefore owners. Anyone using those ideas to guide their actions without permission is therefore "stealing" those ideas.
It is your position that people own ideas, and that if someone else "takes" that idea, they are stealing property. Therefore you need to demonstrate why stealing one idea is okay, when stealing another, isn't.
What's more, I would think it could be easily shown that gardening is a far more useful/valuable idea than the Coke formula. If you're willing to claim no one has a right to make Coke, that would provide even more reason you should not be allowed to garden without at least paying a royalty.
"You steal my car but fill the tank with your gasoline. I stop you from driving my car, and now you complain that I am preventing you from using your gasoline. So now I am the one violating the non-aggression principle? Is this right? This is your definition?"
a) You're analogizing an idea (a non-rivalrous good) to a car (an obviously scarce, rivalrous good). Again this is question begging: You cannot claim something is stealing in your argument for why it should be considered stealing.
b) Once again, we already agree that you own the car. We already agree that it is an ownable thing. If someone steals your car (a scarce/rivalrous resource), no one would deny that you no longer can use it. Someone driving your car away certainly prevents you from using it. This is the difference between a rivalrous and an non-rivalrous good.
This is why your argument is flawed. It's why you have to keep resorting to a question begging fallacy, because you cannot get around the fact that if someone learns from you, they haven't "taken" anything...you still have everything you had before. And their employment of an idea to guide their actions does not in any way hinder you from using it to guide your own...even at the exact same time.
Every analogy you come up with begs the question because you always switch from a recipe (a non-rivalrous good) to something that we both agree is property (i.e. a rivalrous good), like a car.
[...continued]
Delete"As I believe the formula for Coke is my property, it is consistent with the non-aggression principle for me to prevent someone from stealing my property."
As I believe your girlfriend is my property, it is consistent with the non-aggression principle for me to prevent someone from stealing my property.
Fair enough? Belief is all it takes, eh? And of course, so long as I can get enough people to agree with me, that makes it moral and just?
Once again, Ed Ucation already admitted that creating new rights necessarily infringes on previous rights.
This is precisely why the pro-IP position is inconsistent (especially for those who subscribe to NAP), as, the NAP is a principle that asserts that aggression against someone acting peacefully is illegitimate...initiation of physical violence, trespass, fraud, coercion...these are all forms of aggression.
When someone's rights have been infringed upon, we say that "aggression" has taken place.
And as Kinsella, Hoppe, and Ed Ucation agree, the concept of IP creates a new set of rights that are incompatible with property rights that both pro and anti-IP people recognize...because as Ed said, the new IP rights must "infringe" on the original real property rights.
Infringement upon one's rights is another way of saying "aggressing against someone".
Therefore, it is understood that "IP rights" necessarily violate NAP.
Yes, people will always try to keep certain information private. There is nothing wrong with this. In libertopia, someone who develops a formula for a tasty drink will certainly make all attempts to keep it secret. But this does not mean he will/should be allowed to forcibly prevent others from making the drink. To do so would infringe on my rights.
You cannot get around the fact that his preventing me from making the drink (regardless of whether you consider it his "right" or not) infringes on my rights.
Therefore, as Hoppe said, "intellectual property rights and real property rights are incompatible, and the promotion of intellectual property must be seen as a most dangerous attack on the idea of 'real' property (in scarce goods)."
You have hit an important point about how IP infringes upon property rights (which both sides of the issue seem to agree on).
DeleteRobert Wenzel is particularly disturbing in this area. His work around is some bizarre notion of "designed rights." That's right...DESIGNED rights.
As I've told him, this is basically saying that the person with the most guns designs your rights. If that person was Wenzel, you'd have no right to his ideas. HAHA! He doesn't actually say this, but that is the logical conclusion of designing rights. Read the thread I link below at EPJ for clarification on his point, it really is as ridiculous as I made it out to be.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/02/designed-rights-versus-natural-rights.html - His argument is basically that property rights might be defined differently in a "designed rights society." HAHA! I'm sure they would! As in...NON-EXISTENT.
Very frightening. This idea destroys all rights. As I told Wenzel, Mao and Stalin were quite the "designers of rights".
I really feel it's the Pro-IP position that is on the run. It simply is not compatible with NAP when considering real property rights. And that's just the first of it's problems.
Other primates eat their own poop. I was assuming we did at some point in the past. It's possible we never did. My point was that we'd have been hindered dramatically in our progression as a species.
ReplyDeletePretty much, you want to take all the advancements and technologies of the past for free, and then charge people and/or threaten them with violence for using "your" specific combination of these already existing advancements and technologies.
Where do guys like you get off? Pretty audacious to me.
Did my response get lost? I responded about 12 hours ago or more.
ReplyDeleteApologies for the delay, I have been tending to other things for the last day or so.
Delete@Derrick: If you and patm have convinced me of anything after reading this thread, it is that your arrogance only exceeds your ignorance. You are passionate but you do not persuade. When you cannot persuade with your passion, you revert to pushing to have your same questions repeatedly answered again an again. Somehow I don't think either of you are illustrative of non-aggression in the pursuit of knowledge. Your latest reply implies that the author of this forum is somehow obligated to continue responding to you and despite the fact that he has many times. How audacious is that?
DeleteI'm not BM and don't profess any ability to read his mind, but if I were him, I would have replied that I didn't care to attempt to dignify any longer, the same questions cum accusations, with an answer to either you or patm. maybe this is what he's doing in his own way...and good for him if so. Time is a valuable resource. Intelligence doesn't squander it on the hapless or the hopeless. They move on.
The people that presume that they are the inventors and sole owners of "ideas" are the arrogant ones. I understand that everything I know and any "new" ideas I come up with were came with the help of thousands of people. To claim them as mine and claim to be able to forcibly stop people from using "my idea" is the height of arrogance.
ReplyDeleteIf necessary, we forcibly stop people from using our property every day. There is nothing arrogant about this.
DeleteWhere is the line drawn for labeling something "property"?
Where is it written that property can only have one definition, applicable to all cultures in all places and at all times?
Property rights are defined and evolve over time. Different people can conclude that it means different things. There is no reason to assume that there can be only one valid definition of property. It hasn't been true historically - there is no reason to assume, even in the most libertarian world, that it would be true in the future.