If you are for copyright, but not for IP, explain how Block's argument in regard to ponytails isn't applicable to copyright as well.
Block asks, "What has been taken from you if someone copies your ponytail." (paraphrasing)
So, by Block's own argument, if you write a book and someone copies it, word for word, and then decides to sell said copies, what have you lost?
I know what you've lost, because I use Bastiat's definition of property ....but I'd like someone else who doesn't honor IP, but honors copyright(like Block) to explain to me how that example differs from his ponytail example.
I am not anti-IP, but want it justified, not automatic as “property” which lacks coverage of “things” the IP types cover w/ none like physical property nor the protections.
I accept copyrights while asserting no Pony Tail rights (ignore Pony Tails as existent & assume PT means some uninvented but simple fashion).
Things are different & classified as IP under Copyright or Patent or other. If PT were covered it might be under Patent law; however PT would receive no protection under either because it is trivial as a patent & a fashion under CR.
I have introduced “trivia,” a sound concept supported by Hoppe's call for “reality.” You start protecting trivia & the whole of society will rebel in defiance against not only the trivia but against more substantial protections they would likely honor. IP does not enjoy the support of real property & becomes worse if made laughable.
Finally, “What has been taken?” Ans: Nothing real in the unprotected PT nor in the illegally copied book. For the book, a law granting privilege has been broken and the author may lose money because of the special dispensation and he may have recourse.
RW addresses society agreements so where CR is valid & PT not protected, that explains the difference. Block already says PT copying is no loss. Both may say, without breach of contract, you should (may?) not unleash the police, & a child copying a fashion w/ no contract is no violation. Hoppe describes “property” as physical w/ protections to avoid violence & no one will tolerate Girl1 attacking Girl2 over fashion copying.
You may invoke Bastiat; however I've read Property & Law & overwhelmingly he describes real property, not IP, including clarifying examples of people, savages, animals & plants. As complex & controversial as IP is, it would seem he should have granted some examples were such intended else it more likely, considering the whole scope of the treatise, that excerpts applied to IP are really his thoughts of real property.
"considering the whole scope of the treatise, that excerpts applied to IP are really his thoughts of real property."
I would recommend you read "Economic Harmonies" for a further view on Bastiat's view on IP.
"I have introduced “trivia,” a sound concept supported by Hoppe's call for “reality.”"
What you've introduced is subjective, and I'm not sure you can get away from subjectivity in terms of defining what property "is", but personally I find Bastiat's qualification(one of a couple) of property having "market value" as being more easily definable.
Nick, oh Nick. Tiz too late for now, but tomorrow I shall try to set aside time to present you your goose well done - your reliance upon Bastiat.
Bastiat is anti-IP! He in no way proposes protection of intellectual property, neither inventions nor trade secretes. As freedom such are just but without protection and in the normal course of events those inventions & secrets will be discovered by competitors lusting for those exorbitant profits; the IP will eventually become public domain; and all people will be better off – it's called “progress.”
IP is the granting of a monopoly and Bastiat is very much against that.
Whether to prep yourself or in the event I cannot get time to warm the oven & prep the stuffing, you should read Chapter 10, Competition, in the very "Economic Harmonies" you recommended.
I've been over all of this before with others Tex, search here at EPJ on the IP debate going back a year or so ago...Bastiat was clearly pro-IP and I listed specific citations.
I look forward to any quotes from him you provide showing otherwise.
Words may be used to claim IP: “property in labor, faculties, & ideas - in a word services.” But taken in whole he means: Using my skill & ideas painting a landscape the physical painting is mine but I've no claim on others preventing duplication. Were it to extend to IP, B is obliged to elaborate rather than exampling only real property upon which he labors to refute socialism's claim.
As abominations he equates monopoly to privilege & plunder.
IP directly addressed in C10 Competition. Paraphrased as B is verbose. Because he is French?
A man discovering an advantage retains his secret to profit only him & will not voluntarily reduce the price. If such remained, every new invention brings ever spreading inequality. Mankind would be organized on the principle of universal monopoly. Self-interest urges us to progress & discovery & disposes us to monopolize our discoveries. Competition wrests progress, as fast as made, from individuals for mankind's use creating social harmony.
Man's self-interest as a producer has always revolted, decried & sought to destroy competition calling upon force, guile, privilege, sophistry, monopoly, restriction, & gov controls, [IP law].
A man may obtain exceptional positions by exclusive technical knowledge or inventions, conquests over Nature by human genius. These admirable & peaceful conquests are a source of wealth but soon, under competition become the gratuitous, common heritage of all.
He may eliminate 9/10 of labor to make x yet sells x at market price & is paid 10X more for his pains than competitors. This is the 1st phase of invention & just. The 2nd phase is imitation. Excessive profits creates covetousness. The new process spreads as the invention is copied. Finally the invention becomes free, common property & consumers may purchase x at 1/10 its former price.
Bastiat clearly abhors monopoly which IP grants & endorses copying inventions.
"Bastiat clearly abhors monopoly which IP grants & endorses copying inventions."
I think you've conflated his dislike for government mandated/run monopoly, with monopoly in general.
I am having trouble discerning your viewpoint, from actual Bastiat comments. If you could clearly label which is which(as translations do very), I would appreciate it so we can have a good discussion.
Here's the specific article & comment section which I mentioned earlier & is specifically relevant to our discussion:
Here are two very specific references to Bastiat that shows he is pro-IP:
"There are people in whose eyes property appears only in the form of a plot of land or a sack of coins. Provided only that the land's sacrosanct boundaries are not moved and that pockets are not literally picked, they are quite content. But is there not also property in men's labor, in their faculties, in their ideas—in a word, is there not property in services?"-Bastiat (Economic Harmonies)
Also, HT to Plenarchist, he cited this:
Bastiat was pro-IP at least for copyright. From a speech he gave in 1847 (in French but Chrome will translate it or Google Translator) -
"Gentlemen, what I have said about the property in general, it seems difficult not to recognize that literary property is within the law. A book, is it not the product of a man's work, of these faculties, his efforts, his care, his vigils, employment of his time, his advances? Should we not have this man to live while working? Why did he not receive voluntary services of those whom he renders services? His book, why would it not be his property? The paper manufacturer, printer, bookseller, bookbinder, who have materially contributed to the formation of a book, are paid for their work. The author, will he be excluded only compensation which his book is the occasion?"
You're query into my “viewpoint” can only be understood in terms of social science, not science or mathematics. I have no viewpoint. I have only the English language, logic, and where inexplicit make reasonable guesses in meaning. Your query suggests you search for viewpoint support rather than true or most likely meaning.
Nick: I think you've...with monopoly in general.
B: Do they mean to say that the words "cannibalism," "war," "slavery," "privilege," "monopoly," "fraud," "plunder," "imposture," have never reached our ears, or that we see in these abominations the inevitable rumblings of the machine on the road to progress?
Tex: He cannot mean gov mandated cannibalism & others in the list & thus cannot mean gov mandated monopoly. To write so would be ignorant.
B: Thus, self-interest is that indomitable individualistic force within us that urges us on to progress and discovery, but at the same time disposes us to monopolize our discoveries. Competition is that no less indomitable humanitarian force that wrests progress, as fast as it is made [Tex: It could not be as fast as it is made with IP patents & never with perpetual patents], from the hands of the individual and places it at the disposal of all mankind. These two forces, which may well be deplored when considered individually, work together to create our social harmony.
And, we may remark in passing, it is not surprising that individualism, as it finds expression in a man's self-interest when he is a producer, has always revolted against the idea of competition, has decried it, and sought to destroy it, calling to its aid force, guile, privilege, sophistry, monopoly, restriction, government controls, etc. [Tex: These are true statements in his time & today.]
Man, under the influence of self-interest, always and inevitably seeks out the conditions that will give his services their greatest value. He is quick to realize that there are three ways in which he may use the gifts of God to his own special advantage:
1. He may appropriate to his own exclusive use these gifts themselves. 2. Or he alone may know the techniques by which they may be put to use [Tex: trade secret]. 3. Or he may possess the only implement by which their cooperation can be secured [Tex: invented or commissioned a unique tool].
In every one of these cases he gives little of his own labor in exchange for a great deal of others' labor. His services have great relative value, and we tend to assume that the excess value resides inherently in the natural resource. If this were so, this value could not be diminished. What proves that value is, instead, created by services is, as we shall see, the fact that competition simultaneously diminishes both value and services. [Tex: Competition reduces the value of his secrets & inventions, not possible with IP].
Tex: Self-interests disposes men to seek a monopoly & avoid competition.
Nick: “Here's the specific article. . .relevant to our discussion”
Yes, relevant, but for a totally different reason that you submit. I've read only the article, not the 120 comments, but it is relevant for my purpose in article alone!
Consider B's Property & Law. He expends >7,000 words to describe property & how its ownership is understood by people & savages & animals & plants & provides example after example after example ALL of which require physical property. B continues with Economic Harmonies C8, Private Property adding >14,000 words to describe property and again ALL by examples & words referring to physical property + the labor to acquire a physical piece of property which is then owned and may be exchanged. Over & over & again the boogeyman the words confront is socialism's and/or communism's claim on such physical property. NO example describes or shows an ongoing claim or right upon the “idea” involved beyond getting/building/making a final real object.
How can such effort be put forth to justify & explain the physical for which there is no contention and so little to describe the ongoing rights to an idea? No one, including anti-IP folks which does not include me, would contest a right to charge for delivering a unique sweater. What is contested is the sweater idea restrains others. The idea is not the same as a car while the sweater itself is.
You call the “specific article” relevant when it only jumps behind the Real Property Shield to assert without justification they are the same! The justification is to go read 1000s of words about real property??? This when IP rights are so non obvious that even lay people who would never steel anything physical routinely disregard IP rights without shame or guilt whatsoever.
This is profoundly wrong! And articles & 1000s of pages exampling physical things offer no remedy.
I am encouraged by RW's declaration that he seeks fundamental (which I hopefully interpret to mean “stand alone” without reference to a car) descriptions & justifications.
"Competition reduces the value of his secrets & inventions, not possible with IP"
Actually it is possible with IP.
If another form of IP, whether as Rothbard suggests, is from "Independent Discovery" and can be proven as such, or if there is simply a superior form of IP which renders its competition "valueless" surfaces that is competition.
"Self-interests disposes men to seek a monopoly & avoid competition."
You won't get any disagreement from me that self interest is what causes men to try to do both. But the question is where the actual "competition" falls in terms of the non aggression principle.
For instance, if I own a piece of property and someone seeks to own it as well, my desire to keep it could be considered a form of "monopoly" desire and I'm certainly trying to eliminate competition in the ownership of my property.
I'm glad you brought the issue of self interest up, because I think it's important to acknowledge that people invest their labor, resources, etc. into things because their self interest is in play. If they are a part of a society that will not honor their labor & resource input to create property(value if we use Bastiat's definition), then naturally there will be less inclination to do so.
So with that in mind, let us return to another portion close to a quote you used above in Economic Harmonies, Chapter 10:
" It is just that the man who reveals a new and useful process to the world should receive his reward: to each according to his ability." (Bastiat)
(Nick comment: It is plain by the above that Bastiat is endorsing the concept of IP above, to me.)
(Skip a bit due to as you put it, verbosity)
"At this juncture, however, the invention enters its second phase, the phase of imitation. Excessive compensations by their very nature arouse covetousness. The new process spreads, the price of x steadily drops, and the remuneration also declines, more and more rapidly as the time interval between the invention and its imitations lengthens, that is, as it becomes easier and easier, and less and less risky, to copy the invention, and consequently less and less worth while." (Bastiat)
Nick Comment: So what I see here is an analysation of the process of decreasing "value", hence property over time.
So while we clearly see Bastiat(IMO) acknowledging IP, and even TALKING ABOUT THE RISK OF COPYING IT(because he inherently recognizes it as property), he is describing a process along the lines of "harmony", akin to Hoppe's call for "reality" in the ownership of said property becoming communal over time....via the violation of it...which is a bit circular to me, but more importantly we should recognize that:
#1 He does acknowledge & promote the idea of IP(again, IMO) #2 His property criteria of "value" seems reasonable, even though he uses it in a circular manner to describe why he think IP should diminish over time.
Ok, your response @ 11:52 has shown up AFTER my last post and 3rd example, ipso facto of Bastiat's recognition of IP.
"NO example describes or shows an ongoing claim or right upon the “idea” involved beyond getting/building/making a final real object."
I think the first two quotations in my first response disagree with your claim(unless you claim a book is not a "final real object"), but even if you contend not, certainly the last quotation of Bastiat, "It is just that the man who reveals a new and useful process to the world should receive his reward: to each according to his ability." puts the matter to rest.
I have never argued that Bastiat was for "ongoing rights to an idea", though I could personally make that case, Bastiat himself is clearly for IP on a limited basis and even acknowledges that its owner should be compensated.
I think you are missing that Bastiat's arguments for all property are on the contain the basis of "market value". I believe that is what is missing in this entire debate(both you and I, as you haven't answered my original ponytail question, and RW & Block).
You are correct in Bastiat goes over much in labor/capital input that is unnecessary from today's perspective, but that IS NOT THE GEM.
The "gem" IMO is the idea that property be defined as such by its value.
Why? Because there aren't any conflicts over things that have no value. In fact, if one party decides something it owns has no value and another party wants to claim it, I doubt there's going to be a fight!
So my intention is never to send people "to go read 1000s of words about real property???", in fact, they can skip over most of it and it doesn't matter. But to gain perspective it helps and that is the only book that truly makes when I think is a cogent argument on how we should define property.
I limit my interest here to reasonable & likely meaning of 2 Bastiat writings P&L & EH. I've read more than useful as our discussion shows he writes too vaguely for us to read the same sentences & context & agree to meaning.
Perhaps it is my math & science background vs IP which falls under social sciences which Feynman calls “pseudo science.” I demand rigor & no extrapolations. I accept IP where justified.
I do not accept 1000s of words exampling real property to extrapolate a sentence about owning a creation of labor + material to mean owning more than the resultant real product. If B intends such, I require he explicitly say so esp w/ IP's complexity.
I was wrong to say “not possible with IP,” a possibility w/ independent discovery; however there is no reason to assume B considered it for his 3 phases. Those phases include “copying,” not possible with IP, unless time expired without so stating.
The “risk of copying” does not show property recognition. Such idea is weakened by copying “sanctioned by the most enlightened and impartial legislation” - gov sanctions IP violation! You so construe his vagueness; however, there is another “risk of copying” which becomes smaller with time & more copying.
No producer with a rare machine generating exceptional profits readily shares the blueprints. There IS inherent risk trying to duplicate a machine only knowing about it or even observing it's operation. The risk declines as more successful copies are made & more people gain know-how. Knowledge spreads & craftsmen become more numerous. Though software, a company spent $1000s & over 1yr in failure trying to duplicate an existing system I developed with full access to a working copy but not my source code. A risk that declines with more successful copies developed by ever more SW developers. This is a better guess at B's risk, a known risk reducing with copies, esp vs any property risk under approving legislators.
Certainly B knows about patents (steam engines) which provides no evidence of approval without explicit statement. Kinsella acknowledges them without approval (I think – still not read).
Nick: "It is just that the man who reveals a new and useful process to the world should receive his reward: to each according to his ability." puts the matter to rest.
Tex: NOPE! The quote is EXACTLY what follows in B text to justify the 1st Phase's extravagant profits until the copying starts. Those extravagant profits are “his reward” not even more profits by IP protection from competitors.
Books: It is not explicit that B is pro-CR though I'll not argue he is not. He wants an author paid which is possible without CR as my contracting a house or portrait painter, or a tech writer for an installation manual – a creator can create for a fee & that's that. No anti-B CR argument, just noting B is not explicit enough. Since he uses “Book” rather than “Manuscript” I agree pro-CR is a better meaning.
"Tex: NOPE! The quote is EXACTLY what follows in B text to justify the 1st Phase's extravagant profits until the copying starts."
"I've read more than useful as our discussion shows he writes too vaguely for us to read the same sentences & context & agree to meaning."
I agree that the subjective nature of interpretation in regard to his writing is an issue for clarity, but let us step back a moment and look at the bigger picture regardless of whether we can agree that Bastiat was pro-IP or not(outside of Copyright, which you seem to concede).
"Perhaps it is my math & science background vs IP which falls under social sciences which Feynman calls “pseudo science.” I demand rigor & no extrapolations. I accept IP where justified. "
I am glad you are open to the acceptance of IP, as a valid an enforceable right. In this regard, it is unimportant as to whether you and I agree on whether Bastiat was pro-IP or not.
For all intensive purposes it doesn't matter in this regard, his argument for property having the quality of "market value" seems to be axiomatic to me.
Yes, there will be subjective differences between people, ostensibly solved by a type of court system(to which we both agree should be private, not gov't mandated-I HAVE NEVER CONDONED GOV'T MONOPOLY. But, that doesn't stop the very nature of his argument and its axiomatic nature from fulfilling your requirement of " rigor & no extrapolations".
In fact, I humbly suggest it fits your intellectual need perfectly. Please consider: Who in their right mind fights over property that has no market value?
And THAT, is how I come full circle back to my original question.
If Block, being for copyright(like Bastiat), makes the argument that the creator has lost nothing if the original creator of the ponytail has been copied, then how is it any different philosophically from someone who has copied one of his books word for word and then proceeded to sell it on his own?
What has Block lost by his own philosophy!?!?!?!?!??! NOTHING!
To which I disagree(I'm looking out for Block! lol), I say Bastiat has made a good argument that property is VALUE!
“Who in their right mind fights over property that has no market value?”
Ans: ME! To stop a bad-guy taking or harming a $-worthless trinket or memorabilia of a deceased daughter & I would do my utmost to render him helpless or dead – a much more determined fight than over my car.
Block's Pony Tail: I responded to the Pony Tail issue at the top. I cannot speak for Block but I did address Book vs PT & the PT lost by trivia.
Bastiat in a few words: The world is a wonderful place growing ever better for mankind due to man's genius creating methods through knowledge & inventions to increase wealth for all by bending raw nature's bounty. Man does this in self interest as he will hold a temporary advantage over others to boost his selfish personal wealth. He will do all he can including bad things to hold the advantage to himself but will inexorably fail due to the overwhelming lust of others wanting those advantages for their selfish wealth promotion. Eventually, and sooner rather than later, his invention becomes free public property, so products thus produced become commodities at commodity prices of direct labor + material with no exceptional profits by any producer. Hence Harmony as all of mankind progresses & prospers equally. Selfish man must continually invent to rise above the crowds because no knowledge or inventions can remain private for long, thus mankind constantly progresses.
I've read only a little bit more of Kinsella & am embarrassed. As written before, I'm a newbie in IP and got here first reading about economics & politics because of increasing discomfort with our gov & our future under it which lead me to an economist's article stating any economic advantages for IP are more than lost due to implementation & we'd be better off with none. [Economics is a social science].
Embarrassed because with little thought I imagined I had a good idea that no one could reasonably assail. I considered, perhaps as you think of “value,” that “more & better stuff for all” rang the bell for IP as it even covered real property. I had not read B, then, but he seems to be a “more & better stuff for all” guy. I knew immediately property protection whether of real or intellectual restrained others which is a bad thing reducing total freedom, but necessary for more & better stuff. IP would/could be good because it would be temporary restraint perhaps like giving up some money to the community to build a common road advancing wealth for all. Without then knowing IP terminology, a “Utilitarian” defense of IP.
Embarrassed because Kinsella assailed it, my very own independent idea. Not now supporting nor prepared to argue against him, but am humbled at bit (hard to get me humbled much). I've not read enough. At least K is not vague. He's writing about IP.
Back to work as I must continually create to be paid, as per B, I cannot rely long on my ideas from yesterday.
" ME! To stop a bad-guy taking or harming a $-worthless trinket or memorabilia of a deceased daughter & I would do my utmost to render him helpless or dead – a much more determined fight than over my car."
That is an excellent point on your part.
I will say that subjectivity, the item that has no market value you refer to still has value to you. So the concept of "value" is retained, albeit in a non-market sense($). Still, I will think about your point in a larger framework/concept.
As far as your concept of "trivia" goes, it's completely subjective...I do not see it applicable to the ponytail argument for the same reason that your "memorabilia" example is good argument...because one person may consider something "valuable" that another may not. (which really is the crux of the IP debate in general)
Someone could decide your memorabilia "trivial" and justify taking it for example...
Another question for you in regard to your memorabilia example:
Say someone steals this memorabilia from you, you haul them into a private court to get compensation. How would one determine what you are entitled to for your compensation?
You claim that this memorabilia of yours has no market value. Would the jury be justified in awarding you NOTHING for said item has no market value?
True, not all value can be measured in $. Perhaps leading you astray, but in the event of interest, that little more I read in Kinsella said Mises showed even for items having a market value, the price is not a measure of value. I have no idea what he has shown, but it was footnoted in case you were interested in pursuing it.
Memorabilia: Maybe I can provide a compensation value when we can value the sweetness of her voice measured in a number of steps on a staircase to heaven. For me, $-value is meaningless. Revenge comes to mind & that is no compensation either but may provide some brief relief during planning & execution of plans.
Trivia: It cannot apply to PT for lack of a standard measure?
To proceed, PT-IP is an imposed restriction upon others who have made no agreement to be so restrained, else it is simply an agreement they must honor w/ nothing more to say. So who are we imposing on? What group? Has the Free State Project succeeded and commissioned you & I to write the rules? Is it Block's “Ideal – most Libertarian world possible” where you & I & Block & RW are commissioned to write the rules? Let us first describe the group of slackers who do not yet accept our imposition & might copy the PT. They are not dishonorable any more than Block, but just non-believers upon which imposition is required. Do you tell them they are nuts, there is no trivia and to pat me on the back and walk away with a strand of my hair or a thread of my shirt stuck to their hand is also criminal? I've seen an insanely jealous husband who might cheer you on were the strand to be from his wife.
It has been thoroughly discussed by RW and fully relevant via his "car rental" scenario that a third party not involved in a car rental agreement is still subject to the fact that said car is not his property even if he steals it from Party B, though not a party to the rental agreement.
So ultimately, as all these arguments boil down to, the definition of "property", which is subjective by nature, is the determining factor.
I still hold "value" as the best way to subjectively determine whether something is property or not, IPSO FACTO on the basis of that people don't fight over things of value(you've considered that value is an issue even in the case of memorabilia, you just don't attach monetary value to it).
Really, in thinking about it, VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE, just like the definition of property, so they are consistent with each other on that basis as well.(straight from Mises)
Going back to its real world application, nobody sues anybody(or conflicts) over things of zero value. (whether monetary or not)
So in your memorabilia case, I can say it holds value and your compensation may or may not be delegated in monetary terms(on the basis of what the victim asks for and a jury/arbitration panel decides), but there is a form of compensation for value lost.(even if sentimental)
This is where Block's philosophy falters. He's not acknowledging that both value & property is subjective. He simply uses an arbitrary standard to judge whether things are or are not property, and he's not consistent.
Copyrights is property to him, yet when you apply his own reasoning to it, as I listed above, "If someone copies your book word for word and sells it, what have you lost?", then he has no choice to admit that he has lost nothing if he's to conform to his own logic.
So you'll impose it upon the unwilling unbelievers and treat it like a stolen car when it is no such thing. Are you aware that, with no protest, stores & police have stopped shoplifters from stealing chewing gum? The public would give no such slack to a policeman pulling a PT out of a girl's hair because it was copied.
I reject “property” as a suitable shield & justification. All distinguish “physical property” & “intellectual property” by adjective but refuse to call one MATTER (for lack of a better word & whose meaning would be clear) and the PT, FASHION (or something), and the manuscript a WRITING, and an invention MACHINE, etc, defining each & justifying each without the other. No IP laws treat them the same with different criteria for inclusion, different remedies, different terms, and in the US even a different court of appeals for IP than for material theft. The world understands IP & matter to be different things, and within IP different types.
But I'll proceed w/ your PT as property.
If I understand PT is “property” like a car, then when thief-B steals it from A and sells it to unknowing C, it may be taken from C and his only recourse is to B who fraudulently sold it. A has her car (or PT) back & C has none.
If A goes to school with (new) PT & B copies it & later shows it to innocent C, A may stop B & C from having a PT, right? If naughty B were a reporter and published the description for millions, no readers can use what they now know? Such would deprive millions an opportunity of independent discovery for seeing the news. No such can happen with property=matter. They are different! The entire planet can wear PT without depriving the inventor of wearing it too. No such can happen with matter.
Will you jail Block for hitting your enforcer pulling the PT out of his copying daughter's hair? If PT inventor A takes girl B to court to avoid violence herself (so goons are charged with whatever enforcement violence is necessary) I assure you a random jury will through the case out. Not so with the car or even copying a book. You don't like “trivia” but PT-IP won't fly.
My son was thrown out of middle school on a ridiculous 0-tolerance rule and that night our phone rang off the hook from parents we did not know but had heard of it via their children. The next morning the office was jammed with angry parents demanding they let my boy back in, and they did. “Stepping over a line” of perceived FAIRNESS, generates disrespect. You should include the concept “don't cross the line” in your IP philosophy, perhaps considering Hoppe's real world. Catch Block on something non-trivial. . . er, when it's not something “over the line” instead.
Wow...you've brought up some issues that are incongruent with the nature of the argument.
First, you have failed to define property. You claim that if it's "trivial", it isn't. That is a problem for anyone looking for any metric other than someone's opinion. Not only because it's not clear as to what is "trivial", but perhaps more importantly, you don't have a definition of what property "is".
Second, you haven't addressed why "value" should not be a good metric for property. Value drives all potential suits & conflicts over property, even in the case of "memorabilia" as you concede(even if it's not a monetary value, but it does have value).
As far as the PT itself goes, you asked, but then answered your own question:
"Will you jail Block for hitting your enforcer pulling the PT out of his copying daughter's hair? If PT inventor A takes girl B to court to avoid violence herself (so goons are charged with whatever enforcement violence is necessary)"
The answer is "no", What should be the correct plan of action for a private enforcement party(good) when the crime is unclear? AN INVESTIGATION.
"I assure you a random jury will through the case out."
EXACTLY! PRECISELY! You just made the correct argument!
And why would a random jury throw it out? Because THEY RECOGNIZE A PT HAS NO VALUE; ERGO IS NOT PROPERTY!
Now, I might also suggest that some nuanced in the jury might say, "Well, PT's have been around forever and this girl can't prove she invented it, OR, prove that this other girl didn't come up with it on her own"...but they'd still have to ask WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THE HARM even if the PT creator proved all of the above.
Value, & property, is subjective. It works nicely with Mises's thoughts on the whole matter.
For our discussion my definition of Property IS real material objects which no two people can simultaneously hold. There is universal agreement of that Property, from you (though you expand it) to Block to Kinsella & the world's people, savages, animals, & plants (B). A monkey will fight over a banana but not over copying his using sticks to get termites. Real Property is universally understood, not IP.
I don't accept Property = a mental creation sans atoms. This is not anti-IP, this is IP must be defined & justified for each type & restraints on others not agreeing to a particular restraint. Block, B (best guess), & I for now accept CR IP though we may differ on criteria or term. Not anti-IP, just IP ain't Property.
Some things in the set of EVERYTHING (Property=material + IP=mind things + maybe more with enough thought), have values from >= 0, & maybe indefinite. A kiss is sometimes sold as a service & thus has value. Steeling or forcing a kiss is battery a criminal offense, not a property offense – different rules: Criminal court != Property Crime Court != IP violations.
INVESTIGATION & JURY THROWS IT OUT = NO VALUE: A reason Property & IP (PT) is not the same.
Were it an empty, ragged purse B stole from A, in general, A is entitled to forcibly stop the theft with necessary force including death in some states to stop a robbery. For PT, A, trained that PT = purse + more because if B gets away & publishes the damage would be greater, immediately attacks. It is CLEAR to PT=Property Girl A - it is theft the same as purse snatching. Both may be worth little or a lot, robbery can be stopped. No investigation needed. Attack!
Going to court after B killed A, the value would not be under jury test, only whether B reasonably thought she was preventing a robbery and might be exonerated if trained that IP is the same as real property. Generally, people cannot be expected to stand passively while someone robs their possessions. No value test done, its an assault trial.
Not only does your Property expand things subject to robbery it unleashes it upon a large unsuspecting public. The Nick-type instructs believers IP = Real Property, and thus may be protected with violence. The Block-type instructs believers PT is not real property and cannot be so protected. When these groups meet in school there will be unsuspected violence meted out & certainly no B-Harmony, until the Block-kids retreat in bewilderment & fear, not from acceptance of highly contested PT-IP. If your idea prevails, large numbers of people will accept it only under violence or threat. It'll be a society of huge numbers of resentful Nick-criminals trying to escape oppression in the eyes of their Libertarian parents (Block, Kinsella, et al).
No one teaches theft of physical objects is anything but theft. A Prof recently sent me & unauthorized cc of a PhD Dissertation of interest for my current work. He just would NOT send me the right hand mirror of the author's car! REAL WORLD they are different even if of equal $value. REAL WORLD, people just don't buy it, else IP would have universal acceptance.
My apologies for the long delay. I occasionally teach motorcycle safety on the weekends and this was one.
"I don't accept Property = a mental creation sans atoms. This is not anti-IP, this is IP must be defined & justified for each type & restraints on others not agreeing to a particular restraint. Block, B (best guess), & I for now accept CR IP though we may differ on criteria or term. Not anti-IP, just IP ain't Property."
Yea, I really don't see it that way. I clearly see that you do value a form of IP, via copyright. Additionally, you obviously would use "violence", as far as a private security force, to enforce it. Your definition of "property" is still completely arbitrary. I'm sorry but your arguments are not convincing to me at this time. I fear are discussions are becoming circular.
"I am not anti-IP, but want it justified, not automatic as “property” which lacks coverage of “things” the IP types cover w/ none like physical property nor the protections. I accept copyrights while asserting no Pony Tail rights (ignore Pony Tails as existent & assume PT means some uninvented but simple fashion)."
So your above comments again draw an arbitrary distinction, based on no readily identifiable metric(unlike that of value for example), by which you've decided when something is property or not.
"REAL WORLD they are different even if of equal $value. REAL WORLD, people just don't buy it, else IP would have universal acceptance."
What the current paradigm is has no bearing on what it SHOULD be. This is not an argument. If it was, I could say "We should have taxes in the US because 95% people of the wants taxes.", regardless of the fact it's theft. I reject this for obvious reasons.
We may be at stalemate. I came from reading an Economist saying IP implementation is so bad (national wealth) it's better without, thus, seeking a better understanding of IP justification. No need to read Kinsella much since he is anti-IP & would only further the economist's case, not counter it.
Our discourse worries rather than calms. Maybe NO implementation can free me. You see ownership while I see restraint, not just of my mind & freedom, but well being. Our discourse shows me potential of more restraint than seen initially.
All ideas can be forever owned. One can own a fundamental invention say a transistor, T. With one man's perpetual monopoly - possibilities:
1. He is rich with bad Ts, but cheap enough that all 1,000 users spend $10M in test machines throwing away ½ the Ts yet still cheaper than vacuum tubes. He could buy 1 test machine but has no reason. Our nation spends 1000x$10M instead of $10M. He has no incentive to improve mfr or testing. He lives in splendor with no thought of Ts. In college I met an heir of a multinational with no motive for anything. If any incentive for improvement he would not care – he has no problems but maybe alcohol. 2. Integrated circuits & microcomputers may have never been allowed as one man decides for his own reasons. He may rather drink & play polo than think about it. 3. The original guy was smart & alert & on legal advise refused to sell T-rights, but only rent them with restraints & for x-yr periods & renegotiate. Don't like it? Use vacuum tubes. 4. An Ehrlich-type inherits control & ends all T-use to save the planet from economic growth – he has lavish amounts of gold & mineral rights bought long ago, so no worries for him.
I've learned how some things worked at 10 and for the rest of my life I cannot create & develop improvements depending upon them without permission which may not be granted.
Gates predicted SW patents would end SW development, but finally saw it happening & sent his people scouring all of his code patenting as fast & trivial as possible. So too did Amazon & others. SCOTUS is moving against them, but protection of all “ideas” yields the same possible result that large companies wage expensive IP wars and crush small guys. Though the ratchet-wrench inventor won over Sears after a 20yr fight, it would be rare, even with loser pays, that one could withstand Apple's $-might of endless appeals. At lawyer rates our own discourse would have ended long ago for me if not for you yet still be unresolved.
As I see it, you see Property-rights in “ideas” no matter the consequences – It is theft! I see existent evil restraints upon me bringing me here and even worse possible ones from our discussion. Yes, if enforced as you say, there is theft, but the victims are different.
You can do anything with your car & I'm unaffected. You invent some basic “idea” & I'm forever restrained in what I can invent, & do, & buy, and use. A car is local. An idea is universal. Bastiat's “progress” CAN be drastically impeded.
"You see ownership while I see restraint, not just of my mind & freedom, but well being."
Yes, I definitely agree that we are seeing the same coin from opposite sides. I wanted to address that in my last post, but forgot.
Anyway, I see the execution of property rights in ideas as beneficial, reinforcing the drive to create out of self interest. (lest your creations be stolen/copied)
By nature, property rights are all "restraining" as you put it. So the below quote is where you and I disagree(the outcome per se)
" If your idea prevails, large numbers of people will accept it only under violence or threat. It'll be a society of huge numbers of resentful Nick-criminals trying to escape oppression in the eyes of their Libertarian parents."
Anyway, I do think we are at a stalemate, but I'd like you to know that I do appreciate the dialogue, and our discussion specifically in regard to"value" was quite helpful to me in further clarifying my own thoughts on the matter.
One final query of idle curiosity. Answer as you wish. No debate. I plan to read any ans without further response.
The concept of “private security forces” to enforce rights: Like IP, I've read little about such. Assume Block anti-IP at least in some regard & would commit Nick-theft which he does not recognize. Would he not have his own army supporting his view of rights? Would you each have separate laws, courts, etc? Who wins? Do the armies wage war with yours attacking to recover stolen property & his fighting to defend Block-tribe? Do you stalemate into separate geographic areas like Nation states? If you are strong enough do you wipe out Block's army and subdue him & his tribe? Maybe agree as honorable men to live in separate geographic area without war? Would it be possible to live together with ½ being Nick-good & the rest Nick-bandits leading to mano a mano battle? If you live separately, do you merely say “c'est la vie” as Block-tribe freely uses every Nick-idea they can get and have more & cheaper stuff than Nick-tribe?
Maybe old hat to you & for me just curiosity. I do not plan to study this. Advanced thanks for any response.
Actually, the very person you cite, Walter Block, has written on the concept/role of private security forces in a libertarian society.
Walter Block is fantastic. I agree with him on 95% of his viewpoints and I consider him on a short list of major contributors to libertarian philosophy. He's a giant intellectually.
Anyway, you can read on his speculations straight from Hoppe's book "The Myth of National Defense", Block's chapter is "National Defense and the Theory of National Defense and the Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Clubs".
It answers many of your questions, but as Block was Rothbard's protoge in many ways, you might even be better served in reading MES by Rothbard for a more in depth look.
One of the theory's posited is that said security forces would have an arbitration component that would interact with each other on the behalf of their customers as war(or enforcement) is costly both in lives & money where such disputes would try to be worked out for the benefit of all.
"I've read only the article, not the 120 comments"
Actually, it was the comment section I wanted you to read, I should have been more specific. I was trying to save time in talking property definitions with you.
Here's what I'd like to know:
ReplyDeleteIf you are for copyright, but not for IP, explain how Block's argument in regard to ponytails isn't applicable to copyright as well.
Block asks, "What has been taken from you if someone copies your ponytail." (paraphrasing)
So, by Block's own argument, if you write a book and someone copies it, word for word, and then decides to sell said copies, what have you lost?
I know what you've lost, because I use Bastiat's definition of property ....but I'd like someone else who doesn't honor IP, but honors copyright(like Block) to explain to me how that example differs from his ponytail example.
I am not anti-IP, but want it justified, not automatic as “property” which lacks coverage of “things” the IP types cover w/ none like physical property nor the protections.
DeleteI accept copyrights while asserting no Pony Tail rights (ignore Pony Tails as existent & assume PT means some uninvented but simple fashion).
Things are different & classified as IP under Copyright or Patent or other. If PT were covered it might be under Patent law; however PT would receive no protection under either because it is trivial as a patent & a fashion under CR.
I have introduced “trivia,” a sound concept supported by Hoppe's call for “reality.” You start protecting trivia & the whole of society will rebel in defiance against not only the trivia but against more substantial protections they would likely honor. IP does not enjoy the support of real property & becomes worse if made laughable.
Finally, “What has been taken?” Ans: Nothing real in the unprotected PT nor in the illegally copied book. For the book, a law granting privilege has been broken and the author may lose money because of the special dispensation and he may have recourse.
RW addresses society agreements so where CR is valid & PT not protected, that explains the difference. Block already says PT copying is no loss. Both may say, without breach of contract, you should (may?) not unleash the police, & a child copying a fashion w/ no contract is no violation. Hoppe describes “property” as physical w/ protections to avoid violence & no one will tolerate Girl1 attacking Girl2 over fashion copying.
You may invoke Bastiat; however I've read Property & Law & overwhelmingly he describes real property, not IP, including clarifying examples of people, savages, animals & plants. As complex & controversial as IP is, it would seem he should have granted some examples were such intended else it more likely, considering the whole scope of the treatise, that excerpts applied to IP are really his thoughts of real property.
"considering the whole scope of the treatise, that excerpts applied to IP are really his thoughts of real property."
DeleteI would recommend you read "Economic Harmonies" for a further view on Bastiat's view on IP.
"I have introduced “trivia,” a sound concept supported by Hoppe's call for “reality.”"
What you've introduced is subjective, and I'm not sure you can get away from subjectivity in terms of defining what property "is", but personally I find Bastiat's qualification(one of a couple) of property having "market value" as being more easily definable.
Nick, oh Nick. Tiz too late for now, but tomorrow I shall try to set aside time to present you your goose well done - your reliance upon Bastiat.
DeleteBastiat is anti-IP! He in no way proposes protection of intellectual property, neither inventions nor trade secretes. As freedom such are just but without protection and in the normal course of events those inventions & secrets will be discovered by competitors lusting for those exorbitant profits; the IP will eventually become public domain; and all people will be better off – it's called “progress.”
IP is the granting of a monopoly and Bastiat is very much against that.
Whether to prep yourself or in the event I cannot get time to warm the oven & prep the stuffing, you should read Chapter 10, Competition, in the very "Economic Harmonies" you recommended.
I've been over all of this before with others Tex, search here at EPJ on the IP debate going back a year or so ago...Bastiat was clearly pro-IP and I listed specific citations.
DeleteI look forward to any quotes from him you provide showing otherwise.
Anti-IP Bastiat
ReplyDeleteEconomic Harmonies C8 Private Property:
Words may be used to claim IP: “property in labor, faculties, & ideas - in a word services.” But taken in whole he means: Using my skill & ideas painting a landscape the physical painting is mine but I've no claim on others preventing duplication. Were it to extend to IP, B is obliged to elaborate rather than exampling only real property upon which he labors to refute socialism's claim.
As abominations he equates monopoly to privilege & plunder.
IP directly addressed in C10 Competition. Paraphrased as B is verbose. Because he is French?
A man discovering an advantage retains his secret to profit only him & will not voluntarily reduce the price. If such remained, every new invention brings ever spreading inequality. Mankind would be organized on the principle of universal monopoly. Self-interest urges us to progress & discovery & disposes us to monopolize our discoveries. Competition wrests progress, as fast as made, from individuals for mankind's use creating social harmony.
Man's self-interest as a producer has always revolted, decried & sought to destroy competition calling upon force, guile, privilege, sophistry, monopoly, restriction, & gov controls, [IP law].
A man may obtain exceptional positions by exclusive technical knowledge or inventions, conquests over Nature by human genius. These admirable & peaceful conquests are a source of wealth but soon, under competition become the gratuitous, common heritage of all.
He may eliminate 9/10 of labor to make x yet sells x at market price & is paid 10X more for his pains than competitors. This is the 1st phase of invention & just. The 2nd phase is imitation. Excessive profits creates covetousness. The new process spreads as the invention is copied. Finally the invention becomes free, common property & consumers may purchase x at 1/10 its former price.
Bastiat clearly abhors monopoly which IP grants & endorses copying inventions.
"Bastiat clearly abhors monopoly which IP grants & endorses copying inventions."
DeleteI think you've conflated his dislike for government mandated/run monopoly, with monopoly in general.
I am having trouble discerning your viewpoint, from actual Bastiat comments. If you could clearly label which is which(as translations do very), I would appreciate it so we can have a good discussion.
Here's the specific article & comment section which I mentioned earlier & is specifically relevant to our discussion:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/04/is-pro-ip-position-pro-state.html
Here are two very specific references to Bastiat that shows he is pro-IP:
"There are people in whose eyes property appears only in the form of a plot of land or
a sack of coins. Provided only that the land's sacrosanct boundaries are not moved and
that pockets are not literally picked, they are quite content. But is there not also
property in men's labor, in their faculties, in their ideas—in a word, is there not
property in services?"-Bastiat (Economic Harmonies)
Also, HT to Plenarchist, he cited this:
Bastiat was pro-IP at least for copyright. From a speech he gave in 1847 (in French but Chrome will translate it or Google Translator) -
"Gentlemen, what I have said about the property in general, it seems difficult not to recognize that literary property is within the law. A book, is it not the product of a man's work, of these faculties, his efforts, his care, his vigils, employment of his time, his advances? Should we not have this man to live while working? Why did he not receive voluntary services of those whom he renders services? His book, why would it not be his property? The paper manufacturer, printer, bookseller, bookbinder, who have materially contributed to the formation of a book, are paid for their work. The author, will he be excluded only compensation which his book is the occasion?"
http://bastiat.org/fr/discours_cercle_librairie.html
This all makes sense in that Bastiat argued the importance of property having "value" as a criteria.
We all know that some ideas have great value, it's not even debatable.
I look forward to seeing some specific quotes from Bastiat that you think puts him in the anti-IP camp.
You're query into my “viewpoint” can only be understood in terms of social science, not science or mathematics. I have no viewpoint. I have only the English language, logic, and where inexplicit make reasonable guesses in meaning. Your query suggests you search for viewpoint support rather than true or most likely meaning.
DeleteNick: I think you've...with monopoly in general.
B: Do they mean to say that the words "cannibalism," "war," "slavery," "privilege," "monopoly," "fraud," "plunder," "imposture," have never reached our ears, or that we see in these abominations the inevitable rumblings of the machine on the road to progress?
Tex: He cannot mean gov mandated cannibalism & others in the list & thus cannot mean gov mandated monopoly. To write so would be ignorant.
B: Thus, self-interest is that indomitable individualistic force within us that urges us on to progress and discovery, but at the same time disposes us to monopolize our discoveries. Competition is that no less indomitable humanitarian force that wrests progress, as fast as it is made [Tex: It could not be as fast as it is made with IP patents & never with perpetual patents], from the hands of the individual and places it at the disposal of all mankind. These two forces, which may well be deplored when considered individually, work together to create our social harmony.
And, we may remark in passing, it is not surprising that individualism, as it finds expression in a man's self-interest when he is a producer, has always revolted against the idea of competition, has decried it, and sought to destroy it, calling to its aid force, guile, privilege, sophistry, monopoly, restriction, government controls, etc. [Tex: These are true statements in his time & today.]
Man, under the influence of self-interest, always and inevitably seeks out the conditions that will give his services their greatest value. He is quick to realize that there are three ways in which he may use the gifts of God to his own special advantage:
1. He may appropriate to his own exclusive use these gifts themselves.
2. Or he alone may know the techniques by which they may be put to use [Tex: trade secret].
3. Or he may possess the only implement by which their cooperation can be secured [Tex: invented or commissioned a unique tool].
In every one of these cases he gives little of his own labor in exchange for a great deal of others' labor. His services have great relative value, and we tend to assume that the excess value resides inherently in the natural resource. If this were so, this value could not be diminished. What proves that value is, instead, created by services is, as we shall see, the fact that competition simultaneously diminishes both value and services. [Tex: Competition reduces the value of his secrets & inventions, not possible with IP].
Tex: Self-interests disposes men to seek a monopoly & avoid competition.
To be continued.
Nick: “Here's the specific article. . .relevant to our discussion”
DeleteYes, relevant, but for a totally different reason that you submit. I've read only the article, not the 120 comments, but it is relevant for my purpose in article alone!
Consider B's Property & Law. He expends >7,000 words to describe property & how its ownership is understood by people & savages & animals & plants & provides example after example after example ALL of which require physical property. B continues with Economic Harmonies C8, Private Property adding >14,000 words to describe property and again ALL by examples & words referring to physical property + the labor to acquire a physical piece of property which is then owned and may be exchanged. Over & over & again the boogeyman the words confront is socialism's and/or communism's claim on such physical property. NO example describes or shows an ongoing claim or right upon the “idea” involved beyond getting/building/making a final real object.
How can such effort be put forth to justify & explain the physical for which there is no contention and so little to describe the ongoing rights to an idea? No one, including anti-IP folks which does not include me, would contest a right to charge for delivering a unique sweater. What is contested is the sweater idea restrains others. The idea is not the same as a car while the sweater itself is.
You call the “specific article” relevant when it only jumps behind the Real Property Shield to assert without justification they are the same! The justification is to go read 1000s of words about real property??? This when IP rights are so non obvious that even lay people who would never steel anything physical routinely disregard IP rights without shame or guilt whatsoever.
This is profoundly wrong! And articles & 1000s of pages exampling physical things offer no remedy.
I am encouraged by RW's declaration that he seeks fundamental (which I hopefully interpret to mean “stand alone” without reference to a car) descriptions & justifications.
To be continued.
"Competition reduces the value of his secrets & inventions, not possible with IP"
DeleteActually it is possible with IP.
If another form of IP, whether as Rothbard suggests, is from "Independent Discovery" and can be proven as such, or if there is simply a superior form of IP which renders its competition "valueless" surfaces that is competition.
"Self-interests disposes men to seek a monopoly & avoid competition."
You won't get any disagreement from me that self interest is what causes men to try to do both. But the question is where the actual "competition" falls in terms of the non aggression principle.
For instance, if I own a piece of property and someone seeks to own it as well, my desire to keep it could be considered a form of "monopoly" desire and I'm certainly trying to eliminate competition in the ownership of my property.
I'm glad you brought the issue of self interest up, because I think it's important to acknowledge that people invest their labor, resources, etc. into things because their self interest is in play. If they are a part of a society that will not honor their labor & resource input to create property(value if we use Bastiat's definition), then naturally there will be less inclination to do so.
So with that in mind, let us return to another portion close to a quote you used above in Economic Harmonies, Chapter 10:
" It is just that the man who reveals a new and useful process to the world should receive his reward: to each according to his ability." (Bastiat)
(Nick comment: It is plain by the above that Bastiat is endorsing the concept of IP above, to me.)
(Skip a bit due to as you put it, verbosity)
"At this juncture, however, the invention enters its second phase, the phase of imitation. Excessive compensations by their very nature arouse covetousness. The new process spreads, the price of x steadily drops, and the remuneration also declines, more and more rapidly as the time interval between the invention and its imitations lengthens, that is, as it becomes easier and easier, and less and less risky, to copy the invention, and consequently less and less worth while." (Bastiat)
Nick Comment: So what I see here is an analysation of the process of decreasing "value", hence property over time.
So while we clearly see Bastiat(IMO) acknowledging IP, and even TALKING ABOUT THE RISK OF COPYING IT(because he inherently recognizes it as property), he is describing a process along the lines of "harmony", akin to Hoppe's call for "reality" in the ownership of said property becoming communal over time....via the violation of it...which is a bit circular to me, but more importantly we should recognize that:
#1 He does acknowledge & promote the idea of IP(again, IMO)
#2 His property criteria of "value" seems reasonable, even though he uses it in a circular manner to describe why he think IP should diminish over time.
Ok, your response @ 11:52 has shown up AFTER my last post and 3rd example, ipso facto of Bastiat's recognition of IP.
Delete"NO example describes or shows an ongoing claim or right upon the “idea” involved beyond getting/building/making a final real object."
I think the first two quotations in my first response disagree with your claim(unless you claim a book is not a "final real object"), but even if you contend not, certainly the last quotation of Bastiat, "It is just that the man who reveals a new and useful process to the world should receive his reward: to each according to his ability." puts the matter to rest.
I have never argued that Bastiat was for "ongoing rights to an idea", though I could personally make that case, Bastiat himself is clearly for IP on a limited basis and even acknowledges that its owner should be compensated.
I think you are missing that Bastiat's arguments for all property are on the contain the basis of "market value". I believe that is what is missing in this entire debate(both you and I, as you haven't answered my original ponytail question, and RW & Block).
You are correct in Bastiat goes over much in labor/capital input that is unnecessary from today's perspective, but that IS NOT THE GEM.
The "gem" IMO is the idea that property be defined as such by its value.
Why? Because there aren't any conflicts over things that have no value. In fact, if one party decides something it owns has no value and another party wants to claim it, I doubt there's going to be a fight!
So my intention is never to send people "to go read 1000s of words about real property???", in fact, they can skip over most of it and it doesn't matter. But to gain perspective it helps and that is the only book that truly makes when I think is a cogent argument on how we should define property.
I limit my interest here to reasonable & likely meaning of 2 Bastiat writings P&L & EH. I've read more than useful as our discussion shows he writes too vaguely for us to read the same sentences & context & agree to meaning.
DeletePerhaps it is my math & science background vs IP which falls under social sciences which Feynman calls “pseudo science.” I demand rigor & no extrapolations. I accept IP where justified.
I do not accept 1000s of words exampling real property to extrapolate a sentence about owning a creation of labor + material to mean owning more than the resultant real product. If B intends such, I require he explicitly say so esp w/ IP's complexity.
I was wrong to say “not possible with IP,” a possibility w/ independent discovery; however there is no reason to assume B considered it for his 3 phases. Those phases include “copying,” not possible with IP, unless time expired without so stating.
The “risk of copying” does not show property recognition. Such idea is weakened by copying “sanctioned by the most enlightened and impartial legislation” - gov sanctions IP violation! You so construe his vagueness; however, there is another “risk of copying” which becomes smaller with time & more copying.
No producer with a rare machine generating exceptional profits readily shares the blueprints. There IS inherent risk trying to duplicate a machine only knowing about it or even observing it's operation. The risk declines as more successful copies are made & more people gain know-how. Knowledge spreads & craftsmen become more numerous. Though software, a company spent $1000s & over 1yr in failure trying to duplicate an existing system I developed with full access to a working copy but not my source code. A risk that declines with more successful copies developed by ever more SW developers. This is a better guess at B's risk, a known risk reducing with copies, esp vs any property risk under approving legislators.
Certainly B knows about patents (steam engines) which provides no evidence of approval without explicit statement. Kinsella acknowledges them without approval (I think – still not read).
Nick: "It is just that the man who reveals a new and useful process to the world should receive his reward: to each according to his ability." puts the matter to rest.
Tex: NOPE! The quote is EXACTLY what follows in B text to justify the 1st Phase's extravagant profits until the copying starts. Those extravagant profits are “his reward” not even more profits by IP protection from competitors.
Books: It is not explicit that B is pro-CR though I'll not argue he is not. He wants an author paid which is possible without CR as my contracting a house or portrait painter, or a tech writer for an installation manual – a creator can create for a fee & that's that. No anti-B CR argument, just noting B is not explicit enough. Since he uses “Book” rather than “Manuscript” I agree pro-CR is a better meaning.
"Tex: NOPE! The quote is EXACTLY what follows in B text to justify the 1st Phase's extravagant profits until the copying starts."
Delete"I've read more than useful as our discussion shows he writes too vaguely for us to read the same sentences & context & agree to meaning."
I agree that the subjective nature of interpretation in regard to his writing is an issue for clarity, but let us step back a moment and look at the bigger picture regardless of whether we can agree that Bastiat was pro-IP or not(outside of Copyright, which you seem to concede).
"Perhaps it is my math & science background vs IP which falls under social sciences which Feynman calls “pseudo science.” I demand rigor & no extrapolations. I accept IP where justified. "
I am glad you are open to the acceptance of IP, as a valid an enforceable right. In this regard, it is unimportant as to whether you and I agree on whether Bastiat was pro-IP or not.
For all intensive purposes it doesn't matter in this regard, his argument for property having the quality of "market value" seems to be axiomatic to me.
Yes, there will be subjective differences between people, ostensibly solved by a type of court system(to which we both agree should be private, not gov't mandated-I HAVE NEVER CONDONED GOV'T MONOPOLY. But, that doesn't stop the very nature of his argument and its axiomatic nature from fulfilling your requirement of " rigor & no extrapolations".
In fact, I humbly suggest it fits your intellectual need perfectly. Please consider: Who in their right mind fights over property that has no market value?
And THAT, is how I come full circle back to my original question.
If Block, being for copyright(like Bastiat), makes the argument that the creator has lost nothing if the original creator of the ponytail has been copied, then how is it any different philosophically from someone who has copied one of his books word for word and then proceeded to sell it on his own?
What has Block lost by his own philosophy!?!?!?!?!??! NOTHING!
To which I disagree(I'm looking out for Block! lol), I say Bastiat has made a good argument that property is VALUE!
“Who in their right mind fights over property that has no market value?”
DeleteAns: ME! To stop a bad-guy taking or harming a $-worthless trinket or memorabilia of a deceased daughter & I would do my utmost to render him helpless or dead – a much more determined fight than over my car.
Block's Pony Tail: I responded to the Pony Tail issue at the top. I cannot speak for Block but I did address Book vs PT & the PT lost by trivia.
Bastiat in a few words: The world is a wonderful place growing ever better for mankind due to man's genius creating methods through knowledge & inventions to increase wealth for all by bending raw nature's bounty. Man does this in self interest as he will hold a temporary advantage over others to boost his selfish personal wealth. He will do all he can including bad things to hold the advantage to himself but will inexorably fail due to the overwhelming lust of others wanting those advantages for their selfish wealth promotion. Eventually, and sooner rather than later, his invention becomes free public property, so products thus produced become commodities at commodity prices of direct labor + material with no exceptional profits by any producer. Hence Harmony as all of mankind progresses & prospers equally. Selfish man must continually invent to rise above the crowds because no knowledge or inventions can remain private for long, thus mankind constantly progresses.
I've read only a little bit more of Kinsella & am embarrassed. As written before, I'm a newbie in IP and got here first reading about economics & politics because of increasing discomfort with our gov & our future under it which lead me to an economist's article stating any economic advantages for IP are more than lost due to implementation & we'd be better off with none. [Economics is a social science].
Embarrassed because with little thought I imagined I had a good idea that no one could reasonably assail. I considered, perhaps as you think of “value,” that “more & better stuff for all” rang the bell for IP as it even covered real property. I had not read B, then, but he seems to be a “more & better stuff for all” guy. I knew immediately property protection whether of real or intellectual restrained others which is a bad thing reducing total freedom, but necessary for more & better stuff. IP would/could be good because it would be temporary restraint perhaps like giving up some money to the community to build a common road advancing wealth for all. Without then knowing IP terminology, a “Utilitarian” defense of IP.
Embarrassed because Kinsella assailed it, my very own independent idea. Not now supporting nor prepared to argue against him, but am humbled at bit (hard to get me humbled much). I've not read enough. At least K is not vague. He's writing about IP.
Back to work as I must continually create to be paid, as per B, I cannot rely long on my ideas from yesterday.
" ME! To stop a bad-guy taking or harming a $-worthless trinket or memorabilia of a deceased daughter & I would do my utmost to render him helpless or dead – a much more determined fight than over my car."
DeleteThat is an excellent point on your part.
I will say that subjectivity, the item that has no market value you refer to still has value to you. So the concept of "value" is retained, albeit in a non-market sense($). Still, I will think about your point in a larger framework/concept.
As far as your concept of "trivia" goes, it's completely subjective...I do not see it applicable to the ponytail argument for the same reason that your "memorabilia" example is good argument...because one person may consider something "valuable" that another may not. (which really is the crux of the IP debate in general)
Someone could decide your memorabilia "trivial" and justify taking it for example...
edit: subjectivity=subjectively
DeleteAnother question for you in regard to your memorabilia example:
Say someone steals this memorabilia from you, you haul them into a private court to get compensation. How would one determine what you are entitled to for your compensation?
You claim that this memorabilia of yours has no market value. Would the jury be justified in awarding you NOTHING for said item has no market value?
True, not all value can be measured in $. Perhaps leading you astray, but in the event of interest, that little more I read in Kinsella said Mises showed even for items having a market value, the price is not a measure of value. I have no idea what he has shown, but it was footnoted in case you were interested in pursuing it.
DeleteMemorabilia: Maybe I can provide a compensation value when we can value the sweetness of her voice measured in a number of steps on a staircase to heaven. For me, $-value is meaningless. Revenge comes to mind & that is no compensation either but may provide some brief relief during planning & execution of plans.
Trivia: It cannot apply to PT for lack of a standard measure?
To proceed, PT-IP is an imposed restriction upon others who have made no agreement to be so restrained, else it is simply an agreement they must honor w/ nothing more to say. So who are we imposing on? What group? Has the Free State Project succeeded and commissioned you & I to write the rules? Is it Block's “Ideal – most Libertarian world possible” where you & I & Block & RW are commissioned to write the rules? Let us first describe the group of slackers who do not yet accept our imposition & might copy the PT. They are not dishonorable any more than Block, but just non-believers upon which imposition is required. Do you tell them they are nuts, there is no trivia and to pat me on the back and walk away with a strand of my hair or a thread of my shirt stuck to their hand is also criminal? I've seen an insanely jealous husband who might cheer you on were the strand to be from his wife.
Upon whom do we intend to impose?
"Upon whom do we intend to impose?"
DeleteIt has been thoroughly discussed by RW and fully relevant via his "car rental" scenario that a third party not involved in a car rental agreement is still subject to the fact that said car is not his property even if he steals it from Party B, though not a party to the rental agreement.
So ultimately, as all these arguments boil down to, the definition of "property", which is subjective by nature, is the determining factor.
I still hold "value" as the best way to subjectively determine whether something is property or not, IPSO FACTO on the basis of that people don't fight over things of value(you've considered that value is an issue even in the case of memorabilia, you just don't attach monetary value to it).
Really, in thinking about it, VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE, just like the definition of property, so they are consistent with each other on that basis as well.(straight from Mises)
Going back to its real world application, nobody sues anybody(or conflicts) over things of zero value. (whether monetary or not)
So in your memorabilia case, I can say it holds value and your compensation may or may not be delegated in monetary terms(on the basis of what the victim asks for and a jury/arbitration panel decides), but there is a form of compensation for value lost.(even if sentimental)
This is where Block's philosophy falters. He's not acknowledging that both value & property is subjective. He simply uses an arbitrary standard to judge whether things are or are not property, and he's not consistent.
Copyrights is property to him, yet when you apply his own reasoning to it, as I listed above, "If someone copies your book word for word and sells it, what have you lost?", then he has no choice to admit that he has lost nothing if he's to conform to his own logic.
So you'll impose it upon the unwilling unbelievers and treat it like a stolen car when it is no such thing. Are you aware that, with no protest, stores & police have stopped shoplifters from stealing chewing gum? The public would give no such slack to a policeman pulling a PT out of a girl's hair because it was copied.
DeleteI reject “property” as a suitable shield & justification. All distinguish “physical property” & “intellectual property” by adjective but refuse to call one MATTER (for lack of a better word & whose meaning would be clear) and the PT, FASHION (or something), and the manuscript a WRITING, and an invention MACHINE, etc, defining each & justifying each without the other. No IP laws treat them the same with different criteria for inclusion, different remedies, different terms, and in the US even a different court of appeals for IP than for material theft. The world understands IP & matter to be different things, and within IP different types.
But I'll proceed w/ your PT as property.
If I understand PT is “property” like a car, then when thief-B steals it from A and sells it to unknowing C, it may be taken from C and his only recourse is to B who fraudulently sold it. A has her car (or PT) back & C has none.
If A goes to school with (new) PT & B copies it & later shows it to innocent C, A may stop B & C from having a PT, right? If naughty B were a reporter and published the description for millions, no readers can use what they now know? Such would deprive millions an opportunity of independent discovery for seeing the news. No such can happen with property=matter. They are different! The entire planet can wear PT without depriving the inventor of wearing it too. No such can happen with matter.
Will you jail Block for hitting your enforcer pulling the PT out of his copying daughter's hair? If PT inventor A takes girl B to court to avoid violence herself (so goons are charged with whatever enforcement violence is necessary) I assure you a random jury will through the case out. Not so with the car or even copying a book. You don't like “trivia” but PT-IP won't fly.
My son was thrown out of middle school on a ridiculous 0-tolerance rule and that night our phone rang off the hook from parents we did not know but had heard of it via their children. The next morning the office was jammed with angry parents demanding they let my boy back in, and they did. “Stepping over a line” of perceived FAIRNESS, generates disrespect. You should include the concept “don't cross the line” in your IP philosophy, perhaps considering Hoppe's real world. Catch Block on something non-trivial. . . er, when it's not something “over the line” instead.
Wow...you've brought up some issues that are incongruent with the nature of the argument.
DeleteFirst, you have failed to define property. You claim that if it's "trivial", it isn't. That is a problem for anyone looking for any metric other than someone's opinion. Not only because it's not clear as to what is "trivial", but perhaps more importantly, you don't have a definition of what property "is".
Second, you haven't addressed why "value" should not be a good metric for property. Value drives all potential suits & conflicts over property, even in the case of "memorabilia" as you concede(even if it's not a monetary value, but it does have value).
As far as the PT itself goes, you asked, but then answered your own question:
"Will you jail Block for hitting your enforcer pulling the PT out of his copying daughter's hair? If PT inventor A takes girl B to court to avoid violence herself (so goons are charged with whatever enforcement violence is necessary)"
The answer is "no", What should be the correct plan of action for a private enforcement party(good) when the crime is unclear? AN INVESTIGATION.
"I assure you a random jury will through the case out."
EXACTLY! PRECISELY! You just made the correct argument!
And why would a random jury throw it out? Because THEY RECOGNIZE A PT HAS NO VALUE; ERGO IS NOT PROPERTY!
Now, I might also suggest that some nuanced in the jury might say, "Well, PT's have been around forever and this girl can't prove she invented it, OR, prove that this other girl didn't come up with it on her own"...but they'd still have to ask WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THE HARM even if the PT creator proved all of the above.
Value, & property, is subjective. It works nicely with Mises's thoughts on the whole matter.
For our discussion my definition of Property IS real material objects which no two people can simultaneously hold. There is universal agreement of that Property, from you (though you expand it) to Block to Kinsella & the world's people, savages, animals, & plants (B). A monkey will fight over a banana but not over copying his using sticks to get termites. Real Property is universally understood, not IP.
DeleteI don't accept Property = a mental creation sans atoms. This is not anti-IP, this is IP must be defined & justified for each type & restraints on others not agreeing to a particular restraint. Block, B (best guess), & I for now accept CR IP though we may differ on criteria or term. Not anti-IP, just IP ain't Property.
Some things in the set of EVERYTHING (Property=material + IP=mind things + maybe more with enough thought), have values from >= 0, & maybe indefinite. A kiss is sometimes sold as a service & thus has value. Steeling or forcing a kiss is battery a criminal offense, not a property offense – different rules: Criminal court != Property Crime Court != IP violations.
INVESTIGATION & JURY THROWS IT OUT = NO VALUE: A reason Property & IP (PT) is not the same.
Were it an empty, ragged purse B stole from A, in general, A is entitled to forcibly stop the theft with necessary force including death in some states to stop a robbery. For PT, A, trained that PT = purse + more because if B gets away & publishes the damage would be greater, immediately attacks. It is CLEAR to PT=Property Girl A - it is theft the same as purse snatching. Both may be worth little or a lot, robbery can be stopped. No investigation needed. Attack!
Going to court after B killed A, the value would not be under jury test, only whether B reasonably thought she was preventing a robbery and might be exonerated if trained that IP is the same as real property. Generally, people cannot be expected to stand passively while someone robs their possessions. No value test done, its an assault trial.
Not only does your Property expand things subject to robbery it unleashes it upon a large unsuspecting public. The Nick-type instructs believers IP = Real Property, and thus may be protected with violence. The Block-type instructs believers PT is not real property and cannot be so protected. When these groups meet in school there will be unsuspected violence meted out & certainly no B-Harmony, until the Block-kids retreat in bewilderment & fear, not from acceptance of highly contested PT-IP. If your idea prevails, large numbers of people will accept it only under violence or threat. It'll be a society of huge numbers of resentful Nick-criminals trying to escape oppression in the eyes of their Libertarian parents (Block, Kinsella, et al).
No one teaches theft of physical objects is anything but theft. A Prof recently sent me & unauthorized cc of a PhD Dissertation of interest for my current work. He just would NOT send me the right hand mirror of the author's car! REAL WORLD they are different even if of equal $value. REAL WORLD, people just don't buy it, else IP would have universal acceptance.
My apologies for the long delay. I occasionally teach motorcycle safety on the weekends and this was one.
Delete"I don't accept Property = a mental creation sans atoms. This is not anti-IP, this is IP must be defined & justified for each type & restraints on others not agreeing to a particular restraint. Block, B (best guess), & I for now accept CR IP though we may differ on criteria or term. Not anti-IP, just IP ain't Property."
Yea, I really don't see it that way. I clearly see that you do value a form of IP, via copyright. Additionally, you obviously would use "violence", as far as a private security force, to enforce it. Your definition of "property" is still completely arbitrary. I'm sorry but your arguments are not convincing to me at this time. I fear are discussions are becoming circular.
"I am not anti-IP, but want it justified, not automatic as “property” which lacks coverage of “things” the IP types cover w/ none like physical property nor the protections.
I accept copyrights while asserting no Pony Tail rights (ignore Pony Tails as existent & assume PT means some uninvented but simple fashion)."
So your above comments again draw an arbitrary distinction, based on no readily identifiable metric(unlike that of value for example), by which you've decided when something is property or not.
"REAL WORLD they are different even if of equal $value. REAL WORLD, people just don't buy it, else IP would have universal acceptance."
What the current paradigm is has no bearing on what it SHOULD be. This is not an argument. If it was, I could say "We should have taxes in the US because 95% people of the wants taxes.", regardless of the fact it's theft. I reject this for obvious reasons.
We may be at stalemate. I came from reading an Economist saying IP implementation is so bad (national wealth) it's better without, thus, seeking a better understanding of IP justification. No need to read Kinsella much since he is anti-IP & would only further the economist's case, not counter it.
DeleteOur discourse worries rather than calms. Maybe NO implementation can free me. You see ownership while I see restraint, not just of my mind & freedom, but well being. Our discourse shows me potential of more restraint than seen initially.
All ideas can be forever owned. One can own a fundamental invention say a transistor, T. With one man's perpetual monopoly - possibilities:
1. He is rich with bad Ts, but cheap enough that all 1,000 users spend $10M in test machines throwing away ½ the Ts yet still cheaper than vacuum tubes. He could buy 1 test machine but has no reason. Our nation spends 1000x$10M instead of $10M. He has no incentive to improve mfr or testing. He lives in splendor with no thought of Ts. In college I met an heir of a multinational with no motive for anything. If any incentive for improvement he would not care – he has no problems but maybe alcohol.
2. Integrated circuits & microcomputers may have never been allowed as one man decides for his own reasons. He may rather drink & play polo than think about it.
3. The original guy was smart & alert & on legal advise refused to sell T-rights, but only rent them with restraints & for x-yr periods & renegotiate. Don't like it? Use vacuum tubes.
4. An Ehrlich-type inherits control & ends all T-use to save the planet from economic growth – he has lavish amounts of gold & mineral rights bought long ago, so no worries for him.
I've learned how some things worked at 10 and for the rest of my life I cannot create & develop improvements depending upon them without permission which may not be granted.
Gates predicted SW patents would end SW development, but finally saw it happening & sent his people scouring all of his code patenting as fast & trivial as possible. So too did Amazon & others. SCOTUS is moving against them, but protection of all “ideas” yields the same possible result that large companies wage expensive IP wars and crush small guys. Though the ratchet-wrench inventor won over Sears after a 20yr fight, it would be rare, even with loser pays, that one could withstand Apple's $-might of endless appeals. At lawyer rates our own discourse would have ended long ago for me if not for you yet still be unresolved.
As I see it, you see Property-rights in “ideas” no matter the consequences – It is theft! I see existent evil restraints upon me bringing me here and even worse possible ones from our discussion. Yes, if enforced as you say, there is theft, but the victims are different.
You can do anything with your car & I'm unaffected. You invent some basic “idea” & I'm forever restrained in what I can invent, & do, & buy, and use. A car is local. An idea is universal. Bastiat's “progress” CAN be drastically impeded.
"You see ownership while I see restraint, not just of my mind & freedom, but well being."
DeleteYes, I definitely agree that we are seeing the same coin from opposite sides. I wanted to address that in my last post, but forgot.
Anyway, I see the execution of property rights in ideas as beneficial, reinforcing the drive to create out of self interest. (lest your creations be stolen/copied)
By nature, property rights are all "restraining" as you put it. So the below quote is where you and I disagree(the outcome per se)
" If your idea prevails, large numbers of people will accept it only under violence or threat. It'll be a society of huge numbers of resentful Nick-criminals trying to escape oppression in the eyes of their Libertarian parents."
Anyway, I do think we are at a stalemate, but I'd like you to know that I do appreciate the dialogue, and our discussion specifically in regard to"value" was quite helpful to me in further clarifying my own thoughts on the matter.
Best Regards Tex.
Nick
One final query of idle curiosity. Answer as you wish. No debate. I plan to read any ans without further response.
DeleteThe concept of “private security forces” to enforce rights: Like IP, I've read little about such. Assume Block anti-IP at least in some regard & would commit Nick-theft which he does not recognize. Would he not have his own army supporting his view of rights? Would you each have separate laws, courts, etc? Who wins? Do the armies wage war with yours attacking to recover stolen property & his fighting to defend Block-tribe? Do you stalemate into separate geographic areas like Nation states? If you are strong enough do you wipe out Block's army and subdue him & his tribe? Maybe agree as honorable men to live in separate geographic area without war? Would it be possible to live together with ½ being Nick-good & the rest Nick-bandits leading to mano a mano battle? If you live separately, do you merely say “c'est la vie” as Block-tribe freely uses every Nick-idea they can get and have more & cheaper stuff than Nick-tribe?
Maybe old hat to you & for me just curiosity. I do not plan to study this. Advanced thanks for any response.
"Maybe old hat to you & for me just curiosity."
DeleteActually, the very person you cite, Walter Block, has written on the concept/role of private security forces in a libertarian society.
Walter Block is fantastic. I agree with him on 95% of his viewpoints and I consider him on a short list of major contributors to libertarian philosophy. He's a giant intellectually.
Anyway, you can read on his speculations straight from Hoppe's book "The Myth of National Defense", Block's chapter is "National Defense and the Theory of National Defense and the Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Clubs".
It answers many of your questions, but as Block was Rothbard's protoge in many ways, you might even be better served in reading MES by Rothbard for a more in depth look.
One of the theory's posited is that said security forces would have an arbitration component that would interact with each other on the behalf of their customers as war(or enforcement) is costly both in lives & money where such disputes would try to be worked out for the benefit of all.
NB:
ReplyDelete"I've read only the article, not the 120 comments"
Actually, it was the comment section I wanted you to read, I should have been more specific. I was trying to save time in talking property definitions with you.