Bizzare: Anti-IP Proponent, Who Claims Ideas Are Not Scarce, is Offering Access to "Private" Society of Ideas (For $$$s, of course)
Here's the latest mind travel in the bizarro world of Jeff "Ideas Are Not Scarce"/"Bitcoins Are Better Than Gold" Tucker.
How does this fit in with the anti-IPer claims that all ideas get out into the public and become free? Should one not join this club and just wait for the ideas to present themselves for free on the internet?
"No, not really!" Hilarious! Restricted spread and access with eventual complete loss of control So how does this "loss of control" occur? If the terms of the contract remain the same, someone has to break it. What does control have to do with property rights anyway. Control says nothing about rightful ownership. If I understand your argument correctly, you're essentially stating that because ideas, formulas etc are more difficult to remain under control due to being easily replicate-able, one cannot be the rightful owner in the present because a broken contract will eventually set the information free at some point in the future.
The contract need not be broken for the secret to be spilled. One's home could be broken into - a crime, certainly, but not a contract violation - computer could be hacked, the wind could blow the paper with it written down away, I could just see it over your shoulder, etc...
Further, the fact that people (being quite fallible) probably will violate the terms of the contract, still doesn't impune third parties from using the ideas as they see fit.
Yes a broken contract can release the protected information. Each contract you sell to exponetionaly increasses the odds that the information will be lost from the buyers control.You can't put it back in the box once it is out.
Pro IP people dream of the power to have it both ways.
"How does this fit in with the anti-IPer claims that all ideas get out into the public and become free? Should one not join this club and just wait for the ideas to present themselves for free on the internet?"
Time preference.
"So are you admitting, at least, that there is scarcity over a certain period of time?"
No, what's scarce are the bodies and goods, not the idea.
The fact that there is a time period between having a number in my head, and you being told the number, doesn't mean the number was scarce during that time.
LMAO! Let the teeth gnashing against reality begin.
"You can't put it back in the box once it is out.
Pro IP people dream of the power to have it both ways."
Both ways? lol...it's a broken contract. The way you guys "want it" is to simply ignore the theft/breaking of the contract because of the difficulties in enforcing the contract.
It's the mother of all utilitarian arguments. Congrats.
"It's not property, ergo not theft because it's hard to enforce its protection". Nice argument.
Tak Tak's arguments were weak, flawed, and evasive.
But that doesn't mean pro-ip is "right" and anti-ip is "wrong". It means he needs to work on his arguments. If you're going to in any way strengthen your conviction in pro-ip, based on Tak Tak's commentary, then you're setting the bar too low.
Tak Tak: If you want to "fight" for anti-IP, then you're going to have to do some more research on it. Your posts are counter-productive.
"LMAO! Let the teeth gnashing against reality begin"
If that made you smile, I'm delighted. Better than the usual reaction of using the term in a different sense (i.e. this exact conversation over the last week).
There isn't "scarcity" over ideas, even over a certain period of time. By this I do *not* mean that ideas are immediately available for all, all the time - nobody other than the confused or disingenious mean it that way. What is meant is that, "having" an idea - any idea - does not conflict with another "having" it as well. (Which is obviously in stark contrast to tangible things). The element of time simply changes nothing in this case.
"There isn't "scarcity" over ideas, even over a certain period of time.By this I do *not* mean that ideas are immediately available for all, all the time - nobody other than the confused or disingenious mean it that way. What is meant is that, "having" an idea - any idea - does not conflict with another "having" it as well."
That my friend, simply is not a real world version of "scarcity".
Let's go one step further in your reference to "tangible" things.
I have a Datsun 240Z. Yet others, though not many, may have a 240Z in the exact configuration as me.
Are 240Z's scarce by economic defintion? Of course, that's why you are going to pay money for one that is a "good" example of a 240Z.
"Scarce" does not mean unavailable.
"The element of time simply changes nothing in this case."
That is wholly incorrect. This is the point "unknown"(commenter) made on an earlier ip topic and that I made to someone before him, earlier in the debate.
Rothbard wrote extensively about "time preference", and that is what we are dealing with here. You've acknowledged this implicitly:
"Depends on how patient one is."
So, inherently you understand that TIME IS A FACTOR.
Interestingly, 240Z's are currently traveling in reverse on the time scale compared to ideas in terms of scarcity....but at one time(when they were in production) they were far less scarce and their market value reflected that reality.
That is why I prefer Bastiat's definition of property which said the "test" for something being property is whether it has market value.
"Should one not join this club and just wait for the ideas to present themselves for free on the internet?"
ReplyDeleteDepends on how patient one is. Like paying to go to the theatre or waiting for it to be broadcasted.
So are you admitting, at least, that there is scarcity over a certain period of time?
DeleteNo, not really.
DeleteYou have control for a certain time. Restricted spread and access with eventual complete loss of control.
Delete"No, not really!"
DeleteHilarious!
Restricted spread and access with eventual complete loss of control
So how does this "loss of control" occur?
If the terms of the contract remain the same, someone has to break it. What does control have to do with property rights anyway. Control says nothing about rightful ownership.
If I understand your argument correctly, you're essentially stating that because ideas, formulas etc are more difficult to remain under control due to being easily replicate-able, one cannot be the rightful owner in the present because a broken contract will eventually set the information free at some point in the future.
Albi,
DeleteThe contract need not be broken for the secret to be spilled. One's home could be broken into - a crime, certainly, but not a contract violation - computer could be hacked, the wind could blow the paper with it written down away, I could just see it over your shoulder, etc...
Further, the fact that people (being quite fallible) probably will violate the terms of the contract, still doesn't impune third parties from using the ideas as they see fit.
Yes a broken contract can release the protected information. Each contract you sell to exponetionaly increasses the odds that the information will be lost from the buyers control.You can't put it back in the box once it is out.
DeletePro IP people dream of the power to have it both ways.
"How does this fit in with the anti-IPer claims that all ideas get out into the public and become free? Should one not join this club and just wait for the ideas to present themselves for free on the internet?"
ReplyDeleteTime preference.
"So are you admitting, at least, that there is scarcity over a certain period of time?"
No, what's scarce are the bodies and goods, not the idea.
The fact that there is a time period between having a number in my head, and you being told the number, doesn't mean the number was scarce during that time.
"No, not really."
ReplyDeleteLMAO! Let the teeth gnashing against reality begin.
"You can't put it back in the box once it is out.
Pro IP people dream of the power to have it both ways."
Both ways? lol...it's a broken contract. The way you guys "want it" is to simply ignore the theft/breaking of the contract because of the difficulties in enforcing the contract.
It's the mother of all utilitarian arguments. Congrats.
"It's not property, ergo not theft because it's hard to enforce its protection". Nice argument.
Nick:
DeleteTak Tak's arguments were weak, flawed, and evasive.
But that doesn't mean pro-ip is "right" and anti-ip is "wrong". It means he needs to work on his arguments. If you're going to in any way strengthen your conviction in pro-ip, based on Tak Tak's commentary, then you're setting the bar too low.
Tak Tak: If you want to "fight" for anti-IP, then you're going to have to do some more research on it. Your posts are counter-productive.
"LMAO! Let the teeth gnashing against reality begin"
DeleteIf that made you smile, I'm delighted. Better than the usual reaction of using the term in a different sense (i.e. this exact conversation over the last week).
There isn't "scarcity" over ideas, even over a certain period of time. By this I do *not* mean that ideas are immediately available for all, all the time - nobody other than the confused or disingenious mean it that way. What is meant is that, "having" an idea - any idea - does not conflict with another "having" it as well. (Which is obviously in stark contrast to tangible things). The element of time simply changes nothing in this case.
So, again, "no, not really."
"There isn't "scarcity" over ideas, even over a certain period of time.By this I do *not* mean that ideas are immediately available for all, all the time - nobody other than the confused or disingenious mean it that way. What is meant is that, "having" an idea - any idea - does not conflict with another "having" it as well."
DeleteThat my friend, simply is not a real world version of "scarcity".
Let's go one step further in your reference to "tangible" things.
I have a Datsun 240Z. Yet others, though not many, may have a 240Z in the exact configuration as me.
Are 240Z's scarce by economic defintion? Of course, that's why you are going to pay money for one that is a "good" example of a 240Z.
"Scarce" does not mean unavailable.
"The element of time simply changes nothing in this case."
That is wholly incorrect. This is the point "unknown"(commenter) made on an earlier ip topic and that I made to someone before him, earlier in the debate.
Rothbard wrote extensively about "time preference", and that is what we are dealing with here. You've acknowledged this implicitly:
"Depends on how patient one is."
So, inherently you understand that TIME IS A FACTOR.
Interestingly, 240Z's are currently traveling in reverse on the time scale compared to ideas in terms of scarcity....but at one time(when they were in production) they were far less scarce and their market value reflected that reality.
That is why I prefer Bastiat's definition of property which said the "test" for something being property is whether it has market value.