I am putting a post together on "rivalry" and via a Google search can't find NSK using the term or defining it. I know ideas aren't scarce in the NSK view, but I would much appreciate help on this one, if some of you NSKers could point me to where he uses the term or defines it.
http://mises.org/daily/4630
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if he explicitly defines "rivalry" here, but he does talk about the subject of scarcity in great depth.
He also uses this great quote from no one less than Thomas Jefferson himself:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
That's right, Jefferson himself explicitly rejected the idea of IP.
Yikes, a paper by the dynamic duo, Kinsella and Tucker. This should be fun.
DeleteA question for the Kinsella and Tucker crowd:
DeleteIf scarcity is defined by rivalry, why does Rothbard go on at length about Crusoe economics?
Furthermore, if potential rivalry is necessary for ownership, does Robinson Crusoe own a hut he builds on the island, even though there is never any possibility of anyone ever contesting his use of the hut?
The claim Jefferson was against IP is *patently* false.
DeleteAccording to monticello.org - "Jefferson said he approved the Bill of Rights as far as it went, but would like to see the addition of an article specifying that "Monopolies may be allowed to person for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding --- years, but for no longer term and for no other purpose.""
That's right, Jefferson wanted IP protection added to the Bill of Rights!
Jefferson was the first patent examiner, approved the first patents and headed the original patent office. Again monticello.org - "Two months after the law was passed, Jefferson remarked it had "given a spring to invention beyond his conception.""
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/patents
How could he have possibly been against IP?
The quote from the McPherson letter is taken out of context. It becomes clear after reading the entire letter Jefferson was not attacking IP generally or patents in particular but was expressing frustration over the law as it was implemented.
The point of the passage you quote was Jefferson saying essentially that IP is a designed right and not a natural right. And that a society can choose to have it or not. Which is what the pro-IP people have been saying here at EPJ all along. And after recognizing IP as a designed right, Jefferson was still in favor of it.
From the same letter:
"My wish to see new inventions encouraged, and old ones brought again into useful notice, has made me regret the circumstances which have followed the expiration of his first patent."
"Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody."
"Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured."
The entire letter is here -
http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/mcphersonletter.html
In short, Jefferson supported IP but as a designed right - not a natural right. Again, this is what pro-IPers have been arguing as well all along.
DeleteA question for Ed Ucation and the appeal to authority crowd:
DeleteIf there is no such thing as natural rights, why does Rothbard go on at length about them?
If you're the only one living in the island what do you need property rights for?
DeleteEd Ucation:
DeleteFirst, this isn't "Kinsella/Tucker crowd" versus "Wenzel crowd". We are each our own individuals. Please stop defining this dispute as a dispute between personality cults. Thanks.
Second, to address your concerns,
"If scarcity is defined by rivalry, why does Rothbard go on at length about Crusoe economics?"
To explicate Austrian economics being grounded upon *individual action*, and to explicate Rothbard's natural rights morality of man vis a vis nature which Rothbard thought shows *individual liberty* as the natural ethic of man. Right or wrong, this doesn't challenge the concept of rivalry/conflict *as used by Kinsella, and as used by economists who use the term scarcity*.
"Furthermore, if potential rivalry is necessary for ownership, does Robinson Crusoe own a hut he builds on the island, even though there is never any possibility of anyone ever contesting his use of the hut?"
Because there is still *potential* rivalry in the hut. Friday could wash ashore.
What you're doing is contradicting yourself. You're considering a potentially rivalrous good on the one hand, which of course has a certain set of implications, namely, the potential of other humans to wash ashore, but then on the other hand you're considering no potential rivalry because you're defining all other humans out of existence on the island.
You're basically asking "Why is the attribute "human" necessary for man to exist, even though I have imagined a situation where there are no humans?"
People need to economize over scarce resources to maximize their wants satisfaction. People need property rights to avoid and resolve conflicts over rivalrous scarce resources. I don't see how this can be confusing.
DeleteCrusoe certainly needs to economize his scare resources. He does not need any property rights theory for this.
No one has answered my question. Does Crusoe own the hut? Yes or no.
DeleteSure he owns his hut. What's a point of the question? His hut is scarce but not rivalrous. Until Friday appears, that is. Then he will need to agree with Friday on who owns what.
DeleteAnother point. Let say Friday appears on the island and build a hut that is identical replica of Crusoe's. Who owns Friday's hut, he or Crusoe?
DeleteAndrew: That's not correct. The hut is scarce and it is rivalrous. The rivalry derives from asking whether or not it is possible that the entire hut can be used by more than one individual actor.
Delete[Note that because the context is "the hut", then you are defining the hut to be the good in question. You can't say that because both Crusoe and Friday can fit into it, that the hut is not scarce after all. For here the goods in question would be hut spaces, and hut floor areas, etc, within the hut. It would be like claiming Earth isn't a scarce object because everyone alive can live on it.]
Given we assume that "the hut" can only fit one individual at a time, then "the hut" is the scarce good. It is a rivalrous concept because it cannot be used by more than one individual at a time *in principle*.
----------------------
Ed Ucation:
Define ownership.
"That's not correct. The hut is scarce and it is rivalrous."
DeleteMy point is that rivalrousness is meaningless concept on Crusoe island. There cannot be any interpersonal conflict to avoid or resolve there. Crusoe would have no reason to put "Stay out" and "Private property" signs around his hut. There is no need to spend time inventing locks and keys to keep outsiders outside.
Scarcity is economic concept that is in play even on Crusoe island. Rivalrousness, on the other hand, is ethical concept and is non-sensical on the inhabited island.
Note also that a single-occupancy hut is not the same good as a double-occupancy hut, so that changes the conversation when Friday (or some dude) shows up.
Deleteplenarchist:
Delete"IP is a designed right and not a natural right. And that a society can choose to have it or not. Which is what the pro-IP people have been saying here at EPJ all along."
Societies don't choose anything, for crying out loud. Only individuals choose. Congrats on exposing your pro-IP stance as nothing but collectivist gobbledygook.
If A chooses no IP rights, and B chooses IP rights, then that is an instance where "society" disagrees...what, with itself? No, of course not. The disagreement is between A and separate entity B.
Given that A and B disagree, then the only way that B can manifest his disagreement is by initiating force against A. This is not the case for A. A can manifest his disagreement by simply going ahead and using his own body and property without initiating any force against B.
Given that the only way to universalize a single ethic for A and B, would be for B to initiate force against A, should tell you whether or not IP law is based on naked aggression.
Maybe now but one day it will be possible. But it won't unless libertarians start preparing for it. I am.
DeleteGoogle the word "conflict" instead of rivalry.
ReplyDeleteConflict is the term Kinsella uses.
They mean the same thing.
I am not an "NSKer", even though I support body and property rights (i.e. anti-IP).
ReplyDeletePlease try not to paint this a dispute as if it were a dispute between personality cults.
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/11/rand-on-ip-owning-values-and-rearrangement-rights/
ReplyDeletePlease give me a free epj daily alert sub Robert.
I thought the EPJ Daily Alert wasn't scarce?
DeleteHe's asking you for a scarce set of electrons in a particular pattern. The pattern itself isn't a scarce concept. There can be no rivalry, no conflict, over it, if both of you want to use that same pattern. His lack of knowing that pattern at this time is not sufficent for the pattern being scarce.
DeleteScarcity of a concept isn't grounded on how many instances of the concept occur, or how many instances of the concept does not occur. Scarcity is grounded on humans. That concept is scarce not because there are fewer instances of that concept than there are humans. That concept is scarce because different humans cannot both use that concept at the same time in the course of their actions.
The EPJ Daily Alert is not a concept that is either scarce or not scarce. It is a concept consisting of both scarce and not scarce components. The scarce component is the material goods. The not scarce component is the abstract pattern.
Ideas aren't in the same category as goods.
I do not know if Kinsella ever spoke about rivalry, but it was clear to me in the debate that he was referring to rivalrousness of a good and not simple rivalry as in competition between businesses.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure he was using the term in the way that I have heard Walter Block use the terms rivalrousness and excludability when discussing social (public) good theory. I have heard Block discuss it several times when listening to Mises podcasts of the Mises University.
This post of mine doesn't imply I favor Kinsella, in fact Wenzel has made me look closer at the issue, favorably from Wenzel's point of view.
Just trying to help you, Bob, understand clearly to what Kinsella was referring during the debate. I understood it when he was saying it. Rivalrousness is a very specific term used when discussing social good theory, and is utterly different from a simple rivalry as we would use in everyday language.
Hope that helps.
To be clear, Dr. Block normally argues AGAINST public goods theory, and tends to show how many goods that are considered to be non-exclusionary really are excludible. Scarce goods are rivalrous. Non-scarce goods are not.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stephankinsella.com/2003/09/intellectual-property-scarcity/
ReplyDeleteWell this is going to really help NSK. In this article he calls the concept "rarity" unwieldy.
DeleteAlso here:
ReplyDeletehttp://c4sif.org/2012/08/mossoff-patent-law-really-is-as-straightforward-as-real-estate-law/
And start reading at:
“I don’t see much of an explanation here. You seem to assert that force can only be applied to “scarce” things – which you imply must be physical things. However, good ideas are scarce.”
[until end]
A rivalrous good is one that can only be exclusively controlled by one person at a time.
ReplyDeletehere you go: http://networkedblogs.com/K3L9f
ReplyDeleteAnd you see NSK using the word "rivalry" in this paper?
DeleteThe debate over the proper definition of scarcity is distraction. The whole issue of IP is a moral one, and the argument must take place on this field. It is immoral to make claim to all the Air because you claimed to be the first to discover it. It is immoral to claim all the oceans because you thought of the water molecule.
ReplyDeleteTo prevent man from using his own physical property to make way for a "property" that can never be, is utterly immoral. If IP were carried to its logical end, in that the first thinkers, singers and scholars owned their ideas and the actions of all who after thought these very ideas, and this was was theft proper, It would be a swift march to extinction, save revolution outright.
The Pro IP people never talk about what will be required to secure IP properly in the digital age, Hint: it involves monitoring every data packet and fining or jailing the "infringes" for violations.
ReplyDeleteAny proponent of IP want to explain how IP will be secured in the age of the internet with trading every shred of privacy and security in our effects?
That's an argument from consequences, or consequentialist ethics.
DeleteThe ethics that justifies anti-IP is grounded on a priori.
If Pro-IP advocates cannot use consequentialist ethics, neither can anti-IP advocates.
I haven't seen you explicitly address the issue of punishment of third-parties. If you have, just point me to it.
ReplyDeleteThe crux of the problem, IMO, comes down to an otherwise innocent third-party acting on an idea that come into their head through someone else's contract violation. Under libertarian punishment theory (I believe from Rothbard and expanded by Block), the party innocently receiving stolen goods must return the good but is not liable for more. The idea being that the true owner must be made whole.
In the case of a car, the true owner is out a car and, thus, the third-party innocently in possession of the car must give it back. In the case of an idea, exactly what is the true owner out? He still has the idea. If the true owner is out the future revenue stream of the idea, does this imply that all people have a property claim on the future revenue streams of their ideas? If so, what does it mean for Burger King opening a store right next to McDonald's? Since Burger King acted on the idea first, does McDonald's owe them the revenue stream lost because of competition?
"The reason we have to have private property is because these things are scarce. Economists call them rivalrous because you can have rivalry or fighting over them. " http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/stephan-kinsella-on-intellectual-property/ Ha! It is like enjoys eating his feet.
ReplyDeleteedit: ""he enjoys"
DeleteThis is ridiculous, ideas are scarce when they are of consequence, are you anti IP folks saying that everyone can write c++ because its known? No, now the obvious retort is, c++ isn't scarce because everyone can write it. Sure, anyone can write code, how many people know the code to Facebook? Lets move on, how many people know how to create super computers? I mean the obvious conclusion here is that A) yes ideas can be scarce in the context of a skill, otherwise they wouldn't be skills B) ideas not formulated or put to use are not. Really, how can there be any other conclusions? If someone has a new idea of their own, it's theirs, they have a right to profit from it. Having an idea that doesn't add to or borrows exclusively from someone else's is theft. How are libertarians not seeing this? Non aggression applies to all principles, that means in all context. So if someone has an idea on paper, or put to use, it is their property, usage is determined by context. If you post it for everyone to see without copyright, by definition you are making it open source or not scarce. Not that it is well known, but allowance by the author in this context dictates no profit motive. However if you publish it, while in a sense it may not be scarce, the idea is not therefore yours, or common.. Anti IP seems to dictate everyone owns others ideas, this is absurd. Are Rothbard's thoughts on liberty scarce? No, but can you simply rewrite his text and it not be called plagiarism? People who read books on a subject usually are trying to specialize in said topic, which entails that idea still being scarce. The author doesn't implicitly imply that his ideas are yours because you read them, but that you may build off his knowledge. I really think anti ip is a huge logical mistake on behalf of some folks, without it, where do ideas start? With everyone? Where do any of us profit if that is the case?
ReplyDeleteI like to refer to the ideas in question as "unique ideas", because it is self explanatory.
DeleteApplying Bastiat's framework for property rights, one of the additional tests is the property having market value.(Bastiat was pro-ip)
Nobody has a right to other people's money.
DeleteYour whole post is full of errors top to bottom.
A program is scarce until it's copied so scarcity is a function of reproducibility.
DeleteThe AIPers skip the initial step of the positive action of copying and start their argument after it has already been copied.
But the positive action of copying IP without permission is tantamount to stealing. The AIPer's can't get their heads around the fact that IP is property of a different kind.
Or they're trying to rationalize all the illegal movies and music they've been downloading. ;)
And IP is not the idea that just popped into my head. IP is a work product that becomes property through some process of title. A program is written and becomes property by copyright. Same for a book. An idea doesn't become property until it is patented. This arguing from reductio ad absurdum is tiring to say the least.
For this reason I don't consider trade secrets IP. The owner of a TS must keep it secret to maintain its value. But in the event that someone independently patents it, the TS becomes the IP of the patent holder. TS is like occupying unclaimed land before being granted actual title to it.
@plenarchist
Delete"But the positive action of copying IP without permission is tantamount to stealing."
No, it isn't. Stealing deprives the original owner, copying does not.
plenarchist:
DeleteNo, a program was never scarce to begin with. Scarcity is not grounded on the number of instances the concept in question is occurring. Scarcity is grounded on the principle of whether or not the concept in question can be used by more than one individual at a time. A program can in principle be used by more than one individual at a time, hence a program is not scarce.
The anti-IP argument does not "skip" the positive action of copying. It holds that a uniquely occurring idea is not scarce, that two instances of the idea are not scarce, that three instances of the idea are not scarce, that arbitrarily high numbers of instances of the idea are not scarce.
What you are doing is fallaciously attributing to the anti-IP position premises that you yourself believe about IP.
Copying an idea is only tantamount to stealing if you alreayd conclude that ideas are scarce and can be property. But that's the issue you pro-IPers cannot show, so you can't just assume it's true as if you did. Begging the question.
The comment "Trying to rationalize all the illegal movies and music" also presupposes copying ideas is unjustified behavior. Begging the question.
Ideas do not and cannot become property, because ideas are not scarce, since there is no conflict over the idea associated with more than one individual using the same idea.
Your arguments are weak and full of argumentative fallacies.
@John - "No, it isn't. Stealing deprives the original owner, copying does not."
DeleteCopying deprives the owner of receiving value in exchange for the value he created. Depriving someone of their rightful wealth in common parlance is called stealing. This is about as B/W as it gets. You might as well argue against gravity. Or maybe you reject that also?
@Pete - "No, a program was never scarce to begin with."
Induced scarcity is scarcity. Get over it.
"Your arguments are weak and full of argumentative fallacies."
Yes, it's called commonsense but that too seems to be pretty scarce.
planarchist:
Delete"Induced scarcity is scarcity."
Define "induced".
"Yes, it's called commonsense but that too seems to be pretty scarce."
Your definitional butchering goes deeper than I thought.
Your vacuous and empty claims can be used right back at you with zero decrease in argumentative force:
Commonsense dictates that ideas are not scarce.
Induced scarcity is not scarcity.
Your arguments are still weak.
While you write the article, please also have a go at defining "idea", as that's where I think the real confusion lies. You keep using it in two different senses.
ReplyDeleteThere's no "NSKers." There's people who understand that property rights can't exist in patterns of information without undercutting property rights in physical things, and there's those who don't.
ReplyDeleteHere is a question for the anti-IPers that say you don't own your labor.
ReplyDeleteIf I own a block of marble, and someone destroys it, I am entitled to a certain amount of compensation from the destroyer. Correct? Now, let's I am a sculptor and I carve a beautiful statue out of the marble. Someone comes along and destroys the statue. Am I entitled to the same amount of compensation, or am I entitled to more?
"Here is a question for the anti-IPers that say you don't own your labor."
DeleteRight off the bat you're setting it up as if labor is ownable. Saying "your" labor suggests labor is ownable. Labor is not ownable. You can't own the concept "Move arm and fingers in such and such particular pattern." You own your body, you own your material goods, but you don't own the idea guiding your arm to do what it does. For I could move my arm using the same idea, with my property, and it doesn't deprive you of your body or property.
"If I own a block of marble, and someone destroys it, I am entitled to a certain amount of compensation from the destroyer. Correct? Now, let's I am a sculptor and I carve a beautiful statue out of the marble. Someone comes along and destroys the statue. Am I entitled to the same amount of compensation, or am I entitled to more?"
Suppose I value the block of marble as a block of marble, more than it being formed into a statue. Now what? We disagree as to the value of the things in question.
How to resolve it?
Contracts.
Which you did not mention, for obvious reasons.
Your question concerns enforcement of violations of property rights, without giving the necessary information about contracts outstanding, and then you are trying to connect your own subjective valuation of the goods, to the ideas, and in so doing, hope to show that because the ideas relating to sculpted statues are making a piece of stone objectively more valuable, that ideas are objectively economic goods, scarce, ownable, etc.
You can't do that. You smuggled in a subjective value judgment concerning the marble and statue, and pretended it's an objective value, while evading any mention of contracts.
If A kills B, and C kills D, and B is a successful entrepeneur, while D is a lazy bum who collects welfare, and we ignore contracts, does that mean A should pay more to the family of B, than C should pay to the family of D?
Wouldn't we have to know about contracts before we can answer this?
@ Pete^3:
DeleteFirst, thanks for toning down the ad hominem attacks. You are quite intelligent when you limit yourself to actual arguments.
Now then, you say:
"Right off the bat you're setting it up as if labor is ownable. Saying "your" labor suggests labor is ownable. Labor is not ownable."
Hahaha, looks like the English language is your enemy here. See what kinds of lengths you have to go to create a coherent theory? Now we have to redefine basic pronouns. If it's not my labor, whose labor is it? I guess nobody's.
Then you say:
"Suppose I value the block of marble as a block of marble, more than it being formed into a statue. Now what? We disagree as to the value of the things in question.
How to resolve it?
Contracts."
First of, the sculptor obviously values the statue more than the marble, or he wouldn't carve it. Second, what contracts? There are no contracts in place between the destroyer and the sculptor. How would a court determine damages for the block of marble and for the statue?
"If A kills B, and C kills D, and B is a successful entrepeneur, while D is a lazy bum who collects welfare, and we ignore contracts, does that mean A should pay more to the family of B, than C should pay to the family of D?"
This is a fascinating question. How would restitution payments for murder be handled in a free society? I haven't though about in detail, but in this case there would have to be some pre-existing contract. After all, the families of B and D don't own B and D, so why should they be entitled to restitution? I assume the restitution amount would be set by a contract with a protection agency. Would it be set based on income? Perhaps. In that case, A will pay more.
Let's say I own a block of marble and I bought you labor to produce a beautiful statue. Later on you learn about my anti-IP views and refuse to carve the statue. Can I use force to coerce you to produce that statue? After all, I own your labor, so I'm justified to use force to get my property back.
ReplyDelete@ Andrew
DeleteI will answer your question after you answer mine :)
Nah, I will answer your question right now. But you still have to answer mine!
It depends on our contract. What was the agreed upon transfer of property? I would say, generally, the carver would agree to pay previously agreed upon damages. However, I agree with Walter Block about voluntary slavery. Check it (from http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block134.html):
Here's the situation. My child is gravely ill. Only an operation can save his life. But, this medical care costs $100 million, and I am a poor man (we assume away the possibility of government health care that will swoop in and ruin our example). Seemingly, my only option is to witness the passing away of my beloved child. But wait! Rafe Mair, richer than Bill Gates, has for a long time wanted me to be his slave. He'd like more than anything else to boss me around, and then whip me every time I displeased him. He values this opportunity way more than the medical costs necessary to save my child's life. So, we strike a deal. Rafe gives me the $100 million, which I immediately turn over to the hospital. Then, I go to Mair's plantation, and become his slave.
Why is this so objectionable? Rafe and I both gain from this deal. I value my child's life more than my own freedom; way more. Mair values my servitude more than the costs of buying me into servitude; again, way more, let us suppose. If voluntary slavery is legal, we can consummate this financial arrangement, to our mutual gain. If not, not, to the great loss of both of us. Slave-master Rafe would never shell out the cold cash if, after he paid, I could haul him into court on assault and battery charges when he whipped me. Then, without this financial arrangement, I would have to witness the death of my child, probably the most devastating thing that can ever happen to a parent.
In opposing voluntary slavery, Mair thus exposes himself as a cruel, heartless beast. A baby killer, even. Hey, he bruits it about that I favor the ordinary type of slavery, the kind that was prevalent around the world in the first part of the 19th century, and, even now, in some far corners of the world, still, horrifically, exists. If he can characterize me as a supporter of that kind of slavery, I can call him an advocate of child murder.
Voluntary slavery is an oxymoron as much as voluntary coercion is an oxymoron. As long as you do what Rafe Mair (whoever he is) is asking you to do voluntarily it is not slavery. The moment you refuse to follow his command is is not voluntary any more.
DeleteAnd no, Rafe Mair is not child killer even if he refuses to give you a single cent to save your child on any conditions whatsoever.
@ Andrew
DeleteNo, voluntary slavery is not an oxymoron. It's not the labor that is voluntary, but the contract to enter into involuntary labor. The labor is involuntary. According to your criterion, there is no such thing as slavery. If someone kidnaps my child and tells me they will kill the child unless I work their land, the labor I will be performing will not be voluntary, even though I can choose to stop at any time.
Regarding the child killer comment, of course Walter Block was not being literal there.
I'll sum up the AIPer position here. You don't like government enforcement of IP laws because you haven't consented to them. I get that and I don't like it either. But that applies to every other form of state aggression.
ReplyDeleteNow is there anything else to your argument? Because this whole debate here that I've seen hasn't really been about IP itself. It's been about state aggression masquerading as to why the aggression is justified or not.
I've asked this before at EPJ and I'll ask again. If everyone in Libertopia consented to IP, would you still object to it in principle? So far I see IP is OK under that arrangement. So maybe there isn't that much of a debate after all... Because there is no debate between libertarians when it comes to preemptive state aggression.
"I'll sum up the AIPer position here."
DeleteTranslation: BS alert, BS alert.
"You don't like government enforcement of IP laws because you haven't consented to them. I get that and I don't like it either. But that applies to every other form of state aggression."
I wouldn't like private security agency enforcement of IP either. Anti-IP is not grounded on reactionism to state aggression. It is grounded on positive reason that excludes all enforcement of IP.
"Now is there anything else to your argument?"
Your'e being willfully blind.
"I've asked this before at EPJ and I'll ask again. If everyone in Libertopia consented to IP, would you still object to it in principle?"
Does everyone in this Libertopia intend to impose the behavioral norms implicit in the IP contracts they agreed to with themselves, on everyone else NOT in Libertopia as well? If yes, then the anti-IP position concludes it is aggression. If no, then the anti-IP position concludes it is legitimate private copyright contracting.
Again, if every citizen has given their express consent to treating IP as physical property for the sake of inducing scarcity and giving IP producers control over their work products, would that be agreeable to the AIPer? If not, why not?
DeleteThese are simple questions. Leave aggression out of your answer.
"Again, if every citizen has given their express consent to treating IP as physical property for the sake of inducing scarcity and giving IP producers control over their work products, would that be agreeable to the AIPer? If not, why not?"
DeleteAGAIN, it vitally depends on whether the Libertopians intend to impose the behavioral norms implicit in the IP contracts they agreed to with themselves, on everyone else NOT in Libertopia as well.
If yes, then the anti-IP position concludes it is aggression.
If no, then the anti-IP position concludes it is legitimate private copyright contracting.
This is a direct answer to your question. Stop pretending like your question is going unanswered.
You can't possibly demand that aggression be left out of the answer. It is precisely non-aggression that is the grounds for anti-IP!
@Pete - "AGAIN, it vitally depends on whether the Libertopians intend to impose the behavioral norms implicit in the IP contracts ..."
DeleteThe laws act as the contract. The laws that the Libertopians have consented to are that duly recorded patents protect ideas, copyright protects books and movies, etc. against distribution.
No contracts are necessary - it is to the law that the citizens have given their express consent. Would this be acceptable to AIPers? If not, why not? Try not to confuse the issue.