Mises: "Knowledge is a category quite distinct from those that I have explained earlier—from ends and means. The ends which we strive to attain through our actions, and the means which we employ in order to do so, are both scarce values. The values attached to our goals are subject to consumption and are exterminated and destroyed in consumption and thus must forever be produced anew. And the means employed must be economized, too. Not so, however, with respect to knowledge—regardless of whether one considers it a means or an end in itself. Of course, the acquisition of knowledge requires scarce means—at least one's body and time. Yet once knowledge is acquired, it is no longer scarce. It can neither be consumed, nor are the services that it can render as a means subject to depletion. Once there, it is an inexhaustible resource and incorporates an everlasting value provided that it is not simply forgotten."The problem here is that this is not Mises' writing.. It is a quote from the anti-ip guy Hans Hoppe in his book, Economic Science and the Austrian Method.
The use of the quote is an attempt to refute my quote of Mises to show that I am misinterpreting him. I am doing no such thing. Stephen for whatever reason went to Economic Science and the Austrian Method. to grab the quote and mischievously labeled it a Mises quote.
Mr. Gotcha Wenzel strikes again. Maybe your forthcoming book can be entitled, "Great Gotcha Moments in my Fight to Defend Idea Monopolies". Is it too late for Lew Rockwell to retract your speaking invitation? Oops.
ReplyDeleteYes, I see. Instead of pointing out errors, I forgot you guys like Kinsella's method: A barrage of personal attacks.
DeleteThere's a big error that you haven't talked about yet. It's on your head in the shape of a cone my friend. And it gets bigger every day that you refuse to come forward with an defend a coherent definition of an Idea Monopoly.
DeleteAnd concerning personal attacks, let's check the tape and see if you apologize for your error here. F-word count was Kinsella 0, Wenzel 3. And, sorry, but I lost count of the "I'm going to destroy you" epithets you spewed. Shame.
I'm more partial to the anti-IP side, and I found the debate very instructive. It takes guts to put your name up for something you believe, so cheers for both; and lastly, it's ok for big boys to get scrappy as long as it clears things up in the end.
DeleteRobert, do you agree with the quote regardless of who wrote it? If not, why? It is not because it was written by "anti-ip guy Hans Hoppe", is it?
DeleteInstead of actually formulating a cogent thought and laying out a framework, perhaps even showing how your thinking is consistent with classical liberal thought and the libertarian tradition, you've chosen a few snippets and a handful of blog posts. You have no argument to attack, because you haven't made one. You need to write a book.
DeleteHell, I've been watching this from afar and I'm not sure how you have a definition of property period. Until you start formulating some arguments, this is nothing more than saying "Nuh uh. I crushed so and so. They couldn't answer all of concerns while on the phone."
Why should anyone take you seriously?
As I said earlier...
DeleteFYI Robert, I fully expect the anti-IP crowd to engage in voluminous amounts of circular reasoning, straw manning, red herrings, ad-hominem, and whatever other logical fallacies they can throw at you.
When that fails, they will attempt to overpower you with sheer volume of words, and wear you out.
I am of this opinion because this was my experience on the comment boards of Mises.org. They seem to have a fanatical zeal about this subject. This is not surprising: they are INTELLECTUAL COMMUNISTS.
The pseudonymous Strangerous has written a brilliant and exhaustive essay which destroys the Intellectual Communists here: http://strangerousthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-economic-principles-of-intellectual-property-and-the-fallacies-of-intellectual-communism/
I highly recommend you read it, and perhaps discuss some of his ideas and create a post on it so that EPJ readers (who don't read the comments) will avail themselves of it.
I personally am of the opinion that the IP system has been abused by the corporatists to their crony advantage (much like everything else in the legal system), and that IP laws need to be reviewed and re-written e.g. to give more flexibility to the IP producer, to prevent patenting naturally occurring genetic code, etc. However the purpose of IP is sound, and a society should be able to declare it property and engage in whatever appropriate defense of such.
Mises.org would do well to purge the Intellectual Communists. They are (wittingly or unwittingly) tools of the crony capitalists, and an unseemly parasite that has attached itself to Mises. Austrians and Libertarians would do well to flick them off.
IP is a monopoly. It is a designed property right, similar to a land title (which is a monopoly to use a certain area of land), except instead of property taxes, it has an expiration date.
DeleteAs long as it expires, I fail to see the problem.
That said, I have big problems with the current IP system. It's outdated and in dire need of a complete overhaul.
@Narby. Nice volume of words attack. "Communist" nicely sprinkled in and "purge" too. Impressive.
DeleteI've been thinking about your Mickey Mouse Che Guevara icon. Guevara believed in initiating threats of violence just like Walt Disney Co. protecting their idea monopolies. Nice combo.
Update: Mises.org announces "We're with Gotcha Wenzel!" Oops.
Deletehttps://mises.org/daily/6400/Lessons-from-Cyprus
Alas, I guess Jeff Tucker's not the editor there anymore.
@Martin - So you're against monopoly. I get that. Now open your home to everyone and anyone, leave your car keys on the hood and wear a sign reading "My body is for you to use" because you currently enjoy a state enforced monopoly on all those things. I just don't want anyone to think you might be a hypocrite.
DeleteMartin, the current editor of Mises.org is Danny Sanchez, and he is anti-IP. That he posted Wenzel's article on Cyprus (a very good one, I might add) has no bearing on this argument over IP, nor Wenzel's position on IP, or LvMI siding with anybody. It was simply a good article by an Austro-libertarian on a current topic, so he posted it.
DeletePathetic little boy.
ReplyDeleteWhat part of this quote is not in line with what Mises wrote?
ReplyDeleteHere is my rebuttal of Kinsella:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailypaul.com/280705/intellectual-property-as-usual-rothbard-gets-it-right
I have to admit, this is pretty good. I was introduced to the anti-IP position very early on when I had just started learning about libertarianism, and as such I was immediately convinced by their ideas. But at the very least, the pro-IP arguments are logical and sensible; it is not as clear to me now which side is right.
DeleteMaybe Ed should have debated Kinsella instead of the clown that runs this blog.
Delete@Skyorbit. Here you go:
Deletehttps://mises.org/media/6486/Debate-on-Logorights-Copyrights-and-the-Free-Market
Ed Ucation, I responded in full to your rebuttal here: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/04/intellectual-property-as-usual-rothbard.html?showComment=1365173436058#c3680566888621376287
DeleteFrom what I remember you brought the personal attacks into the "debate" and then added your own. Maybe that is your method?
ReplyDeleteThen I suppose your memory is a more scarce commodity than most people's.
DeleteKinsella started the personal attacks on his facebook page long before the debate ever began.
I didn't say Wenzel started the personal attacks. I said he brought it into the "debate" and did personal attacks too. There is a difference.
DeleteI would say that someone who started personal attacks regarding the debate before the debate is the one who "brought the personal attacks into the 'debate'."
DeleteDoes that hold before a professional basketball game or higher math class? I don't think doing it before means they brought it into the game, class or debate - after all it was before and not during. Dupposed to be a debate on intellectual property not a discussion on hurt feelings and such.
DeleteUnknown, this whole thing between Wenzel and those of the anti-IP camp goes as far back as 2009 (or thereabouts). There is a history, which many newcomers are not fully aware of (not that that is a personal fault of them or anything) .
DeleteIn any case, I don't think that either side can claim innocence when it comes to basic insults and whatnot. Who started what and when, in terms of insulting statements and innuendo, is a moot point; this has no real bearing on the argument itself. We are all human, after all, and not a single one of us is perfect or above allowing our emotions to get in the way of things from time to time.
I often pride myself on my ability to not get too emotional in debate, but I'm not perfect, so I've done it (just as anybody else in this world). The difference is that I can readily admit it.
I'm not a newcomer to this, but relative to THIS debate, Kinsella obviously started throwing the first stones. It's arguable that Robert overreacted to it, but Kinsella, historically, has been an ass to anyone who questions his assertions on IP. IMHO, Kinsella brought the personal attacks with the "clown", and other remarks relative to THIS debate.
DeleteMy mistake for wrongly attributing the quote.
ReplyDeleteThe argument presented in the quote is valid.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe comment I deleted was a duplicate of my post above.
ReplyDeleteI want to add that I believe everything in this quote is consistent with Mises.
STEF-AWWN, STEF-AWWN, THIS PROVES THAT YOU'RE A SLOPPY THINKER STEF-AWWN, THEREFORE IP LAW IS JUSTIFIED. STEF-AWWN, YOU'VE BEEN DESTROYED.
DeleteTo wit, Mises: “A thing rendering such unlimited services is, for instance, the knowledge of the causal relation implied. The formula, the recipe that teaches us to prepare coffee, provided it is known, renders unlimited services. It does not lose anything from its capacity to produce, however often it is used; its productive power is inexhaustible; it is therefore not an economic good. Acting man is never faced with a situation in which he must choose between the use-value of a known formula and any other useful thing.”
DeleteAlthough only his followers have treated information as an economic good, with an optimal amount produced by the acting minds, as in Kirzner's "Perils of Regulation", Mises would never have done something so absurd as to say that information relevant to human action could be in any way costless; it is one of the instances where Hans Hoppe's shallow training in economics definitely shows.
ReplyDeleteVincent, did you read the quote? There's nothing here saying that information is costless. In fact, it specifically says "the acquisition of knowledge requires scarce means—at least one's body and time." The point is that information is not rivalrous: it can theoretically be used by every person, for any purpose, simultaneously.
DeleteHoppe's shallow training in economics? He studied under Rothbard starting in 1986 and was a close colleague of his until 1995. He was a professor of economics at UNLV until 2008.
I love how he was good enough to quote and be one of your multiple appeals to authority during the podcast, and now that you finally discovered he's been against IP since at least the 1980s, all of a sudden he's "the anti-ip guy Hans Hoppe".
ReplyDeleteJust when I thought you couldn't get more pathetic.