Do not reprint, republish, re-post, or otherwise distribute or transmit content or images presented on this site. Downloading is easy, but just because you may be able to copy our content doesn't mean you own it. Unauthorized use of or copying of our content, trademarks, and other proprietary material can subject you to civil or even criminal liability. Please don't violate our copyright
(ht zltatum)
Appeal to Authority. Seems to be all that goes on here.
ReplyDeleteHow is this an appeal to authority? It looks to me as though Wenzel is just providing info on what's at Ron Paul's site. He doesn't say, "Ron Paul is in favor of IP, therefore IP is good."
DeleteWenzel has pointed out many times that Rand Paul is in favor of some sort of government intervention, surely that is not an appeal to authority.
"He doesn't say, "Ron Paul is in favor of IP, therefore IP is good."
DeleteOf course he doesn't explicitly say that. He wants his readers to conclude that on their own, precisely so that this excuse can be used.
Then why not point to someone else's site? He uses Ron Paul for a reason. Otherwise, what is the point of the post? Random person claims right to their work?
DeleteWenzel as usual is just throwing shit against the wall to see how much of it sticks.
Or, you could be right, there could be no point whatsoever to the post. It could be just random babbling.
Bob, you mentioned you were going to write a book on IP, is that in the works?
ReplyDeleteRon Paul earned a salary collected through theft (taxation).
ReplyDeleteFor a supposed anarcho-capitalist to be referring to the behavior of a politician for a "so there!" against anti-IP advocates, is just desperation.
Excellent point.
DeleteExcellent 'gotcha'!
DeleteI was really interested in this curriculum until I saw that Gary North was involved in it. Meh.
ReplyDeleteAre you on drugs?
DeleteMore accurately, this is Ron Paul and a bunch of other guys on IP, since his curriculum is a collaborative effort. Regardless, who cares if he does fully endorse IP? This isn't an argument.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, both sides have been slinging appeals to authority left and right.
ReplyDeleteHow is this an appeal to authority? It looks to me as though Wenzel is just providing info on what's at Ron Paul's site. He doesn't say, "Ron Paul is in favor of IP, therefore IP is good."
DeleteWenzel has pointed out many times that Rand Paul is in favor of some sort of government intervention, surely that is not an appeal to authority.
jackweil, you already said that above. Why are you cluttering the site with multiple posts?
DeleteI'm afraid that the anti-IP crowd is going to have to live with the fact that if society declares something to be ownable; e.g. an object, land (which is an abstraction, separate from the dirt that makes up that land), or a published written work, or a design: then it is property, and subject to laws society wishes to pass.
ReplyDeleteLooks like this is where we separate the Libertarians/Mincarchists from the Anarchists..!
"I'm afraid that the anti-IP crowd is going to have to live with the fact that if society declares something to be ownable; e.g. an object, land (which is an abstraction, separate from the dirt that makes up that land), or a published written work, or a design: then it is property, and subject to laws society wishes to pass."
DeleteOK, so anti-IP advocates are going to have to live with the fact that because "society" doesn't make decisions, but rather individuals make decisions, it follows that anything you claim "society" has decided, should be treated on par with what unicorns and leprechauns have decided.
Not necessarily, I just think we haven't progressed enough idea wise(because unique ideas are scarce :) ) to the third party/C argument stuff intellectually to find a compatible way to handle things.
DeleteFrankly, if the "anti-ip" people understand and agree that contracts for unique ideas should be respected in A vs. B scenarios then in my estimation they are accepting the notion that ideas are property even if they don't want to admit that.(and conforming to Bastiat's theory of what property is by definition)
Most refuse primarily because the C scenario holds concerns for them...which I understand.(but don't agree with)
I believe that the free market can handle "C" scenarios. I'm not sure how the framework works, but neither was Murray Rothbard(who was pro-ip in my mind due to his endorsement of copyright) or Bastiat(pro-ip).
Stepping back...if an anti-ip'er says he accepts the premise of A vs. B contracts for ip then there is not that much separating us in my estimation,philosophically speaking.(Some anti-ipers here have claimed that.)
Of course, the utilitarian issues are immense...but that is different.
On a purely speculative basis, "C" party issues of theft in a "voluntary" basis might look like A and C getting together(or arbitration) via a cooperation process, like C licensing the "idea" with no further hassle/cost for either party(mitigating the notion that you can't "return" stolen ip)...or C convincing A he self discovered, or simply "A" shrugging his shoulders and saying "I'm making money, I don't want to spend the time/effort to chase "C" down, so screw it."...etc. et al....
Let us all keep in mind that even the libertarian philosophy allows for the use of coercive actions/force WHEN THE BREAKING OF CONTRACTS is involved if conflict(or rivalry in Kinsella speak) can't be resolved.
My point is this...if we have faith in the free markets, the ultimate expression of that should include allowing these "C" scenarios to play out between the actors on their own because both sides are theoretically not for gov't, central authority, etc.
So in summary, Minarchists vs. Anarchists is not the issue here. The issue is one of faith in free markets, respect for property rights and contracts.
To the jerk who uses the sock puppet Pete PetePete: Well then, glad you have that all settled for yourself. Let's see how that works out for you.
DeleteNick: Nice. I have a few quibbles(?)
"Let us all keep in mind that even the libertarian philosophy allows for the use of coercive actions/force WHEN THE BREAKING OF CONTRACTS is involved if conflict(or rivalry in Kinsella speak) can't be resolved."
That's IMO one of the differences between Libertarians/Minarchists and Anarchists.
Anarchists can say they are in favor of contracts, but if there's no enforcement mechanism, the contract is about as useful as the paper it's printed on (you could clean your sphincter with it, or use it for some similar utilitarian purpose, but that's about the extent of it).
"My point is this...if we have faith in the free markets, the ultimate expression of that should include allowing these "C" scenarios to play out between the actors on their own because both sides are theoretically not for gov't, central authority, etc."
IMO free markets require some sort of property rights enforcement mechanism.
"So in summary, Minarchists vs. Anarchists is not the issue here. The issue is one of faith in free markets, respect for property rights and contracts."
Minarchists believe in contract enforcement via courts. Anarchists, TTBOMK, do no recognize any sort of government as such.
Dave Narby:
Delete"To the jerk who uses the sock puppet Pete PetePete: Well then, glad you have that all settled for yourself. Let's see how that works out for you."
Abort, abort!
"Anarchists can say they are in favor of contracts, but if there's no enforcement mechanism"
DeleteI would disagree with you, and this is a major issue for the anti ip folks.
The "mechanism" for enforcement without gov't is this:
"A" contracts with "B", both as a condition of the contract accept an arbitration corporation to resolve any disputes within the contract. Obviously it starts at discussions, but could end with the arbitration corporation having to use force to reclaim property, etc., as a last result.
That is one purely voluntary(to start) enforcement mechanism available to anarchists.
The concern for anti-ipers on this issue is that a party OUTSIDE of that contract process shouldn't in their mind be subject to the terms of agreement, specifically in regard to the arbitration corporation.
On one hand they have a point, Rothbard specifically mentions self discovery as an example by the third party that would exempt him from having harmed "A" or "C" intentionally.(Rothbard also talks of the difficult in prosecuting copyright infringement)
On the other hand, respecting property rights...which is a core issue for anarchists, libertarians, minarchists, voluntaryists, etc., need to be honored.
If I buy a car and a made a contract for such between myself and another person yet an outside party decides it's really not my property, what then? Do I let him take it?
Now, speculating...if we ever advanced enough to have society that tried to live by the N.A.P., we'd still have crime by those not "agreeing" by said understanding(or simply faltering). What then?
I can imagine as one example, that insurance companies might take the role(like title insurance) of indemnifying such a risk...but aren't they entitled to try to get the property back? Of course.
Just because someone makes a claim on property doesn't mean it is or is not legitimate.
That argument cuts both ways of course....(for both ipers and anti-ipers)
That's the big beef...the anti-ipers are worried about the outside party implications,specifically as it relates to aggression being used against said party that never agreed to any such thing to begin with.
In my mind, you have a right to defend yourself from theft, harm, etc....and just because we currently have a difficult time stopping "internet" downloading of other people's property(as defined by Bastiat) doesn't mean we should call it something other than theft, harm, etc.
Of course, in the mind of some people that isn't "theft" or harm, etc., but maybe they should think twice about taking such things from people that do.
This is very difficult territory.
"Society decides." In an ancap private law society, IP would mostly fade away since it would be highly inefficient to protect and enforce ideas that can be copied with little or no effort and spread to untold millions within the free markets.
ReplyDeleteBastiat has made a similar claim interestingly...but Bastiat also said that private property will never go away entirely....and it doesn't mitigate the need to respect property rights.
DeleteIn my mind ip becomes a free market issue specifically in regard to party "C" issues...the scales must be weighed for both parties to determine what action to take as a result of a copyright claim.
In A vs. B. scenarios the ramifications of contract breach are usually laid out before hand.
To say that ip isn't property, ownable, etc. et al is not true(IMO) and obfuscates the issue.
Another example of people's ability to respect ip without resorting to gov't might be voluntary donation, like the old Winzip style that has gained more traction now in all areas. As Wenzel pointed out with Daily Alert, some people might be forwarded his Alert's inappropriately...but that doesn't mean he doesn't own them. He has to weigh who, why and how he might chase them down for said theft, but if he's got plenty of people that value his ip and pay him(like myself) then maybe he'll just say "Oh, well-it's not worth the hassle".
If no one paid him and he was watching millions of his Alert's passed around all over the place...maybe he'd do something about it.
Free market, right?
In fact, maybe he'd just stop putting out Daily Alerts for a while until some people pony'd up dough.
There's a million different scenarios for party "C" theft that don't involve gov't, etc.
So what is your inference?
ReplyDelete