Sunday, April 7, 2013

Why Norman Stephan Kinsella Won't Yield on the Scarcity Question

It's becoming increasingly clear from the comments that more and more recognize that ideas can be scarce, using any common definition of the term or the way the term is used by economists. But don't expect Norman Stephan Kinsella to yield the point any time soon.

If he yields that point, it is game over for his anti-IP theory, since then, with scarcity, ideas can be economic goods, which acting man ranks on an ordinal value scale like any other goods, including physical goods. I for example may be willing to pay to hear the ideas of David Stockman when he visits San Francisco and speaks here, or I may be interested in buying his new book to see what ideas he has put in the book, both these goods fit nicely on an ordinal scale and I may rank one or both higher than a new shirt. But the key is there is no problem fitting ideas on an ordinal scale of economic goods, with purely physical goods.

The fact that more than one person holds an idea is not as important as the economic notion that someone might value learning an idea that is scarce and which he might not have and which he must be willing to buy access to and give up the alternative of what he might do with the money, say buy a new hat.

Now, Norman may suggest that what is being bought in the case of the book is simply, "ink on a paper" or the speech may just be "listening to the sound waves of a man's vocal chords," but this is typical fog used by Norman. I am not going to look on Amazon or in a bookstore for "ink on paper." I am going to look for paper that contains ink on them in the shape of words that display the ideas of David Stockman. In shorthand, if  go into a store and say,"Do you have the book by David Stockman?" The bookstore clerks will know exactly what I mean. If I on the other hand pretend that there is nothing more to the book than what Norman contends, ink on paper, then if I go into a bookstore and ask for "a book with ink on paper" the book store clerks will respond with an odd look on their face, which should generally be reserved as a look aimed at Norman and his view that IP is not scarce.

99 comments:

  1. "It's becoming increasingly clear from the comments that more and more recognize that ideas can be scarce, using any common definition of the term or the way the term is used by economists."

    Perhaps you get this impression because you are only reading or remembering the comments you agree with.

    Can ideas be sold without without anything acting as medium? No scribbled note, no rendered service, no book ... In all cases the economic good being transferred are the instances of the idea, not the idea class. Just because the instances are scarce does not mean the idea class is scarce.

    Your intellectual dishonesty is disheartening, but I applaud you for hosting this debate on your blog. There have been some very thought-provoking comments on here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree entirely with Wenzel's defense of IP. I *almost* side with Kinsella on this.

      But, your argument here is very weak. The medium has nothing to do with it. On my laptop, I may have 100MB of nude pictures of Angelina Jolie, which I shot myself. No one else has seen them.

      If I want to give these pictures to a tabloid, for a cost, (i.e. "sell") I'm going to charge a hell of a lot more than the cost of shooting these pics and bandwidth charges for transmitting them.

      If I also happen to have shot nude pics of an attractive woman who acts in some local soap commercials, there's no way her pictures would fetch me the same kind of money. Despite the fact that the effort I put into shooting both sets was exactly the same.

      Delete
    2. @jkll, Your argument is not only weak but misses the point entirely. Millions of people can have the idea to shoot Angelina Jolie in the nude, but if you are able to achieve this, you most likely will be paid for it (i.e. the instance of the idea might have sellable value). Ideas (i.e. the class) are infinitely replicable at the cost it takes for your brain cells to form the necessary synapse links (which for human beings is basically nothing). Many people can have had the same idea long before it comes to you and decided not to do it for any infinite number of reasons, but as you might be the first or the best placed who actually turned it into a particular product, you might be able to get paid for your efforts.

      Delete
    3. jkll's idea is also weak in the sense that he/she's argument that they "own" the image of a nude Jolie would conflict with Jolie's claim (in a purist pro-IP world) that she is the true owner of any image of her body.

      Delete
    4. @jkll: If you sell the pictures to the tabloid and send them via email, the economic good being transferred is digital files which are more valuable to the buyer than other digital files because of what they encode.

      Please name one instance of transferring the idea in which the economic good is the idea itself, and not the medium onto which the idea is encoded. Where they derive value from is irrelevant.

      Delete
    5. @thbyjo12345:

      The US government classifies several kinds of concepts as Intellectual Property. A quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property will tell you that patents are not the only kind of concepts covered. Copyright comes under IP too.

      I would not be patenting the idea of shooting any person in the nude. That would fail the obviousness and prior art criteria.

      Do you still think I missed the point?

      I'll state my point again: the medium (that alan.szepieniec brought up) is irrelevant. The service rendered is not the disseminating of information via some medium. The service rendered is the dissemination of information PERIOD

      Delete
    6. "The US government classifies several kinds of concepts as Intellectual Property. A quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property will tell you that patents are not the only kind of concepts covered. Copyright comes under IP too."

      Is that what we're using as the source of truth now? What the US govt says? I thought we were all seeking the *truth*. If you're going to give credence to what the US govt says as being a beacon of truth, then just turn on your TV to CNN, NBC, CBS, pay your taxes, stick your fingers in your ears, and be a good little citizen.

      Delete
    7. @Scott:

      I don't know what a purist pro-IP world is.

      I grant that when I watch a movie of hers at the cinema, and the cinema has made it known to me that I may not make recordings of the performance, I have implicitly agreed with the contract. Same thing when I buy a DVD or a magazine featuring her, and the DVD and the magazine have the notice in a place that's readable just before I pay for it. It could be on the front or back cover, that I would have to tear open before I get to see the real content.

      Would I have to pay her some royalty every time I look at her walking by on the street? Where was that contract? Why can't I photograph her then?

      I cannot answer questions about a "purist pro-IP world" because I don't know what that means.

      To answer your point in spite of that, let's say that (very unfortunately) she and all the people mentioned in her will died just now in a tragic accident... a meteorite hit the RV they were travelling in.

      Delete
    8. @alan.szepieniec:

      > Please name one instance of transferring the idea in which the economic good is the idea itself, and not the medium onto which the idea is encoded.

      Sure. I quote from http://www.guitarinstructor.com/vanhalen/index.jsp :

      `` It begins in 1976, when during Van Halen gigs, Eddie would turn his back to the crowd and play, leaving those in attendance to wonder how on God's green earth he was making those sounds. It wasn't long before Van Halen would reveal his "secret" technique to the world: he was using his right hand's index finger to tap notes directly on the fretboard, for that liquidy, ebullient sound. ''

      Another example: let's say I have designed something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycloidal_drive but has some additional mechanisms to reduce wear on all the components. I normally sell it as a sealed-shut unit that would ruin the whole thing on tampering. For a suitable fee, and after you have signed some contracts, I could let you into my factory where you can watch my employees assemble it.

      Delete
    9. @Scott:

      >> Is that what we're using as the source of truth now? What the US govt says? I thought we were all seeking the *truth*.

      You think you're seeking the truth?? No wonder you act all high-and-mighty! I'll give you a hint that will help you along. You'll find the truth as soon as you discover the true (but as yet undiscovered) rules of hopscotch and chess.

      Land is not "truly" property. "Property" is a concept that we people came up with to help set some ground-rules for our behavior with each other. There are other concepts, with varying degrees of acceptability in various societies and at various times: "slave", "marriage", "seller", "contract", "patent", "law", "directive", "police", "monopoly", "copyright", "constitution", "country", "apartheid", "acceptable", "security", "infidel".

      Good luck in sorting out the truth! But please leave me out of your quest.

      Delete
    10. Both of your examples still outline transmission of information about the idea and not the exchange of the work or invention itself. These are services not goods. The second parties still need to record the information and create a copy of the original work for themselves. The data outlining the idea is not the idea itself.

      And the example of land ownership as a contract and not something you actually possess is becoming cliche. Semantics is no more proof of the validity of IP than the opinion of US government.

      Both Wenzel and Kinsella provide examples of this. The scarcity of humanity's creative thought has nothing to with it's scarcity (or lack there of) of ability to record and communicate.

      Delete
    11. @Joseph:

      >> Both of your examples still outline transmission of information about the idea and not the exchange of the work or invention itself.

      Both my examples were an answer to alan.szepieniec's question on "instance of transferring the idea in which the economic good is the idea itself, and not the medium onto which the idea is encoded".

      >> And the example of land ownership as a contract and not something you actually possess is becoming cliche.

      I disagree. Let's say I agree for now. It's cliche. So what?

      >> Semantics is no more proof of the validity of IP than the opinion of US government.

      I did not offer a "proof of validity" of anything! I doubt that you could offer me the "proof of validity" or "invalidity" of any of the list of concepts I gave Scott.

      >> Both Wenzel and Kinsella...

      Wenzel was very loose with words. I don't know what exactly he meant by many of his terms. Kinsella was better on that front. But I don't see why you bring up Wenzel's and Kinsella's (differing) concepts of "scarcity" here. Why are you talking to me of "scarcity"?

      Delete
    12. @jkll: Your first example mentions "he revealed his secret" without saying how. If he spoke the words during some interview, then the medium was that interview. If he sent out a newsletter, then the medium is that newsletter. In your second example, the medium is obvious: a visit to your factory.

      Delete
    13. @alan.szepieniec:

      Van Halen: we know how he kept it secret. He turned his back to the stage. Maybe he decided to stop turning his back to the stage. You'd know if you were in the audience. Maybe he invited you to be his drummer for the day. And you saw him when his back was turned to the stage.

      In both this example and the one with the factory visit, the people involved did what they were going to do anyway, except that in this case, you were allowed to watch. I'd contend that there is no medium. You learnt it through direct observation. The same way one could get an idea of the weather by looking out the window.

      Delete
    14. But in both examples, they are still doing something. Their labor acts as a medium for the transfer of ideas.

      Delete
  2. You are changing your argument it sounds like to me. The idea is not scarce, the amount of people that understand the idea are scarce.

    You can then capitalize on your own scarcity as an individual that has the idea. This applies to all ideas. The score of last night's game for instance. People are willing to pay for that information by ordering sports in their cable package.

    People paying for things is not an indication of scarcity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Derrick, I am trying to understand your point. You say ideas are not scarce, but the amount of people who understand an idea are scarce." Ideas, formulated, organized, systematized ideas, ones that can easily be understood wherein aesthetic, applicable, exchangeable, and profit-taking value can be perceived, seem to me to be scarce because of the work and knowledge and time and effort required to study, connect, and work an idea into something that is understood concretely for value to be perceived by enough people. Sure, there are lots of ideas that float and exist, fantasies, wishes, daydreams, regrets, etc. But ideas that give to the creation of something that a lot of people value are scarce precisely because of the effort and time in their production and the knowledge required to understand their foundation is scarce. People have to know basic math and Algebra to comprehend higher levels of Calculus, no? For an infinite number of reasons, not every student can or wants to learn. So by sheer volume, does this not make ideas scarce and therefore not abundant? The fact that one person can understand a computer program and recognize profit-making potential, and another person can't be bothered with gadgetry tells me that ideas are scarce.

      Delete
    2. It only tells me that the people have a different value scale when it comes to acquiring these ideas.

      One person valued information on computer programming highly, while the other did not value it at all.

      On second thought I don't think this tells us anything on way or the other about whether the ideas are scarce or not. It simply illustrates the different value judgements of the two.

      Delete
  3. One Ferrari is scarce. If I had a copy machine that could reproduce 1 million at the click of a button, the value and scarcity of a Ferrari would virtually disappear in any practical sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I beg all of you guys to please come back to the real world. In your mental masterbation green sky world, we are all debating the scarcity of Ferraris produced with Star Trek like duplicators.

      Meanwhile, back in the blue sky real world, commercial contracts are negotiated by the millions daily, protecting software data and ownership rights which could be done by a private court system just as easily.

      Delete
    2. I disagree. Software, music, movies and TV are not protected at all by contract. Visit any torrent site. Every one of these media are infinitely reproducible in a perfect state. Thanks to the internet, everyone with a connection and a computer can have a perfect copy with zero depletion of supply.

      Tell me how this is stopped?I dare anyone to even try to describe how this can be stopped?

      Delete
    3. And what will the Pro IP'ers say when 3D printing comes in to full fruition?

      Delete
    4. No, lets not linger for awhile in the world of duplicators [sic] (replicators, man). First of all this world is totally possible, just imagine 3D printers everywhere (I recommend Neil Diamond's book the Diamond Age for interesting fictional take such a world of the future). There are many lessons here for the IP debate. This is a world that nears "post-scarcity." Now, Austrians understand that there is such a thing as scarcity in the Sci-fi Garden of Eden (where there is super-abundance of material-goods of all types and orders), since there is still a scarcity of time, and the reality of the opportunity costs implied in the logical structure of human action. But is that all? Are there no other scarce things? Hardly, there is the still the intellectual/creative production of ideas (one example for this world would be the creation of input formulas for the replicators to create Ferrari's, or Bugatti's) This is the world in which IP will matter most to those of us who believe philosophically in individual property rights and man being the owner of his products.

      Delete
    5. Right, because the public court system has done a terrific job of preventing copying.

      What an ignoramus.

      Delete
    6. I meant of course Neal Stephenson as the sci-fi author I mentioned above, apologies for the typo.

      Delete
  4. Mr Wenzel is here - yet again - confusing value with ownership. That he values an idea and can also own the vehicle that carries that idea, does not mean that he owns the idea. He can buy and own a book that presents ideas that he values but he is never going to own the idea and certainly not an idea in someone else's head, a possibility he claims.

    The question of scarcity is irrelevant. Ideas are not ownable whether they are scarce or not. Mr Kinsella's argument is based on the fact that an idea can be infinitely reproduced with no loss to any individual holding that idea. Mr Wenzel appears to misunderstand Mr Kinsella's argument when he makes the counter-argument that an idea can be held by a single or a few people. This is irrelevant to the basic point that, unlike physical property, others can gain the idea without the original holders losing it.

    The questions that Pro-IP folks ought to answer are these: (using their rhetoric) what exactly does the owner of IP own that can be 'stolen'. What does he lose that is his property when his idea is 'taken'. How is he harmed in any way?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When the owner of a secret (such as the formula for producing Coca Cola) has his secret wrongfully publicized, he loses a revenue stream.

      Delete
    2. PH, so now people have a right to "a revenue stream"?

      Delete
  5. You argument is books exist, so therefore intellectual property is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Indeed, Stephen Kinsella and his supporters (Hans Hoppe, Jeffery Tucker, et. al.) will never concede any point. They cannot, because their anti-IP arguments hang by gossamer threads, and if any one breaks, the whole weave falls apart, so they must repeat the lie often enough until it becomes "truth".

    I personally hope Mises.org quits giving them a platform for them to launch their diatribes from. They can easily create their own websites to promote their ideas from, and if they are good enough, they will attract audiences. Mises.org should stick to economics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Dave Narby, pray tell what gossamer threads are you speaking about? Let me guess, you're one of these individuals who is nieve enough to think that you've had original ideas and that you should be compensated by everyone who has used your idea? OK Dave, first why don't YOU start by compensating everyone else going back through your whole childhood up until today whose ideas you have used and if after that you have any funds left and can prove that no one else came up with your idea before you, maybe you can be compensated enough for you to still have a roof over your head and food in your mouth.

      Delete
    2. Psychobabbling about your opponents motives, calling them liars, wishing for them to be deprived of a platform, and labeling them "communists" are all excellent debate strategies when you have run out of logic, which is why they are so popular with amateurs. Unable to refute, they ridicule and scold.

      Meanwhile it would be very interesting if Mr Narby (and Mr Wenzel) would answer these very easy questions: what exactly does the owner of IP own that can be 'stolen'. What property of his does he lose when his idea is 'taken'. How is he actually harmed in any way?

      Delete
    3. You two are laughable.

      I'll answer your questions when you first address the seventeen points here: http://strangerousthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-economic-principles-of-intellectual-property-and-the-fallacies-of-intellectual-communism/

      Which you will not, because you can't. Cheers.

      Delete
    4. The very first point he makes sounds like a Keynesian on CNBC explaining Austrian economics. I stopped reading.

      If you do not understand the argument being put forward, you can't possibly prove or explain anything.

      The very first point puts forward a straw man argument. The author attributes this line of reasoning to Kinsella and other Anti-IPers: "because patents are monopolies, all forms of intellectual property must be abolished." It's pretty easy to argue against a dumbed-down, loosely thrown together single sentence that barely begins to represent what the other side is saying.

      And that is his FIRST critique. Where does it go from there? I didn't need to read further as I said.

      Delete
    5. Derrick, just because you don't want to debate the issue, doesn't mean you've won the debate.

      Delete
    6. Dave, I addressed this blog post you keep linking to here: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/04/debating-norman-stephan-kinsella-turns.html?showComment=1365466893444#c6422462665760672446

      Delete
  7. Ideas are not scarce, but access to those ideas are. Stockman can only print so many books, he can only give one speech in one place at one time (though that speech can be broadcast on the internet all over the world thus, in this case, making access to the internet the economic good in question.) Ask yourself: If I buy a dictionary am I buying the English language? Or am I buying a means by which to learn the English language?

    You have yet to explain why you think Stephan's definition of scarce is unjustified. You have not even yet shown you understand what the economic definition of "rivalry" is. (Hint: the way you were using it in the debate was totally wrong.)

    It's also worth pointing out that some guy by the name of Hans Hoppe, who apparently knows something about economics, seems to agree with this definition wholeheartedly.

    "I agree with my friend Kinsella, that the idea of intellectual property rights is not just wrong and confused but dangerous. And I have already touched upon why this is so. Ideas – recipes, formulas, statements, arguments, algorithms, theorems, melodies, patterns, rhythms, images, etc. – are certainly goods (insofar as they are good, not bad, recipes, etc.), but they are not scarce goods. Once thought and expressed, they are free, inexhaustible goods. I whistle a melody or write down a poem, you hear the melody or read the poem and reproduce or copy it. In doing so you have not taken anything away from me. I can whistle and write as before. In fact, the entire world can copy me and yet nothing is taken from me. (If I didn't want anyone to copy my ideas I only have to keep them to myself and never express them.)

    Now imagine I had been granted a property right in my melody or poem such that I could prohibit you from copying it or demanding a royalty from you if you do. First: Doesn't that imply, absurdly, that I, in turn, must pay royalties to the person (or his heirs) who invented whistling and writing, and further on to those, who invented sound-making and language, and so on? Second: In preventing you from or making you pay for whistling my melody or reciting my poem, I am actually made a (partial) owner of you: of your physical body, your vocal chords, your paper, your pencil, etc. because you did not use anything but your own property when you copied me. If you can no longer copy me, then, this means that I, the intellectual property owner, have expropriated you and your "real" property. Which shows: intellectual property rights and real property rights are incompatible, and the promotion of intellectual property must be seen as a most dangerous attack on the idea of "real" property (in scarce goods)."

    ReplyDelete
  8. No one is saying ideas shoud be free and arnt economic goods...

    Wenzel completely misses the point, again.

    if someone buys stockmans new book or goes to his speech and hears his ideas, is it illegal for this person to use those ideas? Is it illegal for this person to write those ideas down? Is it illegal for this person to improve on those idead and to distribute those ideas further? Wenzel would say yes, that stockman now has a property right to his listeners brain, and can use that property right to control their actions, to keep them being an economic competitor with him.

    Wenzel hates competition, the free market, and selfownership, or he just doesnt understand these things.

    of course people are willing to pay money for ideas and theyre an economic good in that sense,its what happens after that that we're debating..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No! You are WRONG!

      It is NOT illegal to purvey Stockman's overall ideas. No one is saying that!

      We are saying that it's a violation of property rights to take his book as is - the exact pattern of the ideas in the way he states them in language - and pass them off as your own.

      Here's another example.

      It's perfectly acceptable to echo or re-articulate the ideas in your own way. But you cannot pass off the exact book, or speech, as your own!

      Delete
    2. who said anything about passing off his ideas as my own.

      proof of authorship would reside with stockman.

      Delete
  9. Then you should be able to buy Stockman's ideas without seeing him speak or reading his book. Just buy he ideas in his book and lecture.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1) Ideas are not scarce because they are limitless in supply
    2) Ideas are mental concepts and thus cannot be bought or sold

    Rationale:

    As others have mentioned in the comments of previous posts, there is no question that something is scarce when it comes to ideas. However, there is confusion as to what exactly is scarce. Kinsella is on solid ground when he asserts that ideas cannot be scarce. This is true because an idea can be shared to an unlimited number of people, and any number of people can independently come up with the same idea without reducing the supply of that idea. What IS scarce is the number of people who have the skills, expertise, or knowledge base to arrive at the idea in question. Therefore, what is scarce is the people who have an idea, not the idea itself. As the knowledge of an idea is disseminated, the idea itself does not become less scarce, but rather the number of people who have access to that idea becomes less scarce. If an idea was inherently scarce, then there would be no reason to place sharing restrictions on it when it is transmitted to other people.

    Moreover, an idea cannot be bought and sold. What is being bought and sold is the service of transmitting the knowledge of that idea. An idea exists in the mind of an individuals as a mental concept and is not a tangible product. An example can illustrate this point. If Person A purchases a piece of paper with the Drudge Formula written on it ("the Idea") from Person B, but does not have the capacity to understand the formula or know how to apply it, then Person A truly does not "have" the Idea, nor will he ever have the Idea regardless of how many times Person A purchases this service from Person B. In this case, all that Person A has purchased was the service of transmitting the information and its physical manifestation on the piece of paper.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ideas are not scarce.

      GOOD and/or NOVEL ideas ARE VERY SCARCE. Otherwise, WE THE PEOPLE WOULD NOT VALUE THEM AND TRY AND PROTECT THEM.

      Just like free speech is by definition OFFENSIVE speech (because inoffensive speech needs no defense!), good and novel ideas need protection (but only if we wish the intellectually creative and productive among us to continue to be creative and productive).

      Whether an idea can be bought or sold is a matter between two parties. That you would argue it cannot means you feel is is appropriate to violate contract law as it suits you.

      Delete
    2. I was using the term "scarce" in an economic sense, not in a purely statistical sense, so perhaps I should clarify. Scarcity in economics refers to a limited supply of a distinct set of objects. If I remove one object out of this given set, it reduces the total supply by one. If I remove one object and it has no effect on the total supply of the set, the concept of economic scarcity does not apply. The distinction is philosophical in nature: an idea is a concept, not a discrete object. It is infinitely indivisible, therefore the supply of one idea is unaffected and unchanged regardless of the number of people who can conceive of it.

      Intellectual property and contact laws attempt not to control the number of ideas available, but rather to restrict the number of people who have access to information that would allow them to form a mental concept of a given idea in their own minds. What is being bought and sold is information, which can take a variety of forms (consulting, technical writing, digital media, etc.), but these are not ideas. Ideas are mental concepts that reside in a person's mind and cannot be transferred in a literal sense from one mind to another--if this was true, if I "gave" you an idea, I would no longer have it in my mind! The number of people who have access to a protected idea is scarce, but the idea itself is infinitely divisible and limitless. This distinction is important in understanding why ideas cannot be scarce in an economic sense (although I agree with you, "good ideas" are scarce in a statistical sense!) Make sense?

      Delete
    3. No, it doesn't make sense.

      I hand you a book. On the first page, it says: "You agree, by taking possession of this book, not to copy or redistribute the contents of this book in any other form."

      You take the book. You have entered into a contract.

      Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's wrong.

      Delete
    4. Dave, anti-IP people think it's fine for people to enter into contracts.

      The question that has not been answered is, how can property rights be assigned in patterns of information in a way that doesn't undercut property rights in physical things?

      Delete
  11. You googled around to find out what the "N" stands for? You're unbelievably disrespectful. Call the man by his preferred name, like a gentleman would. I suppose if he preferred to be called Norm or Norman you'd have called him Stephan. Great argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's his name.

      If he legally changes his name, then I'll refer to him as "The anti-IP crank formerly known as Norman S. Kinsella", or "Norman Stephen Kinsella", etc..

      Friends can agree to call each other what he wants. Norman S. Kinsella is no friend of mine, or I suspect Bob's, so you can stuff it where the sun doesn't shine, Mr. "like such as", or whoever you are.

      Delete
  12. While the anti-IP side needs to recognize the scarcity of secret ideas, the pro-IP side needs to recognize that once the scarcity has been eliminated it cannot be restored.

    Wenzel's drudge secret is scarce as long as he or any of the people who know it don't publish it. But once that happens, the idea is no longer scarce and nothing can be done to fix that.

    The pro-IP side can't address the fact that the scarcity of an idea, just like a subjective valuation or a market price, can change. If they address this point their argument falls apart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) Ideas are not scarce because they are limitless in supply
      2) Ideas are mental concepts and thus cannot be bought or sold

      Delete
    2. Wenzel's drudge secret is not limitless in supply. Only he has it, there is a supply of 1.

      The discovery of this idea can indeed be sold, and it is scarce.

      However if by contract violation the idea becomes non-scarce, it's over and can no longer be considered property.

      Wenzel can you please answer how you can consider your idea scarce if someone breaks contract and reveals it to the public?

      Scarcity is not fixed. Something that is scarce now may not be scarce later. To say that Wenzel's idea remains scarce after it has been published is absurd.

      And yet this is the situation where the pro-IP viewpoint comes into action - after scarcity has been destroyed. At the point where IP comes into play it is irrelevant because scarcity is no longer there.

      Delete
    3. Here we go again.

      You people eventually get to the point where the only thing you can do is repeat your logical fallacies over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

      Delete
    4. @Dave Narby

      Can you point out my repetitive logical fallacy in my post?

      Or just answer me how you can consider an idea scarce once a secrecy contract has been violated and it has been published?

      Delete
    5. @Malcolm Smith,
      I agree that a scarce formula can become non scarce after a contract has been broken. Then I would expect the injured party to sue for an injunction and damages.

      Just because someone's property was damaged we don't say after the fact "oh well it wasn't private property".

      Also, when an NDA in an employment contract is broken, are you opposed to an injunction and damages?

      Delete
    6. No of course not. The issue is that the pro IP people think they have a claim on a third party. The person who violated the NDA or damaged the physical property is responsible for the damages and should be sued.

      Delete
    7. Malcom:

      It's included in here: http://strangerousthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-economic-principles-of-intellectual-property-and-the-fallacies-of-intellectual-communism/

      Delete
  13. The entire debate seems to me, to be based on your lack of understanding of RIVALROUS goods, Bob. Not a lack of understanding of what rivalry is. This is why the Hertz car isn't a good construct. When hertz takes its car back from Person C, it is because it was always hertz's car. No two people can physically possess the car in a sense of ownership, at once. The car is a rivalrous good. An idea however, can be held in the mind, by any and every person without affecting the ownership of another. Ideas are not rivalrous. Regardless of your definition of scarcity, its rivalry that matters. Person C cannot be forced to keep the formula secret, or "scarce" without violating the non-aggression principle. Person B broke his contract and can be punished, but if Person C disseminates this idea, Person A is forever, shit out of luck. So even if in your free society, people hold this idea that IP exists, it can never be enforced without breaking the NAP, and its therefore illegitimate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >> An idea however, can be held in the mind, by any and every person without
      >> affecting the ownership of another. Ideas are not rivalrous. Regardless of your
      >> definition of scarcity, its rivalry that matters. Person C cannot be forced to keep
      >> the formula secret, or "scarce" without violating the non-aggression principle.
      >> Person B broke his contract and can be punished, but if Person C disseminates
      >> this idea, Person A is forever, shit out of luck.

      I'm sorry, you are wrong.

      In your example, person C is distributing stolen property, and thus can be punished, or at least restrained from doing so.

      Take for example a farmer. Person A grows apples. Person B steals his apples and gives them to person C. Now person C is in possession of stolen apples.

      If a dispute resolution agency compels person C to return the apples, that is NOT a violation of the non-aggression principle.

      Delete
    2. This is the crux of the whole issue. You just tried to prove the legitimacy of ip by assuming the thing you had to prove. Anyway you made no reference to the point I tried to make that the idea is a non rivalrous good. Can you agree it is a non rivalrous good? If not you've got some serious explaining to do.

      Delete
    3. ManofBliss:

      Your apple example, by itself, is not objected to by either pro- or anti- IP proponents. Rather, it's when you compare the apple to ideas, that we anti-IPers disagree, i.e. that ideas are property just like apples.

      For instance, you state "Now person C is in possession of stolen apples" and that person C ought to return the apples. We're all in agreement here.

      However, if "idea" is substituted for "apple", then your argument would be that person C is in possession of a stolen idea. IF that is the case, I ask: How can person C RETURN the "stolen" idea? If ideas are property, how does one return ideas to the "rightful" owner?

      Anti-IPers say that it can't be returned (since it's not actual property). Sure, pro-IPers could agrue that compensation can be awarded to person A, but then that's not returning the "property", is it?

      Concerning actual stolen property, compensation is usually awarded when property was damaged or destroyed (obviously because the stolen property can't be returned in these situations).

      But if you agree that the idea can't be returned, per se, but rather, you believe that person A ought to be awarded compensation, I ask: How is the idea damaged or destroyed? Note: I'm not asking about supposed potential earnings lost from an idea that's no longer secret. I'm asking, how is the idea itself damaged or destroyed by the "thief".

      I don't see that the idea (in, and of, itself) is damaged or destroyed. Hence, this is another reason that ideas are not property.

      To review: "stolen" ideas cannot be returned, nor can they be damaged or destoyed. i.e they are intangible (tangibility being a characteristic of actual propery, which brings rivalrousness into the picture.

      Richard G.

      Delete
    4. No. YOU are yet to prove that rivalry is what matters.

      YOU have explaining to do.

      I illustrated my assumption by way of a very clear example.

      Delete
    5. As Unknown (Richard) stated, ManOfBliss' example is flawed because it pre-supposes that ideas are just like apples in the sense of being property, but that is what the entire argument is about (whether or not ideas are property). Tangible things can be property, intangible things (like ideas) cannot be property. And as Richard stated, how can you resolve this conflict of C having "stolen" ideas? I think we all agree that it can't be "returned" to A (first, A doesn't need the idea returned to them because they never lost it, and second, C can't un-learn the idea). Hopefully we would also all agree that if C didn't know that A had some claim of "ownership" of it and innocently learned the idea, thinking it to be in the public domain (e.g., they simply closely observed B making use of it), then it wouldn't be just to ask C to compensate A financially for their use of the idea. So, where does that leave us? I believe that the pro-IPers would claim that the just resolution would be that for C to be bound never to make use of that idea going forward. But what if C would have otherwise been capable of learning that idea on their own within the next year? Now C is banned for life from ever using their brain to learn/use that idea. To compare it to your apple example, this would be like returning the apple to A but also restricting C from ever growing an apple tree in their yard.

      Delete
    6. Still didn't answer the question. Is it rivalrous?

      Your example was clear. But replace apples with hertz rent a car and your example is the same as bob's. An apples, like cars, are rivalrous goods so we agree on this. Where you seem to disagrees about NON rivalrous goods. And that is where you have to justify using violence on person c for using his knowledge.

      Delete
    7. @ManofBliss:
      I agree that C cannot unlearn the idea. But a court could order that he stop making copies of the idea and selling them.

      @Scott,
      That C is now banned for life from using the apple, might be praised as a deterrent against theft.

      I think the apple tree comparison probably gives a misleading impression of the scope of protection. IP in patents is normally very finely detailed.

      Delete
    8. @Patrick Szar,
      An idea might be used by one person only (because only one person knows it/ has the capital to use it etc) or an idea might be used by many at the same time.

      When an idea is written down on one scrap of paper and locked in a drawer and then C steals it, it is a violation of the NAP to get it back & prevent C from publishing it?

      Delete
  14. Robert... normally I enjoy your commentary but I think you are being intellectually dishonest here. I find it hard to believe you can't see subtleties of this argument and the types of information there are. The english language is inexact and ambiguous and clinging on to your definition of scarcity almost smacks of desperation. In your previous post, one commenter, clearly a computer programmer, attempted to explain this using classes and instances of classes. I think you have to look to computer programming to get a more accurate abstraction when understanding the world in a logical and exact manner.

    Should the first person to rub two sticks together to make fire own that information forever? In fact, they need only to prove they were the first. Or how about the first person to discover elements of the earth? Or that 1 + 2 = 3?

    Clearly not all things can be pigeon-holed into one definition. You are trying to defeat your opponent using definitions they do not agree with.

    This scarcity thing is annoying me. Can you not see that things which are abstractions and are instantly replicatable can't possibly be considered the same as physical items? When you go down the rabbit hole of thinking about the abstraction of data your argument seems unbelievablely over-simplified.. almost childish. How far down the chain of derivative abstraction does your property rights extend. If I took your Drudge formula and changed it a bit, how do you decide it is still recognisable as yours. What about a piece of software with a billion bits of binary? If I record a song you made, time-compress it to a one second note and use it as an instrument in a song... do I owe you royalties?

    The best example of why IP would ruin us is software. I am a computer programmer and I am telling you categorically that if you enforced IP we'd be screwed. When I create software, I am standing on the shoulders of giants with layer and layer almost uncountable of abstraction, improvement and derivation. Enforcing your position (which I don't believe is even possible) would be like sawing a tree down at its base. We'd have to start again and the only way we'd progress is if all the contributers ignored your position and used open-source or "free" licences.

    I know you are a clever man, so I find it hard to believe you can't understand abstraction, therefore I think you must be being disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am a contracting officer who negotiates contracts with software vendors for a living. What you are saying makes no sense as
      commercial contracts are negotiated by the millions daily, protecting software data and ownership rights.

      Isn't the real world issue really one of addressing a transition to private courts?

      Delete
    2. "What you are saying makes no sense as commercial contracts are negotiated by the millions daily, protecting software data and ownership rights."

      No, as libertarians/anarchists, we're attempt to establish truth and justice here. We'd be starting afresh and deciding who does and doesn't have a right to "own" what types of things. Wenzel's argument that he should have ownership over his "Drudge Formula" when taken to its logical conclusion leads to the idea that everyone should be able to have a non-ending ownership over any original idea they come up with. That then leads to the standstill that dots_thots described. If you're arguing that not every idea, bit of software procedure, etc. is ownable and only really great ones are, then this becomes an extremely subjective issue. Who decides what is complex/clever enough of an idea that it can be protected by IP (in perpetuity) and which ideas are obvious or simple enough that they are not protected at all?

      Delete
    3. @dots,
      I am in IT, and disagree that "IP would ruin software". I made my living for 15 years from programming with a tool called PowerBuilder which was protected by IP!

      Regarding the invention of fire, if you invent something and take no steps to keep it private, it isn't your IP. Independent discovery is protected.

      Regarding copying a song and changing a tiny part & then selling the 'new' song, courts have faced this issue a few times, and I think they try to determine whether the new is substantially a copy.

      A similar situation came up in the world of novels when an unknown author tried to sell a lexicon describing the Harry Potter characters and was prevented:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Harry_Potter_Lexicon

      Delete
    4. @Scott,
      Who decides what idea can be protected by IP in perpetuity?
      The buyer and seller decide wit their contract.

      As for 'in perpetuity', this is a red herring because currently not even the state run IP runs in perpetuity. As I mentioned earlier, in the law of trusts to avoid the hand of the dead, called the mortmain, the courts created 'the rule against perpetuities'.

      Delete
    5. @PH,

      You missed my point completely. So you used powerbuilder... so what!? If software patents truly existed it probably wouldn't have existed in the first place. I'm talking about a more abstract layer. If we engage in a little reductio ad absurdum... what if I was the first to construct a for loop or a while loop and I prevented people using it without paying. The cost for for each of the 1000s and probably tens of 1000s of layers to pay the royalties would mean even the simplest program would be out of the reach of anyone to afford. And I would be forced to make my source code readable to prove what "ideas" I'd used or not used. I could never supply a binary.

      Your answer about the fire thing is unsatisfactory. To protect something you'd have to inform people what is was you had discovered.. anyone after that could never prove their discovery was concurrent and independent. I mean the list goes on... this isn't that absurd given that Microsoft tried to patent a double click.

      The debate really goes into what is objective and what is subjective. The complexity is mind-bending. The truth is, the definitions provided by the english language thus far are ridiculously simple and inadequate. English words don't have any exact meaning and certainly no weight and yet they are bandied around as if they are unambiguous.

      I once commented to a lawyer that legalese (a foreign language that sounds like english but isn't) has no punctuation and can hardly be described as something to define a contract in. They laughed at my naiviety and said... they idea isn't to be exact so both parties know where they stand.. quite the opposite. The idea is to allow room for your day in court.

      So the pro-IP people expect a concept of almost infinite abstraction and derivation to be described by an inherently and terminably ambiguous language. That seems absurd to me.



      Delete
  15. IT'S VERY SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND.

    If I create a pattern of ideas - call it a formula, strategy, plan, blueprint, etc - there are only two actions other people can take to acquire it.

    1. Invent it themselves without my influence. This is called "independent discovery". This does NOT violate property rights.

    2. Buy it from me. Through this, they gain knowledge of the formula. But if they claim the formula as their own and sell it, they DO violate my property rights.

    You need to understand the difference between copyright and patent, to understand the pro-intellectual property stance. We OPPOSE exclusive patents that disallow independent discovery, but SUPPORT copyright.

    It's literally this clear cut.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "1. Invent it themselves without my influence. This is called "independent discovery". This does NOT violate property rights."

      So you have no exclusive right to the pattern of ideas in the first place?

      Delete
    2. Patents actually are disclusive, but only for a shorter period of time than copyright (20 years as opposed to 95 years (or 70 years after the death of the author).

      I think they extended copyright from 50 to the current limit because Disney lobbied for it.

      Personally, I think the motive behind IP is sound, but the way it is currently implemented needs a serious overhaul.

      Delete
  16. I'm surprised that the 'scarcity' issue is being contested so heavily. IP is a tricky area for libertarians and there are highly intelligent libertarians that fall on both sides. However, I am not currently aware of any others who rejects the nonrivalrousness of ideas, or that knowledge (not the physical means of communicating knowledge) is scarce in the same way as laptops or apples. It is not a controversial notion. I was surprised by Kinsella's reluctance to describe ideas as superabundant, because like other typical examples, they are accessible ad infinitum.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wenzel is sinking here. The term scarce is obviously being used differently by Kinsella and Wenzel. To Patrick Szar's excellent points above, Kinsella's definition of SCARCITY pivots around his definition of RIVALRY. Again, Kinsella applies a different meaning of the word rivalry to Wenzel. If I understand Kinsella correctly, he uses the word 'rivalry' to mean that one person's possession of something NECESSARILY deprives others of its possession. This is (of course) NOT the case with ideas.

    Wenzel is defining scarcity as 'hard to come by' and rivalry as 'economic competition'. These are valid definitions of scarcity and rivalry in the English language, but they are NOT the definitions Kinsella is using.

    With this in mind we can see that while Wenzel HAS proven that ideas ARE scarce BY THE WENZEL DEFINITION, he HAS NOT yet demonstrated that they are scarce BY THE KINSELLA DEFINITION.

    Apart from the obvious fact that this means Wenzel has NOT "crushed" Kinsella in any way, shape or form, why else is this so important? Because Kinsella's definition deals fundamentally with the conditions that cause CONFLICT over resources. Indeed, one of the key pillars of Kinsella's/Hoppe's very thesis is that we only need property rights in things over which potential conflict can arise, in order to resolve/avoid the potential conflict. Again, 'conflict' is NOT defined as anger or punching in the face or feeling wronged, but in its proper economic sense: how to settle multiple claims of exclusive title to a thing.

    Ideas need no such rights attached to them. Conflict in ideas (remember, conflict as defined) is impossible. Multiple knowledge/use of an idea DOES NOT deprive any individual of the unfettered/unencumbered/full use of that idea, as it would for tangible/physical property.

    In summary:
    -Wenzel has proven ideas ARE scarce and rivalrous as defined by Wenzel.
    -Wenzel has NOT yet proven ideas are scarce or rivalrous as defined by Kinsella (in fact thus far he has proved ideas are non-scarce and non-rivalrous as defined by Kinsella).
    -Therefore Wenzel's claim of having 'crushed' Kinsella's IP theory is a false and embarrassing claim to make.
    -Wenzel believes correctly that ideas can be protected in your head or in complex code or written on a piece of paper locked in a safe. But this actually proves Kinsella’s point: you don’t need IP laws to protect ideas.
    -Where brains, code or safes fail to protect ideas, Wenzel favours contracts to protect ideas. Kinsella favours contracts but says they can’t bind 3rd parties. Wenzel agrees.
    -Yet Wenzel says that in a private law society, 3rd parties can be prohibited by law from using ideas. Therefore Wenzel favours aggression and infringement of other property rights.
    -Since Wenzel is a stalwart libertarian and ACTUALLY DOES NOT favour aggression and infringement of property rights, Wenzel is clearly confused and out of his depth.
    -Since Wenzel is confused and out of his depth, he is doing his intellectual and libertarian reputation much harm by continuing to argue with Kinsella at cross purposes.
    -Wenzel should accept simply the obvious point that a contract cannot bind a 3rd party, and he and Kinsella will be in agreement. If he does this soon, his career will likely flourish. If he does not, he risks a severe loss of credibility, which could damage is EPJ business interests.

    THE END.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For crying out loud.....Kinsella's definition is WRONG. How often do I have to repeat that scarcity and rivalry are different concepts? To prove that, all I have do is show one instance of an economic good that is scarce and not rivalrous. Club goods are not rivalrous! I have yet to see anyone debunk my hot tub example and my boat ride example.

      Delete
    2. Nice summary Russell. I really like Wenzel's blog and there are a lot of intelligent readers here who contribute by replying to the posts. I really wish that Wenzel would strive to honestly learn/accept the truth on this subject, rather than allow his judgment to be clouded by whatever animosity there is between him and Kinsella.

      Delete
    3. Ed Ucation:

      1. the argument in your boat example was already refuted by showing you that there is scarcity (rivalry) relating to the boat, namely, the SPOTS on the boat. You can't argue that because more than one person can use "the boat", "the boat" is therefore not rivalrous. The value of the boat is based on subjective value of units of individual action, and the units of individual action are the separate seats on the boat, not just "the boat".

      2. For crying out loud.....Wenzel's definition is WRONG. How often do I have to repeat that scarcity and rivalry are the same concepts? To prove that, all I have do is show that an economic good that is scarce cannot be anything other than rivalrous. Club goods are rivalrous! I have yet to see you respond to my hot tub refutation and my refutation of your boat ride example.

      Delete
    4. In other words, the rivalrous goods relating to the boat are the individual seats or spaces. Only one individual can take up one seat. Each seat is the scarce (rivalrous) good.

      There is no such thing as a scarce, non-rivalrous good, as long as you understand what the hell a good is (hint: it isn't always the entire boat in the physical sense, it is the subjective value judgments concerning the boat, namely, the subjective value judgments of the individual seats available in the boat).

      Give it up, you're so far refuted you're being lapped.

      Delete
    5. @Russel L.
      That was a helpful summary.

      "Wenzel should accept simply the obvious point that a contract cannot bind a 3rd party." True but a 3rd party can be affected by a contract. Suppose B gives property stolen from A to C, C still has to return the stolen property to A.
      Or suppose B and C collude to make copies of the secret and sell it. C is liable in one or more economic torts:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

      Delete
    6. @Ed Ucation,

      Club MEMBERSHIP is NOT rivalrous, but club GOODS ARE rivalrous. Membership to a club is an abstract, intellectual acknowledgement of association. It is not a tangible good. It is an idea, an intangible good. However the tangible goods and services that accrue as a result of said membership ARE indeed rivalrous.

      The whole world could be members of a club, and every additional member makes no one else less of a member. But each member who receives tangible goods and services from the club necessarily excludes anyone else from simultaneously accessing those self-same goods and services.

      You cannot have, nor do you need, a property right in being a club member, since no conflict (in the economic sense) can arise over the intellectual idea of membership. Conflict most certainly can arise over club goods and services however, an outcome usually adequately covered in a club contract with the member as the club maintains sole ownership of its facilities, goods, and services.

      Delete
    7. Ed Ucation,

      A rivalrous good is a good whose use by any one person for any one purpose would not in any way exclude (or interfere with or restrict) its use by any other person or for any other purpose. Club goods are rivalrous.

      P.S. I responded to your critique of Kinsella in full, and have not seen a response from you.

      Delete
  18. Of course ideas and knowledge can be, and is, scarce. But can they be stolen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ideas are not scarce. Bodies and property are scarce.

      Delete
  19. Sure, ideas are scarce... But can they be "stolen"?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I am appalled at the number of people who don't understand that everything which is the object of human action and, as a consequence, has a cost and a value, is by definition scarce.

    And equally appalled by the number of people who hold that moral commitments "cannot exist".

    If that is all the anti-IP argument rests upon, then IP is indeed legitimate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not even close to what anti-IP is based on.

      Delete
    2. "Drudge formula" is not and cannot be object of human action in the same way as laws of thermodynamics cannot be object of human action.

      Delete
  21. That's the point I was trying to make the other day. I feel like trying to determine "scarcity" is kind of beside the point.

    For me the essential questions is, did person A create something of value?

    That question is easy to answer without any complicated definition of scarcity. We just need to determine, did this creator do work that someone is willing to pay for?

    Seems like a pretty straightforward application of property rights that individuals have a right to benefit from their labor and collect whatever the market is willing to pay for it.

    Person B can appropriate the product of that work and sell it, by copying a song or a formula, but they didn't put in the initial labor to create it, so they're essentially selling stolen property.

    This doesn't prohibit multiple people from putting in the work to independently discover and sell the same thing, although this may be very difficult to prove.

    I'm afraid the debate between Wenzel and Kinsella has created more heat than light, but Rothbard's distinction between patents and copyrights makes perfect sense, and has the added benefit of not requiring monopoly intervention by government.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Part 1

    Scarcity means that there is not a sufficient amount of something to meet the demands for it (it is not superabundant such that all demands for it are met), and that because of this, there is conflict (or rivalry if you like that term better) for such a thing. Property rights are basically a fix to this issue of rivalry in scarce goods, because otherwise this conflict that arrises from such scarcity would manifest itself in quite a chaotic manner without some basis to determine who justly has the right to the scarce good in question.

    At any given time there are only so many physical goods to meet the demands for them, it's in the very nature of physical things that there can only be one of the particular thing in question at any given time, we can't simply reproduce it infinitely to meet the all demands for it. Ideas and thoughts do not have this natural limitation and thus are not hindered by this, they are infinitely reproducible instantly. Thus they are not naturally scarce because at any given time a single idea can be infinitely reproduced (or replicated) to meet all of the demands for it.

    Further, since they are infinitely reproducible to meet all demands for it, they also are non-rivalrous. I can have the same idea that you have, simultaneously. In fact, an infinite number of people can have the same idea without rivalry, and an infinite amount of that idea can be produced to meet an infinite amount of people's demands for it. This quite obviously is not true of physical goods.

    If you remember, it was this rivalry of scarce goods that makes property rights in them necessary in the first place. Since at any given time an idea can be infinitely reproduced to meet all demands for it, and it is non-rivalrous, then what purpose do we have to establish property rights in it? I say none.

    cont ...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Part 2

    Of course, one can pose a case (and many have in this debate) where A has an idea and B doesn't have it. But this isn't really relevant in terms of ideas being scarce, because I just established that ideas, by their very nature, are non-scarce and non-rivalrous. All that it means is that A has the idea and B doesn't; nothing more. If anything, all that A is doing by not telling B the idea is implementing a fleeting artificial barrier to B gaining that particular idea. However, B can certainly think it up himself independently, or find somebody else C who has the exact same idea and is willing to share it. Further, C (or B once he's gained the idea) can then reproduce that idea instantly to meet all demands for it, if they so choose. There's nothing wrong with putting up such barriers, nor is there anything wrong in establishing contracts regarding such ideas, or exchanging such ideas for profit; but this does not prove that an idea is scarce by its very nature.

    Further, this dynamic shown in the above paragraph is also present in physical goods. A can have a bottle of scotch and B doesn't, and B may in fact purchase that bottle of scotch from A (just the same as he could do with an idea). However, it is not the fact that A has something that B doesn't that makes the good scarce, it is the fact that the physical good in question cannot be infinitely reproducible-- ideas are infinitely reproducible-- to meet both A and B's demands for it (there is just the one bottle of scotch). Also, what restricts B from having A's bottle of scotch is property rights (not scarcity or rivalry*), so to use this sort argumentation to show scarcity in an idea would be to beg the question.

    The question is not "can ideas be made artificially scarce?", they obviously can (that is the entire purpose of IP law), the real question is "are ideas by their very nature scarce?" and it's is quite clear that they are not. So posing arguments and cases where an idea can be made artificially scarce does not prove that ideas are scarce by their very nature, nor does it prove that there is a logical case for property rights in ideas.

    *That a good is both rivalrous and scarce is not what prevents B from taking the good from A, rather it is either B honoring A's property right to it, or A defending his property right to it from B. To make a similar argument to show scarcity of ideas must assume a property right to it, but it has already been shown that the conflict (rivalry) of scarce goods is what makes property rights necessary, and ideas are not by their nature scarce or rivalrous (but can be artificially made scarce). Thus, the argument becomes circular.

    ReplyDelete
  24. LOL at Wenzel trying to define his way out of being demolished and to salvage his fallacious views over IP.

    ---------------

    "It's becoming increasingly clear from the comments that more and more recognize that ideas can be scarce, using any common definition of the term or the way the term is used by economists. But don't expect Norman Stephan Kinsella to yield the point any time soon."

    There is nothing for anti-IP advocates to "yield". Economists don't in fact define scarcity the way you do. You are defining scarcity according to a random dictionary.

    "If he yields that point, it is game over for his anti-IP theory, since then, with scarcity, ideas can be economic goods, which acting man ranks on an ordinal value scale like any other goods, including physical goods."

    Man is ranking bodily actions and material property manipulations in a ranked order when it comes to IP. They are not ranking the ideas themselves. Ideas are not goods. Nobody ranks the idea "E=mc^2" as above or below the idea "F=ma". Nobody is prevanted from thinking one idea just because they think the other idea. One can think of the idea "E=mc^2 AND F=ma". Ideas are not compelled to be ranked the way goods and labor are. People rank alternative courses of actions concerning scarce goods, using both, one, or none of the above ideas.

    Also, if I use the idea "E=mc^2", that doesn't prevent you from using that same idea, if you know that same idea. With goods this is not the case. We can both use the exact same idea at the same time. We can use the same idea at the same idea, but we cannot use the same bodies and goods at the same time. What my activities prevent you from doing are using my body and material goods at the same time and place as me. My using an idea don't by itself prevent you from using it.

    It is possible that you can't know my idea, but that would be via my refraining from using my scarce body and goods in a particular way that prevents certain signals from being released. That doesn't make the idea scarce, it makes the body and goods scarce. The idea itself is infinitely usable.

    ReplyDelete

  25. "I for example may be willing to pay to hear the ideas of David Stockman when he visits San Francisco and speaks here, or I may be interested in buying his new book to see what ideas he has put in the book, both these goods fit nicely on an ordinal scale and I may rank one or both higher than a new shirt. But the key is there is no problem fitting ideas on an ordinal scale of economic goods, with purely physical goods."

    You are paying for what Stockman's body can do. You are paying for a scarce object called a book. The ranked things are Stockman's labor and his book. Not the ideas. You are not forced to choose between idea X and idea Y. You can use the idea "E=mc^2 AND F=ma"

    "The fact that more than one person holds an idea is not as important as the economic notion that someone might value learning an idea that is scarce and which he might not have and which he must be willing to buy access to and give up the alternative of what he might do with the money, say buy a new hat."

    False. The fact that someone might value learning, is not as important as the economic notion that more than one person holds the same idea that is not scarce.

    "Now, Norman may suggest that what is being bought in the case of the book is simply, "ink on a paper" or the speech may just be "listening to the sound waves of a man's vocal chords," but this is typical fog used by Norman."

    It isn't fog, it's what is actually taking place!

    "I am not going to look on Amazon or in a bookstore for "ink on paper." I am going to look for paper that contains ink on them in the shape of words that display the ideas of David Stockman."

    That's ink and paper! Nobody said "ink and paper" has to be a series of random symbols, or something other than the pattern brought about by Stockman's non-scarce ideas. "Ink and paper" includes ANY AND ALL POSSIBLE PATTERNS OF INK ON THE PAPER. You are paying for scarce ink and paper in a specific non-scarce pattern.

    "In shorthand, if go into a store and say,"Do you have the book by David Stockman?" The bookstore clerks will know exactly what I mean. If I on the other hand pretend that there is nothing more to the book than what Norman contends, ink on paper, then if I go into a bookstore and ask for "a book with ink on paper" the book store clerks will respond with an odd look on their face, which should generally be reserved as a look aimed at Norman and his view that IP is not scarce."

    Non-sequitur. The concept of "ink and paper" does not imply "non-Stockman pattern ink and paper" specifically. It includes Stockman's origination of a non-scarce pattern, as well as everyone else's origination of non-scarce patterns.

    You're paying for a scarce book with non-scarce patterns.

    If the Stockman pattern exists in the book you bought, that does not prevent that same pattern from being perceived in another scarce book. It doesn't matter if you believe you're paying for scarce ideas. What matters is whether you actually are paying for scarce ideas. You're not paying for scarce ideas, you're paying for scarce books. If books were not scarce, then you would not pay for the book.

    ReplyDelete
  26. So you buy David Stockman's book, read it cover to cover and absorb the information. Afterwards you decide to sell the used book via Amazon. The new buyer is willing to pay for your used book because he values the book and the information in it. After having read it, he knows everything that's in the book, just like you! Both of you have gained the same knowledge. You can both use it at the same time when writing a blog, thinking about it, combining the knowledge with other thoughts etc. Nobody is deprived of the information if the other guy has it. Hence, there's no conflict over the knowledge.
    However, there can be conflict over a car, land, water, air, roads, wavelengths etc. because there can only be one ultimate proprietor over these goods. You and I cannot own the same car without having a conflict. If I homestead a piece of land and cultivate it, you cannot use it for something else because I'm the absolute owner and get to decide what to do with it. If society respects my property right in this piece of land, there's no rivalrous conflict over the resource. (Meaning there are not different claims over the resource with different intentions on the use etc. and the claims are not enforced). Property rights are necessary for people to live in peace.
    The ideas in the Stockman book can be "owned" by both of you which is impossible with things like cars, houses, air on your property, water, wavelengths for radio etc. Hence, there's no necessity for property rights in ideas. (on the contrary, they can be an infringement on real property rights).
    The book, meaning the ink and paper, itself cannot be owned by both of you at the same time.
    That's the way I see it and explains why third Parties are not committing theft when they gain knowledge (even through broken conflict) and should not be liable or limited in the use of their property.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Forget the "scarcity question."

    Yes, people have ordinal value scales. People value all kinds of things. People spend time and money on all kinds of things.

    IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT EVERY THING PEOPLE VALUE IS AN OWNABLE THING.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The fact that someone may derive value from EMPLOYING an idea to the available resources around them when they take action upon it is separate and distinct from whether the idea is owned or not. Of course ideas are valuable. That's why people spend their time educating themselves or developing a technological process.

    Perhaps Robinson Crusoe should have applied to the inventors of the tools he employed from the tiny island BEFORE he started fashioning them to survive. Think of all the value lost to people who taught him farming and ship building and food preservation! Crusoe was obviously violating these people's intellectual property rights. Robinson Crusoe -- the IP'ers anti-Christ.

    Still not seeing how a non-physical good that can be held by multiple people at the same time is somehow scarce. Bizarro world indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You can have knowledge to "share", for a price. Elementary, secondary schools, college, and so on are examples of this. Every single example I've seen of defending IP based on "ideas are scarce", can be applied to the knowledge of a language. That doesn't mean an expert should get a monopoly on his particular service or the teaching of the knowledge, and restrict all others.

    It may require media to share the idea, including an audio conversation, but that doesn't mean the intangible itself is "scarce". If the only restriction on an intangible "good" like an idea is the medium, then it does not count as itself being "scarce". Is the idea of "language" itself scarce? No way! Not in any meaningful sense.

    But just as with Open Source software, it's reasonable to charge for the service of sharing your manifestation, or "instantiation", of an algorithm, for example.

    ReplyDelete