tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post640779405046313587..comments2024-02-13T02:39:22.756-05:00Comments on EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Intellectual Property: As usual, Rothbard gets it rightRobert Wenzelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14296920597416905488noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-8901420461018762902013-04-10T19:48:55.561-04:002013-04-10T19:48:55.561-04:00Ed Ucation,
I am not assuming that information ca...Ed Ucation,<br /><br />I am not assuming that information can't be owned.<br /><br />1) My starting point is that every person owns their physical body. I do not see how it can be argumentatively justified that this is not the case.<br /><br />2) The human condition is such that resources of all kinds are rivalrous, meaning that use by any one person for any one purpose necessarily excludes (Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18191261587404343144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-21502367754502848892013-04-10T15:55:26.646-04:002013-04-10T15:55:26.646-04:00@ Stephen:
"A and B agree to a contract: A a...@ Stephen:<br /><br />"A and B agree to a contract: A agrees to share information with B on condition that B not reveal it. The contract specifies monetary damages if B shares the information. The information could be anything.<br />Now, let’s assume that B breaks the contract and reveals the information to C. B is liable for the monetary damages specified in the contract. But C is not a Ed Ucationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15375062362847706272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-2757720351296768682013-04-10T10:36:44.246-04:002013-04-10T10:36:44.246-04:00Ed Ucation,
Defining "scarcity" to mean...Ed Ucation,<br /><br />Defining "scarcity" to mean "rivalrousness" is perfectly legitimate. Time may be "scarce" according to your definition, but not "rivalrous." So what? Kinsella doesn't argue that "scarce" (in some other sense than "rivalrous") things can be owned; he argues that only rivalrous things can be owned.<br /><br />It Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18191261587404343144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-30792823194405478512013-04-10T01:52:05.479-04:002013-04-10T01:52:05.479-04:00@ Stephen
If NSK defines scarcity to mean rivalro...@ Stephen<br /><br />If NSK defines scarcity to mean rivalrousness, he is putting himself into all kinds of contradictions. Is time scarce? Yes. Is time rivalrous? No. Do you see how this definition is a huge problem? There are many economic goods that are scarce and not rivalrous.<br /><br />In one part of your reply you say club goods are not rivalrous and in another part you say that they Ed Ucationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15375062362847706272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-88712890127447549602013-04-10T00:10:35.701-04:002013-04-10T00:10:35.701-04:00Ed Ucation,
3) I have pointed out already that yo...Ed Ucation,<br /><br />3) I have pointed out already that your "club goods" examples are in fact "rivalrous" by the definition I have given (which Kinsella uses). If I want to put a museum to whatever use I want (say that I want to throw a party and fill the museum with all of my friends, have a band play, setup an open bar, etc.), that necessarily means that not every other Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18191261587404343144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-5170610983986215812013-04-10T00:10:27.149-04:002013-04-10T00:10:27.149-04:00Ed Ucation,
1) Yes, the distinction is arbitrary....Ed Ucation,<br /><br />1) Yes, the distinction is arbitrary. But Kinsella does not argue that IP is illegitimate BECAUSE of this. He is simply pointing out that people who advocate IP are advocating that the current IP system be extended even further than it already is to include things that it doesn't already protect.<br /><br />Kinsella does not say that scarcity depends on rivalrousness. Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18191261587404343144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-42574923155769652002013-04-09T21:12:30.096-04:002013-04-09T21:12:30.096-04:00@Stephen:
Sorry it took me so long to reply. The...@Stephen:<br /><br />Sorry it took me so long to reply. There have been so many posts here on this topic recently that I find it hard to keep track of all the comments.<br /><br />1) Yes he did claim that the distinction, between which IP is protectable and which IP is not protectable, is arbitrary. See pages 15-19 of NSK's "Against IP."<br />It is true that NSK claims that only Ed Ucationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15375062362847706272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-69755094997968589382013-04-06T18:15:44.689-04:002013-04-06T18:15:44.689-04:00thetrue sleuth: "Rothbard is now to scarce fo...<br />thetrue sleuth: "Rothbard is now to scarce for us to ever find out"<br /><br />LOL!JTGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16829830974196155380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-58620882414454864972013-04-05T15:46:22.211-04:002013-04-05T15:46:22.211-04:00Rothbard is now to scarce for us to ever find outRothbard is now to scarce for us to ever find outAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15229087559609819813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-27505242375383000322013-04-05T13:33:31.375-04:002013-04-05T13:33:31.375-04:00Nick,
You did not answer my question. Don't p...Nick,<br /><br />You did not answer my question. Don't point me to Rothbard or anyone else; just answer my questions.<br /><br />Me asking you to state your agreement that there should be property rights in scarce physical things is not what the debate is over. Wenzel stated his agreement with this during the debate. The question is, given that libertarians agree on this, can property rights Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18191261587404343144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-86970855249980587312013-04-05T13:25:05.965-04:002013-04-05T13:25:05.965-04:00Yeah but the real question is - does Rothbard know...Yeah but the real question is - does Rothbard know Wenzel's Drudge Formula?like such ashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15234294883852887599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-56214425937781675912013-04-05T12:05:50.262-04:002013-04-05T12:05:50.262-04:00@ answered your question...you just refuse to go b...@ answered your question...you just refuse to go back and read Rothbard's construction on it and I'm not going over the same stuff over and over again.<br /><br />Also, you did this once before: "If you agree with the libertarian position that there should be property rights in scarce physical things." <br /><br />The whole debate is over the word "physical" in the Nick Badalamentihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14015961786370759940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-24216281927489873042013-04-05T12:02:11.412-04:002013-04-05T12:02:11.412-04:00@ Bionic Mos:
"Is this idea consistent with ...@ Bionic Mos:<br /><br />"Is this idea consistent with your reading here of Bastiat?"<br /><br />Absolutely, because the key criteria(which most of us implicitly know) is that property defined by Bastiat has a basis in " In essence, what one owns is not the object but the value of the object."<br /><br />We all know the formula for Coke is valuable.<br /><br />:)<br />Nick Badalamentihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14015961786370759940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-51409862375520567832013-04-05T12:00:56.222-04:002013-04-05T12:00:56.222-04:00The latest Rothbard commentary on IP outdating all...The latest Rothbard commentary on IP outdating all of the above. Note the intellectual honesty. Note the admission of seeking further commentary. Note the request for more information. Note the shattering of your position that Rothbard saw copyright in perpetuity. <br /><br /><br />"...Finally, there is the almost incredible harassment of VCR owners. If I buy a VCR and a blank tape, I shouldConzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14180186908790288260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-18327759391747084762013-04-05T11:38:33.362-04:002013-04-05T11:38:33.362-04:00Nope, I think you're reading Rothbard wrong. ...Nope, I think you're reading Rothbard wrong. See comment above, or read the whole passage from MES.<br /><br />http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10e.asp#7._Patents_Copyrightsericbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02292890591098150405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-32525464615698066652013-04-05T11:35:58.549-04:002013-04-05T11:35:58.549-04:00That's great that you think he's wrong, bu...That's great that you think he's wrong, but you haven't answered the primary objections to your argument. If you agree with the libertarian position that there should be property rights in scarce physical things, then to make the case for property in information, you need to explain how you can assign property rights in information, outside of contractual arrangements, without Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18191261587404343144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-75135622573756025762013-04-05T11:33:47.161-04:002013-04-05T11:33:47.161-04:00How is ownership of "value" well-suited ...How is ownership of "value" well-suited to Austrian economics? So if a drug store opens up across the street from my drug store, since I have a property right in the "value" of my business, I have some claim against them for "damaging" by business?Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18191261587404343144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-15248348690180712012013-04-05T11:14:24.478-04:002013-04-05T11:14:24.478-04:00No I think you are misreading. Rothbard is saying...No I think you are misreading. Rothbard is saying that they ARE prosecuted in the case of a patent, not that they should. A copyright being compatible with liberty allowing independent discovery, whereas the patent does not. If you read further in MES:<br /><br />http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10e.asp#7._Patents_Copyrights<br />"The patent is incompatible with the free market preciselyericbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02292890591098150405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-84947142848599740492013-04-05T10:53:49.000-04:002013-04-05T10:53:49.000-04:00Nick, this is very interesting.
The concept of “o...Nick, this is very interesting.<br /><br />The concept of “owning” something, to me, is in the control, use, and disposition of the object (physical or intellectual).<br /><br />In my considering this issue of IP and property, I thought about the formula for Coca Cola. It is certainly true that if other companies have the formula, Coke is not deprived of also having the formula.<br /><br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-36805668886213762872013-04-05T10:50:36.058-04:002013-04-05T10:50:36.058-04:00Ed Ucation,
I can't post at Daily Paul so I a...Ed Ucation,<br /><br />I can't post at Daily Paul so I am responding to your critique of Kinsella here. I'm not going to address Rothbard's views because I don't think they are relevant to the debate about the legitimacy of ownership of patterns of information.<br /><br />1) Kinsella did not make this argument. Kinsella explained that rivalrousness is a necessary condition for theStephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18191261587404343144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-28487532951558735152013-04-05T10:48:33.806-04:002013-04-05T10:48:33.806-04:00@ Jt$
"It would seem you need a material cla...@ Jt$<br /><br />"It would seem you need a material claim to something physical for it to be considered property."<br /><br />What about BitCoins? Domain names? IP addresses? MPLS labels? The Internet is ripe with instances of partitioning a particular information space into ownable subsets.Ed Ucationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15375062362847706272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-12497764772573262013-04-05T10:39:12.457-04:002013-04-05T10:39:12.457-04:00Rothbard says what I've already held without r...Rothbard says what I've already held without reading what he wrote: Copyright is lawful, Patents are not. A process can be arrived at any number of ways independent of the first arrival. Copyright cannot. It is an exact duplicate with no new functions. <br /><br />Samsung violated copyright by outright copying the iphone with minor differences and should be punished. Samsung also violated James Hancockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00691491559386497208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-877803754300031602013-04-05T09:09:45.828-04:002013-04-05T09:09:45.828-04:00I simply like Bastiat's theory of property muc...I simply like Bastiat's theory of property much more than Kinsella's.<br /><br />This might come as a surprise to you, but I think Kinsella is wrong.Nick Badalamentihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14015961786370759940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-9689731811786822932013-04-05T09:08:46.518-04:002013-04-05T09:08:46.518-04:00Welcome to the club. It means you are on the right...Welcome to the club. It means you are on the right track.<br />More importantly though, it shows how weak Kinsella's arguments truly are.<br /><br />I think the last thing left as another commenter posted in another write up here on EPJ is the addressing of the definition of property.<br /><br />That's is going to be pretty tough because they are no less than 10 heavy thinkers that have Nick Badalamentihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14015961786370759940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-39682284520148478242013-04-05T08:10:44.104-04:002013-04-05T08:10:44.104-04:00Gets what right? He just declares it to be propert...Gets what right? He just declares it to be property without actually saying why. He makes an arbitrary distinction between patents and copyrights (that because the state confers the patent it's illegitimate, but if you claim it yourself it somehow becomes legit). <br /><br />Look, this is a shock for most, but Rothbard wasn't right or complete on everything. Nor is this "rothbard Jt$https://www.blogger.com/profile/06177716140194915257noreply@blogger.com