If this weren’t the case, then why would inventors be so eager to get patents before someone else “scoops” them?

This applies far more to patents than to copyright, but it even applies, to some degree, to copyright: we, as humans, pull ideas from our culture and training, and then re-configure them to our own desire. As a result, independent convergence on an idea happens surprisingly often! While it doesn’t happen word-for-word in literature, it sometimes happens idea-for-idea. One author, I can’t remember his name, mentioned how he would be working on a story that would similar to one that Heinlein would publish, just before he got to publish his.

We even see it in newspapers: when one cartoon is similar to another one just published weeks ago, it’s usually *not* the result of copying–indeed, these things sometimes are submitted weeks in advance, so copying isn’t *possible*–it’s usually because these two cartoonists got the same idea, around the same time.

And sometimes simultaneous discovery results in lawsuits, both in patent law and in copyright law.

Now, there’s been a bit of discussion on what “homesteading” an idea would be. How do you claim an idea for yourself? You study it. You ponder it. You dissect it. You internalize it. You memorize it. You extend it. You try to find flaws in it. Only when you do all these things, and more, can you lay claim to it.

If you recite a poem, a speech, or a short story from memory, you internalize it. If you want to refute something, or to use something to back up your own ideas, you quote it. If you want to share a passage from a novel with a friend, to get that friend interested in the work, you photocopy it. *Heck*, if you just want to read a novel, you just check it out from the library and read it–even though, by doing this, you subvert the “economic rights” of the novelist. And all this is likely to be covered under “fair use”–which shows how arbitrary copyright law is like *nothing* else, hence the term “likely”.

I am a mathematician who has homesteaded many ideas found in linear algebra, topology, and quaternions–and even a few in using these for computer graphics. I’ve spent many years, and am in heavy debt, to obtain this knowledge. I have heard rumors that using these things for computer graphics may be patented–and thus, programs I have written, and may write in the future, may infringe on these patents.

Who are *you* to tell *me* that I can’t use ideas I homesteaded in my own work, just because someone went and patented them? It doesn’t matter if I could drudge up prior art: I cannot afford a patent attorney!

Stephan, isn’t this more than a bit of an overstatement? Is IP impossible in a free-market? Is is antithetical to capitalism to invest in protecting ideas?

“Typical of IP advocates. They are either stupid or dishonest.”

I am tempted to say something flip by mirroring you, but I’ll bite my tongue, and simply say that this is utterly unhelpful, and that I hope you fell at least a little chagrin that you damage our community and your cause in this way.

Yours in striking at the root,

Tom

SKinsella: can you give a single example of this EVER happening?

Stephan, isn’t what Tocsel described precisely the commercial practice for publishing in the US and other countries before copyright and treaties? I understand that US publishers frequently freely copied and republished English books without permission or knowledge of the author or original publishing house.

TT

If it is Truth, as Peter seems to believe, then why, after all these years, has it not been resolved once and for all.

Why has what not been resolved once and for all? I thought that everybody sane agrees with the principle of non-contradiction. Without the principle of non-contradiction it is impossible to refute claims, so a debate is pointless. What, however, often happens, is that the debaters don’t agree on other assumptions.

Words are ultimately vague at some level, just like a law is vague at some level.

Yes, this is correct. but that still does not invalidate that contradictions don’t exist. It only explains that if two people appear to be in disagreement, it does not necessarily mean that they are in disagreement, but could also mean that they are merely talking about unrelated things.

This is an obvious truth concerning the approximation of the interpretation of reality by human cognition and expression.

And?

If all the realities of the human experience could be reduced to a formal proof in the context of mathematics, it would be obvious to everyone who tried.

Actually, my approach is the opposite. I’m a falsificationist. I’m looking for disproof rather than proof.

There is an infinite number of ways of interpreting phenomena. It is pointless to debate which of them, in isolation, is “correct”. However, we can take a set of such interpretations and attempt to determine whether the assumptions in that set are in a contradiction vis-a-vis each other or not. If it is impossible to determine that, than what we have is not a scientific theory. If there is a contradiction, then you have a false theory, if there is not, then you have a falsifiable but not yet falsified theory.

If the defence of your position is that all claims are vague, you are shooting yourself in the foot, because then debate cannot result in one of us persuading the other that they are wrong. Paradoxically, this approach only proves the futility of your posts: either you are wrong, or you can’t persuade your opponents that they are wrong. The same approach that grants you the absolute defence also makes your offence powerless. Maybe someone could make that into anime: Zettai bougyou, muda no kougeki. It would either terribly suck or be totally hilarious.

The fact that you claim tautology doesn’t make it so.

So, instead of confronting your opponent, you say that you disagree with his interpretation. Now it finally makes sense.

“Throughout this threat you have adopted the general strategy of “I you don’t already understand what I mean, they you can’t grasp it.”

I disagree, but let’s see where this leads.

“Peter has relentless asked you to define your terms, mostly to remove vagueness from your propositions, and your response every time has been something equivalent to, “I’m using the obvious definition and if you don’t understand it, that’s your problem”.

I am apparently not the only person here who has trouble following Perter Surda, if that is who you are referring to.

Let me make this clear. Are you familiar with Aristotle’s Principle of Non-Contradiction? That is Peter’s mantra. The philosophical debate surrounding that principle has been going on since he articulated it. If it is Truth, as Peter seems to believe, then why, after all these years, has it not been resolved once and for all.

The answer is simple. If I make a simple statement, “My father is old”, you can either take a plain understanding of the meaning, or you can refuse to do that by pointing out the vagueness of the words. What does “my” mean? Define your terms. How “old” is old? To such a response, communication is impossible. Words are ultimately vague at some level, just like a law is vague at some level. This is an obvious truth concerning the approximation of the interpretation of reality by human cognition and expression. Sorry, but I didn’t invent reality.

Peter Surda is a software engineer. That makes him a mathematician, of sorts. If all the realities of the human experience could be reduced to a formal proof in the context of mathematics, it would be obvious to everyone who tried. It cannot, except for very limited formalized expressions like 1+1=2. That kind of statement can be proven to always, in all circumstances, yield the same result. Certain economic postulations can be reduced to a formal proof, as can the theory of Relativity.

Narratives concerning complex levels of perception and expression don’t work like that. So, in my opinion it is childish to answer every statement with a demand to “define your terms” and then to complain that they lack mathematical precision.

It is possible to rely on the common understanding of the English language, and ask for clarification when it impedes communication. It is not necessary to re-define every word. What is important is communication.

“This is similar to the other strategy you use which is to claim that the current form of enforced IP law answers all of these conceptual difficulties, and it’s apparently my burden to go find where in the IP law these answers exist. This is the same thing: if you don’t already believe me, then you are wrong and it’s not my job to set you right.”

You are wrong about this, in my opinion. If you ask me to define how “substantial similarity” works in the application of copyright law, I can say, “it works like this”, and point you to the language of the law that describes how it operates. I could take the time to explain it to you by retyping the scheme here, but you and others have made it clear that you give no authority to the source, since it is merely “statist aggression”, or whatever. So why should I bother to go to the trouble to lay it out for you, especially if you could read a couple of paragraphs of text and get it yourself? Do you see the problem?

“Kid Salami was doing a better job but he appears to have given up by saying, “you’re 180 degrees backwards, don’t you see that?” No…”

At some point, I am not responsible for your inability to understand. Kid was making an obvious observation about how Peter had cause and effect backwards. Peter was saying something like the copy had an effect (or no effect) on the original. What is correct is that that the original is the cause of the copy. That is why copying is tied to the property rights of the original, not the other way around.

“It’s all circular reasoning: IP as defined as what it is. It is justified the way it is justified. It has to exist because nothing would work if it didn’t exist. Counterfeiting means counterfeiting and if you don’t understand that then too bad. Economic rights mean what they obviously mean. Property rights are property rights.”

The fact that you claim tautology doesn’t make it so. Pick one “fallacy” and argue with me. I’m game.

“I’ll do what I always do, which is present my path to anti-IP as concisely as possible:”

I’m bracing myself for defeat…

“What is there “property” and why are there “property rights”? The answer is because of rivalry. There exist actions that actors want to commit, but there are times that multiple actors want to commit actions that are conflicting: one person committing this action means another person cannot be committing this action. A simple example of such “rivalry” is a piece of food, and two people that want to eat it.”

Despite the awkward grammar, I get it. Things that are scarce can’t be used and controlled by the same person at the same time.

If I assert that “original works of authorship” are scarce, whatever that means, then it is property according to our definition, right?

“Any other proposition of a property right will either be redundant (restate the homestead principle) or conflicting (contradict the homestead principle).”

So we agree then? Creating an original work of authorship is an act of homesteading a scarce resource, and therefore you accept that there are legitimate property rights associated with this act?

“IP is not a part of this system for several reasons”

Ooops. I guess not.

“The first is that ideas are always non-rivalrous.”

Irrelevant for two reasons: First, “original works” are not “ideas” and it is an equivocation to claim they are. Second, no IP law seeks to protect ideas, and in fact the language of the law itself specifically and explicitly excludes idea and other things considered to be in the public domain. How do you reconcile your position with this simple, verifiable fact?

“That the first user acquires ownership implies unavoidably that no other later user can acquire ownership (without the current owner voluntarily transferring ownership). “

You have just restated the essence of IP laws. Certainly you would agree then that authors of an original work (original means no one else has owned it before) acquires ownership rights in his work. What’s the problem?

If one comes under ownership of a blank tape, for example, so long as he did not steal it from a store and that the store did not steal it from the manufacturer, etc. then he is now the owner. Another person claiming partial ownership over this blank tape by insisting what can be stored on it cannot avoid conflicting with the first person’s claim to ownership. “

This is where you get all balled up. IP law does not give the holder of IP rights power over your tape. So you own your tape. You can use it however you wish, with the exception of certain prohibited uses. For example, you cannot use it to strangle your neighbor. It is still your tape, which the prosecutor would find convenient to his case. He would NOT claim at trial that your neighbor owns your tape. That would be dumb and inaccurate. He would claim that you used your tape for a prohibited purpose.

Another prohibited purpose is that of fixing the property of another on your tape in specific ways and for specific purposes, say bootlegging movies. Other than that, you can be as creative as you wish with your own tape.

“The anti-IP side has dodged this clear conflict between IP rights and property rights by saying, “You can’t use your property to violate other property”.”

As anyone who takes an honest look can plainly see, what you are saying above makes perfect sense, and in fact is wholly consistent with the way ALL property rights operate.

“This is of course true, and is completely off-topic.”

Huh? How is it off topic? It seems central to the anti-IP argument to me.

“It is a misunderstanding of the situation, and also an assumption of the desired conclusion, to draw an analogy between a person not being able to use *his* blank tape to copy recordings and a person not being able to use *his* body to rob others.”

Well, I do agree that someone here misunderstands the situation. In both cases you use as examples, actions that one takes with his own property conflicts with the rights of others. Since it is a conflict of uses, “we” have to pick who is going to win out. I prefer the non-violent road. So let’s make a rule. I will call it the “non-aggression principle”. The person who is minding his own business prevails over the one whose acts positively impact the other’s rights. So the copier and the robber lose.

“The reason is that why a person cannot make any use of his body is because some of those uses violate the property rights of others. If I break your blank tape, I have committed aggression by destroying your property.”

See? You get that, you just refuse to apply it to the specific case of IP, for no good reason.

“But when we try to apply this to IP, we end up having to accept that creative authors gain ownership claims over every possible recording device (even human brains, a problem I will address shortly).”

This is fantasy. Allow me to demonstrate. If I own a house, then is it fair, (using your terminology) to say that I have an ownership claim to all of the feed in the world that could be used to trespass on my property? That is ridiculous. What I could say is that I have a right to prevent ANYONE from trespassing on my property. Whatever particular pair of feet trespasses will be the ones I focus on. I will not claim that I own that person’s feet, I will just stop him from violating my rights. Hopefully, I can figure out a way to do that non-violently, which is more convenient and cheaper for me, in the long run.

“For if a person is not allowed to use *his* recording device to copy recordings, this can only be because an act destroys or trespasses on the property of the creative author. This is only possible if the creative author owns the blank tape, the only thing that has changed in the process. Otherwise, apparently a person is not allowed to use *his* recording device because it will affect *his* property. It becomes no categorically different from a person not being allowed to take drugs.”

I can follow your reasoning here, but it is fallacious. By analogy, if a person is not allowed to use his baseball bat to bash in the brains of another, it is only because all brains that could be bashed actually own the bat. Does that make sense to you?

The purpose of property rights is to hang out a sign that says, “This is my property. I will protect unauthorized uses of it.” No need to own a piece of everything that could potentially violate my rights. I can just wait until someone aggresses on my rights and defend from that specific act. Doesn’t that seem more logical to you?

“It conflicts with homesteading that a creative author gains ownership claims over recording devices by authorship, so this possibility is out. The other possibility is that by copying onto my blank tape, I violate some other property right of the creative author, which could only be his rights in his “ideas”, but this fails the rivalry test and there simply is no such thing as rights in ideas.”

These are all conclusions you reach by starting with a false premise; that “IP” is equivalent to “ideas” and that “IP” cannot be scarce. I hope you can now see that these are both false.

“Thus there is no way to actually establish that a person using his blank tape to copy a recording, even if he sells it for a profit, is an act of aggression against any other owned property, because the only actual property it even affects is the blank tape, and this is either owned by the creative author or the person who bought the tape, not both.”

o repeat, the tape is not owned by both, and the IP is not owned by both. Problem solved.

“The most important point I am making is that there is *no analogy* between the “limitations” on physical property rights, which exist only because surpassing those limits would violate other physical property rights, and the limitation on physical property rights IP implies.”

I agree, this is your most important point. It is not an analogy and it is not correct. IP is an actual property right, and therefore operates in ways that are very similar to ALL property rights.

“It is an error to draw parallels here, because there are no conceivable property rights in ideas, so IP must be a redistribution of physical property rights”

Just in case you missed the point about equivocation.

“This is why Wildberry has turned to circular reasoning, because if we broke this down into simpler terms the fallacy will be immediately exposed.”

That was entertaining and illuminating. As O’Riley likes to say, “Let’s let the folks decide.”

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I have just a few comments:

“Austrians oppose coercive state interventions that favor some while stifling others. While some want to do away with the state entirely, I believe it is more productive to focus on the most significant state interventions.”

I think that ancaps and minarchists could cooperate in this regard. It seems a choice between doing nothing (i.e. even opposition to voting) because the whole government structure is going to collapse anyway, or doing something now. If we decided to do something, it seems rational to pick on the most egregious State interventions first. If we were really intelligent about it, we would identify those issues which have a low threshold to change while making a truly significant difference, or a high threshold for change that are game-changers, like real banking reform for example. If it got down to a point where we had accomplished minarchism and ancaps wanted to keep going, we could part company then. Before that point, it seems unnessary to be adversaries.

“I would certainly agree with Stephan that IP is one the state’s significant and now increasingly counterproductive interventions. In this sense, State-created IP is far more than simply ‘simply a vehicle that is useful in the analysis of these conflicts.’”

You are reading a little too much in my comment. I am saying the discussions here at mises.org are a vehicle for understanding principles upon which we may oppose harmful state interventions. Mercantile/State collusion is harmful and should be eliminated.

“Let me disagree slightly: while we DO have an unproductive debate, Stephan and others are very right to point to ways that current state IP is extremely abusive and wasteful, and that the problem is growing. Yes, some may exaggerate.”

Yes, it is always appropriate to give examples that support one’s position. However, if your examples support a position that is based on an inaccurate or unfair reading of the law, then it creates confusion among those who take SK at his word, given his expertise as an IP lawyer. It seems to me that if the examples are representative of some abuse, then that argument is not diminished by being honest about what the existing law actually is and how it operates.

As an example, it is common here to base an anti-IP argument on the premise that “ideas are free”, while as SK knows, both copyright and patent laws explicitly exclude ideas from protection. To even imply otherwise fosters confusion and undermines real understanding of the problem.

“Far from arguing with people’s rather visceral senses of what is right and wrong, Austrians should be directing such impulses to protect ideas into voluntary and non-statist avenues.”

Exactly. I really like your view about how principles of property rights arise as a result of the human need to cooperate with one another. That is why people HAVE a visceral objection to the assertion that there are no IP rights. It grates against a common-sense understanding of right and wrong. This point is articulated beautifully in a paper (and book) by Kathleen Touchstone. Are you familiar with her?

“Sadly, I think you have a point. That is why I trouble Stephan by commenting here — I expect and hope for more from this particular community of libertarians.”

Likewise, although I have noticed lately that more voices are coming to the fore in support of IP, perhaps because the are seeing that there is no reason to be intimidated by rude behavior.

“Not sure how long you’ve been commenting here, but you’re certainly welcome, from my point of view.”

About a year or so. It’s a pleasure corresponding with you. Thank you.

Throughout this threat you have adopted the general strategy of “I you don’t already understand what I mean, they you can’t grasp it.”

Peter has relentless asked you to define your terms, mostly to remove vagueness from your propositions, and your response every time has been something equivalent to, “I’m using the obvious definition and if you don’t understand it, that’s your problem”.

This is similar to the other strategy you use which is to claim that the current form of enforced IP law answers all of these conceptual difficulties, and it’s apparently my burden to go find where in the IP law these answers exist. This is the same thing: if you don’t already believe me, then you are wrong and it’s not my job to set you right.

Kid Salami was doing a better job but he appears to have given up by saying, “you’re 180 degrees backwards, don’t you see that?” No…

It’s all circular reasoning: IP as defined as what it is. It is justified the way it is justified. It has to exist because nothing would work if it didn’t exist. Counterfeiting means counterfeiting and if you don’t understand that then too bad. Economic rights mean what they obviously mean. Property rights are property rights.

I’ll do what I always do, which is present my path to anti-IP as concisely as possible:

What is there “property” and why are there “property rights”? The answer is because of rivalry. There exist actions that actors want to commit, but there are times that multiple actors want to commit actions that are conflicting: one person committing this action means another person cannot be committing this action. A simple example of such “rivalry” is a piece of food, and two people that want to eat it.

Thus conflicts will arise. Conflicts can be solved by might (coercion) or by argumentation, and these two are the only possible solutions to a conflict. If neither might nor argumentation is employed, the conflict will still exist. Property rights constitute the set of arguments concerning what behavior is justifiable and not, and by to the nature of this an “ethical argument” is, as any argument is, constrained by the “a priori of argumentation.” One cannot, in the process of an ethical argument, deny what is necessary for one to be able to argue. In particular, one could not argue if another commits aggression on him, and so this establishes “non-aggression” as the axiom of property rights. Furthermore, one must be able to homestead resources by recognizing them as scarce (i.e. means for an action) and mixing their labor with them. If one could not do this one could not acquire ownership of one’s body, and one could not argue.

Can we be sure this captures the totality of property rights? Yes!! “What if there are other types of property rights?” There cannot be, because this observation describes exhaustively what situations will necessitate property rights and which will not. Any other proposition of a property right will either be redundant (restate the homestead principle) or conflicting (contradict the homestead principle).

IP is not a part of this system for several reasons. The first is that ideas are always non-rivalrous. There is no such thing as a conflict over use of an idea, only conflict over scarce resources like recording media. Thus IP can only be a claim of ownership to scarce resources that is different from, and therefore contradictory to, the homestead principle. That the first user acquires ownership implies unavoidably that no other later user can acquire ownership (without the current owner voluntarily transferring ownership). If one comes under ownership of a blank tape, for example, so long as he did not steal it from a store and that the store did not steal it from the manufacturer, etc. then he is now the owner. Another person claiming partial ownership over this blank tape by insisting what can be stored on it cannot avoid conflicting with the first person’s claim to ownership. Two people cannot own the same thing. Either the person who bought the blank tape owns it, or the person who makes storable creative works owns it.

The anti-IP side has dodged this clear conflict between IP rights and property rights by saying, “You can’t use your property to violate other property”. This is of course true, and is completely off-topic. It is a misunderstanding of the situation, and also an assumption of the desired conclusion, to draw an analogy between a person not being able to use *his* blank tape to copy recordings and a person not being able to use *his* body to rob others.

The reason is that why a person cannot make any use of his body is because some of those uses violate the property rights of others. If I break your blank tape, I have committed aggression by destroying your property.

But when we try to apply this to IP, we end up having to accept that creative authors gain ownership claims over every possible recording device (even human brains, a problem I will address shortly). For if a person is not allowed to use *his* recording device to copy recordings, this can only be because an act destroys or trespasses on the property of the creative author. This is only possible if the creative author owns the blank tape, the only thing that has changed in the process. Otherwise, apparently a person is not allowed to use *his* recording device because it will affect *his* property. It becomes no categorically different from a person not being allowed to take drugs.

It conflicts with homesteading that a creative author gains ownership claims over recording devices by authorship, so this possibility is out. The other possibility is that by copying onto my blank tape, I violate some other property right of the creative author, which could only be his rights in his “ideas”, but this fails the rivalry test and there simply is no such thing as rights in ideas.

Thus there is no way to actually establish that a person using his blank tape to copy a recording, even if he sells it for a profit, is an act of aggression against any other owned property, because the only actual property it even affects is the blank tape, and this is either owned by the creative author or the person who bought the tape, not both. A creative author never homesteaded or was traded the blank tape, so he patently does *not* have any ownership claims over the blank tape and thus cannot claim to have suffered aggression upon the owner of the blank tape copying a recording onto it.

The only possible way “I can’t make every use of my body, for example killing” can have any relation to “I can’t make every use of my blank tape, for example copying” is if we accept that copying violates the property rights of others which implies that creative authors have ownership claims in every possible recording device. This includes every human brain, which means a creative author would have ownership claims over every person’s brain, and one would be violating IP by simply overhearing a protected idea (an act of copying) and inadvertently storing it in one’s memory.

The most important point I am making is that there is *no analogy* between the “limitations” on physical property rights, which exist only because surpassing those limits would violate other physical property rights, and the limitation on physical property rights IP implies. It is an error to draw parallels here, because there are no conceivable property rights in ideas, so IP must be a redistribution of physical property rights that necessarily conflicts with the homesteading principle and pulls the rug out from under the entire theory of property rights at all.

This is why Wildberry has turned to circular reasoning, because if we broke this down into simpler terms the fallacy will be immediately exposed. There is no theory of property rights that incorporates IP without contradicting itself, and this is obfuscated by taking the basis of property rights as “given” or “obvious” so as to avoid explicitly saying what must be directly contradicted in adding IP rights to this system.

—Change, reform, revolution, whatever form of change one advocates, is best aimed at those specific conflicts. This ongoing debate about IP is simply a vehicle that is useful in the analysis of these conflicts.

Austrians oppose coercive state interventions that favor some while stifling others. While some want to do away with the state entirely, I believe it is more productive to focus on the most significant state interventions.

I would certainly agree with Stephan that IP is one the state’s significant and now increaasingly counterproductive interventions. In this sense, State-created IP is far more than simply ‘simply a vehicle that is useful in the analysis of these conflicts.’

—I criticize SK and many of his followers about not granting a fair reading of IP laws in stating their opposition. As a result of this practice, much confusion results about what IP is, why it is tied to the same ethical principles, and in the same way, as any other legitimate agreement between cooperating humans. This in turn results in a non-productive debate, and little progress towards the obvious goal of coming together here on what and how to target desired change.

Let me disagree slightly: while we DO have an unproductive debate, Stephan and others are very right to point to ways that current state IP is extremely abusive and wasteful, and that the problem is growing. Yes, some may exaggerate.

But the REAL problem is that Stephan wrongly seems to feel that he has to attack ALL IP in order to round up opposition to STATE IP. But the two are entirely different; Austrians should not insist that, without state IP, there will be no free-market mechanisms and institutins that will arise to protect ideas. or that any such mecahisms, voluntarily agreed, would be ‘unprincipled’. Far from arguing with people’s rather visceral senses of what is right and wrong, Austrians should be directing such impulses to protect ideas into voluntary and non-statist avenues.

—This makes us pretty ineffective agents for change. This is one explanation for why the libertarian political movement is so ineffective, in my view.

Sadly, I think you have a point. That is why I trouble Stephan by commenting here — I expect and hope for more from this particular community of libertarians.

Not sure how long you’ve been commenting here, but you’re certainly welcome, from my point of view.

TT

Mises called property a “human device”, and I have been repeating that here in support of the notion that humans agree what property is in order to facilitate the goal of cooperation, which is the very definition of society. The ways we choose, if rational, are designed to achieve goals which we seek to achieve. By “we”, I am referring to humans bound together in a society.

Excvept the Austrian would point out that ‘we’ don’t choose as a whole, individuals make their own choices, typically based on building blocks constructed by others but also including subconscious and cultural ones.

a “good” economic theory leads us effectively to the outcomes we desire.

Therefore the operation of property rights and the economic policies employed to achieve desirable social goals should align.

The Austrian/libertarian view is that governments shouldn’t be consciously striving to employ any ‘economic policies’ to achieve any ‘desirable social goals”, as these are the objective of differening individuals all with differeing preferences, and that the state mainly just gets in the way, enabling kleptocracy and incompetence and creating rigidities.

Identifying those areas where the operation of laws and government conflict with the preferred system of economic policies is one way (a very good way) to navigate among the myriad of legal and political issues that most who post here agree are not producing the outcomes we desire.

An Austrian/libertarian would agree only in the limited sense that ‘the preferred system of economic policies’ is to get government out of the way. People of more limited ambition like me would say that we should focus first on rolling back the most destructive and outrageous (reflecting a shared social sense that too much ‘theft’ and disruption is ‘too much’!) government interventions. Such an effort requires building a community of people who have shared purposes – even if the shared purposes may not share precisely the same ‘principles’.

Change, reform, revolution, whatever form of change one advocates, is best aimed at those specific conflicts. This ongoing debate about IP is simply a vehicle that is useful in the analysis of these conflicts.

I criticize SK and many of his followers about not granting a fair reading of IP laws in stating their opposition. As a result of this practice, much confusion results about what IP is, why it is tied to the same ethical principles, and in the same way, as any other legitimate agreement between cooperating humans. This in turn results in a non-productive debate, and little progress towards the obvious goal of coming together here on what and how to target desired change.

Let me disagree slightly: while we DO have an unproductive debate, Stephan and others are very right to point to ways that current state IP is extremely abusive and wasteful, and that the problem is growing. Yes, some may exaggerate.

But the REAL problem is that Stephan wrongly seems to feel that he has to attack ALL IP in order to round up opposition to STATE IP. But the two are entirely different; Austrians should not insist that, without state IP, there will be no free-market mechanisms and institutins that will arise to protect ideas. or that any such mecahisms, voluntarily agreed, would be ‘unprincipled’. Far from arguing with people’s rather visceral senses of what is right and wrong, Austrians should be directing such impulses to protect ideas into voluntary and non-statist avenues.

This makes us pretty ineffective agents for change. This is one explanation for why the libertarian political movement is so ineffective, in my view.

Sadly, I think you have a point. That is why I trouble Stephan by commenting here — I expect and hope for more from this particular community of libertarians.

Not sure how long you’ve been commenting here, but you’re certainly welcome, from my point of view.

TT

Yes!!! This is what I love about Austrian economics. If you have a problem, there is definitely a better solution to it than sticking a gun in someone’s face.

Besides, it’s only natural that the producers of creative works should oppose free advertising of their creations. Turns out advertising actually hurts producers!

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-commons-tragedy-or-triumph/

Now, to address your specific points:

no matter what your assumptions are, if they are contradictory with respect to each other, your position is wrong.

Okay, but what ‘assumptions’ of mine are you referring to?

You are saying that as society evolves, people create rules of conduct and some of them are mandated by the use of force. Because there is a demand for “IP”, it is possible that people will include “IP” in these rules.

A nuance: the underpinnings of property are not deliberately created rules at all, but evolved and shared viscerally felt understandings, as well as culture. It is on this foundation that some mebers of society may consciously build rules that the rest of scoiety may adopt – in which case, our senses of right and wrong kick in.

no matter how the rules are constructed, as long as they are self-contradictory, they cannot be based on correct reasoning.

My position is that most ‘property’ is not consciously constructed at all. There are some deliberate choices involving one or more persons, in which case they rely on the respective preferences of the people involved, not MY assumptions. But yes, some (many!) deliberately made rules can be based on incorrect reasoning – in which case the rules ultimately fail.

It … does not actually explain what IP is.

In my view, IP encompasses various ways that societies protect ideas – from simple personal private protection of them to agreed protection among company employees, to agreed protection by contracting users, to devices/techniques that restrict copying, to feelings and community morals that copying is wrong without permission, to various types of sanctions, such as being expelled from a particular community and other moral sanction.

‘IP’ does NOT require a state.

Does this help?

TT

In your posted link you said this:

“To the extent we’re past that, which is quite a ways indeed, property is a social construct that is flexible (though rigidified in various ways, including legislation) and based primarily on practical considerations as to what parameters best engender wealth and respond to shared purposes by minimizing free-for-alls, externalities, free-riding & rent-seeking and facilitating voluntary transactions.”

Mises called property a “human device”, and I have been repeating that here in support of the notion that humans agree what property is in order to facilitate the goal of cooperation, which is the very definition of society. The ways we choose, if rational, are designed to achieve goals which we seek to achieve. By “we”, I am referring to humans bound together in a society.

The connection between this and economic theory is that a “good” economic theory leads us effectively to the outcomes we desire. In this context, I have come to believe that the Austrian theory is superior to others. Therefore the operation of property rights and the economic policies employed to achieve desirable social goals should align.

Identifying those areas where the operation of laws and government conflict with the preferred system of economic policies is one way (a very good way) to navigate among the myriad of legal and political issues that most who post here agree are not producing the outcomes we desire.

Change, reform, revolution, whatever form of change one advocates, is best aimed at those specific conflicts. This ongoing debate about IP is simply a vehicle that is useful in the analysis of these conflicts. For this reason, I criticize SK and many of his followers about not granting a fair reading of IP laws in stating their opposition. As a result of this practice, much confusion results about what IP is, why it is tied to the same ethical principles, and in the same way, as any other legitimate agreement between cooperating humans. This in turn results in a non-productive debate, and little progress towards the obvious goal of coming together here on what and how to target desired change.

This makes us pretty ineffective agents for change. This is one explanation for why the libertarian political movement is so ineffective, in my view.

It appears from what I’ve read of your comments, you would generally agree with my views. I would be interested in your comments on this.

I am afraid that you still do not address my objection. The objection is indifferent to the exact definition of property. It merely points out that no matter what your assumptions are, if they are contradictory with respect to each other, your position is wrong. Even if you change the assumptions, as long as they continue to contradict each other, you remain in error.

I’m sorry but I don’t have the time to read your whole article, so I’ll just make a summary based on what I think it says. Please correct me with I’m wrong. You are saying that as society evolves, people create rules of conduct and some of them are mandated by the use of force. Because there is a demand for “IP”, it is possible that people will include “IP” in these rules.

I have no problem with this construct. But it goes too far ahead of the argument. First of all, it does not address the problem that no matter how the rules are constructed, as long as they are self-contradictory, they cannot be based on correct reasoning. It also does not address my second objection (which I mentioned elsewhere) in that it does not actually explain what IP is.

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/12/20/what-is-quot-property-quot-a-few-weird-thoughts-on-evolution-society-quot-property-rights-quot-and-quot-intellectual-property-quot-and-the-principles-we-structure-to-justify-them.aspx

Seems to me that humans and the societies they live in have rather flexible views of what is ‘property’, and it is easy to understand the choices in a utilitarian light; that is, resources that are given protection are those that are relatively more important and relatively more easily protected. What can be easily defended personally (and by relatives or employees) may be ‘personal’ property, while other property that requires cooperation may be community property or property in which individuals have limited personal rights and corresponding responsibilities, but in all cases people carry a shared sense of what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ — that is, a shared sense of what is ‘property’, whom it belongs to and what that means in terms of rights and obligations.

Intellectual property and physical property are not very different in these regards in our own society, and both would be likely to arise and exist in one form or another even without a state. In cases of both physical property and IP, what is considered property will be based on the relative values placed on those who control such resources and those who wish to be able to make use of them – that is, on the purely utilitarian considerations of the people involved. If those generating ideas wish to control their use by others and others find such ideas valuable, then they will come to mutually agreeable terms of use – such as a contract as to whether a book may be duplicated or shared, or the terms under which manufacturing know-how will be made available. No express social ‘utilitarian’ agreements are needed, though general/widely-accepted norms may of course arise.

Is this something that makes sense to you?

FWIW, my own view is that largely it is the material goods that are an interpretation of the immaterial ones (viz., people’s values and ideas) rather than the other way around.

TT

Counterfeiting is a verb. One normally understand that one who COUNTERFITS is a COUNTERFEITER. Therefore CONTERFITING refers to the acts of the COUNTERFEITER Those who experience its negative impacts are CONSUMERS, the victims of CONTERFEITING.

So, if A writes a novel, and X produces a copy and sells it to Y, the A is the consumer of this transaction? Really? What logic did you use to arrive to that conslusion?

Now, who is the AUTHOR?

Who’s the consumer?

Again, your argument boils down to someone not liking what others are doing. You did not explain what this has to do with counterfeiting. You can replace the word base “counterfeit” in the previous sentence with any other arbitrary term that has a negative connotation, and the term “consumer” with any other term that refers to someone who dislikes what is happening. The expressive value of the paragraph would remain the same and be equally useless as well as irrelevant to the debate at hand.

English, it’s a wonderful invention; you should try it.

You should try adding logic into using English.

The only thing?

From economic point of view, yes.

Price inflation is an effect of counterfeiting, which increase the supply of money.

The supply of money is in interpretation of the relationships in economy, rather than a phenomenon separate from the economy. If the supply increases and is not accompanied by a proportionate increase of the goods available in the economy, Austrians call this inflation.
Futhermore, inflation in the Austrian sense does not require counterfeiting, so your logic in your sentence is flawed. If there is no legal obligation to treat the extra money the same way, there is still monetary inflation although there is no counterfeiting. Like you say, an increase in the money supply is eventually countered by the decrease of market value of that money (which is what corresponds to your term price inflation).

Now, what does this have to do with the problem at hand in the first place?

Inflation also increases the scope of the economy in terms of the measurement of economic activity in units of dollars, for example, say GDP.

But GDP is also only an interpretation of the status of the economy based on units of value.

If you are saying that it does none of those things because the universe is finite, or some other form of navel-gazing, well…you are something accusing me of avoiding clarity.

You are making the same assertion all over again but never prove it. You are claiming that if you can use two different terms, it logically follows that they refer to two separate phenomena. That is a non-sequitur. It only follows if the two terms can occur independently of each other. Again, if you were correct, it should be trivial to prove that.

Let me ask you the question in most formal way. We have two descriptions, A and B, that refer to some phenomena. How can we determine if they are referring to the same phenomenon, or to different phenomena? My claim is that if they cannot occur independenly, they are referring to the same phenomenon. Apparently, you disagree. So, how else can you determine whether they are different phenomena?

Each passing moment, the economy has a different arrangement of its contents. How does this tautology advance any rational discussion? Your victory is measured by what, again?

The inadequaces of English language appear to be the cause for this misrepresentation of my argument. The different arrangement I am referring to is based on two hypothetical states that would exist in the same time (t2) subsequent to a decision available in a preceding time (t1). Your objection refers to comparing states in different times, t1 and t2. You are talking about something else.

Besides, my point was not to provide a complete definition of a bubble, but to pinpoint the exact spot where your argument is in error. I say that by interpreting two states that have a different distribution of expectations, you cannot draw the conclusion that one of them has a bigger scope. Again, it’s a non-sequitur, you are missing an important condition in your reasoning: one that explains why two different terms are in fact referring to two different phenomena.

You have your analogy 180 degrees backwards – it’s really quite remarkable how you can apply such different logic/criteria to the two situations in the same post – and you have now descended into incoherence.

I believe you are in error. Here are the descriptions in proper formal language:

Situation in the absence of IP: X and Y engage in a behaviour that A does not approve of (copying). Therefore, A calls X a counterfeiter and promotes laws that make such a behaviour illegal.

Situation in the absence of legal tender/some types of FRB: X and Y engange in a behaviour that B does not approve of (they trade the money B has produced at a discount). Therefore B enacts a law that makes such behaviour illegal. X and or Y call B a counterfeiter.

Now, apart from the obsession with making it illegal for other people to behave in a way one does not approve, where is the analogy? Logically, the term “counterfeit” is used in a different context. In the first example, it is the one wants to prevent “counterfeiting” who is pushing for a new law, in the second example, the one who is accused of “counterfeiting” is pushing the law. It is clear that the phenomena in the first and second example are different. Using the same term to refer to them is a linguistic error.

my argument is that immaterial goods are an interpretation of the material goods, rather than a separate phenomenon. If I was wrong, it would be possible to show an immaterial good which does not contain a material good, or how to interact with an immaterial good without using the material world, or how to act without changing the physical world.

I don’t object to the claim that ideas have values. However, if we assigned property rights to them, we would need to sacrifice a proportional amount of physical property right. If you, in general, accept the concept of physical property rights (which all of IP proponents I debated so far do), then your only defence of IP can be that the rights you are gaining are more important than those that you are losing (= utilitarianism).