Seems Rand viewed property like Marx as some mystical, magical right which comes from ‘creation’ or ‘labor’. I suppose this view of property appeals to many people including Ayn Rand because it seems more ‘just’ and also more ‘romantic’. It is the same emotional appeal that attracts left to taxation, redistribution and socialism – the respect for other people’s rights to do what they want, be selfish etc doesn’t seem ‘just’ or ‘romantic’ enough. The realistic, logically consistent approach to property (first users and voluntary transfers) is also not that appealing to emotions, that’s why even the people who basically get it right (like Ayn Rand) try to pervert it to look more appealing, exciting, ‘just’ or whatever.

Kinsella, I’ll be forthright and say that I’m (horror of horrors!) a minarchist utilitarian. Nevertheless, I agree with you on the desirability (or lack thereof) of I.P and your scarcity argument. My question is, why do my views make me a criminal? … I find it hard to believe that a libertarian would endorse the idea of “thought-crime”. Perhaps “criminalist” might be a better term, as I endorse something you would consider to be “criminal”.

Oh, I was speaking quickly. I suppose you could distinguish those who advocate criminal behavior and actions from those who engage in it. Sure, okay, criminalist is okay.

OTOH, an argument can also be made that criminalists are causally responsible for the crimes the state commits that the criminalists advocate, sort of like aiding and abetting, criminal conspiracy, that sort of thing. That the state would not be able to get away with crimes (like taxation) were it not for the support of criminalists. So in a sense, criminalists are also criminals, or at least some of them arguably are.

Quote:

Socialists often claim that capitalism is based on humanity’s worst impulses, greed and selfishness, despite the fact that people who live in societies that participate in markets tend to be more generous and cooperative than those who don’t. Oswald and Zizzo’s research suggests that socialists who believe that their ideology appeals to humanity’s better instincts have it backwards. Envy is behind the leveling spirit of socialism.

Nothing earth-shattering here, of course, but nice study.

I’m really getting tired of this, and it is due to no error on my part. I have NEVER in this thread, said I disagreed with your conclusions. I don’t think I’ve anywhere on mises.org concluded that there should be IP rights. All I’ve ever said on this site regarding IP are things like “Reasoning X doesn’t establish conclusion Y”, and people never fail to reply with “OMG LOL YOU’RE AGAINST CONCLUSION Y, WTF!!!!!111 j00 R teh communistzor5″ And it gets old. Real old, real fast.

Yes, well, when people refuse to state their position despite requests to do so, and continue to debate a topic nonetheless, they should not be surprised when others are forced to try to interpolate their views.

There is a real easy way out of this: just say what your views are.

Stephan_Kinsella, it doesn’t help when people with sound conclusions attempt to advance them with poor reasoning. Please try to look like you’re making an effort of maintaining a pretense of understanding that. Rather than using this insight, your tactic is to act like I reject your conclusions, then invent the reasoning I use, and then you merrily go about showing how that invented reasoning I never gave is somehow wrong, and how that must make me a Marxist, or, perchance, at the very least a Marxist sympathizer. It doesn’t suit you.

Okay, prove me wrong. But be aware that I do believe all non-anarcho-libertarians to be statist-socialist-criminal to some degree.

I “get” that you recognize only homesteading as establishing first ownership, that it’s indivisible, etc. etc. etc. But AGAIN, those are separate arguments. What is at issue now is the relevance of the scarcity of information in justifying or invalidating IP rights. Each and every time, you invoke your homesteading principle (and the reasoning behind it) to address the flaws I have shown in your invocation of informational non-scarcity to this end.

It’s because I believe the institution of property as a way to address the problem of scarcity–that is, conflict–explains exactly what scarcity is (in this context) and why it is important. These are not isolated issues, Garshnuckle.

Your entire case is founded on the homesteading principle; whether or not information is scarce has absolutely NOTHING to do with your position.

Wrong; homesteading is about what principle decides who owns a given contested THING when there is conflict over it; this of course implies something about the nature of the things over which ownership is to be decided–that they are contestable, for instance; and that whatever ownership-assignment rule be adopted, that its purpose is to resolve the possibility of conflict, so that means it has to be an objectively fair rule etc.

The moment you appeal to the need to resolve conflicts, you cede the relevance of information’s non-scarcity; the competing claims to one particular use (just as to all uses) *is a conflict*.

Dude, as I have said many times: conflict implies scarcity, and vice-versa. Scarcity is another way of saying conflict is possible.

Stephan_Kinsella, it doesn’t help when people with sound conclusions attempt to advance them with poor reasoning. Please try to look like you’re making an effort of maintaining a pretense of understanding that. Rather than using this insight, your tactic is to act like I reject your conclusions, then invent the reasoning I use, and then you merrily go about showing how that invented reasoning I never gave is somehow wrong, and how that must make me a Marxist, or, perchance, at the very least a Marxist sympathizer. It doesn’t suit you.

I “get” that you recognize only homesteading as establishing first ownership, that it’s indivisible, etc. etc. etc. But AGAIN, those are separate arguments. What is at issue now is the relevance of the scarcity of information in justifying or invalidating IP rights. Each and every time, you invoke your homesteading principle (and the reasoning behind it) to address the flaws I have shown in your invocation of informational non-scarcity to this end. This shows that you cannot justify the relevance of information’s non-scarcity. It doesn’t add anything to your case at all. It’s a red-herring. Your entire case is founded on the homesteading principle; whether or not information is scarce has absolutely NOTHING to do with your position. The moment you appeal to the need to resolve conflicts, you cede the relevance of information’s non-scarcity; the competing claims to one particular use (just as to all uses) *is a conflict*.

You are in error to argue as if information’s non-scarcity is relevant, in your JLS paper.

quasibill: I’m not sure what I would say in my reply that I haven’t already said before. You’re not answering my argument, and you’re putting words in my mouth each time. How else can I say it?

I submit that there can be a separate scarcity over different possible uses of it. It could be the case that regarding one possible use, only one person wants that use; on other uses, there may be real conflict. Looking at the scarcity of the food unit as all-or-nothing establishes nothing.

The problem is this view is tantamount to the view that we have to live by permission. That *every* single action we want to take can be defied by some narrow right, and then you have to go make sure you have that right. but there are an infinite number of ways to characterize an action; so your proposal would mean we have to clear our action in an infinite number of ways; we would all die out waiting for permission to act.

For example, just as Rothbard pointed out, there is really no “right to free speech”. There is only a right to decide what you want to do on your own property. one of those things is: you can choose to speak on or with it. The “right to free speech” is only shorthand for one important consequence of having private property rights.

LIkewise, as I have pointed out, if I want to dance on my lawn, i don’t have to find some “right-to-dance-naked”. I just have to show I own the lawn. Your view implies that I do have to find this right, since you are saying someone else can homestead this right. Your view is that I own an object and the uses I have made of it; but I don’t own yet as-yet-unforeseen uses-of my property; these have yet to come into existence; and when they do, the person who thinks of this way-to-use is the homesteader of it. So nothing is taken away from those who own objects, by prohibiting them from using them in this way without the permission of the innovator–because they didn’t have the “right” to do it earlier!

I have been well aware of this way of looking at it for a long time.

I rarely put it explicitly because your side is either too stupid, inarticulate, or unwilling to put your own position this bluntly, and I don’t feel like doing your work for you. But there you have it: and i think it shows how un-libertarian your view is. YOu view these mystical “rights-to-do-X-with-property” as floating around, waiting to be invented or homesteaded. You think that a “right-to-use” either “exists” or “does not exist”; and thus, if it is “created,” the creator, naturally, owns it.

You reason that property owners are no worse off by being prohibited from using these techniques, since in the absence of the creator’s coming up with the idea, the owner could not do it anyway.

But this is not a libertarian argument (and it is just wrong, in the case of patents at least–eventually almost all inventions would be invented by someone and thus usable by people at large; so those who argue for infinite or long patent terms do advocate restriction what people could have done with their property; they ARE made worse off).

Again, unpacking your view this way makes it clear why it is nothing more than question begging. Your view amounts to this: if A writes a novel and sells one of the physical books to B; and B discards it and C finds it: as Rothbard argues, you would argue that C simply has no right to use the plot, since he gains no more title to the book than B had. But this is question-begging since this argument requires you to maintain that you need permission to use your body and property to reproduce the plot of the novel. Which presupposes that ideas are property. Which begs the question.

We do not live and should not live in a totalitarian state where nothing is permitted, where everything is forbidden, except that which is permitted. Liberty means any action (with or on one’s own property) is permitted, *unless* it invades the borders of others’ property.

So you would say that before an idea is created, that people who have property with which the idea could be imprinted or emulated, do not have a right yet to do the idea, since the idea does not exist yet, so the right-to use it cannot yet exist. This implies that we live by permission. It implies that before I scratch my nose I first have to make sure I have a “right-to-scratch-my-nose.” Etc. It’s absurd.

A right to property is the right to use it in any way I see fit, so long as that use is not itself an act of invastion of others’ property borders. I think it is wrong to view proeprty rights as some set or bundle of particular rights–only some of which you originally homestead; others whcih can be homesteaded by others at a later time. It is the other way around: you can do anything with property; you can *view it* as an *infinite* bundle of rights, if that helps you to understand it, but apparently, this bundle of rights approach is yet another dangerous metaphor.

me [in hypothetical argument I don't endorse]: Food is not scarce; there is more than enough to feed everyone.

You: YOu continue to miscontrue “scarce”. Scarcity in the sense used–as I explicitly defined it in my article, and as Hoppe, e.g., uses it in his libertarian property rights theory–refers specifically to the possibility of (violent, physical) conflict over the use of a given resource; it specifically refers to the fact that the use of the good by one person *excludes* others from using it

Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. Look at how I defined “scarce” in the hypothetical argument I don’t endorese but am merely using for illustration. You — rightly — rejected the relevance of such a conception of “scarce”. It doesn’t matter, you say, that “everyone can get food”; the “real” issue is whether any one, specific food-unit is scarce. It *is* scarce, ergo the proper domain of property rights.

Now, what I’m doing is taking this another step, and further sub-dividing that food-unit. Just as you rejected the “scarcity” in looking at the class of all food, I’m rejecting your indivisible look at the class of all possible uses of the food-unit. I submit that there can be a separate scarcity over different possible uses of it. It could be the case that regarding one possible use, only one person wants that use; on other uses, there may be real conflict. Looking at the scarcity of the food unit as all-or-nothing establishes nothing.

Without fail, each time I have made this point, your response is, “but the full rights, to all uses of the resource are already assigned by [...]” Whether true or not, that’s beside the point. The question of whether there exists scarcity in one possible sub-use of the item, is a separate matter from how to assign that sub-use right (which you conclude to be insegregable from the full use-rights). Your argument from scarcity says IP rights are invalid because “information isn’t scarce”. But nobody asserts rights to “the information”. They assert right to its use in other objects. This is a scarcity.

All I’m establishing here is that that particular argument doesn’t help your case, NOT that your conclusion is invalid. (Just as I can agree with you that “Skunks are smelly” without agreeing with you that “The sun being hot implies that skunks are smelly.”)

Do you now agree that the (non-)scarcity of information does not help establish the invalidity of IP rights?

One final request: I ask that you read this post in full before beginning a response, and understand the relevance of each paragraph to the neighboring before responding, so as to ensure we do not talk past each other.

Well, Kinsella has already shredded your first hypo, and shown how it is meaningless.

Now, for the second.

Notice, how every time I’ve talked about “scarce,” I’ve qualified with a term about “the relevant time period.” Again, since you are having problems reading that phrase, scarcity is about the object in a given time. If during that time period, one person’s possession excludes the possibility of another person’s possession of the object, then it is scarce. If two people can possess the object the object for a given time period, it is not scarce.

Your challenges don’t in any way invalidate Kinsella’s theory. They do, however, shred yours to bits. You can argue that scarcity shouldn’t be involved in the decision, but then you’ll have to (after dodging 5 times, at least) answer why I can’t force you to pay for seeing me on the street, on principled grounds. Or at least admit that you don’t have any principled grounds to do so.

To quasibill, Fred_Mann, Albert_Esplugas, Stephan_Kinsella, (the last of whom doesn’t appear to have a counterargument), and anyone else still disagreeing with my refutation of Kinsella’s scarcity argument:

I think your argument is non-serious and incoherent. I think mine makes perfect sense. I don’t have time to reply to every bizarre assertion that others make.

I have explained that “scarce” means “rivalrous”; if you want to reject the concept of rivalrous goods, go ahead; interesting upheaval of economic theory.

There are a couple ways of looking at it. Of course there are never really rights in “ideal objects”; it’s just that the attempt to give rightgs in them *necessarily* really assigns rights to scarce (rivalrous) items. Why? Because giving rights means something enforceable–and force means physical force directed against physical things. So in a sense, you are right: anyone advocating IP is really advocating rights in scarce things: but the scarce things are the material objects owned by other people. You are in favor of assigning a property right in A’s property to B, merely if B thinks of a recipe for the use of A’s property. I call that theft; you call it IP.

You try to squirm out of your advocacy of wealth redistribution, theft, and socialism, by disingenuously asserting that you simply are in favor of property rights in another type of scarce thing, IP, all the while refusing to admit that what this of course means in effect is that you are really granting rights in others’ already-owned property.

Food is not scarce; there is more than enough to feed everyone.

YOu continue to miscontrue “scarce”. Scarcity in the sense used–as I explicitly defined it in my article, and as Hoppe, e.g., uses it in his libertarian property rights theory–refers specifically to the possibility of (violent, physical) conflict over the use of a given resource; it specifically refers to the fact that the use of the good by one person *excludes* others from using it. Thus it means “rivalrous” goods. It most certainly does not refer to the overall plentifulness or lack thereof of a class of goods. Each *particular* good is scarce. there can be a billion gallons of water but if I scoop one out with my bucket and isolat it, *that gallon of water is scarce* since only one of us can use it. This is certainly not true of ideas, which are the archetype of a non-rivalrous good. I think you are just confused and/or disingenuosly using semantics to engage in sophistry.

To feed one person does not come at the cost of feeding anyone else. Ergo, we should not assign special privileges (“property rights”) in food. That would be an act of naked aggression.The above is a hypothetical argument used for illustration. I do not endorse the above argument.

It’s a ridiculous argument. Each particular piece of food is a rivalrous good. If there are banana trees everywhere and billions of them all for free, each banana is a material item and thus it is a rivalrous (scarce) thing. If I have a banana then only I can use or eat it; my use of it excludes yours ,and vice versa. We cannot both use the banana. We could potentially fight over it: that is the potential for conflict. That is why teh banana is scarce. that is why a property rule would be applied to it: to assign to one of us the right to control it–because its nature is that only one person can control it.

Far from being aggression to assign rights in plentiful bananas, the very purpose of assigning property rights is to prevent aggression and violent conflict over given bananas.

This is really not that difficult, and you are clearly not stupid, so I fail to see why you can’t see this.

To quasibill, Fred_Mann, Albert_Esplugas, Stephan_Kinsella, (the last of whom doesn’t appear to have a counterargument), and anyone else still disagreeing with my refutation of Kinsella’s scarcity argument:

Let me try to phrase my point in a different context, to see if it better makes the point. What if I said:

The below is a hypothetical argument used for illustration. I do not endorse the below argument.Capitalists believe there should be property rights in food. This is non-sensical. Food is not scarce; there is more than enough to feed everyone. To feed one person does not come at the cost of feeding anyone else. Ergo, we should not assign special privileges (“property rights”) in food. That would be an act of naked aggression.The above is a hypothetical argument used for illustration. I do not endorse the above argument.

Or, what about this:

The below is a hypothetical argument used for illustration. I do not endorse the below argument.Only possession rights, and not absentee “property rights” are valid rights. This is because, if someone is not using some item X, he does not lose anything when others use X. X is not scarce when in an unused state, since its use does not come at the expense of the self-styled “property owner”. Ergo, it makes no-sense to apply rights to it. To enforce such “rights” against a willing user is thus an act of naked aggression.The above is a hypothetical argument used for illustration. I do not endorse the above argument.

Now, how would any of you respond to the above?

Okay, do you have your answer in mind? Great! Now take that argument and apply it to Kinsella’s “IP isn’t scarce” argument.

Of course, this means that you have not established the invalidity of Kinsella’s IP scarcity position, because you are using the term “scarcity” in an entirely different way.
This is analagous to arguing over whether or not something is naturally-occurring, where you are defining “naturally-occurring” to mean “everything”, and Kinsella is defining it to mean “not man-made”.

Well, you might want to start doing that, then. All you’ve done so far is make yourself look like an idiot. (In fact, I’d say you’ve strengthened Kinsella’s position, by making opposing arguments look foolish)

Oh, I understand. I understand that you have dodged, yet again, the question – would you support my property right as outlined? If not, on what principled reason? Or is it just all relative – as long as someone’s desires conflict, one of the two MUST have a property right, and it really doesn’t matter which one has it?

I really see no difference between my suggestion for property rights in my visage and your suggestion for rights in ideas, on principled grounds. If you’re merely arguing that it all depends, that’s fine, it’s logically consistent. But that doesn’t seem to be what you’re arguing.

“It totally misses the point of assigning property rights and fails on its own terms.”

On this, you are absolutely wrong. His position is consistent on its own terms. Your desires are irrelevant in his position. Property rights come BEFORE desires.

For your position to not fail on its own terms, yo u have to accpet that property rights in visages are within your position. If not, you’ll have to tell me how our conflicting desires are different from the conflicting desires that you posit create IP rights.

I agree: my desires could ultimately make all of the universe scarce. And they do. So what? My point all along is that Kinsella’s argument about IP not being scarce is operationally meaningless. It totally misses the point of assigning property rights and fails on its own terms. He’s trying to say, in essence “Hahah! You can still use your ideas, even if I use them. They’re non-rivalrous! You have no standing!” To which I reply, “But I don’t care if I can still use them. I don’t want *you* to use them.” Then, our interests collide, and his argument from scarcity collapes. We have desires that conflict, just as surely as we were fighting over a rock.

So you want me to outline my full position on IP? Some day, sure. But I’m only posting in this specific thread to voice my objections to Kinsella’s argument from scarcity. Just that, itty-bitty specific point. Not about whether IP is just or not; just that, *if* it were unjust, it wouldn’t be because of that (flawed) reason. I’m not claiming that every desire automatically entitles you to the satisfaction of that desire (as you repeatedly assumed).

When I outline my full position on IP, wirst du der Erste zu wissen. Until then, you’ll have to rely on reading what I actually post.

I hereby wish that everything that exists, ever has existed, or ever will exist, be both eaten by me, and stored in a refrigerator simultaneously. It is written, so it shall be done.

Okay, now everything actually IS scarce (by your definition). There is nothing you can EVER do to even change the degree of scarcity that I have willed into existence.
Is this what “scarcity” really means? Certainly no dictionary goes into this level of detail. However, since the adjective “scarce” now applies to every conceivable thing in the universe to the same degree, it no longer has any descriptive power. It is a useless word.
This is similar to arguing that “naturally-occurring” means everything and anything (as opposed to something not created by Man). One can say that Man is a part of nature, and therefore anything created by Man is “naturally occurring”. That may be technically accurate, but it removes the descriptive power, and hence the usability of the word (or phrase).

Here’s something that I would like to see. Instead of posting in thread after thread telling people what you’re NOT talking about, and how stupid they are, why don’t you write up a systematic defense of IP (which you *seem* to defend in the other thread) and post it here on this blog. You may want to start a new blog. You can submit one under “comment rules” on the main blog page, I think.
Remember to be specific and avoid the use of the word “scarce” (AND its synonyms) as you define it above. Remember that I just made everything equally “scarce”. You may want to use words/phrases like “finite”, “infinite”, “as measued by market prices”, etc..
Verstehen Sie?