“However, as I have commented on other posts, I view natural rights in physical property as a description or moralization of the system that has evolved on the free market.”

I think you are making a mistake by terming your view of rights theory as “natural rights”. Yours is closer to “conservatism”. Natural rights theory bases its claims on the nature of man and its surroundings, not evolution of institutions and rules through time.

I have asked you before on another thread but couldn’t follow up, by your rights view “the state” and even “slavery” is justified because they are very old institutions that evolved through history.

“Daniel C asks “Why?” and I think this is also my contention. For physical property, “why” is answered because there is a need to allocate scarce resources. Over time, market forces have resulted in the property rights that Locke, Hoppe, and others have described. This system is considered “ethical” by libertarians because it has been shown to support individual liberty and wealth creation.”

See this is the crux of the matter. Property rights are not positive rules and legislation with a goal to better society, but natural rights.

The fundamental property right is “self ownership”, and when claiming this I say as a natural rights theorist, “I own myself because I own myself” while you might say to be consistent, “society lets you own yourself because it is the best way to allocate resources”.

“With IP, I don’t think that “Why” has been fully answered yet – I don’t mean by you, I mean by the universe. The natural rights argument takes the result of the physical property rights evolution and assumes that the same rules should apply. However, the fundamental problem of scarcity conflict is not relevant since one person’s use of an idea cannot preclude another’s use of the same idea. You are applying a solution to a problem other than the one that it is known to solve.”

I will answer “the why” on another post, although I believe I have before. But I will give another shot. It will be the answer to the question “why there must be property rights” and it will compass both tangible and intangible. But I can tell you now, property rights are not about “conflict resolving” but homesteading and aggression.

“In a free market like this, you could propose your plan and try to convince people of its merits to influence their preferences. If a need for IP rights should arise, your plan could compete with other approaches until one or more proved to satisfy the market. Once we have seen that it works, we can start discussing ethics.”

I don’t have plan. There are no “great plans” in a free market. What I argue for is an ethical position. We may never have a free market, we may even have worst IP legislation compared to now. And it wont change anything.

I’m glad you’ve enjoyed my posts – Maybe once this thread has finished monopolizing my intellect, I’ll have time to actually write something on my blog…

I should clarify the “need to allocate scarce resources.” I meant this in the vein that you have described; I did not mean to suggest that there was some sort of central planning happening beyond normal market forces.

There have been several discussions in this thread suggesting alternative models for various forms of IP. I think that this is ultimately a challenge for entrepreneurs developing new business models, although a little speculation and brainstorming can’t hurt.

Congrats on another great post. I think it’s about time you started writing some full-length articles. I’m sure there are plenty of people who would like to read them

As to your point concerning physical property rights, I agree that scarcity is important. The fact that it is physically impossible for two people to wear the same hat at the same time means that – AT MOST – one person will be able to wear the hat at any given time. If the demand for hats is greater than one, the conditions of scarcity have been met.

That being said, I disagree that property rights arise out of a need to allocate scarce resources. People generally act to acquire resources for themselves, not to allocate them amongst others. I think that a system of property rights arises when homesteading, voluntary trading, and defense have a strategic advantage over aggression. When aggression has the advantage, individuals are forced to turn to isolation, servitude, or aggression themselves as the only means of survival. Therefore, it is the relative competitiveness of various survival strategies that determines their prevalence.

In the context of this thread, we must consider whether intellectual monopoly has a strategic advantage over copying. More specifically, it must be asked whether monopoly prices justify the costs of monopoly enforcement. In the case of file sharing, enforcement seems to be having a negligible effect, even while some of the costs are socialized through the court and police systems.

That being the case, it is doubtful that intellectual monopoly would be a viable strategy in a freed market. But if IM is non-viable, it would seem highly relevant to discuss what, if anything, would replace it, and I hope to see more discussion along these lines in the future.

Okay. But I will remember this thread the next time either of you decide to troll on Mises.org.

Thank you for your response. This was the most cohesive Pro-IP statement I’ve seen yet. I think that from a natural rights perspective as you have described, your argument makes some sense.

However, as I have commented on other posts, I view natural rights in physical property as a description or moralization of the system that has evolved on the free market.

Daniel C asks “Why?” and I think this is also my contention. For physical property, “why” is answered because there is a need to allocate scarce resources. Over time, market forces have resulted in the property rights that Locke, Hoppe, and others have described. This system is considered “ethical” by libertarians because it has been shown to support individual liberty and wealth creation.

With IP, I don’t think that “Why” has been fully answered yet – I don’t mean by you, I mean by the universe. The natural rights argument takes the result of the physical property rights evolution and assumes that the same rules should apply. However, the fundamental problem of scarcity conflict is not relevant since one person’s use of an idea cannot preclude another’s use of the same idea. You are applying a solution to a problem other than the one that it is known to solve.

So why do we need IP rights? What fundamental problem do they solve?

I won’t argue that none exists, but I think that we don’t know it yet. If IP laws were to be universally abolished today, then the free market could reveal whether such a problem exists, and at the same time would deliver the most efficient solution. I can’t predict what this would be, and there may be multiple approaches for various contexts.

In a free market like this, you could propose your plan and try to convince people of its merits to influence their preferences. If a need for IP rights should arise, your plan could compete with other approaches until one or more proved to satisfy the market. Once we have seen that it works, we can start discussing ethics.

Thank you for your response. This was the most cohesive Pro-IP statement I’ve seen yet. I think that from a natural rights perspective as you have described, your argument makes some sense.

However, as I have commented on other posts, I view natural rights in physical property as a description or moralization of the system that has evolved on the free market.

Daniel C asks “Why?” and I think this is also my contention. For physical property, “why” is answered because there is a need to allocate scarce resources. Over time, market forces have resulted in the property rights that Locke, Hoppe, and others have described. This system is considered “ethical” by libertarians because it has been shown to support individual liberty and wealth creation.

With IP, I don’t think that “Why” has been fully answered yet – I don’t mean by you, I mean by the universe. The natural rights argument takes the result of the physical property rights evolution and assumes that the same rules should apply. However, the fundamental problem of scarcity conflict is not relevant since one person’s use of an idea cannot preclude another’s use of the same idea. You are applying a solution to a problem other than the one that it is known to solve.

So why do we need IP rights? What fundamental problem do they solve?

I won’t argue that none exists, but I think that we don’t know it yet. If IP laws were to be universally abolished today, then the free market could reveal whether such a problem exists, and at the same time would deliver the most efficient solution. I can’t predict what this would be, and there may be multiple approaches for various contexts.

In a free market like this, you could propose your plan and try to convince people of its merits to influence their preferences. If a need for IP rights should arise, your plan could compete with other approaches until one or more proved to satisfy the market. Once we have seen that it works, we can start discussing ethics.

Thank you for your response. This was the most cohesive Pro-IP statement I’ve seen yet. I think that from a natural rights perspective as you have described, your argument makes some sense.

However, as I have commented on other posts, I view natural rights in physical property as a description or moralization of the system that has evolved on the free market.

Daniel C asks “Why?” and I think this is also my contention. For physical property, “why” is answered because there is a need to allocate scarce resources. Over time, market forces have resulted in the property rights that Locke, Hoppe, and others have described. This system is considered “ethical” by libertarians because it has been shown to support individual liberty and wealth creation.

With IP, I don’t think that “Why” has been fully answered yet – I don’t mean by you, I mean by the universe. The natural rights argument takes the result of the physical property rights evolution and assumes that the same rules should apply. However, the fundamental problem of scarcity conflict is not relevant since one person’s use of an idea cannot preclude another’s use of the same idea. You are applying a solution to a problem other than the one that it is known to solve.

So why do we need IP rights? What fundamental problem do they solve?

I won’t argue that none exists, but I think that we don’t know it yet. If IP laws were to be universally abolished today, then the free market could reveal whether such a problem exists, and at the same time would deliver the most efficient solution. I can’t predict what this would be, and there may be multiple approaches for various contexts.

In a free market like this, you could propose your plan and try to convince people of its merits to influence their preferences. If a need for IP rights should arise, your plan could compete with other approaches until one or more proved to satisfy the market. Once we have seen that it works, we can start discussing ethics.

Thank you for your response. This was the most cohesive Pro-IP statement I’ve seen yet. I think that from a natural rights perspective as you have described, your argument makes some sense.

However, as I have commented on other posts, I view natural rights in physical property as a description or moralization of the system that has evolved on the free market.

Daniel C asks “Why?” and I think this is also my contention. For physical property, “why” is answered because there is a need to allocate scarce resources. Over time, market forces have resulted in the property rights that Locke, Hoppe, and others have described. This system is considered “ethical” by libertarians because it has been shown to support individual liberty and wealth creation.

With IP, I don’t think that “Why” has been fully answered yet – I don’t mean by you, I mean by the universe. The natural rights argument takes the result of the physical property rights evolution and assumes that the same rules should apply. However, the fundamental problem of scarcity conflict is not relevant since one person’s use of an idea cannot preclude another’s use of the same idea. You are applying a solution to a problem other than the one that it is known to solve.

So why do we need IP rights? What fundamental problem do they solve?

I won’t argue that none exists, but I think that we don’t know it yet. If IP laws were to be universally abolished today, then the free market could reveal whether such a problem exists, and at the same time would deliver the most efficient solution. I can’t predict what this would be, and there may be multiple approaches for various contexts.

In a free market like this, you could propose your plan and try to convince people of its merits to influence their preferences. If a need for IP rights should arise, your plan could compete with other approaches until one or more proved to satisfy the market. Once we have seen that it works, we can start discussing ethics.

Thank you for your response. This was the most cohesive Pro-IP statement I’ve seen yet. I think that from a natural rights perspective as you have described, your argument makes some sense.

However, as I have commented on other posts, I view natural rights in physical property as a description or moralization of the system that has evolved on the free market.

Daniel C asks “Why?” and I think this is also my contention. For physical property, “why” is answered because there is a need to allocate scarce resources. Over time, market forces have resulted in the property rights that Locke, Hoppe, and others have described. This system is considered “ethical” by libertarians because it has been shown to support individual liberty and wealth creation.

With IP, I don’t think that “Why” has been fully answered yet – I don’t mean by you, I mean by the universe. The natural rights argument takes the result of the physical property rights evolution and assumes that the same rules should apply. However, the fundamental problem of scarcity conflict is not relevant since one person’s use of an idea cannot preclude another’s use of the same idea. You are applying a solution to a problem other than the one that it is known to solve.

So why do we need IP rights? What fundamental problem do they solve?

I won’t argue that none exists, but I think that we don’t know it yet. If IP laws were to be universally abolished today, then the free market could reveal whether such a problem exists, and at the same time would deliver the most efficient solution. I can’t predict what this would be, and there may be multiple approaches for various contexts.

In a free market like this, you could propose your plan and try to convince people of its merits to influence their preferences. If a need for IP rights should arise, your plan could compete with other approaches until one or more proved to satisfy the market. Once we know it works, we can start discussing ethics.

After all your clamoring for a real argument and frustration that Mises bloggers agree with anti-IP claims, surely you won’t back away as soon as one person asks you the simple question: “Why?”

I have been awaiting a reply in the other thread, but I don’t mind continuing the conversation here. Among other things, you write:

Silas: “-You can just the same argue that “Property rights costs lives, because we could loot farms and feed the world’s poor if we didn’t have to respect them. Oh, don’t worry, communes and charities can take care of food needs afterward.” Anyone ready to argue that? No? Okay then.

“Next?”

Instead of “next,” I suggest we take care of what’s “first.” Your critique presupposes that the analogy between property claimed via IP claims and property claimed via Lockean homesteading is sound. It is not.

Stephan Kinsella has addressed this is his work, ‘Against Intellectual Property.’ The former claims on property are unjustified, as he points out early in the treatise. Since IP advocates cannot directly claim that they have homesteaded certain property, they most often rely on concepts like owning ideas or having sole rights to copying certain ideas. These latter strategies to claim justification fail for different reasons, as Kinsella points out in his book.

You have either assumed that this argument doesn’t exist, or you have assumed that it doesn’t work. Since I know you are familiar with Kinsella’s work, I’m assuming it must be the latter. But surely you haven’t come to that conclusion without a good reason to think so.

If so, would you mind sharing that with me in this thread? I have never seen such good reasons and would be happy to discuss them.

I have been awaiting a reply in the other thread, but I don’t mind continuing the conversation here. You write:

ktibuk: “If the people attacking the current patent system, jump to the conclusion that IP is illegitimate we have right to point this out I think.”

Sure, thanks for pointing it out. As it happens, these are not baseless conclusions. In fact, there has been a good amount of libertarian groundwork in this respect. Best of all is Stephan Kinsella’s treatise ‘Against Intellectual Property.’ I can confidently say that the author of this blog post would stand behind the theoretical work done there.

What do you know—these are no longer “jumped-to” conclusions! Do you have any actual critiques of Kinsella’s work? I’d be happy to discuss such criticisms here, but until you are ready to provide an argument I think it’s time to put away your claims to pre-emptive victory. It is simply talking past your opponents.

I have been awaiting a reply in the other thread, but I don’t mind continuing the conversation here. You write:

ktibuk: “If the people attacking the current patent system, jump to the conclusion that IP is illegitimate we have right to point this out I think.”

Sure, thanks for pointing it out. As it happens, these are not baseless conclusions. In fact, there has been a good amount of libertarian groundwork in this respect. Best of all is Stephan Kinsella’s treatise ‘Against Intellectual Property.’ I can confidently say that the author of this blog post would stand behind the theoretical work done there.

What do you know—these are no longer “jumped-to” conclusions! Do you have any actual critiques of Kinsella’s work? I’d be happy to discuss such criticisms here, but until you are ready to provide an argument I think it’s time to put away your claims to pre-emptive victory. It is simply talking past your opponents.

so maybe it is possible to imagine spending less and in different ways without necessarily stopping pharmacological progress.

“What I would like to see from the Pro-IP’ers is a suggestion for an IP protection system that gets around the acknowledged problems of the current systems. I don’t want a list of the problems with the current system saying “get rid of this stuff”, I want to see a well reasoned, self-consistent system based on Austrian fundamentals. Bonus points if it requires no state enforcement. ”

I have done this already in many places on this site. I will give one version for you.

I have been debating with people over here on the comments sections for a while and all the ideas are so sporadic it is very hard to keep a line of thought in tact. I think Bob’s format is a good one, although I don’t agree with his points.

1. Everyone should acknowledge that who ever produces something, owns it. This could be a tangible good or an idea.

2. Everyone should also acknowledge that copying without the consent of the owner is aggression, since aggression has nothing to do with the integrity of a tangible thing on the atomic level, but everything to do with the consent of individuals.

3. Anyone who owns and idea has to bear the cost of trying to protect his idea.

4. Anyone who thinks he fell victim to the act of aggression called “copying” has to take his case to court and should prove “an act of copying” indeed has taken place. If the accuser “wins” in court he should be compensated.

All IP laws should be reformed according to the above rules.

This means there would be no patent laws, and patent registiration offfices and courts would handle all IP disputes, just as they handle all tangible property disputes. Since the main crime is copying, “first comer” would be no bearing on the case.

This also means the current copyright contracts should be only a subsection of general “lease contracts”. Example, buying a copy of Harry Potter.

There would also be “sale contracts” where all the rights of one IP would change hands the and previous owner would give up all the claim on the property. Example, buying all the rights of Harry Potter.

This also means there would be “partial sale contracts” where certain rights regarding certain explicit sale channels (or media) could be sold separately where the owner relinquishes certain claim of the property. Example, buying the movie rights of Harry Potter.

This also means there would be no expiration of IP rights. IP would, just as tangible property, pass on to heirs or to companies.

This also means anyone aggressing against the owner of an IP by copying his property would have to bear the consequences whether he entered into contract with the owner or not.

If a third party aggress against ones property he should be made to compensate for his aggression against property. Just like for any aggression against any property, the accidental damages should be separated from intentional aggression.

The second party, the person who knowingly breaks an “IP lease contract”, should both compensate for aggression and if there were other explicit penalties in the contract, he should be made to pay for those too.

This also means trademark infringements should also be handled as aggression.

I should also clarify one more point.

Property is about natural rights and it doesn’t require a state or a similar authority to recognize and issue a piece of paper for it to exists.

This means land is a legitimate property before and “land titles” and/or “land lease contracts”.

Some people keep insisting that patent registration and/or copyright contracts “create IP”. And they keep arguing against that point.

If the IP socialists arguing repeating this issue claims to be a libertarian anarchist it is a blatant contradiction.

If not I can understand their main problem but then argument is not especially about IP but natural rights, and politics in general.

This is basically what happens now with patent sharing, licensing, etc. The result is ever-increasing licensing costs which increase the cost of development for any new innovation. These costs can be prohibitive to anyone who doesn’t already have a portfolio of patents to trade. So under a patent regime, Silas’ Malthusian argument holds true.

What I would like to see from the Pro-IP’ers is a suggestion for an IP protection system that gets around the acknowledged problems of the current systems. I don’t want a list of the problems with the current system saying “get rid of this stuff”, I want to see a well reasoned, self-consistent system based on Austrian fundamentals. Bonus points if it requires no state enforcement.

“Patents cause individual efforts to be less incremental, increasing individual development costs, since each innovator often has to reinvent or work around the restrictions imposed by other patents. So all of the examples you see where huge development costs and sunk investments cannot be offset are distorted by the current patent regime.”

Why cant you imagine a world where previous developments are bought as raw materials in order add value by improving upon them. This would cost much less than building everything from ground up.

If IP is acknowledged as property this is what would happen.

The same thing is always brought up when it comes to music and remixing it.

Ok you may remix and create many things from a tune. If you know the owner of the tune, why not pay him for the tune as a raw material and remix and improve upon them? Why keep claiming you have a right to free access, as if the tune was nature given?