I agree. Its a matter of defining labor. I dont think labor automatically means improving. Surveying the land is labor. Denying other people access to the land is labor.
The point is that you can’t land on the shore of a continent and declare yourself the owner of the entire thing.
Occupancy is a good legal standard for land ownership. The definition of property being labor mixed with nature is a broader concept, you can’t occupy lumber. Labor is the generic name for one factor of production.
Its good article, I was thinking of digging it up. I really think Kinsella will be an important influence on Austrian economics.
That article is an off-base argument that only partially grasps the concept of IP.
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.
Why? Please give arguments.
In defense of the existence of intangible property:
In response to that paper…
It is not the opponents but the supporters of IP who introduce the tangible/intangible dichotomy by arguing that IP is just a different kind of property. Machan attacks the use of tangible versus intangible as a test for what is legitimate property. Well OK, let’s just talk about property in terms of its simple definition - something that is both scarce and in demand.
The purpose of property rights are to allow and ensure exclusive control over something by one or more persons. Exclusive control of rivalrous objects is needed for any sort of purposeful action to occur, so no one can dispute the need for some form of property rights over physical, rivalrous goods (without making a performative contradiction, of course).
However, exclusive control over nonrival goods is not necissary to make use of those goods. Most support of IP seems to come from a consequentialist standpoint though, based in public goods theory. I really haven’t heard a good Austrian or libertarian answer to the consequences of not allowing IP. Many Austrians seem to like to demonstrate how IP laws are often unnecessary in practice, but I’ve never seen a decent critique of public goods theory itself, although most Austrians seem to deny that public goods exist for reasons I don’t find terribly coherent.
I think the solution might come from people demonstrating how purely public goods like knowledge can be funded without IP laws and government spending.
Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security
Economics and Politics: Mutual Relationship
I would think it’s enough to point to the majority of human history where there were no IP laws and government monopolies on research spending to demonstrate how ‘purely public goods like knowledge’ is viable.
The person who sets the terms under which he will exchange his time and skills for wages and salaries doesn’t generally control what happens to the results afterwards, though; e.g., a guy who makes cars for GM doesn’t have any right to say what you can and can’t do with your new GM car: you can modify it, repaint it, even copy it; certainly there’s no special “tangible property law” for that. The creator of “intellectual property” already has the right to set the terms under which he will exchange his creation, without IP law; all IP does is give him the “right” to control what happens to it afterwards - unlike anything in the realm of real (non-“intellectual”) property.
But it’s Machan who is attempting to treat “intellectual property” differently - see above.
From solids, to liquids, to gasses, to poems? That’s quite a leap, isn’t it?!
And what if someone already owns the materials they used?
Indeed not; but just how do you go about depriving someone of a poem, novel, song, etc.? Other than by taking away the notebook in which it’s written down, etc., which would, again, already be theft in the absence of special “IP” law, there’s no way to do it.
Imagine for a moment that I own some land, and I decide to “sell” that land to you. And let’s say that according to the terms of our contract it is agreed that you may use the land for any purpose you desire, except that you must allow me to use it for the limited purpose of crossing from one side to the other (an easement). Furthermore, you agree that I may assign my right to anyone I choose. I may sell it or transfer it, or if I die I may give it to my heirs. This is not the same as a licence because my right is permanent and mine to do with as I please. So since this right is permanent, can it be said that you own the land in its entirety? Are we not in a sense joint stakeholders? I own the right to use it in a particular way; and this is my property right in the land. Your property right in the land is everything except this. If you decide to sell your particular stake, that’s fine, but you can’t sell mine. Only I can do that. And if you put your stake up for sale, I don’t have to contract separately with any buyer of yours unless I put my stake up for sale also. But if you attempt to sell the land without advising your buyer of my stake, you are committing a fraud. You are then misrepresenting what is rightfully yours and selling my property as well as your own.
Now let’s suppose that I write a novel, and I “sell” the novel to you. And let’s say that according to the terms of our contract it is agreed that you may use the novel for any purpose you desire, except that I, the author, retain the exclusive right to copy and distribute your book (the particular book you own). Isn’t this similar to the easement mentioned above, only this time on a book? Can it be said that you own the book in its entirety? You have agreed to allow me to retain certain property rights in the book that is now in your possession. Your property right is the right to read it, put it on your bookshelf or burn it; in short, anything you want except copy it because that is my property right. We are in effect joint stakeholders in the book. So what happens when you sell the book or give it to someone else? It is simply this. You may sell only your stake. You may not sell mine. You must advise the subsequent buyer that the right to copy that particular book (the one in your possession) is retained by me, and if you don’t you are committing a fraud. What happens if you or he copies the book anyway? Simply, my property is then being invaded, and I may defend it. There is no need for a separate contract between me and any third, fourth or fifth party, because when I first sold the book to you, I never sold the right to copy it. Anyone who misrepresents the ownership of that right is guilty of fraud, and anyone who ignores it is guilty of invading my property.
But you have built that arguement on an unspoken assumption: Ideas are a legitimate form of property.
If ideas are a legitimiate form of property that someone can contract then your argument is valid. However, you not yet attempted to prove that assumption.
If ideas are not a form of property, then your analogy is false.
It is far from self evident that the first person who thinks of something can excludes all others from “copy-catting.”
Well, not really. The right to copy the book is part of the bundle of rights which pertain to the physical property itself.
Allow me to offer my own analogy.
Suppose I am a prehistoric human and I discover that by rubbing sticks together I can make fire. Other people observe me do this and begin doing it themselves. These other people did not come up with the idea themselves and are benefiting from my work. So I, a long with my friends, decided that I deserve to receive some compensation for the benefit I have added to other people’s lives. We agree that anyone can use my fire, so long as they agree to pay an annual tribute to me. Some people agree but others refuse, so I and my friends begin patrols to make sure that only those who pay the annual fee are using fire.
I have decided, on my own, what others owe me and will use violence to ensure that I receive it. I have invented the political method. There are two ways to gain wealth, economic and political. The economic method is voluntary exchange. The political method is coercion and includes such things as burglary, robbery, and taxation.
Now imagine I create a story about a turtle carrying a scorpion across a river on its back. The story is popular and others begin telling, parents even tell it to their children in their homes. Again, these other people did not come up with the idea and are benefiting from my work. So, again, I and my friends begin patrols to ensure that only those who have agreed to pay the fee are telling the story. Being a kind soul, I originally only planned on preventing people from telling my story for pay, but people began telling it for free. This made it even harder for me to find paying customers, so I had to prevent all tellings by nonpayers.
No way. If I buy a printer, I own it. I don’t care what implied contracts the manufacturer tried to create, I can fill it with whatever brand of ink cartidge I want.
It seems as if people believe that under anarchy any manufactured good can only be used at the will of the manufacturer. But contracts are not promises, they are legal claims of ownership. Contracts that do not pertain to ownership rights are not enforcible. If two people make a contract saying they will marry each other, should one want to back out, the other can not force them to follow through with the marriage.
I hate to repeat myself, but it seems you are purposefully ignoring, what about people who never bought the book? If I borrow a book from a library or find it in the street, I have no obligation to not copy it, right?
Again, these other people did not come up with the idea and are benefiting from my work.
hey, i liked the story so much…i fractionally patronized the author!!
[:)]
Excuse me. Did you get permision from the author to reproduce that piece of fine, fine literature?
dont have to.
ideas can only be attributed after being expressed - calling the language in a story or song or process ‘property’ isnt legitimate.
its just intellectual or artisitic endeavor - being expressed, afterwhich it can be be attributed to someone and then repeated by others.
[;)]
I’m not arguing, nor have I ever argued, that ideas are a legitimate form of property. In fact in my previous posts I have consistently said that ideas are not a form of property. But copying the book word for word is not the same as copying the idea. If you want to tell other people about the idea or ideas contained in the book, I have no objection. But the book I wrote is the instantiation of the idea I had; it is not the idea itself. There are an infinite number of instantiations of an idea. You may create your own version of my idea, but you have agreed not to copy my version of my idea.
Patents, for example, are generally not a legitimate form of property because they consist primarily of an idea. If I have an invention for a new machine, I can’t stop you from building a working version based on my idea. But if I create a working version myself, sell it to you, and you agree not to copy it as an exact replica, you violate my property rights if you do.
Why?
The book “word for word” is a more specific, more elaborate idea, but its still an idea. Idea does not mean theme, it means something non-material.