Intellectual Property and Normative Social Theory

Economics Political Theory
41

Yes, yes, no. I can’t grapple with his argument because he doesn’t define his terms.

Adam isn’t making an argument about IP. He’s using Kinsella on IP to attack objective ethics. If he wanted to do that without abusing the anti-IP libertarian position, I would probably join him in that debate. However, I agree with Kinsella’s conclusions on IP, arriving at them without having to apply a Rothbardian or Hoppean analysis. And I arrive at the same conclusions by agreeing with the positive analysis of property, which I do not think conflicts with praxeology.

I have left the door open for Adam when he is ready to address intellectual property, to correct me where I am wrong.

42

liberty student, are your alternative anti-ip arguments (which reach Kinsellian conclusions without Rothbardian or Hoppean analysis) available for public consumption?

43

You’re reading them right now.

I find it amazing that we’re unable to define what property is in a discussion about intellectual property. I find it incredible that people who stake out the Misesian position vs Rothbardian positions on the normative, aren’t willing to articulate the Misesian position on the postive.

Surely Mises knew what property was and was not. I would hope his conception of property squared with praxeology. So where is the debate?

It seems to me, that IP is a great way for Rothbardians to make their normative claims, which subjective ethicists not only reject by method but many times, conclusion as well. That is the awkward divide. Who is going to argue for IP as a liberal or libertarian when they agree that positively, IP is not in fact property? It’s sort of like liberals not arguing the Misesian position of the nightwatchman state, when Mises was explicitly for a nightwatchman state. Don’t ask, don’t tell. Better to stay “neutral”.

44

Liberty Student:

I don’t see things the way you do.

I’m offering a critique of the anti-IP argument or theory that derives historically and theoretically from Rothbard’s ethical ideas through Hoppe, and now to Kinsella.

In addition to offering my critique of the anti-IP theory (part of the libertarian private property ethics theory), I’ve outlined how the issue of IP may possibly be approached by analytical social science. I’ve suggested an alternative approach side by side with my critique of the private property approach.

So there are at least two theories possible with regard to IP as a social phenomenon. The private property theory descended from Locke through Rothbard, and the analytical approach which would come from pure Austrian analysis (Mengerian exact laws, Misesian a priori propositions, Hayekian Pure Logic of Choice).

What I understand to be your additional question is: “Yes, but what is your (Adam’s) personal social philosophy about IP?”

You seem to be asking what my personal view on IP is, above and beyond a discussion of alternative theories that address IP as a social phenomenon.

I would welcome such a discussion. When I approach a social topic that treats a want of mine, I generally do so within my social philosophy of panarchism. In this case, IP is treated as one possible legal code, government arrangement, or social arrangement, among many possible such arrangements.

But I would prefer to discuss my personal view of how IP is addressed in my own social philosophy (as opposed to my analytical praxeology), in the context of a discussion on panarchism as I view it.

That is, I would prefer to discuss the wants I have for a definite social arrangement (IP or otherwise), separately from my analytical “is” descriptions of the nature of human action, and separately from my critique of other people’s theories that are proposed as substitutes for the analytical approach advocated by Mises.

I’ve already explained that I believe it would be counter-productive to engage in a debate about the ontological questions that belong to philosophies and worldviews that I do not subscribe to or advocate.

Would you like me to open a thread that addresses how IP could possibly be understood in panarchist philosophy?

The opening post unfortunately would probably not be succinct, but would likely run several pages.

45

Rivalry and conflict are not tangible objects, but they don’t require human action or human meaning to exist. Are two animals not in a rivalry over the same food source? Are they not more so in a rivalry when one animal is the food source of the other? Scarcity is a fundamental property of matter. It simply is the reality of our universe. One could even say that two bodies that collide in space are rivalrous and in conflict for the occupation of that location at that time.

These things are real parts of nature with or without humans. What requires human action, what separates us from the animals, is the creation of systems to reduce conflict. We have to do this to cooperate because matter is scarce whether or not we exist.

46

So how is the WHOLE of the above not applicable to information as property in an information universe? The creators/owners of “Avatar” do not ‘fully control’ their information property if others can copy it and sell it as theirs. Please respond to my argument that people already recognize real claims over intangible objects (multi-agent virtual universes, online checking accounts, electronic payments, transfers, etc.).

For the readers not familiar with it, in this thread (Information as Property) I attempt to establish an analogy between tangible property in a 3-dimensional universe and information property in a 8x10^9-dimensional binary universe – an analogy that still stands unchallenged, as far as I’m concerned:

"The tangible (physical) property universe comprises of 10^80 cubic meters of known universe, or 5x10^80 atoms in known physical universe. It would only take 266 bits to map (mark) every cubic meter of known universe with a different 266 bit number.

Each separate instance of information ever created (and is about to be created in the forseeable future) – all books, movies, songs, images, software, etc – can be represented by a 10 gigabyte binary sequence. (This size was chosen to accommodate the longest individual piece of information created, such as the movie Avatar, but could be any size without loss of generalization). The size of the informational universe blanketed by all possible 10 gigabyte sequences is 2^(8x10^9) separate instances which is vastly larger than the 2^266 cubic meters of the known tangible universe.

By creating a unique 10 gigabyte sequence of information an author/producer “homesteads” a particular portion of the whole (vast) informational universe (comprised of all possible 10 gigabyte sequences) much in the same way the first appropriator homesteads (has the strongest claim to ownership of) a particular portion of the whole tangible universe (comprised of all 2^266 cubic meters available). The “area” (in the informational universe) that is “homesteaded” (thus owned) by the creator/producer of any 10 gigabyte sequence is defined by all sufficiently similar 10 gigabyte sequences in the “vicinity” of the original sequence and all (signal processing and information theory-based) transformations thereof.

Thus the case for information as property is presented. Explorers and potential “homesteaders” have the vast informational universe at their disposal. Much of that universe is useless (any random 10 gigabyte sequence), just like most of the 2^266 cubic meters of known tangible universe are useless and yet to be claimed (or homesteaded). However, entrepreneurs, explorers, and potential “homesteaders” willing to commit capital and labor to find the valuable pieces of BOTH informational and tangible universe shall be rewarded by a claim of ownership of such discovered property – informational or tangible, regardless."

Z.

47

<<The creators/owners of “Avatar” do not ‘fully control’ their information property if others can copy it and sell it as theirs.>>

yes, they fully control their property if their property is not interfered with. looking at a property and noting down what you see is not interfering.

you can look at my bicycle and you are not interfering with it (as you would be if you got on it and start riding it)

you are completely over-cooking ‘full control’ as if the ownership of my body-property gives me the right to insist you not look in my direction. yeah, if thats what ‘full control’ meant, you might have a point. but that’s not what it means, so you don’t

48

But their (information) property is interfered with! The pirates could easily create any 10 gigabyte sequence, burn it, and sell it, but they (figure that!) chose to sell that particular sequence – information property that is not theirs as they could make no claim whatsoever over it. Would they be able to sell any of their wares without Cameron creating the information property before-hand? The ‘revenue’ that they compete over is actual capital that can be easily exchanged for quite a lot of tangible property/wealth. How is this NOT a conflict, and, under what definition?

49

you think that being ‘in business’ grants revenue protection rights against would be competitors? is this only for so called ‘ip’ enterprises or does it run to real property as well?

50

You think that being ‘in business’ grants Walmart revenue protection rights against ‘would be competitors’ (i.e. thieves that take merchandise from its shelves and sell it off a back of a truck right in front of the store)? I mean, Walmart doesn’t really use these objects, apart from attempting to extract revenue from them, so what’s the big deal?

You call it ‘revenue protection rights’, I call it property protection, tangible or intangible, regardless.

51

make your thieves leave everything in place and lets talk again !!!

the stock remains undisturbed even as the crooks van ‘magically’ fills up with similar products…

make that stick as a crime…

52

please now distinguish your notion of ‘revenue rights’ from ‘claiming unfair competition when a store opens up the road from your store…’

53

make your pirate copiers leave all owned information alone and let’s talk again !!!

Theft is not competition.

54

they do leave it alone ! the original remains, it is undisturbed, cameron has never been parted from any original.

he sold his originals, to some people, some of which made copies. so what ?

55

Nir, we’ve done this before. I don’t think neither of us could continue without repeating themselves. Maybe things will change if we acquire some new angles or just let things simmer for a while. I don’t see it happening in this discussion.

Z.

56

I don’t mind repeating myself when the argument is going my way

57

nirgraham: “Please now distinguish your notion of ‘revenue rights’ from ‘claiming unfair competition when a store opens up the road from your store…’”

Good. You have this argument cornered. IP arguments almost invalriably assume a right to the value of property as opposed to its physical integrity, or some kind of welfare revenue right, a right to a profit, a right to some deserved reward.

58

That’s not how it looks from my side, but if it’ll make you feel better then be my guest.

59

@nirgrahamUK and z1235

I think you’re at an impasse as long as you start with different definitions of “property”. As always, semantics lies at the heart of this debate.

/snipe

(I’ll make a longer post when I have the time.)

60

could you sketch out what you take to be our differences concerning the definition?