Saturday, October 25, 2014

Part 9: A Reply to Walter Block on Intellectual Property Protection

By Robert Wenzel

My ongoing debate with Dr. Walter Block on intellectual property protection has officially, with Dr. Block's Part 8, Block versus Wenzel on Intellectual Property, moved to written word from oral debate. I too am happy with this turn of events, since I believe it provides for a much more precise debate.

I will in this post provide a point-by-point response to Block Part 8, and I will begin with Dr. Block's charge that I have engaged in a performative contradiction.

My first response to this charge is to note that although I believe I successfully rebutted this charge by noting that I, in fact, was not using words that were owned by others, there is another approach to consider when considering problems with Dr. Block's charge.

The philosopher Dr. David Gordon highlighted this problem, when in response to our debate
, he commented:
 Suppose that you were able to trace a word back to its original author, but you used the word without paying him or his heirs. Further, suppose that you believe that you are obligated to pay. None of this shows that you would be contradicting yourself by using the word without paying. You would be doing what you believe you ought not to do. That is very different from a contradiction.
I will leave Dr. Block and Dr. Gordon to hash this part of the debate out and am content here to simply point out that there are weaknesses in Dr. Block's approach from many directions.

As for my use of words, I am happy to see that Dr. Block now agrees that I have no obligation to trace back any words I am using to determine if there are any copyright claims on them. This is not the position he held during the verbal part of the debate.

But he does critique me from another direction. He tells us that he is writing, "something unrealistic." Boy, I do agree with that point! He proposes the following model:
I am not referring to any aspect of reality. Rather, I am concocting a contrary to fact conditional, one based, precisely, on Bob’s IP viewpoint; that his views on this matter were employed, were in operation, were respected by all, during that long ago epoch when words first came into use. Then, assuming even a modicum of profit seeking behavior, these words would have been owned, passed.down to the heirs of their creators, and Bob (along with everyone else) would not be free to use them... 
How realistic is this science fictionish world I have created? Not very much at all. Rather, it is highly impracticable. For humans could not possibly have survived, beaten out the sabre-tooth tiger and their ilk, without cooperating with each other. But language, of course, is the sine qua non, of working together. So, the human race would have perished, very quickly, had they adopted the Wenzel view of IP. No one could have communicated with anyone else, at least not in words. This goes, also, for gestures, facial expressions, since they, too, are ideas, and, according to Wenzel, can come under the proprietorship of their creators. Bob and I would not now be around at all, and, certainly, would not be able to debate each other on these issues or any others.
So Dr. Block is creating in his own words an unrealistic world view, but claims this part of his model holds my IP view:
[T]he human race would have perished, very quickly, had they adopted the Wenzel view of IP. No one could have communicated with anyone else, at least not in words
This is a major mischaracterization of my view, which I attempted to correct many times during the verbal part of the debate. At no time have I ever held the view that because a person has created something that he must charge for such a creation.  Further, Dr. Block's characterization that should IP protection be recognized that there will never be any words, or other intellectual property, given away for free simply is another part of his "unrealistic" model, given that every day we see all types of creations given away for free, not only intellectual property but physical property. Indeed, the internet, itself, is one giant smorgasbord of free creations. Open source software is another example.

Most striking the free web site, Wikipedia, lists many examples of giving away creations for free on its web page Frebbie marketing, including an example of the "greedy" capitalist  John D. Rockefeller giving away eight million kerosene lamps :
Freebie marketing has been used in business models for many years. The Gillette company still uses this approach, often sending disposable safety razors in the mail to young men near their 18th birthday, or packaging them as giveaways at public events that Gillette has sponsored.
Standard Oil with a monopoly in the American domestic market, and its owner, John D. Rockefeller, looked to China to expand their business. Representatives of Standard Oil gave away eight million kerosene lamps for free or at greatly reduced prices to increase the demand for kerosene. 
Among American businessmen, this gave rise to the catchphrase "Oil for the lamps of China." Alice Tisdale Hobart's novel Oil for the Lamps of China was a fictional treatment of the phenomenon.
Is it really that hard to believe that poets, writers, salesman and song writers wouldn't get together and create open source words if there weren't any, so they could get their ideas across? Would they really all simply die and collapse on the way side as Dr. Block suggests? Would a man who is hungry not allow others to use the words he invented, such as, "Get me some food." and "Here is some food," and  rather die? Dr. Block's model is simply absurd as a tool to help us to understand how things would develop in the real world.

No one who owns words is going to die rather than allow others to use those words to get him food. Further, I advance the notion that a rich free open source vocabulary would develop in a libertarian society where intellectual property protection is recognized. It simply makes sense for some things to be open source and words, in general, fall into this category. Dr. Block's "dumb and greedy" model of how a libertarian society would functiomnwith intellectual property protection flies in the face of reality. He is essentially denying that open source could occur in the world of IP protection, when in fact it does, He seems to be denying that institutes like the Mises Institute could exist where volumes upon volumes are made available online for free. In Dr. Block's unusual model, he is denying these things would exist. Yey, in the current world, where IP protection does exist, they do.

I am not sure how to make this point any clearer. Dr. Block's unrealistic model is much more unrealistic than he imagines and is of no use in understanding a world where any person would most certainly allow others to communicate with him about food, with words he owns, rather than starve to death --and, I feel compelled to make clear, communicate, and use words, about many other things.

Let us move on.

Dr. Block then raises the case of a Girl A who makes a pony tail out of her hair and Girl B copies this from her own backyard. Is Girl B violating copyright? As Dr. Block notes this "problem" was raised by Dr. Michael Edelstein, who arranged the initial discussion between Dr. Block and me, and who was a timekeeper as well as participant in the debate.

The hardcore interpretation of intellectual property protection would consider  the copying of a backyard ponytail an aggression, that is the stealing of an idea.  What is complex about this? It is my view that intellectual creations are creations. I do recognize independent discovery, but theft is theft. The question of whether someone wants to prosecute every infraction, or how easy it would be to prosecute every infraction, is an entirely different question. Dr. Edelstein and Dr, Block were attempting. I believe  to argue via  reductio ad absurdum and failed. Simply because prosecution of "ponytail theft," sounds extreme doesn't mean that it is not a technically valid example of intellectual property theft, anymore so than the using of a few pieces of toilet paper from a hotel bathroom, where a person is not a guest, doesn't mean it is not a technically valid example of physical property theft, though the likelihood of prosecution is close to zero.

But further, even, if for the sake of argument, we do not consider what Girl B has done as intellectual property infringement, how does this invalidate the entire idea of IP? Dr, Edelstein brought up this example, I believe, because it involves a subset of overall IP, specifically two girls, each on their own property. What does this have to do with the general concept of IP protection? The answer is, of course, nothing. It is a debate about how IP should be protected under very unusual circumstances and not about the general idea of IP that overwhelmingly has nothing to do with such circumstances. One could, though I do not, hold that Girl B did not violate IP, but still believe in IP protection in general.

Dr. Block then goes on to argue that ones ideas are "out there" and are "no longer scarce...and property rights make sense only when applied to scarce things."  This gets much further to the essence of our debate and a consideration of Dr. Block's point will hopefully make clear the great weaknesses in his argument.

First, we must consider this oddball use of the phrase 'no longer scarce" by Dr. Block. Air is pretty much not scarce, but how does this possibly apply to intellectual property? I sell consulting services, I publish the EPJ Daily Alert and I am about to conduct a course on publishing a blog. These are all intellectual creations of mine and I am charging for them and others are paying for what I am offering, which by definition means that they are scarce creations. Otherwise, why would anyone pay for them?

The idea that these intellectual creations are not scarce is absurd. Once my creations are conveyed to other people, they may be "out there" in the sense that some people may know them but that does not mean that everyone knows them. Indeed, for my publishing course, not only am I offering  a live lecture on November 15, but I am also offering a recording of the exact same course on December 1. The number of people who have signed up for the December 1 course is substantial, are they making an error because the course is "out there" and "no longer scarce"? Of course not, The idea that simply because a few people know something that it is no longer "scarce" is a complete distortion of the term scarcity. To attempt to build a theory on such a base is quite stunning.

Further, simply because the original creator may continue to hold in his mind a creation does not in any way mean that he created the intellectual property for that reason. I am not creating my course on professional blogging because I need an outline of my views on the subject. I am  creating the course solely because I believe it is something of value that others will be willing to pay for. There is no value to me in the course other than that I can sell it. If someone surreptitiously recorded the course for others to see on the internet  and I objected, such a criminal may claim that, "Well, you still have it." This would not come close to  addressing the point of why I created the course and the terms under which I have chosen to release the course. In other words, it would be a violation of the purpose of the terms under which I created the course and released it, even if "I still have it." My creation was not done simply so that "I could have it.".

 I believe it is the height of arrogance, and a violation of the non-aggression principle, to declare how a person can, or can not, control a creation of his own. Why can we not simply honor the conditions under which a person agrees to release a creation of his own? What libertarian principle dictates that outsiders can dictate the terms of an exchange of a creative idea between two people?

Finally, Dr. Block accuses me of having a realtivistic philosophy, which I do not. Through out our verbal debate, I stated that I was very uncomfortable getting into a debate on the foundations of libertarian philosophy, as I am doing a lot of thinking and research on the topic and do not want to comment on a topic where I am in the early stages of studying. So I will refrain from debating Dr. Block on philosophical points at this time. This is not to say that I will not have much to say on the topic at a further date. I will have much to say, but it is simply to early for me to comment on the subject at this time.

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher at EconomicPolicyJournal.com and at Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics

49 comments:

  1. I think RW is conflating two things when he discusses the course. Obviously, he has the ability to charge for the course the first time he presents it because it is at that time scarce. If he were giving the lecture in a closed room on his own property, and required everyone to turn in any recording devices before entering, he could possibly continue to do this. But by giving the lecture over the internet he is transmitting it out to computers owned by other people. Once those bits and bytes leave his computer and enter mine, they are no longer his – they are on my machine and therefore belong to me as much as they “belong” to anyone. It is certainly both possible and morally acceptable to profit from intellectual content that one produces, but that does not make it “property” in the same sense as a computer or a car.
    The same principle applies for a novel or other written work. An author could possible require everyone to sign an agreement not to copy the book before he agrees to sell them a copy, though this would probably end in him making less off the work than if he simply sold copies and took his chances with it becoming so popular that it would actually be worth someone's time to reproduce it for sale. If one of these buyers made a copy of the work, he could be sued for violating the agreement he made with the author, but what he would be guilty of is violating a contract, not theft of property. What the author could not do, however, is bind third parties. If I find a copy of the book in the trash bin or whatever, I can certainly use the printing press and paper that I own to produce a book with the same series of words.
    It is certainly possible to make money from intellectual creations. It is also possible to make agreements with others to extend the period of time in which you can do so. But eventually any idea that is good enough makes it out into the “public domain” so to speak and can no longer be controlled. This is the distinction between intellectual creations and real property. No matter how many people see my car or use my computer, there is still only the one car or computer, which I own. An idea is a different thing and can not be treated like a truly scarce commodity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. RW, I've been paying attention with interest to your ongoing debate with WB. I'm in general agreement with you. It seems to me though the debate could be more focused and streamlined. The issue of IP is not so complicated.

    The central question should be, "Do we, as libertarians, accept Locke's homesteading principle on property? Yes or no?" Everything else is peripheral.

    If yes, then IP becomes an essential morally justified form of property. If no, then libertarians no longer have a coherent principle of property.

    From John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690):

    "The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property."

    This definition applies perfectly to products of the mind (far more so than for physical property). An idea is "created out of the state of nature" by its originator and as such should rightfully be his or her property.

    I honestly cannot understand that after 300 years, this issue is still being debated among libertarians.

    From Herbert Spencer, Social Statics (1851):

    "And it is further manifest, that the moral law permits a man who has by his intellectual labour obtained such new knowledge, to keep it for his own exclusive use, or claim it as his private property. He who does this, in no degree exceeds the prescribed limits of individual freedom. He abridges no one’s liberty of action. Every other person retains as much scope for thought and deed as before. And each is free to acquire the same facts—to elaborate from them, if he can, the same new ideas—and in a similar manner employ those new ideas for his private advantage. Seeing, therefore, that a man may claim the exclusive use of his original ideas without overstepping the boundaries of equal freedom, it follows that he has a right so to claim them; or, in other words, such ideas are his property."

    This is not hard. WB and all aIPers need to give up the ghost. They have no rational leg to stand on and rather than arguing against IP wholesale they could be thinking of ways IP can be better implemented. IP is here to stay as it should be.

    The larger debate on IP has been muddled by economists and their scarcity argument. They don't seem to understand that economics is descriptive not prescriptive. The question of having IP or not cannot be answered by economics – IP is a question of social morality.

    Scarcity is a non-issue anyway because (as you have pointed out) an idea is by definition scarce until it's creator publishes it. Why, by the act of publishing, should he relinquish control of his idea? Why should some other person by their act of publishing his idea without permission cause him to lose control of it? It shouldn’t.

    But the pIP position wins on consequentialist grounds too. If we adopt the Marxian paradigm of “no private property” for products of the mind, less IP will be produced. Take away the incentives and say good-bye to great novels, movies, video games, apps, and on and on. We have IP (since the late 15th c) for a reason. Can it be better formulated? Maybe. That's where libertarians should be focusing their energy.

    Does IP enforcement violate the NAP? Less so than enforcement of other forms of property. Most IP comes with a contract like an EULA that by using the IP the user agrees to the terms and conditions. Land doesn't and is enforced by edict. This would be the case if there is a state or no. Again, a non-issue.

    I believe IP should be temporary (on this I disagree with you) but I also believe so should land ownership. This can be done voluntarily if the people of a given society consent to the arrangement. A rational choice because ownership of anything valuable forever creates unnecessary potential for conflict.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plenarchist said: "An idea is 'created out of the state of nature' by its originator and as such should rightfully be his or her property."

      Okay, so the idea is the property of the author. When I copy a book and sell the copy, I am not taking away the author's idea. The author still has the idea in his head and on his paper. QED.

      Delete
    2. >> The author still has the idea in his head and on his paper. <<

      Nope. By copying the work, you take away the author's control of it and controlling something is the very definition of property. The words are the property - not an arrangement of neurons in the author's head.

      Here's a joke for you...

      Question: How many Marxists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
      Answer: Dunno because the lightbulb wasn't worth inventing.

      Delete
    3. When I copy the work, I do not take away the author's control of his idea, nor of his words that he wrote on his paper -- he still has those words on his own paper and he has complete control over them. The author has no right to control what I do with my own property; such as my paper or my copy machine.

      That joke is an example of a possible utilitarian reason to keep copyright. There are many examples which show the opposite; that without copyright there would be more creativity and invention, and everyone would be better off.

      Delete
    4. >> When I copy the work, I do not take away the author's control of his idea, nor of his words that he wrote on his paper -- he still has those words on his own paper and he has complete control over them. <<

      No. The IP is not the ink or bytes - it's the words. IP is an abstract property. "Property" itself is a legal abstraction and anything that can be identified uniquely can be made into property. The Sun can be property if an enforcing agency is willing to defend the claim. Property is anything a society wants it to be.

      The value of any property is in the thing itself. The value of land is in the land. The value of gold is in the gold. The value of IP is in the information - no matter how many copies exist or how easy it is to copy.

      >> The author has no right to control what I do with my own property; such as my paper or my copy machine. <<

      You're right and no one is claiming otherwise. The paper and ink is your property. Burn the book. Sell it or give it away. But the paper and ink is *not* the IP. The *words* are the IP. And the words, by definition, are NOT your property. They are the author's. Copyright means you can do what you want with the book but not the words it contains.

      >> That joke is an example of a possible utilitarian reason to keep copyright. There are many examples which show the opposite; that without copyright there would be more creativity and invention, and everyone would be better off. <<

      Of course, a lot of crappy IP has been produced without the right of IP... To claim "more creativity and invention" without IP though is bonkers. There is a reason IP has been around for over 500 years. Because it works! Everywhere IP rights have existed, there was boom in IP production. The renaissance was powered by IP. The northern Italian city-states implemented IP to attract artisans and craftsmen. And it worked! And then IP statutes spread across Europe... along with the renaissance and after that the Industrial Revolution. Just a correlation? Maybe but no such explosion in innovation and creativity has occurred in ANY society that didn't have IP rights.

      For every "example" you think you have against IP, I can produce thousands in favor of IP. Almost every economically successful invention, literary work, movie, and on and on was produced under a regime of IP rights. North American Indians had no IP rights... hmmm how many innovations and creative works did they produce? They had some cool cave art I guess...

      From Wikipedia, "The origins of some of these [IP] rights can be traced back to ancient Greek culture, ancient Jewish law, and ancient Roman law. In Greek society, during the sixth century B.C.E., there emerged the notion of the individual self, including personal ideals, ambition, and creativity."

      You can't win this argument. Give it up.

      Delete
    5. "The value of any property is in the thing itself. The value of land is in the land. The value of gold is in the gold. The value of IP is in the information."

      The value of anything exist ONLY in the mind of an individual and this value is subjective and varies depending on which individual is doing the evaluating.

      You said IP has been around a long time because it works. What about the state? It has been around a long time too, but, because it works?

      What is plenarchy, by the way? I looked it up and can't find anything. Are you an ancap/voluntarist?

      Delete
    6. >> The value of anything exist ONLY in the mind of an individual and this value is subjective and varies depending on which individual is doing the evaluating. <<

      The *amount* of value is subjective but that there is value is not. If a person desires something for any reason, it has value by definition.

      >> You said IP has been around a long time because it works. What about the state? It has been around a long time too, but, because it works? <<

      The state does work just not optimally from the libertarian perspective. And the state is inevitable until humans evolve into fully moral beings at which time the state will become obsolete and disappear naturally. The question for us now is not whether the state should exist (because it will) or if it works (because it clearly doesn't very well) but what form of state works best for libertarians (and non-libertarians too).

      >> What is plenarchy, by the way? I looked it up and can't find anything. Are you an ancap/voluntarist? <<

      "Plenarchy" was an early label I used for a model of voluntary libertarian free state I'm developing. I had a blog but took it down to continue the project offline. It's an ambitious project.

      I consider myself an anarcho-capitalist but a "pro-state" ancap. I reject the Rothbardian "no state" proposition as untenable. And "anarchy" doesn't mean no state - it means no rulers. What does that mean to me? A state without government or nightwatchman state.

      And if the "no state" proposition is not viable, then what is? The other choice for libertarians has been the state we have only "limited"? I reject that also because it is fundamentally flawed in its design (the modern republic is hell spawn).

      If libertarians want to live in a free society (and not just fantasize about it), the first step (which hasn't been done yet) is to engineer from the ground up the political institutions and legal framework to support it. That's my project. Hopefully one day, I'll be able to publish my treatise.

      And IP will be part of it.

      Delete
  3. "Further, Dr. Block's characterization that should IP protection be recognized that there will never be any words, or other intellectual property, given away for free simply is another part of his "unrealistic" model."

    ...and further proof of this: Elon Musk recently opening up his Tesla patent trove to everyone. (Though, it's important to note he didn't relinquish his patent rights, he just said he wouldn't enforce them(for now?), HT to Kinsella on that point)

    Some might suggest he's doing it for "altruistic" reasons, but knowing the industry pretty well myself & I can assure you the major reason is this:

    Musk is/has complained that his volume isn't high enough to get his car prices further down. So how do you do that?

    You get your competitors to adopt your standards(by giving them your designs) to try to drive the component parts you source from vendors at a lower price as their production volume increases.

    So once again, proving Dr. Block wrong(which I never like doing) in his suggestion. There is a clear case when self interest has guided/initiated the giving away of property. In fact, it's called the "Razor/Razorblade" model of business:

    http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/razor-blade-model.asp

    Overall nice retort RW. I'm glad you guys are going written, I think it helps to clarify things.

    I agree with Plenarchist, "scarcity" simply muddies the issue of IP(as does "rivalry") and I don't it serves much purpose.

    I see the issue being one of value retention/use(obviously). I think we all value the NAP, some of us for moral reasons as Plenarchist suggests, but if I'm not mistaken Rothbard was careful to avoid that argument and instead argued for the NAP from a self interest perspective,(feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), but either way...it's rooted in property rights which is a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't actually think that Walter Block's "performative contradiction" argument is the strongest or best argument against IP. It claims to refute IP by applying it universally - even to language - when, in fact, IP is only applied selectively in the real world. It may be a valid reductio ad absurdum to refute IP that way, but I think it is more convincing to refute IP as practiced and argued, rather than as could be practiced and argued.

    At their best, the Pro-IP debaters base their position on a few word games that allow them to conclude that IP is property and therefore that imitation is theft.

    At their worst, the Pro-IP debaters simply beg the question that IP is property and proceed to condescendingly lecture us on the history and importance of property and to brand as Marxists anyone who disagrees with them about IP.

    Their main word games are:

    1) Imitation is theft. No it isn't. It's imitation.

    2) Attributes (actions, colors,etc.) are not simply descriptions of existing objects, but actually have existence. No they don't. Flying does not exist. Birds and planes exist and flying is a word that may, at times, describe them. A plane (an object) can be property, but flying (a description) cannot. Objects, unlike descriptions and attributes, have what economists refer to as "scarcity" - they can't be possessed by everyone, only by someone. This gives rise to a need for the idea of property.

    3) Earning is objective. No it isn't. To earn is to gain a voluntary reward from another person who subjectively values something produced by you. Free (voluntary) trade is two-way earning. It is an error to claim you have earned if no one voluntarily chooses to reward you.

    4) Not receiving is losing. No, it isn't. To lose something means that first it must be your property and in your possession. Then it must pass from your possession against your will, while remaining your property. Only then can you claim a "loss".

    5) Imitation causes a creator to lose "control" of her idea. No, it doesn't. The idea remains safely an attribute of her brain, which is under her full control. This is rhetoric which disguises the real goal of IP law, which is not to control one's property, but to control other people and their property.

    The defense of IP is nothing more than the defense of a coercive market monopoly. As such, it requires a lot of word gaming.

    IP law is not a libertarian position. Technically, it is a fascist or mercantilist position. It requires a violation of the NAP.

    Utilitarian arguments that, without IP, there would be no creating, are unprovable and counter-intuitive. Stopping people from imitating good ideas does not make the world a better or more creative place.

    Arguments based on legal precedent are invalid. Bad law does not become good law with repetition over time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >> At their worst, the Pro-IP debaters simply beg the question that IP is property... <<

      Beg what question? IP is property by definition. Intellectual p-r-o-p-e-r-t-y. See? It’s property.

      And the Marxist charge is accurate. Marxism is anti-private property. Anti-IP is anti-private property. The effect of both is the same – diminished production because the incentives are taken away.

      >> 1) Imitation is theft. No it isn't. It's imitation. <<

      Immitation is theft if copying something loses its value when immitated. You must not have a problem then when the Fed Res inflates the currency and reduces the value of your money. All they’re doing is “immitating” your dollars en masse after all...

      >> Objects, unlike descriptions and attributes, have what economists refer to as "scarcity"... <<

      Irrelevant as explained above in this thread. Ease of stealing doesn’t justify doing so.

      >> It is an error to claim you have earned if no one voluntarily chooses to reward you. <<

      Huh? If someone publishes a novel that people then purchase, that is a rightful voluntary reward. If you copy the novel and sell it, that isn’t. Copying a thing already produced by another (out of the state of nature i.e. the mind of the author) does not then entitle you to claim it as your own to control and profit from. Sell the paper for fuel if you want, but selling copies of the words is stealing.

      >> To lose something means that first it must be your property and in your possession. <<

      And the IP creator publishes with the understanding he or she retains control over the IP created. Possession is not relevant. If you let someone borrow your car, once in their possession does that then make it their car?

      >> The idea remains safely an attribute of her brain, which is under her full control. <<

      If all that is left to the creator of IP are the words and diagrams in their head, there is no incentive for them to publish them. They’ll just stay in their head or really never be thought up because there’s no reason to bother.

      To control something means to do so outside of one’s imagination. Property is a social phenomenon, not some fantasy that only exists in one’s head. The property *is* the creative work in public.

      >> This is rhetoric which disguises the real goal of IP law, which is not to control one's property, but to control other people and their property. <<

      Huh? How does JK Rowling publishing her book result in enslaving you? Your positive act of copying her words enslaves her. If not for her labor, you’d have nothing to copy in the first place to profit from.

      >> The defense of IP is nothing more than the defense of a coercive market monopoly. As such, it requires a lot of word gaming. <<

      And the defense of your owning land, a car or your self is nothing more than defense of a “coercive market monopoly.”

      >> IP law is not a libertarian position. Technically, it is a fascist or mercantilist position. It requires a violation of the NAP. <<

      Yes it is. It is THE libertarian position. No more fascist than the state granting you a monopoly on land you purchase.

      >> Utilitarian arguments that, without IP, there would be no creating, are unprovable and counter-intuitive. <<

      We have 500+ years of proof that you ignore.

      What is NOT proven is that in the absence of IP rights, the Renaissance, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution and Information Age could have possibly occurred. These eras all happened under some regime of IP rights.

      In no other human society in history have they been duplicated in the absence of IP. Did the Aztecs? Mayans? Incas? Chinese? Egypt? Pre-Colonial North America? N. Korea has no IP rights. Read any good N. Korean novels lately? None of these societies had IP (as far as I know) and none of them independently produced electricty, flight, movies...

      I have to hand it to the aIPer though. No other thief has to work this hard to feel good about stealing other people’s stuff.

      Delete
    2. John, per our discussion you should also add "value" to your list of things that you don't think exist in #2.

      Delete
    3. Nick, I did include it by mentioning actions. "Value" is a an action of a brain, yes?

      Delete
    4. "Value" is both a an action and a characteristic. Given that you posit that "characteristcs" do not exist, I think it's important that you are clear on your theories so everyone can evaluate them so I would ask you always include your theory that "value" does not exist.

      For example:

      "To value", is an action.

      "Having value", is a description(but also a noun by definition) if used such as this"The car is of value", both use the same word but convey different meanings.

      per Google:

      val·ue
      ˈvalyo͞o/Submit
      noun
      1.
      the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

      or

      verb
      1.
      estimate the monetary worth of (something).

      I'm actually really interested in you responding to Plencarchist's point:

      "The *amount* of value is subjective but that there is value is not. If a person desires something for any reason, it has value by definition."

      But regardless, I see the metaphysics surrounding the word "value" as important.

      I think things either exist, or they don't.(and that has no bearing on whether they are physical in nature or not)

      I'm quite sure myself that "value" exists, you seem to be quite sure it does not. I'm interested in trying to figure out why we each feel the way we do, in an attempt to get to the truth.


      Delete
    5. Nick, a clue to the problem is that your "noun" definition (above) is actually a verb, "held".

      "This car has value" means some existing person values (a description of the person) this existing car. The sentence only mentions 2 existing things, not three. "Value" is a description of one of the two.

      I say descriptions are words describing things which exist. But they are not, themselves, things which exist (except as words). They refer to existing things.

      Taking your other example: "If a person desires something for any reason, it has value by definition."

      Logically, "Value" is a description of the person, not the something, though the sentence makes it sound otherwise.

      Delete
    6. @Howard >> Logically, "Value" is a description of the person... <<

      I don't understand. How is "value" a description of the person? Do you value food? Or are you the food?

      The etymology of "value" is straightforward. From http://www.etymonline.com/, "... late 14c., "degree to which something is useful or estimable,"..."

      So if a thing is desired by a person for its usefulness that thing has value by definition... by definition.

      Since food is necessary for your survival, we can objectively say that you value food. Same for water, sunlight, oxygen, etc. But because humans possess high-order cognition, value extends beyond only those things useful for survival... hmmm and reproduction. Humans have complex desires thus value is complex i.e. subjective.

      Do you have a better argument?

      Delete
    7. "I say descriptions are words describing things which exist. But they are not, themselves, things which exist (except as words). They refer to existing things."

      I just don't see that logically as you do.

      For example, if we take your notion that "value doesn't exist" but only describes something that does, it runs directly against Mises.

      For example:

      “Prices are a derivative of subjective use value.” (Mises)

      Notice that value is not referring to anything that is "existential" by your definition, and if we apply your notion that "value doesn't exist" to the above statement then how could prices form?

      Delete
  5. @Nick,

    Your last paragraph (above) contrasts a "moral" argument against a "self-interest" argument, thus implying that self-interest is not moral, yes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Your last paragraph (above) contrasts a "moral" argument against a "self-interest" argument, thus implying that self-interest is not moral, yes?"

      No, that is incorrect. I simply highlighted the difference in approach. "Morality" being subjective, I simply noted it because it's important to understand different approaches when morality becomes an issue from an subjective standpoint.(like whether IP is property or not for example)

      The two concepts can reinforce each other as much as they might contrast.(I meant to suggest neither)

      Delete
    2. OK, I understand.

      Delete
  6. @Plenarchist libere vivimusOctober 26, 2014 at 5:37 PM

    IP does not become property simply because it is so named; neither is the IRS a service.

    Crediting centuries of human progress to IP law is no more valid than crediting it to slavery, another popular coercion through the ages. Far more common than IP and slavery together is imitation, copying, learning by example, which are fundamental human traits that do in fact nourish human progress and which IP is designed to prevent by outlawing imitation and market competition.

    Arguing that the motivation to be creative requires IP and supporting that argument with an example of someone being creative in anticipation of a coercive monopoly is invalid. It certainly is true that without IP law, some creations would not be pursued, but others certainly would. It is remarkably cynical to claim that human creativity requires motivation by state coercion. No doubt, when the state dangles a reward, however immoral, it will "inspire" efforts by some to gain that reward, but that hardly proves that human effort requires immoral rewards to be so dangled.

    The analogy to the Federal Reserve is invalid. Money - unlike any other commodity - functions in the market as it does in part because of its scarcity, and counterfeiting defeats that scarcity and so makes money less valued (only possible with fiat money under legal tender laws). But IP law uses coercion to create an artificial and unnecessary scarcity. It forcefully reduces the wealth of many for the sake of a few, just like Federal Reserve counterfeiting.

    Comparing ideas to land is simply repeating the false argument-by-metaphor that attributes are objects and can be owned.

    Another problem with IP law, not mentioned so far, is that it depends entirely on the pretend science of psychology. Mind reading being a fiction, it is not actually possible to say who thought of what first, but even if we could, it wouldn't matter, for as Herbert Spencer says: "And each is free to acquire the same facts—to elaborate from them, if he can, the same new ideas—and in a similar manner employ those new ideas for his private advantage." He is saying that an idea may be employed by anyone in whose mind it resides. I agree, but I prefer different rhetoric: an individual owns his brain, and an idea is simply a description of his brain's activities - it is an attribute of his brain. Descriptions, attributes can't be property. You can own a plane, but you can't own flying. You can own your brain, but you can't own a thought since someone else may have the same thought in that brain which they own.

    Suggesting that the state grants you a right to land is hardly a libertarian view. The right to land ownership comes through homesteading, trading, or gifting, like all ownership. Land is potentially property because it cannot be possessed by all (scarcity). But an idea can be possessed by all, and with no loss to the originator of that idea.

    And having less market share is not a loss. Market share is not a property or a right. Not receiving does not equal losing.

    IP, simply put, is the notion that whoever is first gets to attack whoever is second in order to prevent market competition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >> IP does not become property simply because it is so named <<

      Does property exist in nature? No, it doesn’t. Property is a human construct. It is what society wants it to be. Property CAN be anything. The question is what SHOULD property be... Land is property because private land ownership is beneficial. IP is property because private idea ownership is beneficial.

      >> Crediting centuries of human progress to IP law is no more valid than crediting it to slavery, another popular coercion through the ages. <<

      IP is not slavery anymore than private land ownership is slavery. Would you credit the abundance of food in grocery stores to private land ownership? I do. And private idea ownership fills bookstore shelves, movie plexes and video game shelves. Same same.

      >> Far more common than IP and slavery together is imitation, copying, learning by example, which are fundamental human traits that do in fact nourish human progress and which IP is designed to prevent by outlawing imitation and market competition. <<

      IP promotes learning and exchange of knowledge. That was a primary goal of why IP was instituted in northern Italy in the 15th c. The guilds operated on trade secrets which inhibited knowledge sharing. The patent system puts knowledge in the public sphere that otherwise would be kept secret.

      >> It certainly is true that without IP law, some creations would not be pursued, <<

      Why not make all products free then? Cars, planes, houses, food... Make all products and services free since people will still toil and sweat to produce them out of their sheer love of doing it... Come on.

      >> It is remarkably cynical to claim that human creativity requires motivation by state coercion. <<

      See above. It’s called human nature.

      >> ... counterfeiting defeats that scarcity and so makes money less valued... <<

      It’s the same freakin’ principle for IP. Reduced scarcity reduces the value.

      >> Comparing ideas to land is simply repeating the false argument... <<

      Land ownership is a state granted monopoly that you enjoy if you own any.

      >> ... it is not actually possible to say who thought of what first... <<

      Yes it is. IP is recorded by date. IP is *not* the idea. IP is the TITLE to the idea. It is the title (patent, copyright, word mark, etc) that determines who, what and when. If you invent a better mousetrap and publish the idea without copyright, it is not IP. If you apply for and receive a patent, it becomes IP.

      >> ... You can own a plane... <<

      You can OWN whatever the enforcing agency is prepared to kill someone who claims the property. That is the definition of property. Property is to control something that the biggest gun in the room says you can.

      If His Royal Excellency Obama declared tomorrow he owned the Sun and the US military backed that claim, he’d own the Sun. You might not like that he claimed the Sun but he would still “own” it. ANYTHING that can be uniquely identified can be property. What should be property and why is what should matter to libertarians. And IP should because it motivates innovation and creativity without causing harm to anyone and conforms most closely than any other kind of property to Lockean homestead principle.

      >> Suggesting that the state grants you a right to land is hardly a libertarian view. <<

      I’m not saying the state grants rights. I’m saying the state *enforces* rights. The rights we have should be rational and the state we have should enforce those rights. Rights belong to the people.

      >> IP, simply put, is the notion that whoever is first gets to attack whoever is second in order to prevent market competition. <<

      No. IP is simply put giving producers of valued products of the mind using their labor and capital justly deserved control over and reward from them. Independent discovery is exceedingly rare to be irrelevant. So by “second” you are saying the counterfeiter is attacked and rightly so.

      Delete
  7. >> The question is what SHOULD property be... Land is property because private land ownership is beneficial. IP is property because private idea ownership is beneficial.<<

    No, it isn't. It is destructive and a violation of the NAP. It violates property rights previously established.

    >> IP is not slavery anymore than private land ownership is slavery.<<

    No one said otherwise. You appear to have misunderstood the point.

    >>The patent system puts knowledge in the public sphere that otherwise would be kept secret.<<

    The patent system outlaws the use of knowledge in the public sphere by all but the patent holder.

    >>Why not make all products free then? Cars, planes, houses, food... <<

    Beating your dead debate horse that ideas and objects are equally qualified to be property remains, as always, invalid. Cars, planes, houses, food can be property. Ideas can not be property. They do not exist except as attributes of your brain or the brains of others. They cannot be your property unless you own the brains of others.

    >> "It is remarkably cynical to claim that human creativity requires motivation by state coercion."
    See above. It’s called human nature.<<

    Speak for yourself....or were you?

    >>"... it is not actually possible to say who thought of what first..."
    Yes it is. IP is recorded by date. IP is *not* the idea. IP is the TITLE to the idea.<<

    Then IP is not about creativity or effort or thought or just deserts; it is about a race to a government office. You make my case for me.

    >>What should be property and why, is what should matter to libertarians.<<

    Very True.

    >> And IP should because it motivates innovation and creativity without causing harm to anyone and conforms more closely than any other kind of property to Lockean homestead principle.<<

    This is the opposite of the truth. IP causes harm by limiting who may use an idea. If something is immoral, the fact that it motivates is morally irrelevant. IP directly contradicts previously established Lockean Homesteading principals.

    >>IP is, simply put, giving producers of valued products of the mind, using their labor and capital, justly deserved control over and reward from them.<<

    I have already responded to these arguments in my points 3 and 5 in an earlier post. Like beauty, the question of who deserves what, is in the mind of the beholder. No one, in a rational society, can claim the right to dictate market value to others. Just deserts are subjective - in the Misesian sense. Value is an opinion - an estimation - not a description of a fact. To say a thought has value does not describe the thought, it describes the brain holding that opinion.

    Control over the products of one's mind is not what is sought after in IP; it is control over the property of others - control over the free market. That this objective is so consistently masked by such obvious euphemisms should give any philosopher serious pause.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >> No, it isn't. It is destructive and a violation of the NAP. It violates property rights previously established. <<

      Yeah, so you say IP is “destructive“ even though it made possible the Renaissance, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution and Information Age. No society without IP has come anywhere close.

      It no more violates the NAP then you do with your state enforced monopoly on owning land.

      >> No one said otherwise. You appear to have misunderstood the point. <<

      You equated the two, “Crediting centuries of human progress to IP law is no more valid than crediting it to slavery, another popular coercion through the ages.”

      >> The patent system outlaws the use of knowledge in the public sphere by all but the patent holder. <<

      No. It outlaws PROFITING from another’s IP. The information is made public which can be used by others to learn about the innovation and make improvements. Under a regime of trade secrets (which you favor), the information is NEVER made public.

      >> Beating your dead debate horse that ideas and objects are equally qualified to be property remains, as always, invalid. Cars, planes, houses, food can be property. <<

      Does property exist in nature? No. Then property can be whatever we choose it to be. If something can be titled in some fashion it is BY DEFINITION property.

      >> Ideas can not be property. They do not exist except as attributes of your brain... <<

      Once written, typed and/or drawn, ideas can be made property. Ideas at that moment exist in the world and can be titled like a house or car. How do I know this? Because that is how it works in practice.

      >> Then IP is not about creativity or effort or thought or just deserts; it is about a race to a government office. <<

      Again, independent discovery ALMOST NEVER happens. And there has to be some means of granting it. Are you going to argue that there was a twin of JK Rowling who was three words shy of producing her exact novel but JK got the copyright first? When the American West was homesteaded, it was first there first to claim.

      >> This is the opposite of the truth. IP causes harm by limiting who may use an idea. If something is immoral, the fact that it motivates is morally irrelevant. IP directly contradicts previously established Lockean Homesteading principals. <<

      Then I’ll have to reacquaint you with Locke's homestead principle as it applies to IP. IP is the product of “labour of his body [the brain], and the work of his hands [typing, writing, etc], we may say, are properly his.” And further “Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature [with his mind] hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own [his capital], and thereby makes it his property."

      IP satisfies Lockean homesteading principle perfectly.

      >> Like beauty, the question of who deserves what, is in the mind of the beholder. No one, in a rational society, can claim the right to dictate market value to others. <<

      And no one does with IP. The market value as indicated by price is determined by supply and demand. No one is forced to purchase or use someone’s IP... IP means you are prohibited from profiting from someone else’s blood, sweat, tears, and risk taking.

      >> Just deserts are subjective <<

      Once again, the amount of value is subjective but whether value exists is not.

      >> Control over the products of one's mind is not what is sought after in IP; it is control over the property of others - control over the free market. <<

      No. The property is the words. And those belong to the creator. If the book is copyrighted, you have only purchased the paper and ink – not the words. The words are not your property.

      It’s pretty clear you’re an ideologue and just like to argue. Adios.

      Delete
  8. I have curious question for the proIPers:

    Let's say there is a cover band who imitates a particular famous band, perhaps Led Zeppelin. They research the outfits Zep wore, as well as get cosmetic surgery to make themselves look eerily similar to the band. Also, they purchase the same or similar equipment and practice countless hours to recreate an almost identical sound, and (of course) play exclusively Zeppelin songs. The experience is not perfectly identical, but it is so close that Zeppelin fans will pack the venue the cover band plays at and a good time is had by all.

    1. What has this band taken from Led Zeppelin?

    2. What would Basitat do (WWBD) with this considering his labor theory of value?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "WWBD" ....lmao! Love it Rick!

      Anyway, let's go back for a moment on this notion that Bastiat somehow contained his views on value to solely "labor theory". I don't believe that is true. In fact, Mark Thornton has a tremendous write up that includes discussion on that topic:

      https://mises.org/journals/scholar/BastiatAustrian.pdf

      Second, from the perspective of "value", which is Bastiat's main contribution in understanding property, LZ's actions(or lack thereof) are dependent on them making a claim or not and it is from that basis that they may decide to protect their "value", or not.

      They might make the claim that cover bands are using their material without permission(their value) and enforce it, or like TP in a hotel room or Tesla giving away their patents(for now), they may not and see it in their interests not to enforce their property rights. (Further, if the cover band in question declares they are imitating LZ or not is also a factor via fraud)

      I'm not sure this answers your question...but how the owner of property responds to someone else appropriating its value is a subjective thing so there's not "one size fits all" answer.

      Delete
    2. edit" *TP in a hotel lobby(different from a room obviously)

      Delete
    3. Nick,

      I am thinking of having some WWBD bracelets that you and Plenarchist can wear around. Remember, I came up with this idea, and if you beat me to it, I am going to sue your ass...

      Delete
    4. lmao! If you make the claim I'll pay the piper(that would be you).

      Delete
    5. Nick,

      No thanks...as you know, I don't believe in that sort of thing...

      Delete
  9. @ Nick

    You have shown a lot of concern with my statement that "Value does not exist". I have made my meaning clear, that value is a description of something that exists, but that value does not enjoy an independent existence itself. You still don't like it.

    I wrote that "Value is a description of the person..."

    Plenarchist libere vivimus, master of misinterpretation, answers, "I don't understand. How is "value" a description of the person? Do you value food? Or are you the food?"

    No, to say that food has value MEANS that some one values that food. It describes the person who is valuing, not the food that is valued by that person.

    If value is an attribute of the food, then what do we say if one person is valuing it and another is loathing it? The food both does and does not have value? That's a logical contradiction. Clearly, value describes a mental state, not the item being valued.

    But let's have it your way. Let's say that Value exists and our creative person has lost some of it as a result of being imitated. Can you say what that means? Did she stop valuing her creation? Did her creation change in some way to become less valued by her? Can you show this value? Can you describe it? Can you define it? How did being imitated cause it to be lost?

    Thanks for any clues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ John

      "You have shown a lot of concern with my statement that "Value does not exist". I have made my meaning clear, that value is a description of something that exists, but that value does not enjoy an independent existence itself. You still don't like it."

      Actually, that's not the issue. I've never claimed that you haven't made yourself clear. If I have, please show me where.

      "But let's have it your way. Let's say that Value exists"

      I don't think you should give up on your point if you feel value doesn't exist, I'd just like you to specifically respond to my point above:

      “Prices are a derivative of subjective use value.” (Mises)

      Notice that value is not referring to anything that is "existential" by your definition, and if we apply your notion that "value doesn't exist" to the above statement then how could prices form?"

      When you explain to me how prices can form without the existence of value, I'll then respond to your question on how it can be shown, defined, etc.

      Delete
    2. A person exists. We can describe that person as subjectively valuing an object. Price is a way to express their valuing. The person exists. The object exists. Valuing is a description of the person, not a separate thing having independent existence. Your turn.

      Delete
    3. "Valuing is a description of the person, not a separate thing having independent existence."

      Ok, read Mises's quote again:

      "Prices are a derivative of subjective use value."

      He is using "value" as a noun there and you still haven't answered my question, if value(the noun) doesn't exist, how do prices form?

      Delete
    4. Are you claiming that a noun always refers to an object? How many counter-examples do you need? Do you not see the term "subjective" in Mises's sentence? His sentence just means "A stated amount of money expresses how useful the seller thinks his product is", which is exactly what I just said in my previous post.

      To say "the widget has value" means at least one mind likes the widget. It does not actually mean that the widget "has" something. English is like that sometimes. Get used to it.

      Delete
    5. "Are you claiming that a noun always refers to an object?"

      No, your quote used the verb. You are conflating words:

      "Valuing is a description of the person."

      So, I'll ask the question again, please try to answer it, if you can't, just say so:

      "If value(the noun) doesn't exist, how do prices form?"

      Delete
    6. I have made clear that value (noun) and value (verb) refer to the same thing.

      And I have answered the question several times. You are pretending it has not been answered as an excuse to avoid answering questions I have posed. Please try to answer them. If you can't, just say so.

      Delete
    7. "I have made clear that value (noun) and value (verb) refer to the same thing."

      Really? They(value the verb & noun) are the same, despite Mises's quote showing otherwise?

      "And I have answered the question several times. "

      No, you haven't.

      "You are pretending it has not been answered as an excuse to avoid answering questions I have posed."

      That's incorrect!

      "Please try to answer them. If you can't, just say so."

      LOL! Alright John, if you want to play word games and pretend the reality is something other than it is feel free. It's consistent with your notion that, "Value doesn't exist."

      Even the one question(and only one), I put "off" was one I already answered because I hate repeating myself with you over and over again. You can describe & define value at any given moment by its price! It's just that simple, even Mises said as much.

      Our discussion have become circular at this point unfortunately. I see no further point. Best of luck John.

      Delete
    8. Nick, you write:

      "They (value the verb & noun) are the same, despite Mises's quote showing otherwise?"

      There's your little mistake, Nick. The Mises quote does not indicate that the noun and verb form of "value" have separate meanings. They both refer to a personal (subjective) opinion about the usefulness of an object.

      Ayn Rand, an admirer of Mises understood this. She wrote, "The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?" And Mises made clear that the answers to those questions were personal opinions, i.e. "subjective".

      Rand also wrote that "The intrinsic theory of value holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man’s consciousness."

      Your mistake, Nick, is to engage in the "intrinsic" theory of value; to believe that value exists out there in reality as something other than a subjective opinion. An opinion is an activity of a mind. Activities do not exist independently of the object that acts.

      Your position, that the imitated creator has lost a value can only mean that she has lost a subjective opinion - in whose mind, you do not specify. That such an opinion can be expressed by price does not in any way change the fact that it is still an opinion.

      It is no wonder that you refuse to elaborate on such a nonsensical position and that you now conveniently end the discussion.

      As I said at the beginning, pro-IP debaters can never say what loss is caused by imitation, because there is no loss.

      Delete
    9. "It is no wonder that you refuse to elaborate on such a nonsensical position and that you now conveniently end the discussion."

      I have elaborated on it, I will revisit it again:

      The very act of "value appropriation" has proven that the person having done so "values" said IP. Then two questions arise:

      #1 Will the creator of said IP make a claim(assuming he can prove he is the true creator) on said IP
      #2 What is the subjective value at that moment for the value that has been both appropriated and claimed.

      Because the subjectivity itself is a problem, we have to lean on the process of private arbitration in whatever form which is completely libertarian in concept.

      BUT, there is no question that both parties have "valued" said IP.

      "Your mistake, Nick, is to engage in the "intrinsic" theory of value; to believe that value exists out there in reality as something other than a subjective opinion. An opinion is an activity of a mind. Activities do not exist independently of the object that acts."

      I'm glad you've actually acknowledged that value exists, OF COURSE IT IS SUBJECTIVE OPINION. I've never claimed otherwise. This whole discussion has been pivoting around whether VALUE exists or not, not its subjectivity.

      You are distorting or misunderstanding my views.

      Existentially speaking, for prices to form, VALUE MUST EXIST. This is STRAIGHT MISES.

      It doesn't matter whether it's subjective or not. That is why you avoid answering my question based on Mises's quote:

      "How can prices form if value doesn't exist?"

      It's logical and axiomatic John:

      Something that doesn't exist, can not bring something else INTO existence. (like prices)

      IPSO facto, value DOES EXIST! You've just confirmed it!

      "As I said at the beginning, pro-IP debaters can never say what loss is caused by imitation, because there is no loss. "

      I have already addressed this issue of "loss" further up. It is a fairly uncontroversial notion that someone that can reasonably prove in a court that they have lost future income due to criminal action, they can receive a judgement for the losses of expected income.

      If you feel it should be otherwise, fine...but that's really a whole separate debate on the question of whether IP should be property or not.

      Delete
    10. some edits:

      "due to criminal action can receive a judgement"

      "separate debate FROM the question of whether IP should"

      My apologies, sometimes my mind and fingers don't coordinate well.


      Delete
    11. At long last, you have gotten to the point: "...they have lost future income ". Wrong. To claim to have lost what you don't own, and moreover to have lost it in the future, is to play in a rhetorical fantasy land. Future income is a free market result, not a property rightfully belonging to anyone.

      You say that I avoid answering your question about Mises. Wrong. You may not accept my answer, but it has been provided.

      Your question was, "How can prices form if value doesn't exist?" I answered:

      ---A person exists. We can describe that person as subjectively valuing an object. Price is a way to express their valuing. The person exists. The object exists. Valuing is a description of the person, not a separate thing having independent existence.

      ---[Mises's] sentence just means "A stated amount of money expresses how useful the seller thinks his product is"...

      ---To say "the widget has value" means at least one mind likes the widget. It does not actually mean that the widget "has" something.

      ---I have made clear that value (noun) and value (verb) refer to the same thing, [mental activity].

      ---They both refer to a personal (subjective) opinion about the usefulness of an object.
      In other words, prices form not because value (noun) exists, but because valuing (verb) occurs.

      I have made clear that value refers to a very real activity, but not to an object. You continue to stubbornly mis-interpret the phrase "value does not exist" to mean that it is not even an activity. I have made clear that I do not consider abstract terms (descriptions, actions, etc) to be things which exist. You continue to refuse to deal with my full position and continue to only quote me out of context. Repeating: value is an activity of the mind. I have said that repeatedly. Activities do not exist, they occur. Use words carefully. The mental activity of valuing leads to expressions of value called prices. Prices are language.

      Meanwhile your belated answer to my own question is utterly invalid. Future income cannot be lost to the creator because it is not the property of the creator to begin with. As I said in my first post, one of the key word-games played by Pro-IP debaters is to claim that "not receiving is losing". No, it isn't. Market share cannot be property. Customers cannot be property. Their money cannot be anyone's property but their own.

      Your strategy in this debate is to ignore what I write and to repeatedly dwell on the "values exist" fallacy. No they do not exist, they occur, since they are mental activities, not objects. Your pattern is to pretend that hasn't been explained repeatedly.

      You are playing two of the word-games I listed in my first post: pretending that activities are objects and pretending that not receiving is losing.

      Delete
    12. " Future income cannot be lost to the creator because it is not the property of the creator to begin with."

      That is an existential issue, which at this point in time doesn't matter because we can't agree on what property "is" as I already noted. All you're doing is confusing the issue at this point in time.

      John, you are right in one respect, I don't accept your answer:

      "[Mises's] sentence just means "A stated amount of money expresses how useful the seller thinks his product is"...

      If Mises meant that specifically, he would have used the word "money" & not "value".(In fact, Gordon just ripped someone over this) There is no question in his statement, "Prices are a derivative of subjective use value." that he is using the word "value" as a noun.

      What is also utterly invalid is your statement "that value (noun) and value (verb) refer to the same thing, [mental activity].", especially in the context of Mises's statement.

      Since we can not agree,I am content to let people judge for themselves whether "value" as a noun and verb mean the same thing and more importantly, how Mises "meant it" in the context of his statement.

      Further, I am also content for people to decide whether it's existence as an activity means that it doesn't create said value(as a noun).

      I offer a simple proof(I haven't done proofs for 23 years, so bear with me):

      P: People determine value on property(Bastiat)
      P: "Prices are a derivative of subjective use value." (Mises)
      P: Prices if agreed upon can be exchanged monetarily (or barter, trade, etc.)

      So value, can result in prices, which can result in exchange by money(physical) or other methods.

      Going back to "existence" being either a yes or no proposition, value is routinely translated into a physical state and therefore its existence can't be doubted(whether you want to call it a verb or noun is unimportant).

      Value does exist, clearly(in my opinion, Bastiat's, and I believe Mises despite your weak argument).

      It is you playing "word games", by your failure to acknowledge the difference between a verb and a noun. Conveniently making up a John Howard dictionary I suppose, where when a word is a verb and a noun they are the same thing, regardless of what another dictionary says.


      Delete
    13. Words refer to reality (usually). A verb and a noun may both refer to the same reality (a mental activity). Value is such a word.

      Recently you amended some of your previous writing. Fine, I will not quote your previous writing, I will only quote your amended writing.

      Do me the same favor. I withdraw my statement that values do not exist and I replace it with "Values do not exist, they occur." Please don't quote me as saying that value does not exist without continuing the sentence. Thank you.

      You cannot prove that values exist. I can prove that they occur. You make the remarkable statement that value is translated into a physical state. Perhaps you could reword that, but it sounds as if you are saying that if I value an object, value becomes an object (if I like an object, does "like" become an object).

      The Bastiat quote perfectly supports my view that value is a mental activity, not an entity.

      The Mises quote perfectly supports my view that value is a mental activity, not an entity.

      Your 3rd proposition makes no sense. A price is a linguistic expression of value which is a mental appraisal. Prices are not exchanged. Objects are exchanged.

      But your next sentence is correct, and can be translated to: Mental activity (value) results in expression (price) which results in object trading.

      I have not failed to acknowledge the difference between a verb and a noun. It is you who fails to acknowledge that many nouns refer to actions, not objects. Value is one of those. There is no dictionary which supports the idea that value (noun) is anything other than a mental activity (verb). Find a dictionary that supports your view, if you think you can. All definitions of value, whether noun or verb, refer to mental activity (verb), not entities. By the way, "action" is a noun also, but it obviously does not refer to an object. Action does not exist, it occurs.

      Delete
    14. Nick,

      I must travel, so I won't be able to continue this. Thanks for a good debate. The last word is yours.

      John

      Delete
    15. "Do me the same favor. I withdraw my statement that values do not exist and I replace it with "Values do not exist, they occur." Please don't quote me as saying that value does not exist without continuing the sentence. Thank you."

      John, I have no problem with referencing your new statement and will respect your request.

      Before I continue on, I think it is best that we both try to use respectful rhetoric in talking with each other. For example, I'm using "value appropriator" so we can discuss without offending.

      I would ask you hold judgment on why you think I'm debating a topic a certain way. You are guessing what is going on in my mind in a very offensive manner. So let me be clear, I'm not seeking to "avoid" or manipulate the debate in any way to avoid discussion of key topics and if the inference that either of us is not "libertarian" is made, I think that's unfair to both of us. Your characterization of people playing "word games" also seems a bit much. We need to discuss WHY we can't agree on words, not suggest the intent of disagreement itself as being disingenuous. I think one of the biggest reasons Kinsella has trouble communicating his notions on IP successfully at times is due to his offensive nature(out of frustration?) at times.

      I think you and I agree that the key to this whole debate is that we disagree on what property "is" and it might help us both if we can focus on that.

      "Your 3rd proposition makes no sense. A price is a linguistic expression of value which is a mental appraisal. Prices are not exchanged. Objects are exchanged. "

      You are correct in that I worded it poorly(I had three of my kids buzzing around me at the time and lost my coherence), if you could extend me the same courtesy in return that you asked for above, I would like to revise my statement:I simply meant to say what I said further down, every day prices are determined with a physical manifestation involved many times.(a transaction) That, in essence is my "proof" for the existence of value.

      "I have not failed to acknowledge the difference between a verb and a noun. It is you who fails to acknowledge that many nouns refer to actions, not objects."

      That is simply not true, if you read above in our back and forth I have acknowledged that nouns don't always refer to objects.

      "There is no dictionary which supports the idea that value (noun) is anything other than a mental activity (verb). "

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value

      (Noun)

      "the monetary worth of something : market price"

      "a numerical quantity that is assigned or is determined by calculation or measurement

      I see both of these as a direct reference to value being manifested as an object(money). So are we splitting hairs? Isn't value described as $10 an object at times?

      If you disagree, then I would like to address your revised statement:

      "Values do not exist, they occur."

      The problem I see with statement John is that to me, something either exists or it doesn't. Do you agree with this or no? In other words, is "occurrence" a separate existential definition in your mind?

      Delete
    16. I understand John, feel free to respond to me directly after you return:

      toolexnick "at" gmail

      Delete
  10. @ Plenarchist libere vivimus

    According to you, the important question is what SHOULD be considered property, which is a moral question, since it determines when force may be employed.

    You speculations about the utilitarian benefits of IP throughout history are therefore irrelevant as well as being highly debatable; but that would be a different debate - and one I have no interest in since I prefer one debate at a time. It amounts to a change of subject. Likewise your existential remarks about IP law, such as that it will be decided by the "biggest gun in the room" are also irrelevant. They have nothing to do with the moral question. Likewise your quotes - whether from Locke or Spencer - amount to argument by authority and are equally irrelevant as well as highly debatable, but again, that would be a separate debate.

    If we filter out all this irrelevant material and focus only on the moral debate, your position can be reduced to two arguments:

    1) a creator loses control of her idea when that idea is imitated or copied (with the implication that she has a moral right to control her idea).

    2) the homesteading principle applies as much to ideas, as it does to objects.

    Neither of these arguments are valid.

    The first makes little sense. What is meant by "control" of an idea or a string of words? These are patterns in mind or on paper. How does the creator control these? By thinking? By typing? How does imitation interfere with thinking or typing? What harm results from imitation?

    The second is a case of metaphorical thinking. The homesteading principal arose as a way to settle a legitimate dispute. The dispute arises because two farmers cannot farm the same land. The homesteading principal settles that dispute by stating that whoever was first to farm it has the right of ownership. But, obviously, that dispute does not arise in the case of ideas. Two farmers can both use the same idea to farm their separate lands. So the homesteading principal serves no purpose. It is a non-sequitur to claim that being first to have an idea creates, or requires, a right to stop others from acting on that idea. There is no reason to draw that conclusion.

    You label me an "ideologue who likes to argue". Thanks. Same to you.

    You also say, "Adios". Don't get my hopes up.

    ReplyDelete