By Pete Sisco
In this article I will briefly address these four issues:
1. Why the State is the wrong system to protect intellectual property (IP)
2. Why IP is more important than physical property
3. Why the arguments against IP protection are immoral
4. The good news for people who completely disagree with me
1. You won’t find me defending the State as a moral and efficient means to accomplish anything. A State operates on coercion and therefore nothing it does can be moral.
In the case of it’s so-called protection of IP it operates on rules not agreed to by all parties which is a very low technology, to say least. Trademarks and patents offer protection only to the first person to file papers with the State and permit no recognition of other people who developed similar or identical IP completely independently of the first guy to file papers. Further, if the holder of a patent or trademark doesn’t vigorously defend his claim in court (i.e. enrich the legal lobby and the State) he loses all claim to his property.
The State leaves no room for the owners of IP to protect their property in different ways according to their own desires. IP rules are arbitrary, mandatory and coercive – pretty much like everything else the State does.
2. Before we get to all the arguments used by communists, some anarcho-capitalists, and assorted others to claim IP is not property and therefore must not be protected, I’d like to establish, by way of analogy, the supreme value of intellectual property.
Suppose tomorrow we awoke and all over the world every item of physical property was gone. No houses, no bulldozers, no medicine, no vehicles, no books, no computers, no clothing – every form of physical property was gone. The world would be in the condition it was one million years ago. How long would it take humankind to rebuild itself to where we are now?
The good news would be that people who knew how to farm food, grow cotton, make clothes, make tools, mine minerals, build airplanes and so on would all be alive. Those people could go to work doing whatever they could to rebuild. They could also teach others to carry on their work. How long would it take to rebuild to where we are now? Two centuries? Four centuries? We are four centuries past the year 1613 so how long would it take to get to that level of technology with every person alive today working on the issue? Not long in relative terms, thanks to having all the IP.
OK, now let’s suppose we awake tomorrow and all of the physical property is perfectly intact but our minds have all been wiped clean of our knowledge – our intellectual property. So we have the same IQ but are living in the intellectual property condition of one million years ago. How long would it take to harness the power of fire? Last time around that took over 400,000 years. How long to realize knowable, measurable laws operate in the universe? That took until 1687 – most of a million years. How long until we recognize that diseases are caused by germs not by evil spirits? That took until Pasteur. Vacuum tubes? Transistors? Integrated circuits? How long would it take to discover that the ring of sharp metal totems on your kitchen table has one object that, when placed into the steering column of that strange metal cave in your driveway and then twisted causes the engine to roar to life? By the time that little mystery got solved there would be nothing left of the car. The physical property would rot waiting for our IP to catch up.
Any rational, objective examination of the relative value of physical property and intellectual property must arrive at the conclusion that IP is orders of magnitude more valuable to each individual and to humankind collectively. By extension, the people who create IP sometimes have the ability to create massively more value than those who create physical property.
Read the rest here.
(ht Charles Terry)
Seems kind of useless to be arguing about IP. The market has spoken. "Piracy" of digital files on the internet, which can be considered a free market because its unregulated, is happening on a massive scale and theres nothing you can do about it. You may not like "piracy", but the free market doesnt give a crap what you like no matter how many logical arguments you have. The free market is saying, "piracy" or copying of digital files, is ok. Case closed.
ReplyDeleteThey may be getting away with but the last time I checked, stealing was still immoral.
DeleteLast time I checked, imitation was not stealing.
DeleteAsk the writer of the song if they think it's imitation.
DeleteThe writer of the song does not get to redefine the language to suit his marketing wishes.
DeleteThe free market also overfishes the oceans. Are you opposed to privatizing the ocean?
DeleteBetter arguments, please. Setting the IP debate aside, there are serious flaws here.
ReplyDeleteFirst, knowledge ≠ IP. If we woke up with no IP, everyone still knows everything and then some. There was no concept of IP for much of history, but people knew things.
Words have meanings. This is just like the "libwap" argument of, "Libertarianism is whatever I want it to be today," that is constantly attacked here.
Second, the absurdist disaster scenario paints humanity as dependent on IP for survival, yet the real world example used is...musicians making a living off of MP3s?!?
Bizarro world 1998 called, and it wants its profession that never existed back. Musicians earn a living by performing. This is nothing but the RIAA racketeering line.
Third, this is just terrible writing and debating:
"Before we get to all the arguments used by communists, some anarcho-capitalists, and assorted others..."
"Along comes Karl the Anarcho-capitalist, Syndicalist, Marxist, Voluntaryist of some particular blend..."
In addition to the red herrings, poisoning the well, etc. this is completely directionless. Am I to assume this is a simultaneous argument against Stalin, Chomsky, Rothbard, and "assorted others," such as, but not limited to, Weird Al Yankovic, Captain Kirk, and Klaus Nomi?
It's not a debate if you are just talking to yourself and inventing your opponent's arguments. It's make believe.
Thanks, Brandon. You just saved me several paragraphs.
DeleteWhat the pro-IP debaters will never answer: what was it that they owned, and now no longer have, when they were "robbed" of their IP?
That's like saying about the toll road owner who doesn't get paid, "Hey, so what, he still owns the toll road."
DeleteThere is a large difference between IP and a toll road. To use his toll road is to take up space on it and produce wear and tear on it. Your analogy is invalid.
DeleteJohn Howard, they lost exclusive distribution rights. Also, your reply to anonymous is a blatant form of question begging. Here is another example. I assume you support trespassing laws. What have you lost if someone walks across your land? You have lost the right to exclude others from walking across your land. As Rothbard explains, property rights come in bundles. One of the rights in owning land is the right to exclude others from walking on it. Similarly, one of the rights in owning IP is having a right to exclusive distribution.
DeleteThe problem I see with pro-IP people is that they don't give examples of how it would work in a free-market/ancap world.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens if I borrow my friend's book (and therefore I'm not in a contract), and then made a copy of the book. How does the author use the law to get restitution?
A copyright would likely arise in a free market/ancap world through contract. I would argue that if the book you borrowed from your friend contains a prominent notice that the book was sold under a contract that prohibited copying, that you could take that book with no more rights than the current owner (your friend) has in it. If a large percentage of authors in the market were selling their books under a contract that prohibited copying, I would argue that a "common law" copyright might arise in a free market/ancap world even absent the prominent copyright notice. A more detailed explanation can be found here:
Deletehttp://www.lexjudicata.com/2014/04/intellectual-property-and-libertarianism.html
I would respectfully ask that you don't respond until after reading the detailed explanation at the link.
I read your article. My new question is, what is the ancap legal criteria for entering into a contract? I don't think posting a notice is enough to bind someone into a contract.
DeleteThe legal criteria for formation of a contract would likely be developed in an ancap legal environment in much the same way that it developed in the past under something known as the "common law." Under the common law, posting a notice might be enough, depending on the circumstances, to form a contract. If the notice is found to constitute an offer, and the other party is found to have accepted that offer, and there is consideration, it could form a contract.
DeleteEven if it isn't, I believe there are still circumstances that would allow a property owner to enforce a contract against a non-party. For example, say an owner of a house leases it under a contract that says "no dogs allowed on premises." Doesn't the property owner have the right to enforce this clause against a friend of the lessee who brings his dog over to the house? Now transfer this example over to a single copy of a book sold under a contract prohibiting copying. Aspects of such a sale could be seen as a lease because full title of the property (the book) has not been transferred. Could the owner not enforce that contract against third parties who come into possession of the book? After all, the book sale contract governs use of a specific piece of property just like the lease contract.
Another type of contract that is enforceable against third parties and, I believe would be under an ancap system, would be a property lien. Here, a lender loans money to a borrower to buy a specific piece of property, with an express provision that if the loan is not repaid, the property will be sold to satisfy the loan. Can the borrower sell to a third party and leave the lender with no recourse against the third party purchaser? Of course not, and he shouldn't be able to do that. Here again, you can look at the sale of a single copy of a book. The book is a specific piece of property that is governed by a contract that was freely entered into by the purchaser, and that contract prohibits copying. How can you say that an ancap legal environment would allow the book purchaser to flout the contract by transferring it to someone else with no restrictions on copying?
In the first example, the property owner doesn’t have the right to enforce the ‘no dogs’ clause against the friend, he only has the right to declare breach on the lessee. It is the duty of the lessee to prevent dogs on the property.
DeleteIn the second example, the contract is not binding on the third party, but the lender can ask for the contract between the borrower and third party purchaser be invalidated because there was a lien on the property.
In the case of copying a book, all of the responsibility falls on the purchaser, not the friend who borrows it. The purchaser made an agreement that he will ensure that no one makes a copy, so the purchaser faces consequences. The copier did not make any agreement.
First, you have admitted that the lender has legal recourse against the third party over actions that the lender was not involved in (the formation of the contract between borrower and third party). There's no reason not to extend this to other contractual obligations.
DeleteAlso, how can you possibly think that the property owner can't enforce his "no dogs" clause against the friend? Does he own his property or doesn't he? I think a court in an ancap society would order the lessee AND the friend to remove the dog.
You continue to ignore that contracts can be formed between parties absent a formal written agreement signed by both parties. There are oral contracts, and there are contracts where terms are offered by one party and accepted by another party based upon customs that arise in certain markets. Sometimes these people never meet each other face to face, sometimes it goes through a broker, sometimes it goes through a computer screen or telephone. You cannot unequivocally rule out a custom arising in the literary market whereby it is understood that, unless specified otherwise, books come to the user with a contractual prohibition on copying. Or it could require a prominent notice of the prohibition. I don't know where an ancap/free market society would end up, but my gut feeling is that something like this would occur. You can disagree with me, but I don't think you can categorically rule it out either.
There is a massive confusion in pro-IP fraction: somehow they got an idea that if something is valuable it MUST be property and therefore "IP" (being valuable) must be property, too (I won't bother offering counterexamples, as anyone can come up with a few things valuable to them which are not property).
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental problem with contract theory of IP is the fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of contracts: if I give some information to somebody under conditions of non-disclosure, it DOES NOT create property rights in this information, not at all. All it creates is restriction on behavior of the other party in the contract. Contracts cannot (and should not) create any liability whatsoever for those who are not party to the contract - because this would not be a voluntary act, and therefore violates NAP.
If A and B have a contract, and C conspires with B to breach the contract, I think it would be well within the moral rights of A to go after C for damages resulting from that breach. If A was unable to go after C, then B could just use C to hide the proceeds of the breach, leaving A without any legal remedy beyond a judgment that cannot be collected.
DeleteIn any case, if the cover or first page of the book contains a prominent notice of the contractual restriction on copying, even second- and third-hand possessors of the book can be said to have voluntarily assented to the contract by proceeding to use the book. No one is forcing them to read the book, but they can be said to be on notice that by using the book, you are assenting to a contractual prohibition on copying. It's completely voluntary - if you don't like the terms, go read a book without them. Again, the common law could arise that everyone understands and recognizes that books are routinely sold under a contract prohibiting copying, and parties who are not original purchasers take copies of books with the constructive knowledge that there is a contractual prohibition on copying and are bound by it.
I'm not saying that anything valuable is property. This is a specific legal argument based on fundamental moral principles.
"somehow they got an idea that if something is valuable it MUST be property"
DeleteReally? Who is saying that?
The fundamental moral issue is whether, having created something and made it public, the creator has a right to pull a gun on everyone and stop them from imitating him. Claiming "ownership" and loss requires naming what one has lost through such imitation. And to say one has "lost" something requires proof that it was owned and possessed and that it has passed out of the creators possession. Pro-IP debaters consistently evade this question. They never want to name what is lost.
Delete"Pro-IP debaters consistently evade this question. They never want to name what is lost. "
DeleteActually, I dont' evade it, I say it's "value" that's been lost.
I have asked over @ EPJ though this question and never really received a valid answer to Block's ponytail example in his debate with RW:
(lifted from EPJ)
"If you are for copyright, but not for IP, explain how Block's argument in regard to ponytails isn't applicable to copyright as well.
Block asks, "What has been taken from you if someone copies your ponytail." (paraphrasing)
So, by Block's own argument, if you write a book and someone copies it, word for word, and then decides to sell said copies, what have you lost?"
@Nick,
DeleteNo, value is not lost. Value is subjective. If you value a bit of music and I reproduce it, there is no reason for you to stop valuing it, is there? You have answered the question, but not validly. How does imitation reduce value?
"How does imitation reduce value?"
DeleteI'm about to answer this in response to your excellent house example below.
"Who is saying that?"
ReplyDeleteRW implies that in every other post he makes about IP. As in "look - they themselves treat it as valuable" putdown of people who do not think that classical information can be property.
" As in "look - they themselves treat it as valuable" putdown of people who do not think that classical information can be property."
DeleteI'm not sure of which post of his you are referring to, but I don't think he's confined his thinking to only "non classical" information. (but I'm really not sure how you define classical)
I'd just like to point out there, that there is a big difference between saying "that if something is valuable it MUST be property"(which I don't ever think RW has suggested) and the idea that "property includes a characteristic of value"...there's quite a big difference there.
Maybe in fairness to you, you meant the latter.
"I'm really not sure how you define classical" - in the physical sense. Classical information is infinitely copyable, and thus not scarce. Quantum information cannot be copied (due to no-cloning theorem) and thus has the same properties as matter: i.e. it is scarce, and therefore may be considered property when controlled by an economic agent.
DeleteI do not think property implies value. Value is subjective and not stationary; something which was quite value-less for me yesterday may become quite valuable today. Property rights are about control, not about value.
"I do not think property implies value."
DeleteI find that to be an odd comment. It seems that there is always something of value in anything that someone considers property. It would seem ridiculous to own any property that has absolutely no value by any metric. But I'm open to any examples you can think of, showing property that people typically claim that has no value what so ever.
"Value is subjective and not stationary". I agree, I see no contradiction with that statement and the possibility of it applying to property.
"Property rights are about control, not about value." I agree again, but the debate is over what is being considered as property, not the control of it per se.(for libertarians anyway)
So from that perspective, if anti-IPers are treating "classical information" as if they have value, there is naturally a reason to bring it up and discuss why. I don't see it as a "putdown" as you stated, I just see it as pointing out the obvious, and a search for some reasoning so we might get to the heart of the matter.
The value of something cannot be owned. For example, if your neighbor let his home go into disrepair and the value of your house went down, you cannot sue your neighbor for the loss you incurred because you don’t own the value of your house, you only own your house. The value of your house is comprised of the subjective preferences of prospective buyers.
Delete"the debate is over what is being considered as property, not the control of it per se"
DeleteProperty rights establish who has exclusive control over the scarce resource under the law. They do not deal with value of the property. What I wanted to point out is that the question whether some particular class of information is valuable or not is completely irrelevant to the discussion on whether it should be considered property.
My take on that is that the fundamental reason for having the system of property rights in the first place is to eliminate conflict over control and use of things. The only reason conflict can arise is because material things are conserved (due to physical property of conservation of matter), and thus taking control of them implies loss of control by somebody else (I'll omit homesteading/abandonment for clarity).
That said, I realize that the term "control" is somewhat confusing here - maybe the word "use" would be better.
A hypothetical magical world (or a virtual-reality simulation, if you prefer sci-fi to fantasy:) in which any good or space could be cloned instantly by merely expressing a wish would have no need for property rights: a solution to any resource conflict is simple, so there is absolutely no reason to restrict what people can do. (Note that _privacy_ is still an issue, but since it's a magical world you can create an impenetrable opaque bubble around things you don't want others to see - that'd be equivalent to strong encryption).
@ Anon
DeleteTHAT, is a very thoughtful reply. Thank you.
" For example, if your neighbor let his home go into disrepair and the value of your house went down, you cannot sue your neighbor for the loss you incurred because you don’t own the value of your house, you only own your house."
For the sake of discussion, I'm thinking you still own the value in said house, even though your neighbors actions have diminished it.
Along those lines, there might be a circumstance under which your neighbor would be liable...like under a HOA type situation for example.
Still, you've brought up a good point in that the neighbors actions have diminished said value...and we typically outside of a HOA type situation don't allow neighbors to sue for said reduction of value...so I'm going to think about that a bit and get back to you.
@ Anon & Jon Howard
DeleteAfter thinking a bit more on the issue of value, and Anon's excellent house example, I offer some further thought:
We must logically distinguish between THEFT of value & DIMINISHMENT(word?) of value.
Why? Because it separates a clear crime, from a consequence that may not have been criminal.
So, using your house example. If someone across the street from me has trouble keeping up their lawn and maintaining the appearance of their house, while they may have diminished the value of my house, they have not STOLEN it.
Conversely, to your point above in regard to copying music(and I would include books as well, and other things), you have actually stolen said value. Yes, I agree, value is subjective, but we know at that point in time that the creator of said value might be able to establish a market price if his music/book has been successful.(and if the market value at the time was zero, that's probably what a jury would rule for compensation)
So there has been a diminishment(word?) of value in that the selling opportunity was lost. (and I'm going to assume for a moment that personal use only would be excluded, let's assume it was someone copying exactly books/music for the purpose of selling in competition to the creator or owner(can be different obviously)
I'm curious as to your response(s).
You’re saying that if someone causes another to lose a selling opportunity then this is theft of value. One example of this is me copying a book and selling the copies which prevents the author from making a profit. But another example of your rule is a new restaurant opening across the street from another restaurant and they get all the old customers which makes the established restaurant lose selling opportunities. I’m sure you don’t think this example is a theft of value. Your rule has to be consistent for any example. So you can’t make the general statement that – “causing another person to lose selling opportunities is theft of value”. In order to uphold IP or copyright in a voluntaryist/ancap society, you can only do it through contract, and third parties are not bound to the contract between the author and purchaser. Which means that if I borrow my friends book, or if I find a book which was thrown away, and then make copies, it is fine for me to sell the copies for a profit. In an ancap society, authors need to find creative ways to make a profit.
Delete"So you can’t make the general statement that – “causing another person to lose selling opportunities is theft of value”.
DeleteActually, that's not what I said, or am trying to say.
I'm saying the QUANTIFIABLE act of taking someone else's value in a criminal fashion(which would be taking their value via COPYING and then selling it to others for example) is what would qualify as the theft of their value.
I don't see you drawing the distinction between competition/diminished value, & that of theft of value via copying for example.
I've linked this before, but this part of the discussion reminds me of the "McDowell's vs. McDonald's" scene in Coming to America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfE98T10hu0
Now, given that value & property are subjective, I understand the difficult of the nature of this debate.
I don't think anyone can own value. The potential to make a profit cannot be owned.
Delete"I don't think anyone can own value. The potential to make a profit cannot be owned."
DeleteWell, I believe that Bastiat makes a good case for value being owned.
That being said, owning value is a different thing from owning the "potential to make a profit"...",potential being the key word.
Potential & value are two different things. You can prove value a lot more easily than potential(which doesn't mean value). A jury won't award on the basis of potential either generally speaking.
Thanks for the mini-debate. I always look forward to you comments here and on EPJ.
DeleteThank you greatly for the compliment Anon, I appreciate the dialogue as well.
Delete"This is a specific legal argument based on fundamental moral principles."
ReplyDeleteThat something is immoral does not imply that it should be illegal. Accepting the premise that morality is the foundation of law makes ANY kind of atrocity justifiable on the grounds of "morality" (which is, after all, just an opinion of majority - without any deeper logical foundation).
N.A.P. has nothing to do with morality. It is nothing more and nothing less than a principle necessary to eliminate conflict for scarce resources (as long as all participants follow the principle).
The notion of IP creates artificial scarcity when there's no natural scarcity exists. As such, it CREATES conflict where no possibility for conflict existed before. Therefore the notion of IP is incompatible with both spirit and logic of NAP.
And, no, copying can be quite involuntary. If I have eidetic memory, I make a permanent precise "copy" of every book and movie I've read, and keep this "copy" in my posession. Now, it would be insane to claim that people with eidetic memory violate copyright (though I was a witness in a lawsuit where the plaintiff claimed exactly that). Beacuse most people do not have this kind of memory, they use technological equivalents: photocopiers, video recorders, and such. Now, how exactly using a prosthesis instead of natural ability makes things immoral or illegal?
I find the whole issue of "copyright" interesting in this debate...and I have a belief that sorting it out may hold the key for movement in some people's minds.
DeleteMost anti-IP people seem to be pro copyright(correct me if I'm wrong). I see an inherent conflict in their philosophy as a result.(see my question above in re: Block's pony tail argument)
The question in my mind for clarity, is why people that are pro copyright, but anti-IP, can see a case for preventing someone from copying a book(the method is unimportant, as you allude to above) and selling it on their own....versus claiming that copying a computer program or movie for example isn't subject to the same protections. (and I do believe Kinsella is correct in pointing out Rothbard was inconsistent)
It would seem to be that if you're going to be anti-IP, you should also be anti-copyright for consistency. Wouldn't you agree?
You need to define morality.
Delete@Nick,
DeleteI agree that being anti-IP, yet pro-copyright is inconsistent. I reject the entire thesis that anyone has a right to forcefully prevent imitation of any kind. To do so - in every case - is a violation of individual private property rights.
I'm certainly anti-copyright, and consider it being merely a way to socialize the costs of exclusion (and thus prop up otherwise unsustainable business models) by imposing liabilities and enforcement costs onto third parties.
DeleteAnother consideration is that all works of art ARE derivative. Nobody ever writes, films, creates, etc anything in a contextual vacuum. In fact, a completely novel work would be totally incomprehensible, since it lacks the context. It couldn't even be translated into anything comprehensible, even in theory. This makes the claim of copyright owners that they somehow acquired complete exclusive right to their work quite dubious. To have that right they need to either homestead (see "incomprehensibility") or to appropriate similar "property" created by others without any compensation to them. By their very own actions, creators of copyrighted work deny the validity of the concept of copyright.
The only logically coherent theory behind copyright is that it allows creators to capture some tangible value because they deserve it because of their labor. Which is merely a restatement of Marxist position.
"You need to define morality."
DeleteExactly my point: before you can appeal to morality as basis for any argument (legal or not), you need to define it. Which leads directly to the moral relativist sinkhole, where you cannot have any rational argument at all because all opinions are equally valid.
@ Averros & John Howard
DeleteEven though I don't agree with your position, I'm glad you guys are consistent in your philosophy.
I don't understand how Block can be pro-copyright.
The bottom line is this. If an idea is a derivative of your life, if it's your original idea, you own it. At the point in time that you think of it, it's yours. You control it and you own it. You decide whether to disclose it or not. It's yours to do with as you please. If you disclose YOUR intellectual PROPERTY, hopefully you will be able to use it as you see fit. If someone takes it and uses it as their own, it will be your PROPERTY they stole.
Delete"Most anti-IP people seem to be pro copyright(correct me if I'm wrong). I see an inherent conflict in their philosophy as a result."
DeleteSo, by extension, pro-IPers would be pro-copyright. Copyright utilizes "implied consent", a tenuous concept when you get around to trying to establish a breach of "contract". It is eerily reminiscent of the Statist "social contract", and is equally mystical. Moreover, I cannot imagine how such protection could be offered absent a coercive government. Perhaps you pro-IPers have some insights?
If we need to define morality, it is a code of conduct - a set of rules. For now, let's forgo a discussion of the derivation of those rules and simply state that, for most people, morality means a rule against harming the harmless.
DeleteWhat the pro-IP debaters are saying is that imitation harms the originator of an idea. This is the point that I am disputing. I am not condoning stealing or harming. I am arguing that imitation is neither.
The value of my house is said to have been lessened by my neighbor's failure to care for his property.
If this means I enjoy living there less or that the market value is lessened because of the diminished beauty of the view, that may be so, but I did not own the view and I bought my house knowing the possibility that the view might change. My neighbor does not owe me a nice view unless there is some sort of neighborhood contract involved.
To harm means to remove something which was rightfully owned and possessed. There is no harm in this example. The view was not rightfully owned and possessed. These same arguments apply to IP. It cannot be shown that imitation does harm. It's the sincerest form of flattery. It's education.
The sole focus on what is and is not property is a bit misguided here. Property rights are not the only rights or obligations that can arise in a free market society. Contractual obligations - even those covering pure information - should be enforceable in a free market society. Or do you not believe that an employer can and should be able to contractually restrict its employee's ability to share information with competitors? If you believe this, then the laser focus on whether a property right can attach to information is misguided. There are ways a generally accepted contractual prohibition on copying could arise in a free market society, as I have outlined several times and in several different ways.
Delete@ Rick
Delete"It is eerily reminiscent of the Statist "social contract", and is equally mystical."
Not really. The social contract has nothing to do with a voluntary transaction, let alone actual protection of property rights.
"Moreover, I cannot imagine how such protection could be offered absent a coercive government. Perhaps you pro-IPers have some insights?"
Yea, it's all about private security/protection for that, that is deemed "property". But come on Rick, I know that you of all people know that.
I understand(as well as you) that what property is determined to "be" is subjective. But I'm making the case for Bastiat's quality of "value" as a reasonable metric for all parties.
@John Howard
DeleteJohn, for my own understanding, I'd like you to take a moment and focus on the what the difference is between between the incidental and unintended diminishment of value(in your house example) versus the actual theft of value(like copying music that has market value and an established ownership).
Any thoughts there?
I think of the common law notion, from Black's "The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property."
It seems to be a long standing, reasonable ideal. Even further, there are times when the law recognizes diminishment outside of criminal acts(negligence).
I know we all have the major dispute over "what is property", but isn't the fact that someone would take the time to steal(or even copy if you don't like the word steal) said value(music, book, etc.) indicative that value is being taken? (and by Bastiat's argument, property)
It seems like it would be tough for you guys to argue that the things people are copying don't have value....
@Nick,
DeleteYou have asked me to focus on:
"...the actual theft of value (like copying music that has market value and an established ownership)."
You are asking me to focus on the truth of your beliefs.
Copying is not theft. Market value (other people's preferences) is not property. "Established" is an appeal to law. We are debating the validity of that law are we not? The arguments for such laws all require a metaphorical confusion of property and pattern. Property can only be physical; you may not own a pattern, an idea, a color, a math formula, or the content of another person's mind.
If you wish to keep your ideas to yourself, do so. But when you reveal a good idea to me, it is like pointing out a mountain pass to me. You do not thereby acquire the right to stop me from crossing the mountain through that pass.
The argument is not that the idea does not have value, it is that value is not the basis of property. There can be value without property and property of no value.
The desire for a coercive market monopoly does not produce a property right.
@ John Howard
Delete"But when you reveal a good idea to me, it is like pointing out a mountain pass to me. You do not thereby acquire the right to stop me from crossing the mountain through that pass."
That example doesn't really hold. If you homestead the mountain, making it your property and then point it out you can certainly can stop me from crossing it.
"You are asking me to focus on the truth of your beliefs. Copying is not theft. "
Fair enough. You have conceded though that there is a taking of value from someone else if I'm not mistaken, you don't like it being called "theft".
That's ok, I can roll with that. Do you recognize a difference between taking value from someone and that of creating value on your own that might diminish the value of someone else without taking their value?
That is the reason your house example doesn't work logically.
"Property can only be physical"
...and that is your subjective opinion, the proverbial "truth of your beliefs" as you rightly pointed out to me above. So we'll have to move from that area for now I guess....
"The argument is not that the idea does not have value"
I'm glad you've accepted that! Seriously, that a good point to start IMO, an area of commonality between us.
"There can be value without property and property of no value."
I don't disagree, neither does Bastiat's argument. However...to your point...the issue is what is "property" itself as that is where conflict arises, and the basis of the NAP is conflict avoidance/resolution. So, naturally, if someone has something of value that they consider property, and someone else doesn't consider valuable, WILL THERE EVER BE A CONFLICT? Obviously, no.
But what we have in the case of books, music, etc. being copied is a case where the value is CLEARLY causing conflict...and the question then is how is it resolved...because the value is suggesting the conflict is over property.
"The desire for a coercive market monopoly does not produce a property right."
That's never been my argument, similar to your objection of the taking of someone's value being labeled as "theft", I'd ask you to consider that the "other side" of the debate is looking to protect perceived property, which isn't a "monopoly" per se...if I tell you that you can't have my boat you would be hard pressed to say that I'm maintaining a monopoly on my boat ownership in the traditional use of the word.
"You have conceded though that there is a taking of value from someone else ..."
DeleteI certainly have not conceded that. A value, though a noun in form, is a verb in fact. It is an action of your mind. You can value what you wish, whether it is your property or not. I cannot "take" a value from you. Imitating you takes nothing from you. If you disagree, say what you no longer have. What is lost? What was taken?
Telling me that my mountain example "doesn't hold", then changing it so it doesn't hold makes no sense. As presented, it does hold.
Your boat analogy is not relevant. No one is denying your right to own a boat - a physical object. "Monopoly" has a common definition. IP law establishes a monopoly - the right to forcibly prevent imitation in the market. That is what you are defending, yes?
"I certainly have not conceded that. "
DeleteOk, let's try a different word then. How about you are "using" value, created by another?
Does that work?
If so, we are back to Block's argument, which you posit:
"What is lost? What was taken?"
My argument is that the value you have appropriated, can potentially come at the expense of collecting a market price for it by its creator.
Now, that is where the word "potentially" comes in. Does the IP have value? We know that question is subjective, but that is what a jury and/or private enforcement/arbitration is for.
The answer is quite clearly "yes" in the case that someone that has appropriated value, like copying/imitating for example, has taken something at a loss to the creator if they have successfully sold said copy.
In fact, it self satisfies the question as to whether said copy, and it's original, have value or not.
So then the question becomes, who has rightful ownership to the value(which is property in this example, I know you disagree)...
"Telling me that my mountain example "doesn't hold", then changing it so it doesn't hold makes no sense. As presented, it does hold."
I had no choice but to change it, because in the case of IP someone IS MAKING A CLAIM ON IT AS PROPERTY.
I'm sorry you didn't like the change, but for me to roll with your example it had to be relevant. Someone in your example just pointed out the mountain, they didn't lay claim to it.
"IP law establishes a monopoly - the right to forcibly prevent imitation in the market. That is what you are defending, yes?"
You are correct. I misunderstood the nature of your point. I identify the "idea" potentially as property, and hence see its copying as a form of theft(understanding you disagree).
I retract that comment accordingly, but will add the notion "coercion" is a response to the perceived theft of an idea...so the question in regard to your original comment is who initiated the coercion.
Which brings into question whether a monopoly can be a part of society on a voluntary basis if people can agree on what "property" is.....you've brought up a good point for me to think about. I appreciate that.
@ Nick,
DeleteYou continue to treat "value" as a noun. Value does not exist. It is not a "something" that can be owned, stolen, loaned out, or tripped over. As a noun, it is a rhetorical form which refers to an action of the mind, the act of deciding that you like something.
You appear to believe that as long as you keep using it as a noun, you can keep making a case that IP is valid property which can be stolen. Nothing intellectual can be stolen. The contents of your mind cannot be stolen. Value is mental content. It cannot be stolen.
You write that someone can take something "at a loss to the creator if they have successfully sold said copy." This is the point of your whole position and it is false. You cannot show that this is a taking of anything at all from anyone. You can continue claiming it through word-gaming "value", but such an argument will continue to be invalid.
To copy is not to take. This metaphorical word-game is at the heart of the entire IP argument, not just your own version of it.
"You continue to treat "value" as a noun. Value does not exist"
DeleteValue does not exist?
John, you've made some good points, up until now. The idea that you are going to deny the existence of "value" is not one. Really, I think it's bordering on absurd.
You have rooted your understanding of property solely in the physical realm. I think Bastiat's argument for property having the characteristic is sound, and value obviously is not physical, but can be manifested as such by turning it into money.
"As a noun, it is a rhetorical form which refers to an action of the mind, the act of deciding that you like something."
That's right. But that is the basis for our understanding on what to exchange for it. Mises's point about value being subjective doesn't mean it "doesn't exist" as you put it. There are no "word games". The classification of the word doesn't not matter in the big picture.
Really, you are seemingly contradicting yourself when I quoted your earlier comment "The argument is not that the idea does not have value"...you seem to be acknowledging value exists, you are just claiming that it can't be stolen.
It seems like you've just limited it to the physical realm, yet acknowledge its existence. (well, you do, then you don't....please clarify)
Also, you really haven't addressed my point by which your use of said value(whether you think it's property or not doesn't matter) created by someone else has the potential under the right circumstances to harm the original creator by taking their opportunity to turn said value into money. Would you at least agree that that is a possibility?
If you will limit yourself to using the word "value" as a verb only, then try to write your position, you will find you can't do it. You may value (verb) something, but you can no more sell a value than you can sell jumping or sitting (verbs). Value is a verb. You can't sell it, lose it, store it, trade it, or look at it. "A value" refers to an object that you value (verb). To claim that you have lost "a value", but didn't lose the valued object is a contradiction in terms. It simply means that you no longer value (verb) that object. No one can steal an action (valuing) from you.
DeleteYou write: "It seems like you've just limited it to the physical realm, yet acknowledge its [value] existence. (well, you do, then you don't....please clarify)" Clarification: Objects are not actions. Actions are not objects. Value is an action, not an object.
As to the harm of "taking an opportunity", the possibility of making money in the market is not a right or a property. You do not own the market, the customers, their preferences or their money. You do not "earn" such ownership by thinking something up. Why do you label it "harm" when you did not lose anything you owned? By that reasoning I am "harmed" constantly by all the things I wish I had, but others won't give me.
"Objects are not actions. Actions are not objects. Value is an action, not an object."
DeleteOk John. I think we are in a stalemate. You are claiming that because value is an action, not an object, that it doesn't exist.
"Value does not exist"
It is at this point that I can't see us further progressing in our discussion. Because you see the term "value" as verb, hence "You can't sell it, lose it, store it, trade it, or look at it.", you in are in the unenviable position of having to deny Mises's staple "value is subjective" statement as well as Bastiat's proof that property has value over the grammatical structure of a word.
Even further, you can "sell it, lose it, store it, trade it". You are incorrect. It's axiomatic. I can't believe we are actually having a debate on it.
I am a bit weary of the topic for now, so I'm taking a break. It probably doesn't matter because you are claiming that "value doesn't exist" by way of the nature of grammar, value as a "verb". To me, it is akin to claiming "running doesn't exist"....we all know "running" is not an object...but clearly running does exist....lol
"You do not "earn" such ownership by thinking something up."
Well, obviously, my argument is that you do. Assuming no one else has prior, concurrently, etc.(using Bastiat's explanations on how value is created, which is just an expounding of other's work on property before him)
"Why do you label it "harm" when you did not lose anything you owned?"
Because, as I've explained, "value" has been lost, and that's why we are at a stalemate because you claim "value doesn't exist".
"By that reasoning I am "harmed" constantly by all the things I wish I had, but others won't give me."
This argument doesn't make any sense to me in the context of our discussion. Creating IP is a "verb" as you put it, it requires you to work(via thinking) on the solution to a problem or the creation of a product, etc. It has nothing to do with "things I wish I had".
Despite our current stalemate, I want you to know our discussions have been very helpful to me in many ways and I appreciate them.
Best,
Nick
@ Nick
DeleteIf we wish to engage in moral philosophy, it would be wise to use language carefully, not casually. We can say, casually, that "running exists" . But that is not accurate. What exists are objects: runners. And objects act. So the accurate use of language is that runners exist and running is how they act. To say that running exists MEANS that runners run. It does not mean that running is a thing. No one can steal running. It's a verb, not an object. Running does not "exist", it occurs. It is a descriptive term, describing runners, not an existing thing itself. Same with value.
"Value is subjective" MEANS that the action called "valuing" is personal (an propoerty of mind, not a property of the valued object). Mises and I are on the same page.
"Property has value" MEANS that people value (verb - action) property. Bastiat and I are on the same page.
You repeatedly quote my "Value does not exist" and then ignore that I am saying it is not an object, but an action. Objects exist. Actions are attributes of objects, not objects themselves. Not that hard to understand.
Then you seem to imply that all that creative effort was lost. Effort is expended; how is that a loss? How is that loss "caused" by imitators? Does the creator not have his creation?
But now you are weary and yet you have not answered the question I posed: what has the creator lost that was his property? Your answer is: running. That's your story and you're stickin' to it! Good luck.
And thanks, Nick, for a courteous debate.
"what has the creator lost that was his property? Your answer is: running." "Good luck."
DeleteSo much for the courteous debate eh?
I've answered your question, he's lost "value", which can be translated into money(the physical manifestation). Your answer is, "value doesn't exist". Yeah, good luck with that reasoning.
"Running" is simply a way to point out that you are incorrect in this notion with value, "You can't sell it, lose it, store it, trade it" because it "doesn't exist"(because it's a verb none the less). It really is an absurd statement.
Last time I checked, NFL players were being paid partially on their running ability. That you would actually try to encapsulate our entire discussion on the basis that my "answer" to you is "running" shows that it's a good time to end the discussion.
@ Nick,
DeleteYou have failed to take my point in saying that your answer is "running", my point being that you cannot lose a verb ("value"). Then you change from verb to noun and claim that the creator lost money. Now that makes sense but is clearly false.
The creator did not lose money. You cannot lose what is not yours.
@ John
Delete"Now that makes sense but is clearly false."
I have no response to that statement.
Instead, I offer this:
A NFL running back, has value, "running" which is a verb, has value(which is also a verb). He clearly owns his running ability. So the act of running(a verb), which he owns, has value(a verb), which he gets paid for.
Now why we are debating "verbs" and whether their corresponding action means their existence or not I have no idea(and more importantly, seems irrelevant)...and if your only point is to call in question whether they are "owned" or not is the purpose, it's a dubious one at best.
I don't think that dog will hunt because I've never seen anyone claim subjectively that a running back doesn't own his "running".
If someone cuts off his legs, he has lost his "value" via the loss of his running(verb) and the money he was being paid for it.
He clearly has "lost" money, though you are correct that it's not money he possessed at the time- which has no bearing on the fact that he has been harmed and has expected future losses as a result.
So I'm going to disagree with your "point being that you cannot lose a verb ("value")". I think I've show you can. To labor, is a verb phrase...it can have value. Does one own his labor(noun), when he is laboring(verb)?
Is it also unreasonable to compensate someone for the loss of future income as a result of criminal action against him? If that is what you are arguing, that again will be a difficult proposition for you to sell to people axiomatically.
If a running back cuts off his legs, he has lost his legs, not his value. His value is in the mind of the beholder. Earlier, your were quoting Mises; now you seem to dismiss his insight that value is a matter of opinion (subjective), not a matter of fact.
DeleteYou then argue that if I expect money and don't get it, I have lost it. That's an obvious falsehood. Not getting what you expect or want does not equal a loss or a crime. Obviously.
And arguing that IP infringement is wrong because it is a criminal act when the debate is about whether it should be a crime, is known in debate circles as "begging the question".
I thought you were weary. Glad you're feeling better.
"I thought you were weary. Glad you're feeling better."
DeleteYes, you have invigorated me now, thank you.l
"If a running back cuts off his legs, he has lost his legs, not his value. "
THAT, is an unbelievable statement . It is your opinion, nothing more. To the casual observer of this discussion, it is going to be a tough sell because your whole argument is that "a verb can't be owned", obviously I disagree.
If a "verb" or "action" can't be owned, then people that are agreeing to "non compete" contracts need to be called immediately and told this.
"You then argue that if I expect money and don't get it, I have lost it. That's an obvious falsehood. "
That is simply not true. It flies in the face of Mises's subjective value via my example below:
"Also, if "not receiving" isn't losing at times, how you would expect anyone to seek compensation for a competitor burning down their building beyond the cost of the building itself? "
If the world existed under the manner you suggest, competitors could burn each others facilities down knowing they would be responsible for the future profits lost. That is a ridiculous notion.
"your were quoting Mises; now you seem to dismiss his insight that value is a matter of opinion (subjective), not a matter of fact."
Oh no I'm not, it's you dismissing him.
You've claimed "value doesn't exist", that's my exact point! In your world, because "value doesn't exist", what Mises had to say is unimportant from that perspective! Astounding!
I'm arguing for Mises's view, you are arguing against it! Your only defense is it's a "verb" or "action" in claiming its non existence.
Suppose I go over to my friend's house and we are listening to music. I whip out my fancy recorder, and record what is playing. I then proceed to discover intelligent life in outer space who, as it turns out, will pay lavish sums to me for this recording. I sell 1,000 of the recordings at a price of $200 each, and trade 1,000 for flights around the galaxy (cheap flight, right?!).
ReplyDeleteSo, the record company hears of this, and would like to sue me. A few questions:
1. Have I breached a contract with the record company?
2. What is the record company's loss?
3. Who arbitrates this judgement in the stateless society?
If you discover intelligent life in outer space, no one is going to care about a breached contract. I think you need to come up with a better example :)
DeleteRick,
ReplyDeleteI respect your well thought out points & questions. I'm actually getting a little weary of the topic at this point, so I'm taking a break and hoping that someone else picks up the proverbial baton and runs with it for a bit.
I'm going to do quick hits on your question(s), hopefully others will run with it. (and they may not, but I'm taking a break on it for a while...I have one more post I sent to RW, I don't know if he'll put it up or not, but I'm done for a bit)
Answers:
#1 No, (but your friend my have, ie. broken a EULA, and the record company may seek a return of their "value"). If you go by RW's contractual IP argument(really a Rothbard construction, but RW is the first to really explore it further), it may pose difficulties. If you define property as having value(among other things), then it's a little easier to claim harm.
#2 & #3 I see together as a private security/arbitration issue(Rothbard, etc.)...and therein there are unanswered questions because by nature currently it's all speculation.
Nick,
Delete"#1 No, (but your friend my have, ie. broken a EULA, and the record company may seek a return of their "value"). If you go by RW's contractual IP argument(really a Rothbard construction, but RW is the first to really explore it further), it may pose difficulties. If you define property as having value(among other things), then it's a little easier to claim harm."
Interesting, instead of going after me (the pirate), it would be my innocent friend who gets the brunt of it! What has my friend (who has merely played the music) taken from the record company?
"#2 & #3 I see together as a private security/arbitration issue(Rothbard, etc.)...and therein there are unanswered questions because by nature currently it's all speculation."
This is putting the cart before the horse. After all, if these "private security/arbitration" firms are enforcing rules which are not libertarian (i.e. do not involve NAP violations) we are back to square one. What we are aiming at here is a proper (libertarian) approach to said arbitration, part of which is restitution.
What is the proper restitution for the record company?
I just caught your response as I was posting one to John, lol...I've got to respond at night...one response per(I hope you understand).
Delete#1
"Interesting, instead of going after me (the pirate), it would be my innocent friend who gets the brunt of it!"
Well Rick, the company would go after both of you I would think. But the question in regard to your friend is whether he knew he was performing a criminal act...which would seem logically to determine the level of restitution involved.(taking back the music, erasing it, etc. vs. larger restitution of the act was intentional)
"This is putting the cart before the horse. After all, if these "private security/arbitration" firms are enforcing rules which are not libertarian (i.e. do not involve NAP violations) we are back to square one."
I disagree for two reasons.
I do feel it's "libertarian" to enforce property rights. Yes, we all have a big disagreement over what property "is"(in Bill Clinton parlance), but regardless I don't think there's any libertarian's out there against property rights.(and I think we both agree that a EULA violation is a NAP violation, even if we don't agree on what property is right now)
"What is the proper restitution for the record company?"
Well, my argument(scratch that, it's Bastiat's argument, I'm just making it because he's not here right now. :) is that "proper restitution" is the "value" of the IP(song, songs, etc.). Notice both of subjective...but society manages to deal with it today...the big offense to everyone(that's libertarian) is that it's via gov't monopoly of security/arbitration.
SUMMARY:
ReplyDeleteThe entire Pro-IP debate is built on two very false notions:
Action = object
Not receiving = Losing
Hundreds of rhetoric-heavy paragraphs are deployed to establish these two falsehoods in the defense of the merchantilist scam of IP. Every Pro-IP argument I have ever read contains one or both of these, for the purpose of "proving" that imitation (market competition) is a "taking".
Then respond above as to how "action" cannot be owned, if it's your claim only physical objects can be owned.
DeleteAlso, if "not receiving" isn't losing at times, how you would expect anyone to seek compensation for a competitor burning down their building beyond the cost of the building itself?
Does that even seem remotely fair?
@ Nick
DeleteAction is an attribute of objects. The object can be owned, but the action cannot be owned separately from the object. Obviously, if you own an object, and it acts, then you own an object that acts. But you do not own the action as separate from the object. An action, by itself, is not ownable.
Your argument that a non-compete contract is an example of owning an action is invalid. If I contract to do (or not do) something, I am being paid to do it. Nowhere is anyone "owning" an action as separate from the entity that acts. You seem unable or unwilling to grasp that a characteristic (color, action) does not "exist" as separate from an object. So it cannot be "owned" by itself. Only objects can be owned. They may have an important color or action that makes them valued by someone, but no one values the color / action without the object that has that color / action, because the color / action does not exist without the object.
If you own a building, it's destruction also costs you time and other losses. You bring this up as if I would disagree with you. I say "not receiving" does not equal "losing" and you offer an example of a real loss (building) and then a failure to receive full compensation. Do you really think you can win debates by constant word-gaming?
Note that you keep inventing examples which are not IP. Your examples are all about actual loss of objects - buildings, legs, etc. But IP "infringement" is not a loss of an object. You are debating by metaphor.
Why not stick to the subject rather than taking a single sentence of mine out of context and repeatedly pounding on it as if I have not explained it to you several times? An action is a characteristic of an object. Like a color. You can own a red object. You do not own the color red by itself. This is obvious but you want to keep debating it. I suppose you will argue that you own the red on your little wagon. No, you own the paint, not the color red by itself without the paint.
I no longer believe that you do not understand this point. I suspect you simply don't want to deal with the IP debate directly, because you continue to evade the central question, which is:
What does the creator lose when he is imitated? The true answer is nothing. But you want him to enjoy a coercive market monopoly and you play endless word games to arrive at a justification for that mercantilist market manipulation.
You have finally made your position clear. You claim the creator is "losing" money (a real object) when he is imitated (competed with). That is obviously false. But now you are off discussing burning buildings and returning to your insistence that actions can be owned separately from the acting object rather than dealing with the simple fact that imitation does not cause loss.
@ John
DeleteFirst before I respond, a note. I'm have time constraints going on right now. Because of this, I'm going to respond to you at night for while, and as long as the debate is moving forward on points we haven't touched on and not getting circular, I don't want to drop it.
I'm just giving you a heads up as I have to slow down on the response because my time is at a premium right now. Also, because of this, I'm not going to address some of your repetitions as it isn't moving the conversation forward(and I'll try not to do the same myself).
"Nowhere is anyone "owning" an action as separate from the entity that acts."
Yea, I would disagree with you there. One party in a non-compete is forbidden from acting in a certain manner AFTER his employment has been terminated(he is no longer "owned" by the company). There is a clear separation between the entity and the action. They company still owns that particular ACTION of his despite the fact he himself is free to go do other things.
"You seem unable or unwilling to grasp that a characteristic (color, action) does not "exist" as separate from an object. So it cannot be "owned" by itself."
John, why the quotes around the word "exist"? Either something exists or does not, correct? If you don't agree, I would appreciate an explanation as to why.
"If you own a building, it's destruction also costs you time and other losses. You bring this up as if I would disagree with you."
That is incorrect John, you have failed to understand the nature of the argument, as also shown by part of your last statement:
"But now you are off discussing burning buildings"
To refresh John, you claimed "Not receiving = Losing" is a "false notion". Every day, juries make awards for compensation on "future losses". It's not even controversial...up until now I guess, for you. There have been entire books written on the topic, here for example:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2007.00539.x/pdf
Are you sure you would like to continue to claim that people aren't entitled to future losses(on money they didn't posses) caused by harm?(whether you agree that IP theft is a crime or not is not important)
If so, I'd like to know just for the sake of discussion.
"You have finally made your position clear. You claim the creator is "losing" money (a real object) when he is imitated (competed with). "
John, I'm not sure this discussion is going to go well if you really think that is the argument. I'll try one last time to tell you what I'm arguing, but if you want to ignore it instead of address it, it does us both no good to continue:
Page 2, cont.
DeleteI'm arguing that the appropriation(I'm only not using the word theft out of respect to you) of IP harms the creator of said IP.
It's just that simple. No "constant word-gaming", or "endless word games" as you put it. In fact, "it would be wise to use language carefully" as you put it.
You've made your whole claim on the basis grammar structure, nothing existential, no proofs...simply the idea that you can't own an action/verb....to which I disagree. You don't need to distort my views(unless you honestly don't understand them, in which case I forgive you).
We could repeat what we feel are axioms all day long to each other, but it doesn't matter. As you said, it's just "rhetoric-heavy paragraphs."
"Why not stick to the subject rather than taking a single sentence of mine out of context and repeatedly pounding on it as if I have not explained it to you several times?"
Because John, it's the very basis for both of our arguments. It's a key point.
"Value doesn't exist."
You haven't explained the context you claim I'm neglecting...PLEASE DO! You don't need to get "rhetoric-heavy". But a simply reaffirmation of that statement(or not), would suffice. I don't need the diatribe on actions, verbs, etc.
Do things exist, or don't they? That is an important question for you to answer so we can move forward.
NB:
DeleteI also wanted to offer one "out" to you in this whole "value" issue:
Perhaps if you decide to retract your statement that "Value doesn't exist.", saying instead "Value does exist, but it's not a physical object.", and that makes you happy, then we can move on to further discussions on value for both our benefit.
@ Nick
ReplyDeleteBut only physical objects exist. "Value", like color, is a description, not a thing.
Here's an "out" for you in this whole "value" issue: perhaps if you decide to admit that value doesn't exist except linguistically (it's a description of your feelings), then we can move on.
Meanwhile, sadly, you have yet to make clear what the creator has lost when he is imitated. Since your only answer, so far, is "value", then your answer translates to this: when the creator is imitated, he doesn't like it.
So What?
@John
Delete"But only physical objects exist. "Value", like color, is a description, not a thing.
Here's an "out" for you in this whole "value" issue: perhaps if you decide to admit that value doesn't exist except linguistically (it's a description of your feelings), then we can move on."
John, I'm really glad you reaffirmed your opinion. I'm content to let the debate stand as is.
If you think value doesn't exist, and I do, there's really nothing more to talk about.