There's a question that's been bugging me about libertarian property rights theory for some time now, and I couldn't quite figure out how to formulate it until yesterday when I was reading Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property."
Kinsella says,
[W]hat is the harm in. . .recognizing [intellectual] property? The problem is that if property rights are recognized in non-scarce resources, this necessarily means that property rights in tangible resources are correspondingly diminished . . . For me to have an effective patent right--a right in an idea or pattern, not in a scarce resource—-means that I have some control over everyone else’s scarce resources . . .To wit, the IP advocate must propose some homesteading rule along the following lines: “A person who comes up with some useful or creative idea which can guide or direct an actor in the use of his own tangible property thereby instantly gains a right to control all other tangible property in the world, with respect to that property’s similar use.” This new-fangled homesteading technique is so powerful that it gives the creator rights in third parties’ already owned tangible property.
My problem is, doesn't this argument apply to tangible property as well? When I homestead, say, a plot of land, am I not in essence also claiming control over "third parties' already owned tangible property"? When I forbid you to trespass with your body on my land, am I not claiming a right of partial control over your body? So it seems to me there is a sort of truth in the slogan "Property is theft!", though not in the way in which Proudhon meant it, rather, that every claim to property detracts from everybody else's liberty to use their existing property. Kinsella seems to think that this concept is an argument against intellectual property, I'm afraid it may be an objection to the libertarian theory of property rights in general.
I'm sure that this concept has been written about and addressed somewhere, do any of you fellows have links to readings that might help me understand the counterarguments to this or why this objection is not an objection?
Also, a question I have that might be related. Let's say that you have a plot of land, and I have my body. I walk onto your plot of land without your permission. How do we know that it is I who am trespassing on your land and it is not your land which is trespassing on my body?
Interesting q's indeed.
As far as the 2nd one, did the land move from where it is to climb all over you?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
You will find differences in opinion here. I tend to subscribe to the belief that property rights are absolute and derive from the only a priori claim to property, the untransferable mental will. Your body is naturally yours because your will homesteaded it first. Therefore, either the body or a piece of land is simply a tool of the will and neither has more superiority over the other.
In regards to your questions, your rights to property end where mine begin. Your problem might lie in that of continuity, a where does one border end and another begin question
To your last question, my land can certainly trespass on your body. For example one of my rocks may hit you, but I believe you are speaking to how we differentiate between them.
Property problems are division problems. You have a hole of material-matter that you keep dividing by ownership.
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
"When I homestead, say, a plot of land, am I not in essence also claiming control over "third parties' already owned tangible property"? When I forbid you to trespass with your body on my land, am I not claiming a right of partial control over your body? So it seems to me there is a sort of truth in the slogan "Property is theft!", though not in the way in which Proudhon meant it, rather, that every claim to property detracts from everybody else's liberty to use their existing property. Kinsella seems to think that this concept is an argument against intellectual property, I'm afraid it may be an objection to the libertarian theory of property rights in general."
Why stop there? Even control over your own body (not even getting into self-ownership) and being in a particular point in space does the exact same thing. New slogan "Existence is theft!"
Because for libertarians, liberty is defined as acting within the limits of non-aggression. You mean liberty in the absolute sense of being able to do anything at any time for any reason. This is not what Kinsella means.
Not really. By merely existing I place no restriction on what you may do with, say, your baseball bat. Only if I claim a right to exist and forbid you from extinguishing my existence by using your baseball bat to transform me into a bloody pulp.
I understand that distinction.
But I don't think Kinsella can mean that by liberty and still remain logically consistent.
Intellectual property in no way limits "liberty within the realms of non-aggression" because to use the existing tangible property in a way that violates intellectual property rights would be considered aggression.
"Not really. By merely existing I place no restriction on what you may do with, say, your baseball bat. Only if I claim a right to exist and forbid you from extinguishing my existence by using your baseball bat to transform me into a bloody "
Of course you do, by you being somewhere, anywhere, logically means I, or any other, cannot be there as well and even after I've beaten you, your corpse still lies there, taking up space. Obviously a restriction of freedom. Your exclamation rights only makes matters more difficult, not inherently different.
It's still not the same type of restriction. Property rights create moral restrictions; that is to say, they don't physically prevent anybody from doing anything in the material world. They simply declare certain actions to be immoral. Existence, on the other hand, is a physical phenomenon. It might physically prohibit you from acting in a certain way, but declares nothing about the moral nature of any action.
So perhaps it is a restriction of your physical freedom, but not of your moral freedom or your property rights.
---------
You are not being careful with the words you use. You are trying to define freedom to include metaphysical freedom, ie you want freedom from reality.
Property rights create moral restrictions; that is to say, they don't physically prevent anybody from doing anything in the material world.
Got an example of libertarian property rights creating a "moral" (legal?) restriction which has no bearing at all with an individual interfering with the physical integrity of another person or their property?
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Richard Marmorstein:Intellectual property in no way limits "liberty within the realms of non-aggression" because to use the existing tangible property in a way that violates intellectual property rights would be considered aggression.
It doesn't matter that all libertarian property rights all "have bearing" with individuals interfering the physical integrity of another person or their property. The point is that moral restrictions are different from and cannot be compared to physical restrictions. Property rights are moral restrictions; the law of nature which states that multiple objects cannot be in the same place at the same time is a physical restriction.
So, claiming ownership of an object diminishes what a person is morally entitled to do with their property (property is theft), but the mere phenomenon of existence has no bearing on what a person is or is not morally entitled to do, so it cannot be considered "theft" in the same sense.
I suppose "property is theft" was a poor choice of phrase to accurately reflect the concept I am trying to get across, because theft is a physical action with a moral definition. But hey, it's catchy!
"Even if they could be homesteaded, my use of an idea does not limit another's use of it. So, everyone is acting peacefully. If you enforce intellectual property rights, you give the proprieter the right to attack non-aggressive non-intrusive agents.
That's true. I agree with the argument that it makes no sense to make non-scarce entities artificially scarce--an argument Kinsella makes very well elsewhere. But here, at least it seems to me, he is making a separate, independent argument against IP. Basically, that IP enslaves other people, because as it accumulates it puts an increasing amount of restrictions on other people's existing property.
My point is that this objection can be applied to tangible property as well.
Richard Marmorstein:But here, at least it seems to me, he is making a separate, independent argument against IP. Basically, that IP enslaves other people, because as it accumulates it puts an increasing amount of restrictions on other people's existing property.
This is basically what I thought when I read this book. Is not being able to use property to harm others control of that property by non-owners? I don't see it that way, but I never liked it as an argument against IP, either. Why is the control of others' property due to IP in the way Kinsella is talking wrong? It is clear that IF IP is wrong then that control is wrong, but that is what is trying to be proven. I agree with you that the rest of the argument is strong, but essentially I ignore this point.
"It's still not the same type of restriction. Property rights create moral restrictions; that is to say, they don't physically prevent anybody from doing anything in the material world. They simply declare certain actions to be immoral. Existence, on the other hand, is a physical phenomenon. It might physically prohibit you from acting in a certain way, but declares nothing about the moral nature of any action."
Property creates legal restrictions, not moral ones. You retain all the moral freedom regardless of any legal environment. Going further and substituting legal for moral doesn't really change the point I was trying to make: Why stop at property lines and not the logical conclusion of the individual himself? Your claims not to be violated, murdered, beaten with a bat, etc... are all of the same kind as that with property, objections to physical trespass of some sort. Even your breathing is taking air away from me. So yes existence is theft, or at least a restriction on another.
"You are not being careful with the words you use. You are trying to define freedom to include metaphysical freedom, ie you want freedom from reality. "
No not metaphysical freedom, just [absolute] physical freedom.
It doesn't matter that all libertarian property rights all "have bearing" with individuals interfering the physical integrity of another person or their property.
Uh, homesteading principle anyone? We're talking about ownership distinguished from control by the resource in question being previously unowned.
So, claiming ownership of an object diminishes what a person is morally entitled to do with their property (property is theft)
So, if we are talking about legitimately acquiring property we are talking about previously unowned resources (or the result of a 2-way voluntary transaction). You are saying that sitting on your butt watching me plow a virgin field is "diminishing what I mighta shoulda done later". See Kinsella's Thoughts on the Latecomer and Homesteading Ideas; or, Why the Very Idea of 'Ownership' Implies that only Libertarian Principles are Justifiable
BTW great avatar, it really tilts me to have to look at the back of your head.
Richard Marmorstein:Also, a question I have that might be related. Let's say that you have a plot of land, and I have my body. I walk onto your plot of land without your permission. How do we know that it is I who am trespassing on your land and it is not your land which is trespassing on my body?
The basic idea is that it’s impossible to legitimately lose control of your property due to a change in external circumstances – once it’s yours, it’s yours until you give it up. While I find this principle elegant and intuitively plausible, I’ve yet to see a knock-down argument for it.
You and
liberticity:Is not being able to use property to harm others control of that property by non-owners?
raise a good point. The non-libertarian does not argue that theft is right; from their perspective, they are restoring property to its rightful owners, and the libertarians who resist are the thieves. So simply saying “stealing is wrong” (a tautology, mind you) doesn’t help distinguish between the two.
I want to know whether IP proponents believe that any ideas or products of a persons intellect are 'ownable' or whether there is something distinguishing ownable ideas from non-ownable ideas.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
@ nirgrahamUK
I would say secrets and opinions are owned
I don't think this is a simple matter, and I don't think there is the metaphysical content to property rights that others here tend to believe. I do think that recognizing property rights as a community is the only way to reduce conflict in society, and that recognizing IP rights increases conflict. Hence, I think real property should be recognized and IP not. I don't think that makes me particularly squishy - I think there is some metaphysical content to the requirement to have a system of ethics that reduces conflict.
>>opinions are owned
so, if you are of the opinion that Germany currently have a better soccer team than England then it could be that you could forbid me from holding that opinion if I am a latecomer to it?
@ OP, I think that argument is the basis of proposals by people like Henry George or Thomas Paine for land taxes; i.e., they're not really taxes, they're rent.
people can't really 'own land,' because people can't and didn't create the land. We can own the improvements we make on the land, however, because we did make those. So owning land outright is illegitimate, just theft from everyone else, but leasing use of land from everyone else and paying a fee that's used for common goods could be consensual and beneficial for all parties, even those left out of the process of homesteading and thus it could be achieved without aggression or coercion.
Like, if you co-own a building with a front lawn with 4 other people, and one of the the co-owners goes out and plants tomatoes in the front lawn for sale, fences it off, and doesn't let the rest of you use the lawn because he has 'improved it' and thus claims to own it, that would clearly be illegitimate. But if he asked the four of you if he could plant tomatoes, and agreed to share a percentage of the profits of the tomatoes to compensate the other 4 owners for their lack of access to the lawn, and they agreed, then that would be not only legitimate, but beneficial to all parties.
All the land was originally everyone's, and it could only have been privatized by coercion (theft) or negotiation, and negotiation involves concessions on both sides.
- allowing people to 'own ideas' is just a mechanism for creating an incentive to invent valuable ideas, just like private ownership of land creates a personal incentive to the land owner to make his land as productive as possible - both land ownership and idea ownership are human legal creations, what's "ownable" is only a legal question.
Maybe you're getting at what is legitimately ownable though - I think if someone created something originally, like a novel, I don't see any problem with them owning it. At the same time, I don't think copying an idea for personal use is theft, because no one is harmed, but copying something for resale is depriving the original creator of the ability to sell what they've created, which is depriving them of income they could legitimately expect.
>I think if someone created something originally, like a novel, I don't see any problem with them owning it. At the same time, I don't think copying something >for personal use is theft, but copying something for resale is depriving the original creator of the ability to sell what they've created.
Did you come up with the idea of owning a novel? Presumably not, it's been around for a while. Would you consider it a depraved act to include this idea in a book?
>>allowing people to 'own ideas' is just a mechanism for creating an incentive to invent valuable ideas, just like private ownership of land creates a >>personal incentive to the land owner to make his land as productive as possible - both land ownership and idea ownership are human legal creations, >>what's "ownable" is only a legal question.
except its not just like private ownership of land, since land is scarce and rival. We do not have property as an institution in order to incentivise this and that, but in order to allow for economizing over goods which require economising, and in a roundabout way, in order to enjoy peace and civilisation. incentives are just a positive, emergent 'by-product' of private property schemes over economizable goods.
>>I think if someone created something originally, like a novel, I don't see any problem with them owning it.
I don't mind them owning their copies of it, but I can own my copy of it so long as I don't violate their property rights over tangible goods.
Did you come up with the idea of owning a novel?
Right, so the distinction between ownable and non-ownable ideas is originality.
I would not consider it a depraved act for someone to put one of my original ideas in a book, but I would consider it a questionable act if someone were to quote me word for word without attribution and then include my words in a book they were selling, and a depraved act if I explicitly claimed ownership over my words and was trying to sell them in book form myself...
I think most people agree with that. But what if you owned a printing press and a digital scanner, and your whole business was buying a copy of a brand new book and reprinting it at lower cost, since you don't have to pay the author, the editor etc.? On the one hand, books would be cheaper if that were allowed, on the other hand, there would be fewer of them, because it would be difficult to make a living as an author it that were allowed.
Oh, IP thread again, I love them. Always interesting to check my own premises and beliefs and try to keep an open mind. Yeah, ownership of an idea is stupid idea.
allowing people to 'own ideas' is just a mechanism for creating an incentive to invent valuable ideas, just like private ownership of land creates a personal incentive to the land owner to make his land as productive as possible - both land ownership and idea ownership are human legal creations, what's "ownable" is only a legal question.
Nice try, but land is physical and scarce, ideas are not. They are just information floating around. You can easily deduce which part of land is "mine" or "yours" (I put it in commas, because I am against absolute land ownership, I support homesteading), but that is not possible with ideas.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
>Right, so the distinction between ownable and non-ownable ideas is originality.
Every idea is original at some time, for someone. Doesn't that imply that every idea is ownable?
>I think most people agree with that. But what if you owned a printing press and a digital scanner, and your whole business was buying a copy of a brand >new book and reprinting it at lower cost, since you don't have to pay the author, the editor etc.? On the one hand, books would be cheaper if that were >allowed, on the other hand, there would be fewer of them, because it would be difficult to make a living as an author it that were allowed.
It's possible they'd also be better. There would be two kinds of authors - those who write part-time, and those who have patrons. I suggest that most full-time authors aren't so great. We'd restrict being a full-time author to the best of the best. As for the rest, well, a part-time author writes when he has something to say. Plus, you tend to have more to say when you have a regular job and experience that part of life.
Did Leibniz steal calculus from Newton, or was it the other way around?
Question for advocates of IP: How do you qualify the time period that ideas or patterns are protected as property, versus when they become "public"?
To be a devil's advocate, I would say, that as long as that person is alive he can "own" his ideas. Hmmm
You can come up with it first, but I'll beat you to the patent office! :p
Why would the person's property not transfer to his heirs, as with other property? Maybe "intellectual property" isn't property? Hmmmmz
Neither.
Did Leibniz steal calculus from Newton, or was it the other way around? Neither.
So who could claim ownership to the idea or method?
Ideas cannot be claimed.
Are you suggesting that the philosophical basis for IP is weak, but that doesn't prevent the creation and enfrocement of laws for it?
How do you qualify the time period that ideas or patterns are protected as property, versus when they become "public"?
Intellectual property, just like any property, is a legal construct. So, laws.
IP is just a legal privilege granted to the originators of ideas, like ownership through homesteading is a legal privilege granted to certain kinds of users of land, or inheritance is a legal privilege granted to dead people.