http://strangerousthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/the-ultimate-justification-for-natural-and-intellectual-property/
Traditional libertarian original appropriation theory (“homesteading”) typically starts with the assumption that there exists some “frontier” from which resources are not being put into use by human beings. The question to be settled is to what extent someone can claim these resources for himself. Rothbard asks if Christopher Columbus can claim all of America as his property simply by discovering it. His reply is that discovery is meaningless without mixing labor with the soil. The reality of the situation turns out to be much more complicated. The labor theory of property is correct in asserting that production is the source of all appropriation. What Rothbard does not recognize are the more subtle forms of production, such as the production of information and the production of security.
Suppose once again that we are Christopher Columbus. We hold possession of one of the world’s most valuable secrets – an entire continent free of settled civilization, occupied mostly by nomads with no concept of capital. Furthermore, we are the only ones to know of the path to reach this continent. Why should Columbus share this secret with anyone?
What we find by asking this is that Columbus in fact has produced something of enormous value by his efforts and, most importantly for modern capitalist theory, his risk. Unless this effort is recognized and rewarded, there is no reason for Columbus to actually share this secret, the product of his effort, with anyone else, and thus no reason for anyone else to benefit from it.
The actual Columbus was sponsored by the King of Spain, who rewarded him for this land and proclaimed his dominion over all of it. The expedition was more than a single adventurer accidentally stumbling upon an amazing find, it was a carefully planned, carefully outfitted, carefully financed venture that did not have any specific idea of how success would be achieved. Ultimately, its success was achieved by the creation of a whole new empire that Spain could settle. The issue that concerns us is this: would such an expedition have taken place if classical homesteading had been the law? If Columbus could not claim all of America for the King of Spain, would this King have paid to send ships to America? Is the American continent a produced good, the result of mixing labor with the land?
The equivalent today of such an expedition is called research and development, prospection, or creativity. Without knowing what kind of result is going to be achieved, large capitalist institutions sponsor and invest in individual explorers and creators, who proceed to seek out those recipes, places and works of arts that are of exceptional value. Again, the search itself is an intensely capital-expensive process, and capitalists must make the choice between investing in searches or investing in other branches of production. The other branches of production, under the standard labor theory of property, produce an output that the capitalist is the sole and exclusive owner of. In order for capitalists to invest in searches, the outcome must also be an output that the capitalist is the sole and exclusive owner of. Thus, for purely economic reasons (due to their inherent scarcity) we have private ownership of land, natural resources, and intellectual goods. An oil corporation owns a whole oil field exclusively because it invested in its search. A movie production house owns the exclusive rights to a film because it paid for its production.
We now reach the issue of the ultimate justification for this property, which is based on argumentation ethics. Much like self-ownership and ownership of natural goods cannot be denied without making an argument impossible to hold due to the extinction of the persons holding the argument, and thus forcing the person arguing against self-ownership into a performative contradiction, it is also impossible to argue against the ownership of land, natural resources, and intellectual property without creating a world where none of the resources whose title is in dispute could have ever been created. The argument against private ownership of these goods is an argument against their scarcity, therefore nothing more than a confusion about their true nature, which only physics can provide a response to.
Additionally, any theory of property must guide action not only in the past, but also in the present and future. As stated before, Rothbardian original appropriation simply assumes the existence of a frontier of unowned land from which anyone can take at their leisure, with no consideration to the costs of such an activity. However, the reality of human history is much less rosy. In fact the major part of the world’s landmass was settled by humans before the concept of private property was adopted. It is amongst primitive nomadic tribes that the first land-settling societies emerged, along with the first kingdoms. These early societies faced a world with humans everywhere who did not give any consideration to the ownership of capital, and had no intention of engaging in a division of labor. How were such societies to appropriate more resources? Primitive humans were in fact little different from animals, to be considered as apart from society, having no respect for its laws, and thus beyond the protection of these laws. In fact, primitive humans were in most instances a grave threat to settlers, and very expensive wars had be to organized to subdue them. (This was famously the case in the conquest of the American West by the USA, and the conquest of South Africa by the Boers.) Should not such efforts result in the appropriation of land?
At this point, the classical homesteading theorists can raise an exception. Of course, in the past, bad things were done, but by the statute of limitation those bad things can be forgiven. What matters is that in the present and future, homesteading must be the only principle that applies in such matters. Unfortunately, this exception does not solve anything. It is quite possible that in the future some undiscovered place, for example deep in the jungle, could be found to have extremely valuable resources, yet be populated by savage and hostile beings. (We may call this the “Avatar” scenario.) If these beings refuse to integrate into society by seeking protection from one its providers of rights, it is inevitable that some technologically superior force will subdue them out of pure self-interest. Similarly, a society that is today integrated into the division of labor could be dis-integrated from it, for example by a socialist regime. If it were possible for some inner circle members of the state to seize the state’s assets, then reintegrate the society with the global division of labor, by appropriating assets as their own, they might consider the risk to their lives worth it. How then are we to decide to recognize their forcefully acquired property?
We have no choice but to see the production of security upon this area, or in other words conquest, as a valid act of homesteading that brings these resources under private ownership into the global division of labor. Similarly, all conquests of land between conflicting societies whose framework of international law broke down is equally valid, and thus we can validate property ownership across history despite the fact that most of it was at some point taken by force. Only within a society can original appropriation apply as a rule, and this original appropriation can involve the use of force against other beings that are not members of society.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger:In order for capitalists to invest in searches, the outcome must also be an output that the capitalist is the sole and exclusive owner of.
Non sequitur.
Up until that point, you weren't too far off track.
There's a few things wrong with this:
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Leif Ericson reached America 500 years before Columbus, and without the aid of an Empire.
Columbus died thinking he had reached Asia.
Columbus died telling everyone he had reached Asia.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Pfizer had no idea that Viagra existed when funding research into heart disease. But what difference does that make?
I'm gona go ahead and say the Norse had a pretty big and extensive empire.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
And did anyone benefit from this?
You asked, "If Columbus could not claim all of America for the King of Spain, would this King have paid to send ships to America?" The King paid for the trip without considering a claim on all of America.
Natural property is not materially a product of the labor of man, however it is scarce to find and secure and quickly runs out, thus to be integrated into a division of labor economy it must be owned privately.
Why does property have to be owned to be part of a division of labor economy? For example, there is no reason you can't have prostitution in a society that does not see land as property. That is the most basic example of division of labor, but many more examples can be constructed to disprove this assertion.
From what I remember Ericson bought his own ship with 35 men, I don't think anyone funded him, no empire at least.
He set up colonies along the way. Obviously, it wasn't as wide spread as a government paying a guy (with tax money I assume) to stumble across the same land mass and believe it's Asia.
Not this again....
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
While a society without property in land can have prostitution and a division of labor, land is not integrated into it. Land must be private property to be integrated into the division of labor and produced in sufficient supply.
The King paid for the trip considering that he could keep whatever was found along the way. That he did not know specifically in advance what was going to be found is irrelevant.
Suppose, abstracting out the previous point, that someone stumbles upon America completely by accident. What reason does he have to share this discovery if he cannot benefit from it? It's better to do as the Norse or the Chinese did and forget anything ever happened.
What Rothbard does not recognize are the more subtle forms of production, such as the production of information
He recognised that information can be owned as long as it's in one's head. Once it has been made public or transmitted to another agent, the "copy" of it cannot be owned as one cannot claim an ownership of someone else's mind. Unless this effort is recognized and rewarded, there is no reason for Columbus to actually share this secret, the product of his effort, with anyone else, and thus no reason for anyone else to benefit from it.
Assertion. He can discover new continent and announce it publicly for free, you're concerned with philosophy in this post, not economics and incentives. Is the American continent a produced good, the result of mixing labor with the land?
No. Taking this to an absurd level, once could claim to own all of the "unclaimed" Universe because he developed a telescope that can see into far distance and by incurring expenses, producing something and merely using it and looking through it, he can claim an ownership as he "produced" the Universe. Surely not!
Stranger:The labor theory of property is correct in asserting that production is the source of all appropriation.
My problem with your argument starts here. Can you show that the above is indeed the case?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
That is pretty much the entire argument. The point is, any good that must be produced through some scarce means cannot have its private ownership up for debate, since under any other system than private ownership it cannot be produced into existence. People who reject private ownership of land, for example, create a situation where the land they are on could not exist. Same thing with intellectual property. If you deny that intellectual property can be owned (universally, as in the past, the present and the future), then the object you are questioning the ownership of can no longer exist.
If any good requires labor to be produced, it also requires private ownership to be produced.
Actually you can provide goods in common. And out of charity. Hence this post. Actually the provision of one type of good comes at the opportunity cost of other types of goods. So your argument for IP essentially asserts that we should have more ideas and less investment in other stuff. How do you know that? There's no need for IP if the first mover advantage is significant enough. This advantage depends on distribution strategy and the engineering of the idea. So if you weren't an idiot, you might be able to find ways to attain a periodic monopoly on ideas anyway (contract: prohibitive, exclusive, dominant assurance... etc). So the underlying problem is that you claim to know the optimal amount of IP for society to produce. You can't know. You can't just say "ideas are good so lets have laws that allow us to produce more". Its on the same plane as asking for agricultural or energy subsidies because those things are good too. You're also going to have a heck of a time enforcing this with any rigor in an anarchic setting. I forget if you're an anarchist, but if you're not, you bite all the arguments against statist law systems too. :I
Actually you can provide goods in common. And out of charity. Hence this post.
These are the kinds of goods the producers want, not the goods the consumers want.
Actually the provision of one type of good comes at the opportunity cost of other types of goods. So your argument for IP essentially asserts that we should have more ideas and less investment in other stuff. How do you know that?
By consumer demand.
There's no need for IP if the first mover advantage is significant enough. This advantage depends on distribution strategy and the engineering of the idea. So if you weren't an idiot, you might be able to find ways to attain a periodic monopoly on ideas anyway (contract: prohibitive, exclusive, dominant assurance... etc).
This is just a denial of time-preference.
Stranger:These are the kinds of goods the producers want, not the goods the consumers want.
Stranger:By consumer demand.
Stranger:This is just a denial of time-preference.
Psychological sophistry. You can't read anyone's mind.
I am not reading people's minds, I am reading their actions.
If producers could decide what to produce on a charitable basis, there would not be an economic calculation problem and socialism would have succeeded.
Stranger:I am not reading people's minds, I am reading their actions.
Stranger:If producers could decide what to produce on a charitable basis, there would not be an economic calculation problem and socialism would have succeeded.
I can't believe you are still promoting this artificial distinction. All producers are consumers and all consumers are producers. To believe otherwise is to reject Say's Law.
Stranger: If producers could decide what to produce on a charitable basis, there would not be an economic calculation problem and socialism would have succeeded.
I think you'll find this article on the calculation debate interesting.http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae10_4_1.pdf
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Interesting, yes, but very long. What part responds to this thread? The one about managerial roles not being substitutes for entrepreneurs?
Stranger: Interesting, yes, but very long. What part responds to this thread? The one about managerial roles not being substitutes for entrepreneurs?
The part I orginally qouted from you. The main thrust of the argument is that calculation debate argument rather than resting on the existing or non-existence of monetary prices it rests on the inherent superiority of competition contra monopoly. So producers could be entirely rational in their resource allocation even if they did it on a charitable basis providing it was done in a competitive environment.
The part I orginally qouted from you. The main thrust of the argument is that calculation debate argument rather than resting on the existing or non-existence of monetary prices it rests on the inherent superiority of competition contra monopoly. So charities could be entirely rational in their resource allocation without the existence of monetary prices.
You misread the article. Monetary prices are still a necessary, yet insufficient, condition for proper economic calculation, otherwise the socialists would not have bothered with them at all.
Charities are economic calculators in the sense that they compete for donors. However, it is not the consumers of the charities' goods that determine what is to be produced. (That would work, in fact, exactly like a socialist market economy.)
Stranger: You misread the article. Monetary prices are still a necessary, yet insufficient, condition for proper economic calculation, otherwise the socialists would not have bothered with them at all.
I haven't read the article for a while although I have read a few times. What you are outlining above is a contingent practice which depends on the complexity of the economy which one cannot actually determine a priori. Now indeed it is the case that socialists found the use of monetary prices useful in their economies although it does not follow that they were necessary. Supposing Crusoe is the sole man on the Anarcho-Capitalist Island- is his calculations a priori irrational due to the absence of monetary prices? Further you imply that you ought to use moentary prices to do proper calculation which is simply a vaue judgement.
Stranger: Charities are economic calculators in the sense that they compete for donors. However, it is not the consumers of the charities' goods that determine what is to be produced. (That would work, in fact, exactly like a socialist market economy.)
You make a false dichotomy here. It is economic actors, producer and consumer, who decide what will be produced. If I am willing and able to purchase a weapon that kills all of the worlds socialists it will not come into existence if the factor owners believe such a creation to be immoral.
Supposing Crusoe is the sole man on the Anarcho-Capitalist Island- is his calculations a priori irrational due to the absence of monetary prices?
As Machaj points out, there is no problem of economic calculation in a single-man economy.
You make no dichotomy between producers and consumers at all. How can a division of labor exist without this distinction?
Stranger:You make no dichotomy between producers and consumers at all. How can a division of labor exist without this distinction?
Already covered numerous times.
Stranger: As Machaj points out, there is no problem of economic calculation in a single-man economy.
Therefore it follows that there is no calculation problem in any economy if it is entirely privately owned. Suppose I owned the whole world completely legitimately, would there be a calculation problem?
Stranger: You make no dichotomy between producers and consumers at all. How can a division of labor exist without this distinction?
I do but I realise that individuals exists and when they act they exhibit producer or consumer actions. In fact it is impossible for one to be purely a consumer or producer: your body produces energy which you also consume to stay alive.
Yes, the rest of the world would have no means to buy anything from you to consume and survive.
That is not the point. In any specific market producers and consumers are different.
Stranger: Yes, the rest of the world would have no means to buy anything from you to consume and survive.
Unless they had all signed themselves into voluntary servitude, I could pay them and they could buy goods from me. Prices are based on subjective value judgements- it is just easy to see them in a single man or world owner economy. The problem arises when force is threatened and a monopoly arise which produces systematic errors as aopposed to the unsystematic errors of the competitive system.
Stranger: That is not the point. In any specific market producers and consumers are different.
Only in the theoretical sense of a market. Any man in any position in the real world will act both as a consumer and producer.
Unless they had all signed themselves into voluntary servitude, I could pay them and they could buy goods from me.
How would you decide how much to pay them? It would be purely arbitrary.
Stranger: How would you decide how much to pay them? It would be purely arbitrary.
As are prices created by different owners of factors of production. You cannot agree with subjective value theory and the idea that there are non-arbitrary, wrong and right prices. You can only do this when the price deviates from the values determined by the economic actors; otherwise known as violence and the systematic form, monopoly.
As are prices created by different owners of factors of production. You cannot agree with subjective value theory and the idea that there are non-arbitrary, wrong and right prices.
You have no understanding of the economic calculation problem.
I mean, look at the title of this thread. You don't see the giants of economic thought with book titles like "The Ultimate Case for Free Markets". Not even Ayn Rand was so arrogant. You know you've found a bad argument when someone prefaces themselves with "Okay guys this is irrefutable" and then types up 10 pages.
[p.s. still waiting on the re]
It's not just a bad argument. There hasn't been one solid point made by the OP thus far into the thread. In fact, it's mostly been other Austrian laymen correcting his methodological errors.
Not even Ayn Rand was so arrogant.
C'mon, be honest. Yes, she was.
I mean, look at the title of this thread. You don't see the giants of economic thought with book titles like "The Ultimate Case for Free Markets".
http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_ult_just_liberty.pdf
I am just extending this argument to more precise forms of property.