Economics Questions

Re: The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property

Stranger — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 00:16:12 GMT

Really? Because you seem to have stated that the labor theory of property is correct as a premise for the rest of the OP.

No.

I employ scarce means to breathe. Does that mean the carbon dioxide I "produce" (through exhalation) must be ownable?

Obviously yes. If you had to obtain everyone's agreement before producing carbon dioxide, you would die almost immediately.

That is however an objection to Hoppe's justification of private property, not this thread's argument in particular. If you want to challenge Hoppe, start a new thread.

Re: The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property

Autolykos — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 18:09:01 GMT

Stranger:
My problem with your argument starts here. Can you show that the above is indeed the case?

That is pretty much the entire argument.

Really? Because you seem to have stated that the labor theory of property is correct as a premise for the rest of the OP. That is to say, you seemed to have meant, "The labor theory of property is correct; therefore..." Is that incorrect? If so, then what did you mean by it?

For you to take the rest of your OP as proof that the labor theory of property is correct appears (thus far) to be circular reasoning. As I just mentioned, given that you seem to take the correctness of it as a premise, you cannot logically use that premise to help prove its own correctness.

So which is it? Either you're presupposing that the labor theory of property is correct, or you're concluding that it's correct. You can't have it both ways at once.

Stranger:
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.

I employ scarce means to breathe. Does that mean the carbon dioxide I "produce" (through exhalation) must be ownable?

Re: The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property

Sieben — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 14:14:49 GMT

Stranger:
http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_ult_just_liberty.pdf

Hoppe's thesis? From college? :) I thought you'd go digging...

Stranger:
I am just extending this argument to more precise forms of property.

Still waiting on that re

Re: The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property

Stranger — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 13:53:45 GMT

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.

Re: The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property

JackCuyler — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 06:08:19 GMT

Not even Ayn Rand was so arrogant.

C'mon, be honest. Yes, she was.

Re: The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property

liberty student — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 05:40:12 GMT

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.

Re: The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property

Sieben — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 04:38:37 GMT

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]

Re: The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property

Stranger — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 04:17:41 GMT

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.

Re: The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property

Physiocrat — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:17:32 GMT

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.

Re: The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property

Stranger — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:13:07 GMT

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.

Re: The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property

Physiocrat — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:10:18 GMT

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.

Re: The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property

Stranger — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:00:23 GMT

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?

Yes, the rest of the world would have no means to buy anything from you to consume and survive.

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.

That is not the point. In any specific market producers and consumers are different.

Re: The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property

Physiocrat — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 09:39:36 GMT

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.

Re: The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property

liberty student — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 01:28:08 GMT

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.

Re: The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property

Stranger — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 23:51:56 GMT

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 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.

You make no dichotomy between producers and consumers at all. How can a division of labor exist without this distinction?