Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist - Page 6 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


FightinTiger: "Still no answer regarding who is meant to enforce contracts in a stateless society. "

Why don'ty ou read up on it? There is a huge literature. Try the anarcho-capitalist bibliography by Hoppe at hanshoppe.com/publications. But the answer is: people and their agents enforce it. Who do you think enforces international treaties today between nations? There is no world sovereign.

Try to realize that having questions is fine but it is not an argument.






Back to top
Y.A. Tittle
Winthrop Fan
Member since Sep 2003
49140 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

The constitution is not just. It also authorized slavery


What provision of the constitution "authorized slavery"?






Back to top
WikiTiger
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
40721 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

Who grants them such ability?


they are a freely operating organization. they can choose whoever they want to do business with.

quote:

Who insures they conform to their abilities in a just manner?


the market

good contract enforcement companies would have a good reputation

quote:

Who do I go to for recourse when I think maybe they haven't?


do business with another contract enforcement company if you don't like the way CE1 operates.

but if you're a total douche that breaks contracts all the time and get blacklisted by all the good CE companies, then perhaps you can acknowledge that that's a good example of the market working??







Back to top
WikiTiger
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
40721 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

And CE1 is impervious to nepotism? Bribery? Threats? Not to imply that government is, but it's silly to think that replacing a sometimes corrupt system with no system at all is a solution.


CE1 would be one of many. And the good ones would develop of reputation of quality.






Back to top
Y.A. Tittle
Winthrop Fan
Member since Sep 2003
49140 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Does CE1 have any sort of arrest power? Are they authorized to use any sort of force?





Back to top
WikiTiger
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
40721 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

Does CE1 have any sort of arrest power? Are they authorized to use any sort of force?


of course not. interactions with them would be completely voluntary



This post was edited on 3/19 at 3:30 pm


Back to top
Decatur
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17547 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

people and their agents enforce it.


i.e. whoever has the bigger gun wins







Back to top
SlowFlowPro
Stanford Fan
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
292175 posts
 Online 

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

i.e. whoever has the bigger gun wins

at the end of the day, this is where it boils down to (in my opinion)






Back to top
FT
Georgia Tech Fan
Aston Villa Supporter
Member since Oct 2003
11879 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

CE1 would be one of many. And the good ones would develop of reputation of quality.


But in the meantime unscrupulous CE's would do what, exactly? Screw people? This is another huge problem I have with Libertarian and Anarchist theory. It's all well and good to say that the market will put unscrupulous businesses out of business, but the market won't help when people are ripped off and killed due to the market having not tested a company yet.

Then who steps in? If an 18-wheeler runs into a home and kills a family, is no one responsible?






Back to top
Gmorgan4982
LSU Fan
Member since May 2005
98494 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

Well.... what is the right amount? And how much lower would it be? And what is the value of the extra pharmaceuticals produced given a patent system? And what is the cost of the patent system?
Luckily, we have bunches of bureaucrats to figure this all out for us.






Back to top
Gmorgan4982
LSU Fan
Member since May 2005
98494 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

but you just admitted you own your shirt. Ownership is a property right.
I know I admitted to owning my shirt, but I don't see what "property rights" have to do with it. It just seems like an unnecessary construct.



This post was edited on 3/19 at 5:09 pm


Back to top
jcole4lsu
Virginia Fan
The Kwisatz Haderach
Member since Nov 2007
26738 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

nskinsella


hole
lee
shit

@ wiki for this thread
@ stephen for signing up

wish i had been on earlier for this






Back to top
Doc Fenton
LSU Fan
Member since Feb 2007
50726 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

A lot of these posts are very confused. There is nothing wrong with "knockoffs"--this is called "competition." My theory does not ignore Locke at all though I do point out some mistakes he made with his labor theory of value which have led to the erroneous idea of intellectual property (see e.g. LINK /)

I have laid out a careful and systematic explanation of why patent and copyright are nothing but state monopoly privileges that harm people and the economy and are compltely unnecessary and incompatible with property rights, capitalism, and the free market. See my articles and book Against Intellectual Property at www.c4sif.org/resources


If you don't mind, a couple of points of mine:

#1. We seem to be in agreement about Locke's errors.

#2. We are also in agreement that patent and copyright are state monopoly privileges, but without having read all your work, I doubt that you have successfully constructed a systematic case demonstrating that they are both (A) harmful to people and the economy, and (B) "completely unnecessary and incompatible with property rights, capitalism, and the free market."

I would say that you are just flat wrong about (B) by logical consequence, and wrong about (A) based on historical evidence.




But I don't think we're going to get anywhere on an argument about that (since the subject is so complex and impossible to adequately model), so I would just like to turn my attention mostly to this one statement of yours: "There is nothing wrong with 'knockoffs'--this is called 'competition.'"

I would say that there most definitely is something wrong with knockoffs. To some extent, the problem with knockoffs is partly a matter of fraudulent branding, which could be prosecuted with only strong trademark & logo laws, but not necessarily with patent or copyright property rights. (It's actually a little more complicated than this, but I'll pass on that for now.)

But what of patents, copyrights, and trade secrets, and "knockoffs" in the sense of products that merely steal IP and attempt to replicate it free of charge? I would argue that a lack of IP enforcement in these areas has a seriously detrimental effect on economic growth too.

Innovation is, after all, the undisputed primary driver of per capita GDP growth, and pioneering firms have no incentive to really push the envelopes without sufficient IP protection. I am aware of how absurd and ridiculous patent litigation can get (going back even to the days of Edison, Bell, Western Electric, Westinghouse, etc.), but despite the absurdities, it is necessary for truly explosive economic growth.

Free market economies are generally dependent upon government monopolies upon the administration of the police and court system to enforce contracts. The 17th century saw the rise of England and Holland based upon government awarded monopolies to the first joint-stock corporations for foreign trade. They also awarded monopolies for inventors in the domestic economy. Even before that, the Italian republics of the Renaissance had awarded patents since the 15th century. Even dismissing their formal patents, their economic system relied upon grants of certain trading routes and patterns by force so as award incentives for various groups to capture profits.

In the 20th century, an enormous amount of technological innovation was driven simply by the ability of the U.S. government to absorb losses and keep trade secrets with respect to military research. Going across to the private sector, even the great Bell Labs was only able to exist due to an artificial government monopoly. Would we have transistors, modern PCs, and superconductivity without them?

Undoubtedly, with the erosion of IP protection, innovation suffers. This can be seen by simply examining the world around us. First, we see that the music and film industries have suffered since the advent of Napster and similar sharing systems online. But you can say that's subjective and artistic. Well okay, then look at medical and other forms of technological innovation. Look at China. Are they ready to innovate? Hell no they're not. And the world suffers as a result of their technological laziness.

The same process occurs in global health care innovation (to say nothing of global military security and global central banking), of which the U.S. shoulders the load while other nations free ride on us. None of these things are ideologically libertarian by nature. They are minarchist, and for continued economic growth, they are necessary.






Back to top
Scrowe
New Orleans Saints Fan
Louisiana
Member since Mar 2010
1364 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


The whole thought that monopoly is bad and a fully open market would work can be thrown out just by looking at the energy and telecommunications industry.

If the government would not have allowed regional contracts and subsidies to independent companies, people in rural areas may not have phone and internet. If it was just free market and no contracts big companies would fight over the dense populated cities and care less about the rural areas and leave them to rot.

Not to mention the cost of venturing into the market without guarantee of customers would have left companies trying to get into the industry no chance against the giants.

Without contracts and patents you would just see the big companies getting bigger and the small businesses would fade away. Where do you believe in what fairy tale land that big capital wouldn't just choke out newcomers in this "utopia" free market?

Also R&D would just go to crap, you would have companies who would develop the product then leeches who just take what someone else has created and copy it. Eventually at this rate you would see more companies dropping off their R&D and just waiting for someone else to hit the next "big" thing. The more companies with R&D, the more progress, so what you would see is a decline in innovations.

The pharmaceutical companies are easy to bring into this, but do you think medicine would progress like it does if they weren't steadily trying to be ahead of the game instead of just keeping pace with the game.

All these theories sound great, but coming and saying that other people here with questions don't have an argument is completely bogus. You're arguing your point and thoughts and they have questions, if you're here arguing something new vs. what is already in place and working seems to me like you're the one who needs to bring the answers.






Back to top
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Gmorgan4982: "I know I admitted to owning my shirt, but I don't see what "property rights" have to do with it. It just seems like an unnecessary construct. "

It's not a construct. It's just using words according to their meaning. This is what communication is, and presumably you are trying to communicate something intelligible here, using English. To own a thing means to have a property right in it. If you don't understand this I don't know what to tell you, but perhaps you can look up "ownership" in the dictionary or in Wikipedia or something.






Back to top
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Doc Fenton:

quote:


#1. We seem to be in agreement about Locke's errors.

#2. We are also in agreement that patent and copyright are state monopoly privileges, but without having read all your work, I doubt that you have successfully constructed a systematic case demonstrating that they are both (A) harmful to people and the economy, and (B) "completely unnecessary and incompatible with property rights, capitalism, and the free market."


I think I have established B. As for A, this is pretty clear from the manifest evidence and experience, and demonstrated in Boldrin and Levine's Against Intellectual Monopoly wwww.againstmonopoly.org. But the way you phrase A is ambiguous and/or rests on unjustified assumptions. For example it coudl be read to imply that the state and its laws are justified if we have a reasonable belief that the law in question is not "harmful" to the economy. WEll.... see the section in my against IP where I explain various methodological as well as ethical problems with utilitarianism. You cannot just sum up values ("harm"), you cannot compare them interpersonally, and even if you could that does not justify a law that violates M's rights just because N and O are benefitted "more" than the damage done to M.

quote:


I would say that you are just flat wrong about (B) by logical consequence, and wrong about (A) based on historical evidence.


You are wrong about both. You cannot just say B is wrong. You need to show why my argument is wrong. As for A, the evidence manifestly points against IP. Look at the studies. I have linked many of them in various links here and in the original article.


quote:



But I don't think we're going to get anywhere on an argument about that (since the subject is so complex and impossible to adequately model


This very way of phrasing it shows you are in the grip of scientism and naive empiricism/utilitarianism. This is not even the right way to think about policy or even science.

quote:


), so I would just like to turn my attention mostly to this one statement of yours: "There is nothing wrong with 'knockoffs'--this is called 'competition.'"

I would say that there most definitely is something wrong with knockoffs. To some extent, the problem with knockoffs is partly a matter of fraudulent branding,[quote]

To the extent there is fraud then fraud law covers this. Patent and copyright are not based on fraud at all. Knockoffs per se are not fraudulent. If I buy a $20 "Rolex" watch then I am not being defrauded since I am aware it's a fake. Etc.

Now, trademark law, another tpe of IP law, is ostensibly based in part on a "fraud" type situation: since consumer confusion is an element of a trademark infringement claim. However: note that the plaintiff in trademark actions is not the defrauded consumer, but rather the trademark owner, who was not defrauded at all. Further, trademark law can be used to stop the knockoff rolex sales even though there is no consumer fraud at all. And finally, now trademark law has the antidilution claim for which no consumer confusion need be alleged at all.

In any case, the legitimacy of patent and copyright are not bolstered by arguing in favor of a form of trademark law whcih is designed to stop consumer fraud, since patent and copyright literally have nothing whatsoever to do with fraud.

[quote]
which could be prosecuted with only strong trademark & logo laws, but not necessarily with patent or copyright property rights. (It's actually a little more complicated than this, but I'll pass on that for now.)


In my view selling a knockoff is not a violation of anyone's rights, unless it is fraudulent, and in this case, all you need is a law against fraud, not trademark rights. I think trademark should be abolished along with patent and copyright.

quote:



But what of patents, copyrights, and trade secrets, and "knockoffs" in the sense of products that merely steal IP and attempt to replicate it free of charge?


Using the word "steal" to refer to emulation, compying, competition, learning is question-begging.

quote:


I would argue that a lack of IP enforcement in these areas has a seriously detrimental effect on economic growth too.


Where is the argument? Is this empirical or some other kind of "argument"? If the former, it simply flies in the face of the studies. No IP supporter has yet met the burden of proving that IP law generates net wealth.

quote:



Innovation is, after all, the undisputed primary driver of per capita GDP growth, and pioneering firms have no incentive to really push the envelopes without sufficient IP protection.


Untrue assertion. Question-begging. Innovation is crucial, but there is no reason to believe that innovation requires IP or is even increased by IP.

quote:



I am aware of how absurd and ridiculous patent litigation can get (going back even to the days of Edison, Bell, Western Electric, Westinghouse, etc.), but despite the absurdities, it is necessary for truly explosive economic growth.


How do you konw? This is the kind of hand-waving empirical assertion made by your side all the time, never with any evidence. IN fact all the studies point the other way, yet you guys jsut ignore them. It's almost like you are not even serious. You just want to utter a propagandistic truism and be done with it, so that patent and copyright remain in place despite the carping of people who are thinking about it more seriously.


quote:


Free market economies are generally dependent upon government monopolies upon the administration of the police and court system to enforce contracts.


Even if this is true (it is not), it does not mean that just any state monopoly is justified.

quote:


In the 20th century, an enormous amount of technological innovation was driven simply by the ability of the U.S. government to absorb losses and keep trade secrets with respect to military research.


No idea what this means, but trade secrets are not the same as patents or copyright.

quote:


Going across to the private sector, even the great Bell Labs was only able to exist due to an artificial government monopoly.


Not sure if this is true (more assertions from you), but even if so--so what? Is the purpose of law and justice to make sure there was a Great Bell Labs?

quote:


Would we have transistors, modern PCs, and superconductivity without them?


Who knows? do you?

quote:


Undoubtedly, with the erosion of IP protection, innovation suffers.


More assertion.

You don't know what you are talking about. You are just repeating the propaganda of the state and its oligopoly interests.






Back to top
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Scrowe:

quote:

All these theories sound great, but coming and saying that other people here with questions don't have an argument is completely bogus. You're arguing your point and thoughts and they have questions, if you're here arguing something new vs. what is already in place and working seems to me like you're the one who needs to bring the answers.




I am saying that merely asking a question is not an argument. So when people say "how would authors get paid without copyright?" is not an argument. Sometimes the person asking this qeustion does not really mean it as a sincere question and is assuming that we all agree that the law must be arranged so as to make sure authors are paid, and is just asserting that without copyright authors won't get paid, and therefore, it's obvious we need copyright. But if this is the "argument" it needs to be made explicitly, not done in a disingenuous and insincere rhetorical question.

And if that is the "argument," I would say it is not a coherent or well developed one since it rests on so many unjustified and false assumptions about the nature of political justification and the distinction between fact and norm, as to be nothing more than a confused re-statement of catch-phrases, slogans and bromides that the state and the copyright oligopolies push in propaganda to maintain their monopolies and control.

As for me providing an argument, I have, many times. Much of the material is at www.c4sif.org/resources. But as Samuel Johnson said, "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

I suggest anyone sincerely interested in this listen to some of my interviews or presentations about this, or even my 6-week course I gave on IP policy and economics, Rethinking IP, which is free online here LINK / or LINK /

I seriously have never heard a good argument for IP, and rarely a sincere one. And the scattered, confused, dashed off remarks by some pro-IP types here on this board doesn't change this.






Back to top
ForeLSU
LSU Fan
The Corner of Sanity and Madness
Member since Sep 2003
33623 posts
 Online 

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

Using the word "steal" to refer to emulation, compying, competition, learning is question-begging.


You may have covered this, but what is your view of 'point-of-sale' license agreements that specifically over a license to use, know ownership of a tangible product? ie. software, media, etc. In past discussions on topics like these, arguments like "I own that product, I should be able to do anything I want with it" are often made. The other argument often made is "I wouldn't actually buy the product but I'd use it if it was free, and since it is digital the producer didn't actually lose anything by my using the stolen copy".







Back to top
ForeLSU
LSU Fan
The Corner of Sanity and Madness
Member since Sep 2003
33623 posts
 Online 

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

I seriously have never heard a good argument for IP


are you talking legal or philosophical?

btw, I look forward to looking through your site...






Back to top
Scrowe
New Orleans Saints Fan
Louisiana
Member since Mar 2010
1364 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Ok, so here is my question to you, I am a company Pave The Way who took a chance and dumped millions into R&D and developed this certain product which I then cannot patent due to being in this "free" market you describe.

I am competing with this other company, Leech, who sells the same type of product yet I can now sell my product cheaper through the research I spent money on.

Leech then copies my techniques through some unseen means as in an employee defecting, word of mouth or whatnot (this happens all the time on items that have no protection).

Pave The Way now has millions of dollars in research that they must somehow make up but Leech is now selling the same product for less because they have no costs to make up so Pave The Way is now hurting because of their R&D because it did nothing but lose them money.

Is this scenerio not understandable? Do you not believe that companies such as Leech would not exist? This leaves no benefit in being on the cutting edge and taking steps ahead of your competition if they can just copy it and catch up instantly. One company is stuck with all the cost of development while the others reap the benefit from their development.

No company will want to do that, the whole point is to develop something to stay ahead of your competition, not help them move forward with you.






Back to top


Back to top




//