Stephan Kinsella on Intellectual Property from Freedomain Radio

[swu880]

The audio is very very bad. can hardly hear him

[Eikus89]

@alalelalex Let's assume that you are right. In that case, I have "put my pattern" on my computer. You have no right to put your own pattern on my computer. I own my computer and can use it to, among other things, copy information. You have no right to stop me. If you claim that a part of my computer is yours, then you are claiming that me "putting a pattern" on my computer wasn't a valid way for me to claim the computer as my property.

[alalelalex]

Kinsella seems to assume that the homesteading principle is a closed case. He argues that property is not created, but homesteaded, by mixing you labor with unowned matter. In doing so, you create a pattern in matter that did not exist before. So isn't that a form of creation? The point is that you are violating property rights if you transfer your pattern to already owned matter, unless there was a contractual agreement.

[Hashishin13]

You just inserted the word pattern to try to make it sound like IP. Homesteading is about establishing rights over SCARCE resources. The reason why we have property rights is that if I own something, you can't, because theres only ONE of it. Each cow, tree anything in reality is unique, this is more obvious for geography. With "intellectual property" you are claiming ownership of something that:

A) doesn't exist in time and space

B) is infinitely reproducable

C) can be created out of nothing

[alalelalex]

@Hashishin13

The point is that the principle of homesteading is not a closed case. Search wikipedia for the homestead principle. I suspect that the only objective way of homesteading is patterning matter. But the ownership has to be restricted to the pattern. Patterning happens to be a form of creation, assuming you did not steal the pattern by spying (which is a form of trespassing). But where is the boundary between spying and identification or communication?

[Hashishin13]

@alalelalex The boundary is that a spy has to violate real property or take advantage of priveledges you have given them. If you sell me a video game and I copy it to sell or give away, that is perfectly legitimate as you can't own ideas and you willingly sold me the property, aka the disc. If, on the other hand, I snuck into your house and downloaded the game off your computer without your permission I have acted as a spy and tresspassed on your house and your computer. See what Im getting at?

[alalelalex]

@Hashishin13

I agree with you on that. But now a more complicated example. Let's say I use a river to sail from A to B everyday. Do I own the river? Can you build a dam upstream? Did I create a pattern in matter that is sufficient to be a sign of homesteading?

[Hashishin13]

I think your pattern idea is nonsense, I also think that the homesteading principle is being heavily overemphasized and misused by libertarians. My personal belief about property has to with it's abstract and arbitrary nature which you allude to with your two comments. Your comments also illustrate one of my ideas on the subject, namely that the whole idea of the homesteading principle doesn't really settle anything, the defenders say sure it has continuum problems but I say its nothing but them

[Hashishin13]

@alalelalex My answer is that property isn't really about peaceful interactions because if someoen comes onto a farm that is obviously yours and you tell him hes tresspassing because "I homesteaded this land", what do you do when the arguement fails? You ultimately either pick up a gun, call a thug or throw the man off your land in some other forceful manner. This may sound like an arguement against property, its not, I'm just tired of people sugar coating the truth with "homesteading".

[Hashishin13]

@alalelalex part 3

Basically I think property isn't about homesteading directly, its about getting thers to recognise your claim on something. A claim is nothing but a declaration, its embodied entirely by the image of the soldier planting the flag and it standing uncontested. The homesteading principle is what is the best, most moral and most obviously persuasive arguement you use AFTER you have made the claim in the hopes of swaying your community into accepting your claim on property.

[alalelalex]

@Hashishin13

Well, right now people recognize that the state decides what is a rightful claim. The state says that IP is property. And as long as the majority of people support the state this will be enforced. If you claim that property is created or homesteaded in another way, the tell me why? Why should everyone respect your flag as a rightful claim on X square miles of land? You have to invent an objective implementation of the homesteading principle.

[Hashishin13]

@alalelalex The objective implementation I'm talking about is that everytime there is an issue you make a claim and then it's judged by the people around you, and is ultimately backed up by some form of "or else". I agree that as long as the majority of people support IP it will be enforced, but the majority don't so it can't be enforced by the state as it would cause anger. It's still loosely enforced right now but they will never really crack down.

[alalelalex]

@Hashishin13

The majority of people support the state, and therefor enable IP. The state has to implement IP because privacy (against spying) is not allowed. Support for the state is just morality at work. Although this morality does not pass the universality test. I suppose rational ignorance in principle should stop people from voting, but social control and loyalty within interest groups still make people vote. That is how the state is maintained.

[alalelalex]

@Hashishin13

If anarchy would come to be, then of course people would not judge claims, but private cadastre agencies would and private defense agencies would defend these claims. The competing cadastre agencies would make up rules for claims, probably based on efficiency. An efficient set of rules would have to be logical and consistent. I suspect that IP as we know it would not be used.

[Hashishin13]

@alalelalex Well when I said people would judge these claims and made reference to the community all I wasa trying to say is that property is defined by an agreement between the individual and those around him/her. Whether its through a defense agency, as I agree it probably would, or by individuals and their neighbours ina jury fashion the effect is the same, someone makes a calim and the strength is based on how well everyone else agrees.

[Hashishin13]

@alalelalex "The state says that IP is property."

If this is your arguement in favour of IP to a libertarian then I think your in trouble. It has about the same weight and force as "of course the world is flat, thats what everyone knows." had about 500 years ago.

[alalelalex]

Actually I am not in favor of IP, because it cannot be enforced. Also I prefer to use knowledge I learn without having to consult everyone for permission. But these are just arguments from effect. But you are talking about whether IP could be a coherent concept. And I am not convinced that it cannot. Idea's get created by individuals. You can base a coherent concept of property on them. But I do not know whether they are the best concept of property from the POV of conflict resolution.

[Hashishin13]

@alalelalex As I see it the only legitimate reason for property rights IS conflict resolution, and IP just creates more conflcts.

[Hashishin13]

@alalelalex I would also say that the arguement from effect isn't as strong as the moral arguement, think about what IP actually does. If I write a book and you buy a copy then reprint it, have I lost anything tangible? I still have my book, I'm still the only one who can be acredited as the author, what did I lose? I lost the ability to force others to buy something from me alone, I lost a monopoly on something infinitely reproducible and conceivably recreatable.

[alalelalex]

@Hashishin13

You are using the current concept of IP. But there are other concepts of IP. For example Stefan Molyneux also supports IP, but I cannot get clear exactly how he wants to implement it. He uses the concept of idea creation, which Ayn Rand also supports. The point is that these DRO's will try to resolve conflict by argumentation, which means you are bound by the constraints of argumentation ethics. I suspect that this leads to some form of IP.

[Hashishin13]

@alalelalex I think Stefan is wrong, and either he knows it or he can't come up with any reasons why hes right. The reason I say this is that oddly enough I was just looking for stefan's take on IP and he doesn't have one on his channel. Hes always bragging about his 1500+ podcasts(only 600 of which are on youtube) and he still hasn't laid down his theory, seems like proof enough that he doesn't have a decent one.

[alalelalex]

@Hashishin13

The problem lies with the homesteading concept. People are used to step over it and assume that property already exists in the form the state has created it, and it is intuitively clear how to exchange it. In a free society property will be based on original appropriation (OP)/ homesteading. You would have to defend OP using argumentation. Intersubjectivity is not enough.

[Hashishin13]

@alalelalex original appropriation is extrememly easy to defend, its just the logical extention of the first property we all own and are obviously given through OP, our bodies. I think the arguement for appropriating your own body to your self is quite obviously correct so I won't bother explaining it. The next step to owning property outside of your body is that anything which isn't owned by anyone else is obviously up for grabs, if nobody has a claim on something how could they dispute yours?

[alalelalex]

@Hashishin13

Well, you are just laying out the concept of property. But you are not implementing OA in the real world. We remain in an abstract universe where OA somehow exists. Whether property is intellectual or something else is not established. Stef says something about it here: watch?v=z1M2CnEg3GE&feature=pl­ayer_detailpage#t=375s

[Hashishin13]

@alalelalex You own your own body, this simple fact has more implications for law then everything else combined. Its where the laws against murder, rape, assault, torture, imprisonment etc all come from as they are tresspasses on self ownership. Laws against theft are implied in the extension of property to the claims made on animals, land and other objects. How far do you want to go with implementation? About a dozen hours of video might cover it, might not. Do you have any specific complaints?

[Hashishin13]

Okay I watched it now, what he is basically doing is what he always does, puts a well defined concept into his own words in the hopes of clarifying it. He was basically just repeating the homesteading principle which is exactly what I started by refuting in three comments. Your right to a certain extent, but ultimately the homesteading principle is just the most moral arguement you can make when you are trying to convince the people around you to respect your property. Paying others is also okay

[alalelalex]

@Hashishin13

Or to take an example from Nozeck. If you trow you tomato sauce in the sea, do you homestead the sea or do you loose your tomato sauce?

[fluff125]

This is bull. If I am a young inventor with no money and I make a breakthrough, A large company would just steal it. Don't steal my shit!

This philosophy has done the same thing physicists did with string theory, it has become so conjectural and speculative that it becomes removed from reality and climbs up it's own asshole in elitist triumph.

The END is life. The MEANS is freedom. What you have done is made freedom into the END even if it sacrifices life.

Minarchism FTW.

[gocrew6900]

@fluff125-- They wouldn't steal the invention, they would use the idea. Just because you had an idea doesn't give you the right to tell them what they can't do with their own property.

Besides, the company that hired you would have a headstart while the others tried to catch up to your idea.

[fluff125]

@gocrew6900 Oh yes it does. If I build a hovercraft in my backyard and suddenly GM starts building thousands of hovercrafts, that's fucking theft. Yes sure they might let me have some management position where they will dictate to me how to develop MY idea. FUCK that.

I get to develop MY invention because I thought of it. How many inventors would there be if there was no patent protection?

Yes its inefficient. Yes its political, yes its unfair like ALL government programs. But it IS necessary.

[ilikeyou0385]

@fluff125 no one stole anything from you, as there are no "property rights" on ideas. if someone "takes" your idea, you still have that idea and can compete with the so-called large companies. you will benefit substantially by being the originator of the idea and the first to bring the idea to the market.

[fluff125]

@ilikeyou0385 I beg to differ. For example look at books. If I write a book, what is to stop someone else from copying that book and selling it as his own? Property rights work because resources are scarce, if you build something, you are the only one who has it. But with ideas, if you build something then immediately everyone in the world has it, so long as they understand it. Patent rights impose scarcity on ideas, so suddenly a large company has a reason to spend billions on product research

[ilikeyou0385]

@fluff125 Patent rights surely do not impose scarcity on ideas, they place a monopoly on the use of ideas. Even with patent rights, the idea is not scarce.

[alalelalex]

@ilikeyou0385

Patent rights imply that the use of the idea's by another then the 'owner' has to be contractually agreed upon with the owner. In other words, usage rights will be sold for for money. If there is a nonzero price for the usage of idea's this use will be more scarce, compared to the situation where the idea can be copied freely. It is the same with jobs, if there is a minimum wage, then jobs will be more scarce.

[SadisticMonkey336]

@fluff125

you can't own ideas

hence they can't steal them from you

[lambedan]

He must not be a good patent lawyer.

At 46:50 He said that if you invent something first and someone else goes to the patent office you lose the invention rights.

This is not the case in the US. The US is a first to invent country.

[LeksServices]

For all you people talking about how if we eliminate gubberment, we'll all have greater freedums, I have a video link for you! Let's see how you like your serfdom, now, bitches!

watch?v=pJ0ELaED_PI

[not2tees]

Statistics show that some Japanese macaque monkeys prepare their food and make much noise doing so, but rarely during one of their own podcasts.

[kokopelli314]

Interesting point about territory being homesteaded by individuals, colonized and regulated by the State and eventually handed over to corporate interests and eventually de-regulated.

Regarding the 5 bushels of wheat lost

That is preciesly the arguement used by multi-national resource based corporations against national environmental regulations. When a community attempts to enforce environmental regulation, under NAFTA, corporations can sue for potential loss of projected profit

[kokopelli314]

Some Japanese Macaques wash their food, some do not initially but copy the behavior. Right of exclusion does not exist.

The concept of "Self Ownership" is a bizarre abstraction of Cartesian duality and convenience of language (ie. "my

body"). People have no right to categorize themselves as property, lease we all become slaves.

[deepfriedsammich]

It all goes back to the difference between "do" and "be." Your labor is alienable, therefore you can sell it, but your life is inalienable.

[kokopelli314]

@deepfriedsammich

It's true that labor is alienable but not necessarily so. The problem I see with alienated labor, is that is that it's become ubiquitous. When the state controls the modes of production ie. currency and exchange, infrastructure etc, control of the means become pretty much irrelevant in real terms of freedom. All behaviors within the modes are alienated and can be commodified. Some rebel, but most just can't imagine any other way.

[TruthSurge]

Hey, when you get hungry, you gotta fix some munchies in the kitchen even if you're the main star of the radio show.

[NeutrinoideReturns]

The argument from people asking for Ip laws sound like the argument for welfare and universal healthcare. Some kind of entitlement for money. If you have an idea I'll be glad respect it if it provides me values but don`t force it on me with a gun.

[sharperguy]

I also think that it should be fairly obvious where the scarcity in ideas come from, and that's the creation of these ideas in the first place. In terms of practical works, this essentially means that people could be payed to create the ideas after which they care nothing about how they are used.

This, to me, also seems compatible with the idea that most ideas are only a small speck in a sea of ideas leading up to the final product.

[RogueSwordThesco]

audio is meh

[Koog1e]

I agree you should do some more interviews/videos on this unnecessary complicated IP argument for the selfish and greedy world. Which is what this really comes down to in my opinion, if all people could enjoy a good life without wanting too much self indulgence, sharing in all sense and getting recognition for those contributions would be enough for everyone. No one asked what Kinsella was doing when talking, house cleaning? all that banging, audio cut outs lol, kinda ruined his own talks doh :)

[bwelkk]

16:35

Stef, you should do a whole video on this, as I think it's a fairly interesting question.

In my opinion, none of the plains natives owned any of the land in North America (by Neo Lockean standards) because they hadn't improved it.

[rahulk552008]

@bwelkk zomg objectivism

[andyissemicool]

Good video. I've been kind of skeptical about the idea of IP for awhile now, this helped clarify a lot.

[fergus247]

thanks

[ForOrAgainstUs]

I don't know if you're aware, but I had to friend you because this was a private video and I don't believe I could have watched it otherwise.

It's all good though because I'm listening to it on fdr right now.

[sharperguy]

It must be up fully by now because I'm watching it

[MaikUniversum]

great great great :)

[bwelkk]

who's the british guy?

[gminton88]

@bwelkk Tuttle from the Freedomain Radio boards.