One of the challenges in talking about anarchy with statists is trying to get them to put aside their notions of how certain problems must be dealt with, because that's all they've been exposed to. They think anarchy is lawlessness, violence, no roads, etc. but that's because they're thinking of today's society minus the existing government. But that's not really the anarchy we're talking about. We're talking about a society where new structures emerge that take on the roles government once had, in a fundamentally different way of course. And most anarchists will try to explain this in detail.
But this post isn't about the statists not understanding anarchy, it's the anarchists. Take the subject of intellectual property as an example. Some anarchists believe they'll be able to freely copy movies, music, software, etc. but I'd say they're falling into the same trap as the statists. That is, not understanding how a free society might handle such an issue because it's handled a different way now.
Let's assume that private defense agencies and courts would not protect IP. The IP owners would still have a tremendous incentive to protect their creations, and they wouldn't have to depend on the legal system to do it. Some anarchists only look at the IP and patent laws that exist today, but neglect the anti-trust and anti-competitive laws that restrict the ways in which owners can protect their IP through non-violent means. Even in today's restrictive environment we see companies creating their own solutions that are independent of government. These include end-user contracts, digital rights management, software licensing and activation, watermarking, personalization, and others. In a free market, companies would have even more options in working with suppliers and each other. We constantly argue that government does everything wrong and that private industry can do it better. Why do you think protecting IP would be any different in a free market?
This post isn't just about IP. It's about all the little assumptions about anarchy that are made without really thinking about the dynamics of such a society. Illegal drugs is another example. Sure, you can do coke, crack, meth, but maybe you're health insurance rates go through the roof (as with smoking now). Just because there's no law doesn't mean there's no consequence under anarchy. Personal privacy is another example. It's possible that your phone, internet, etc. will be tapped in a free market, if that's what the market demands. If private defense agencies see it as a worthwhile expense, they'll contract with communication providers to do it. And if consumers prefer the lower prices over privacy, then that's what you'll generally have.
The point is listen to yourself. You know anarchy will be different so start thinking more about what that really means.
PeterWellington:Let's assume that private defense agencies and courts would not protect IP.
They wouldn't, IP is not legitimate property, have you read Against IP by Kinsella?
PeterWellington:xample. It's possible that your phone, internet, etc. will be tapped in a free market, if that's what the market demands.
Not without you consenting, it's your property, to do so would violate property rights.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
PeterWellington: One of the challenges in talking about anarchy with statists is trying to get them to put aside their notions of how certain problems must be dealt with, because that's all they've been exposed to. They think anarchy is lawlessness, violence, no roads, etc. but that's because they're thinking of today's society minus the existing government. But that's not really the anarchy we're talking about. We're talking about a society where new structures emerge that take on the roles government once had, in a fundamentally different way of course. And most anarchists will try to explain this in detail. But this post isn't about the statists not understanding anarchy, it's the anarchists. Take the subject of intellectual property as an example. Some anarchists believe they'll be able to freely copy movies, music, software, etc. but I'd say they're falling into the same trap as the statists. That is, not understanding how a free society might handle such an issue because it's handled a different way now. Let's assume that private defense agencies and courts would not protect IP. The IP owners would still have a tremendous incentive to protect their creations, and they wouldn't have to depend on the legal system to do it. Some anarchists only look at the IP and patent laws that exist today, but neglect the anti-trust and anti-competitive laws that restrict the ways in which owners can protect their IP through non-violent means. Even in today's restrictive environment we see companies creating their own solutions that are independent of government. These include end-user contracts, digital rights management, software licensing and activation, watermarking, personalization, and others. In a free market, companies would have even more options in working with suppliers and each other. We constantly argue that government does everything wrong and that private industry can do it better. Why do you think protecting IP would be any different in a free market? This post isn't just about IP. It's about all the little assumptions about anarchy that are made without really thinking about the dynamics of such a society. Illegal drugs is another example. Sure, you can do coke, crack, meth, but maybe you're health insurance rates go through the roof (as with smoking now). Just because there's no law doesn't mean there's no consequence under anarchy. Personal privacy is another example. It's possible that your phone, internet, etc. will be tapped in a free market, if that's what the market demands. If private defense agencies see it as a worthwhile expense, they'll contract with communication providers to do it. And if consumers prefer the lower prices over privacy, then that's what you'll generally have. The point is listen to yourself. You know anarchy will be different so start thinking more about what that really means.
Your point is well made but will fall on mostly deaf hears here. Too many anarchists have this idea that there will be close to if not universal agreement on how things are going to be handled. Like the one comment here that IP rights are not legitimate. If you really want a free society it will come with a variety of opinions and options for how to deal with certain issues. Its ironic many anarchists try and tell everyone else how the free society will handle situations. I say let the market decide.
Maxliberty:If you really want a free society it will come with a variety of opinions and options for how to deal with certain issues. Its
You might as well have just said that in order for there to be a free society we can't rule out murder. Which would be absurd, the free market must be based on legitimate property rights, IP doesn't count.
GilesStratton: Maxliberty:If you really want a free society it will come with a variety of opinions and options for how to deal with certain issues. Its You might as well have just said that in order for there to be a free society we can't rule out murder. Which would be absurd, the free market must be based on legitimate property rights, IP doesn't count.
Wouldn't Intellectual Property be written off as an abstraction of a monopoly over an idea, & subsequently be deemed inappropriate via the market ? We don't even have a free-market now, yet many already subvert the concepts of Intellectual Property on the basis that it's not a legitimate concept, unless you stand to profit from it's abuse (or use, abuse would imply a correct way of using IP, which is easily arguable).I do agree that a Polycentric solution will be required, in any case.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
GilesStratton: PeterWellington:Let's assume that private defense agencies and courts would not protect IP. They wouldn't, IP is not legitimate property, have you read Against IP by Kinsella?
Why even bring this up if you agree with my assumption? I don't get it. Yes, I've read Kinsella's piece on IP. I'm not trying to argue that it's legit property. I'm saying just because something isn't recognized by the courts doesn't mean there aren't other ways of dealing with it. The people today who take other people's IP and sell/redistribute it are taking advantage of government laws (anti-trust and anti-competitive) just like IP owners take advantage of laws (copyright, patent, trademark). If the current laws were really working do you think companies would be spending millions of dollars on their own protection schemes? IP owners in a free market will have far more options in protecting their work. Think of how the internet, for example, would be different in a free market in terms of ownership and regulation. IP owners would have the option of paying Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to restrict internet usage (the same can be said for computer hardware manufacturers). Think of what that could mean in terms of protection, and it could all be done in a way that's completely compatible with libertarianism. Again, it would be up to the market. Would they choose an ISP that's half the price of its competitor, but more restricted? Would they choose to buy a computer that's a few hundred dollars cheaper, if it came with certain restrictions? I don't know, maybe IP owners wouldn't even be interested in those tactics. The point is they most definitely have the money and the incentive to try to protect their work. Debating the specific tactics they'd use is like debating with statists about exactly what the monetary system will look like.
GilesStratton: PeterWellington:xample. It's possible that your phone, internet, etc. will be tapped in a free market, if that's what the market demands. Not without you consenting, it's your property, to do so would violate property rights.
I can see how my wording might have been confusing, sorry about that. What I was saying was that it could very well be the norm in society to have your phone and internet tapped, not that you'd be forced into such an arrangement. That's why I said this right after the above quote: "And if consumers prefer the lower prices over privacy, then that's what you'll generally have." All that means is you might have a hard time finding a "spy-free" provider or you might have to pay a good deal more for it. Again, I'm not saying that *will* be the case, just another possibility that the market might arrive at.
Nitroadict:We don't even have a free-market now, yet many already subvert the concepts of Intellectual Property on the basis that it's not a legitimate concept, unless you stand to profit from it's abuse (or use, abuse would imply a correct way of using IP, which is easily arguable).
As I understand it most of the current attacks on IP are from the "left" who simply deem IP to a form of property, when of course they oppose the whole idea of IP altogether.
GilesStratton: Nitroadict:We don't even have a free-market now, yet many already subvert the concepts of Intellectual Property on the basis that it's not a legitimate concept, unless you stand to profit from it's abuse (or use, abuse would imply a correct way of using IP, which is easily arguable). As I understand it most of the current attacks on IP are from the "left" who simply deem IP to a form of property, when of course they oppose the whole idea of IP altogether.
:shrug: I figured that IP as a concept might be challenged if one thought it might lead to situations where the free-market might be endangered (i.e. a possible monopoly arising from manipulations in established IP protocols or whatever alternative laws that would exist in the free-market). Personally, I do not see a problem with individuals & communities voluntarily going against the use of IP, but I do see a problem if they advocate it's abolition for everyone else & vice-versa. I think what is commonly thought of as Intellectual Property has it's uses, but I think the term itself is a misnomer, & should be called something else (i.e. Conceptual Attribution, wherein possible Arbitration Services could award said CA licenses or acknowledgments to those who publicly demonstrate an innate understanding of the concept in question & give the case for their claim, or perhaps Conceptual Manifestation regarding products derived from Conceptual Origin's of certain individuals.)In hindsight, I don't think I've done more than just change a few labels, however, so I myself am at a bit of a loss for a possible solution :\.
PeterWellington: Let's assume that private defense agencies and courts would not protect IP. The IP owners would still have a tremendous incentive to protect their creations, and they wouldn't have to depend on the legal system to do it. Some anarchists only look at the IP and patent laws that exist today, but neglect the anti-trust and anti-competitive laws that restrict the ways in which owners can protect their IP through non-violent means. Even in today's restrictive environment we see companies creating their own solutions that are independent of government. These include end-user contracts, digital rights management, software licensing and activation, watermarking, personalization, and others. In a free market, companies would have even more options in working with suppliers and each other. We constantly argue that government does everything wrong and that private industry can do it better. Why do you think protecting IP would be any different in a free market?
"IP" owners don't need any protection. People have been writing software without trade serecy and and business like Redhat thrive in the face of firece competition. What make you think that they die without protecting their work?
DRM and other mechanism are also quite DUMB. You'll lose business by destroying the quality of your products.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
kiba: "IP" owners don't need any protection. People have been writing software without trade serecy and and business like Redhat thrive in the face of firece competition. What make you think that they die without protecting their work? DRM and other mechanism are also quite DUMB. You'll lose business by destroying the quality of your products.
I work in the software industry so I'm familiar with most of the measures out there. Yes, there's no way to absolutely protect your software product, but the same is true of physical property. Does that mean you should leave the door to your house wide open? The goal of software protection isn't to completely irradicate piracy, it's to "keep honest people honest" as the saying goes. It comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. There's a reason commercial software, almost universally, comes with some type of protection. There are ineffective schemes for sure, but do you think all of these companies are going out of their way to lose money? I don't think that would bode well for the free market if companies were irrational as a rule.
But your basic point is exactly the type of thinking I'm trying to address in this thread. You're looking at things as they exist in *today's society*. Who says companies won't develop more effective means of protecting their work in a free market? Again, the desire and the resources are there, and it doesn't have to be done violently.
See you made my point. Not everyone is going to agree on IP issues anymore than we will all agree on what is murder. I think abortion is murder and you probably disagree so yes even murder is not a topic that there will be universal agreement on. We probably agree on most things but to expect everyone to have the same viewpoint on any topic is not possible.
PeterWellington: kiba: "IP" owners don't need any protection. People have been writing software without trade serecy and and business like Redhat thrive in the face of firece competition. What make you think that they die without protecting their work? DRM and other mechanism are also quite DUMB. You'll lose business by destroying the quality of your products. I work in the software industry so I'm familiar with most of the measures out there. Yes, there's no way to absolutely protect your software product, but the same is true of physical property. Does that mean you should leave the door to your house wide open? The goal of software protection isn't to completely irradicate piracy, it's to "keep honest people honest" as the saying goes. It comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. There's a reason commercial software, almost universally, comes with some type of protection. There are ineffective schemes for sure, but do you think all of these companies are going out of their way to lose money? I don't think that would bode well for the free market if companies were irrational as a rule. But your basic point is exactly the type of thinking I'm trying to address in this thread. You're looking at things as they exist in *today's society*. Who says companies won't develop more effective means of protecting their work in a free market? Again, the desire and the resources are there, and it doesn't have to be done violently.
Just because an entire software industry believe that it is benefical to try protection scheme doesn't mean it is rational or smart. Focusing on combating "piracy" is pointless because you open up yourself to competitors' mercy. Software "piracy" is a red herring when they should be worried about the other guy down the block who happily embrace "piracy" and make more money because of it.
Maxliberty:See you made my point. Not everyone is going to agree on IP issues anymore than we will all agree on what is murder. I think abortion is murder and you probably disagree so yes even murder is not a topic that there will be universal agreement on. We probably agree on most things but to expect everyone to have the same viewpoint on any topic is not possible.
Uhm, all we have to agree on is reality, as in what is actually fact.
IP is not property.
People who think IP is property are just uneducated. They can always stop and consider IP rationally, particularly the excellent case Kinsella makes. I came to a similar conclusion by a totally different, but equally rational route.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
PeterWellington:I work in the software industry so I'm familiar with most of the measures out there. Yes, there's no way to absolutely protect your software product, but the same is true of physical property.
IP is something I had yet to consider within the realm of a free market, but I'd have to agree that logic seems to more heavily lend itself towards the argument that IP is NOT property. I think the very free market definition of property prevents this. Even in our current society IP is not really considered property--hence why temporary contracts are made granting a person temporary monopolistic property rights over it.
IP laws are supposedly there to encourage the market to get their ideas out there with full confidence that they will reap all of the profits associated with x idea for x amount of time. I cannot see why this is entirely fair in many circumstances, nor could I imagine that people would cease to invent, should IP laws be abrogated within a free society. I'm sure most everybody would feel that they are still receiving profit, regardless. The entrepreneur of whatever "IP" will probably find plenty of ways to market it effectively and profitably, as it has been mentioned already.
liberty student: Maxliberty:See you made my point. Not everyone is going to agree on IP issues anymore than we will all agree on what is murder. I think abortion is murder and you probably disagree so yes even murder is not a topic that there will be universal agreement on. We probably agree on most things but to expect everyone to have the same viewpoint on any topic is not possible. Uhm, all we have to agree on is reality, as in what is actually fact. IP is not property. People who think IP is property are just uneducated. They can always stop and consider IP rationally, particularly the excellent case Kinsella makes. I came to a similar conclusion by a totally different, but equally rational route.
I would say it is a fact that abortion is murder. You would disagree. I would say you are uneducated on this matter and you would say the same about me. See, we can not agree on what is reality/actual fact on an issue much more important than IP. The idea that everyone on the planet will come to some universal agreement on any matter is absurd. That is why to argue that in a free society you know absolutely how a particular issue will be handled is ludicrous. Some people will think IP is property and some people will not. The people that want to protect IP in some capacity will do so whether you like it or not. Again, simple contracts are one answer to these issues but the market is capable of many alternatives.
The broader point is that too many anarchists define what will occur in the free market when the market will produce many more approaches and to the extent these approaches are not what your definition of the free market is doesn't make them inherently wrong.
The only real question in a free society is what activities are you willing to use violence to prohibit. That is where the rubber meets the road. Are you willing to kill people to prevent them from protecting IP? If not then what people do is up to them.
Max, you may believe whatever you want. Abortion is murder, IP is property.
That does not make it true. I can't understand why you continue to insist that your subjective opinions are valid.
If IP is not property, then protecting it is pointless.
And please don't pull the "we don't know what will happen in a free market" jive with me, that's my schtick. It's wrong because a free market is predicated on property rights. IP is not property.
Through all of your response, you never make an argument to explain why you believe IP is property, or how you define property.
Maybe you could start by laying out the premise of your position, because like in the FRB thread, I'm tired of subjective semantic games.
Klor:IP is something I had yet to consider within the realm of a free market, but I'd have to agree that logic seems to more heavily lend itself towards the argument that IP is NOT property. I think the very free market definition of property prevents this. Even in our current society IP is not really considered property--hence why temporary contracts are made granting a person temporary monopolistic property rights over it.
Bingo.
Maxliberty:I would say it is a fact that abortion is murder. You would disagree. I would say you are uneducated on this matter and you would say the same about me.
There are few issues that are truly this arguable, although I think if one were to be consistent in their use of logic that generally leads one to anarchy in the first place, the answer would be somewhat obvious. Let us not be sidetracked by this, however.
Maxliberty:The idea that everyone on the planet will come to some universal agreement on any matter is absurd
That doesn't mean that something will not be generally accepted, though. Also, I think the language you are using is making this seem much more difficult then it would actually be. There is a large difference between "everyone on the planet" and "everyone in a free market society."
Maxliberty:That is why to argue that in a free society you know absolutely how a particular issue will be handled is ludicrous.
What is the point of visiting this forum if you don't want to argue about how something will be handled in a free society? I guess it's true that nobody can ever truly know how every issue will be handled, but why criticize somebody for arguing how something should be handled? Or arguing that in their opinion, it will be handled that way? What's so ludicrous? You're arguing a definitive statement as well, after all--the fact that people will not ever settle the issue of IP in a free society. Actually, you said the entire planet, but I assume you meant the former.
You seem to think there are grounds for considering IP property--instead of arguing moot points, you should further the discussion by presenting this side of the case. Whether or not everybody in a free society will consider IP property or not is irrelevant for now. We still have to time to discuss the issue further before we have to worry about that. So, if there is an argument you have for the fact that IP should be considered property, you should present it!
PeterWellington:Why even bring this up if you agree with my assumption? I don't get it. Yes, I've read Kinsella's piece on IP. I'm not trying to argue that it's legit property. I'm saying just because something isn't recognized by the courts doesn't mean there aren't other ways of dealing with it. The people today who take other people's IP and sell/redistribute it are taking advantage of government laws (anti-trust and anti-competitive) just like IP owners take advantage of laws (copyright, patent, trademark). If the current laws were really working do you think companies would be spending millions of dollars on their own protection schemes? IP owners in a free market will have far more options in protecting their work.
This presumes that government law defining IP as property, isn't the reason people are defending it like property. You get what I am sayin'?
Look, why would I spend a bunch of money defending something that I didn't own? I have no rights over it. Now if I am given rights by government edict, then now I have an interest in enforcing them. Particularly if my competitors are also using the government edict, because I want to be competitive with them. Sorta the reason that even ethical bankers use FRB. They would go broke if they did not.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap