Austrian economics is based on the premise that economics cannot be summed into graphical models and simulations and should rather be considered by the logical study of human action (or as mises would call it, Praxeology).
However, in order to see the argument in true light, we must explore the idea of property rights. Many conservatives misunderstand intellectual property, because of imprecise definitions of property rights.
A Definition of Property Rights
The world is filled with scarcity, and ownership of an object excludes the use of another's use of that object (a fact evident to anyone with little siblings: be it remote controls, tvs, the computer, etc.) However, were objects not scarce, the need for property rights would diminish. If we could, by power of the mind, recreate an infinite value of lawnmowers, there would be no dispute over the ownership of any lawnmower.
Therefore, the purpose of property rights is to resolve conflicts between scarce goods. In order for it to serve that function, property rights must be visible (or objective) and just. So when property rights are allocated on first-occupier homesteading rules, they fill both these criteria.
This rule states that objects outside our bodies are unowned. The first person to claim ownership over an unowned object has a more legitimate claim to the object than the second or third person who makes the claim.
The Natural-Rights Argument for IP
This argument holds that an inventor has the right to the "fruits of his labor" just as a farmer has a right to the crops his farming yields. However, labor is not necessary, nor adequate to claim property rights. If I steal a block of marble from my neighbor, and create a statue, as beautiful as it may be, it still does not belong to me. However, if the neighbor had bought the marble from someone who had owned it, then under the title-transfer contract theory, he has a valid claim to that marble. Labor is not adequate for ownership of property.
If the neighbor had found the marble on a field, or in a mine, and no other claim to the ownership (by producing a legitimate contract proving ownership) can be made, then the neighbor has the right to homestead the object and claim ownership over it. In neither instance, labor is not shown to be necessary for ownership of property.
The Utilitarian Argument for IP
This argument states that IP laws should be implemented and enforced on the basis that it increases "wealth" or "progress" or "utility" in society. However, unethically stealing property from one individual and giving to another cannot be justified.
Intellectual property violates the first-occupier homestead rule. It is a restriction, or a claim, on already owned property. Or, more specifically, a restriction on the creation use of such a property.
Also, market prices do not have an objective value. Mises pointed out that value is subjective, and the market value of an object does not say anything about it's importance.
Intellectual property under current law can only be claimed for "useful" innovations (ones that can be adopted into products), and not abstract or theoretical ones. This creates a dichotomy which artificially boosts the number of researchers for patentable (useful) innovation, and lowers the number of researchers for unpatentable ones. This is also a problem with the natural-rights argument, since now, only certain types of property are considered ownable.
Lastly, intellectual property costs companies hundreds of thousands of dollars filing for patents which are spent to insure that companies do not sue each other.
Currently, I am in the middle of watching the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWShFz4d2RY
Preferably, the book or video would be the medium I'd like to discuss, but I know that not everybody has the patience to sit through that much economics. But please feel free to share your thoughts on either the book, my write-up, or the video.|||Austrian economics always crack me up. Kangaroo! Didjerido! Throw another economist on the barbie!|||Quote:
Austrian economics always crack me up. Kangaroo! Didjerido! Throw another economist on the barbie!
Care to provide an actual argument or would you like continue to baselessly belittle a philosophy you obviously don't understand?|||I understand it perfectly; I just find it absolutely ridiculous. You would like to remove the incentive for anyone to create anything new. To write a book, a song, or produce a movie. That's far more ridiculous than my response.
Quote:
Lastly, intellectual property costs companies hundreds of thousands of dollars filing for patents which are spent to insure that companies do not sue each other.
I believe you meant "ensure" instead of "insure", but I'll let that slide. You neglected to point out that intellectual property MAKES companies hundreds of billions of dollars, compensating them for their time and the inherent risk they've assumed in creating a product.
Care to present an opinion as an opinion, rather than as fact?|||no one owns anything, even things you personally create
it's just in your care for a while, a transient desire
economics is hogwash, those braniacs destroy every nation with their policies
we should revert to the barter system, and phase out money
simplicity is best
you might thing this is absurd but the Mennonites are doing fantastic
without that fancy shmancy economics
|||Quote:Care to present an opinion as an opinion, rather than as fact?
I only suspected that I wouldn't need a disclaimer at the end of every post to indicate this notion but, unless jmervyn objects, here is the following:
Quote:
The opinions I express are my own and not indicative of any policy or stance of the U.S. Gov't or any agency. They're my own. Really. Not kidding.
Quote:
You neglected to point out that intellectual property MAKES companies hundreds of billions of dollars, compensating them for their time and the inherent risk they've assumed in creating a product.
Except that still doesn't justify, on moral grounds, why a restriction can be placed on someone else's creative use of their property.
But it is not a necessary pre-requisite to profit nor does it provide an environment where innovations are encouraged. It is a monopoly on ideas; and innovations become arms races which costs the consumer. Not to mention it destroys the ability of small businesses to enter competition against companies with an arsenal of patents.
Rather, it stops innovation at the source.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/05/...reform-debate/
edit: just realized how ironic it would be if jmervyn DID object to my posting of his response|||Only useful part of that article: "Not surprisingly, the proposals from companies have been met with an equally vocal response from inventors’ groups and others. They contend that big companies such as Intel merely want to use their patent without paying a fair price."
Yep. That sums it up right there - morally, it is wrong for someone to take something I created and use it to make a profit without compensating me. Doing so squelches creativity, as it removes a primary motivation for creating in the first place.
The first article you cited made the fatal flaw of not realizing that a song or a novel is not a piece of marble. This causes me to severely doubt the author. The second article apparently can't see the ethical failure of allowing companies to steal others' work. Fatally flawed.|||Quote:
The first article you cited made the fatal flaw of not realizing that a song or a novel is not a piece of marble. This causes me to severely doubt the author.
Article? That was a 50 page book. You're severely doubting the author based on a link you didn't click on?
Quote:
The second article apparently can't see the ethical failure of allowing companies to steal others' work. Fatally flawed.
Again, labor is neither sufficient nor adequate for property rights. Not to mention that you can't "steal" an idea.
My use of a design does not restrict your use of the same design. Ideas lack the one element crucial to property rights: scarcity.|||Quote:
Again, labor is neither sufficient nor adequate for property rights. Not to mention that you can't "steal" an idea.
You state that as an absolute, when it's not. It's an opinion, and not one I share.|||Quote:
You state that as an absolute, when it's not. It's an opinion, and not one I share.
You assert that the labor theory of value is true. For how long? Which ideas? Why couldn't Einstein patent his theory of relativity? Will it not be used to create products which will be mass-marketed for profit? How much is his cut?
How many words is copyright infringement? Can Paris Hilton own, "that's hot" ?
You say that these are moral rights; for a person to enjoy the fruits of his labor, so to speak. But this leads to questions about how these laws are formulated and to what degree.
Quote:
Yep. That sums it up right there - morally, it is wrong for someone to take something I created and use it to make a profit without compensating me. Doing so squelches creativity, as it removes a primary motivation for creating in the first place.
So the primary motivation for creation are IP-laws which grant monopolies by restricting the free use of other people's property to create a product?
I disagree. The primary motivation for creation is to solve problems. Your ability to profit from it is based on your ability to market a product that will be receptive with customers.
No comments:
Post a Comment