Economic goods are scarce. One might think that
scarcity arises from the quantity of things in existence. After all,
look around. There are only so many rocks, so many fruit trees, an so
on. This view, however, is wrong.
Other than naturally-occurring, super-abundant free goods (like atmospheric air), goods must be produced. All production involves the expenditure of human effort. Human effort is limited. No matter how hard you try, there is only so much you can do.
The supply of physical matter is literally inexhaustible. The quantity of aluminum, just near the Earth’s surface, is so vast that we could increase our usage by 1000 times, for the next million years, and still not “use up” even one trillionth of the aluminum known to exist in common bauxite ore. The quotes around “use up” are present because, in fact, we never use up anything. The total of matter and energy in the universe is fixed. Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed. All we do is move things around, to make them more useful to us.
Nevertheless, aluminum products are scarce. Why? Because aluminum sitting in the hillside is useless. To be useful, we mortals have to go get it. The limit on aluminum goods has nothing whatsoever to do with how much aluminum exists. It is purely a limit on human action.
While aluminum is common, diamonds are quite rare. Does this mean diamonds may be considered naturally scarce, simply because they are uncommon in nature? No. We can produce any quantity of diamonds that we are willing and able to produce. Nowadays, you can have a diamond made from the cremated remains of your late loved one.
There is even an entire planet made of diamond! All we need to do is send some explosives out there, blast that baby to smithereens, and tow the pieces home 40 light-years.
The supply of matter is infinite. Goods made from this matter are scarce, because human effort is limited. With this distinction in mind, consider the following from praxeologist Hans-Hermann Hoppe:
Songs, bicycles and diamonds will all exist in the quantity that humans are willing and able to produce.
------------
Other than naturally-occurring, super-abundant free goods (like atmospheric air), goods must be produced. All production involves the expenditure of human effort. Human effort is limited. No matter how hard you try, there is only so much you can do.
The supply of physical matter is literally inexhaustible. The quantity of aluminum, just near the Earth’s surface, is so vast that we could increase our usage by 1000 times, for the next million years, and still not “use up” even one trillionth of the aluminum known to exist in common bauxite ore. The quotes around “use up” are present because, in fact, we never use up anything. The total of matter and energy in the universe is fixed. Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed. All we do is move things around, to make them more useful to us.
Nevertheless, aluminum products are scarce. Why? Because aluminum sitting in the hillside is useless. To be useful, we mortals have to go get it. The limit on aluminum goods has nothing whatsoever to do with how much aluminum exists. It is purely a limit on human action.
While aluminum is common, diamonds are quite rare. Does this mean diamonds may be considered naturally scarce, simply because they are uncommon in nature? No. We can produce any quantity of diamonds that we are willing and able to produce. Nowadays, you can have a diamond made from the cremated remains of your late loved one.
There is even an entire planet made of diamond! All we need to do is send some explosives out there, blast that baby to smithereens, and tow the pieces home 40 light-years.
The supply of matter is infinite. Goods made from this matter are scarce, because human effort is limited. With this distinction in mind, consider the following from praxeologist Hans-Hermann Hoppe:
Once thought and expressed, [intangible objects] are free, inexhaustible goods. I whistle a melody or write down a poem, you hear the melody or read the poem and reproduce or copy it. In doing so you have not taken anything away from me. I can whistle and write as before. In fact, the entire world can copy me and yet nothing is taken from me. (If I didn’t want anyone to copy my ideas I only have to keep them to myself and never express them.)An intangible good, like a song, is scarce for exactly the same reasons as physical goods. It takes human effort to create the song in the first place, and it takes human effort to make copies. Yes, song-copies are “inexhaustable” in the sense that, once published, we will never run out of the raw material needed to manufacture more copies. This is no different than noticing that we will never run out of the raw material needed to make aluminum bicycles, or diamond rings.
Songs, bicycles and diamonds will all exist in the quantity that humans are willing and able to produce.
------------
However, I do disagree about the “unlimitedness” of resources. Although we seem to find new sources everyday, oil and gas are limited since they come from organic decomposition. We can synthesize them, but it’s way too expensive. Granted, we’ll probably learn to use alternative sources withing a few generations (as we did with fiber optics vs copper), but within a human lifespan, it’s finite
My conclusion is that scarcity always arises from a limitation on human effort, and never from a lack of physical matter. If that is wrong, you should have no trouble providing a counter-example. Go for it.
Also, do not argue by analogy unless you can prove the analogy valid in all necessary respects. Intellectual goods and physical good quite clearly have different properties. Those differences significantly affect the property claims and rights related to the respective goods, causing the analogy to break down.
I’ve also noticed that the word “scarce” consists of (at least) two different components: rarity and rivalrousness. I personally completely avoid using the word scarce when I debate IP, because I wish to be clear in what I say, and need to be extra-careful that I don’t accidentally make a definitional substitution.
What do you see as the critical issue in this discussion?
According to the standard usage among economists, the distinction between scarce goods and abundant goods corresponds to the need for economizing. If a good is scarce, a given amount of the good will satisfy only so many uses, leaving some unsatisfied. So the consumer must prioritize uses. When a good is abundant, there is no need to economize; all imaginable uses can be satisfied by the existing amount of the good, with some left over (with uses including “sell it on ebay”). I am not sure how the “limit on human action” does or does not relate to this.
A song that does not exist yet is scarce. There are no units of it to satisfy any needs or uses. A song that exists is abundant. Once it exists, there is no need to economize its use, a single unit can satisfy all imaginable uses. Alexander has pointed out that however many copies or performances or variations of a song may exist, there is only one song, identified by the composer, the title, the melody, and the lyrics (if any).
Copies of a performance are scarce. If I want to keep a CD in my car, I can’t also use it in my bedroom. To cover both uses, I would need to have 2 CDs. But there is only one song. The song performance is scarce only because the information defining it must be recorded on or transmitted over a physical medium, and the physical media are scarce.
We could go on complicating the metaphysics. For instance, different arrangements of the same song may involve considerable creative input from persons who are not considered the composer. No two performances will be identical. Different songs can be merged as medleys, mash-ups, or by using samples from one song in the composition of another song. Title, composer, melody and lyrics may uniquely identify a song, but are not really sufficient to define it fully. Hands wave now.
So. Can we regard songs as scarce goods? They are not intrinsically scarce, so the question really is, do we have a good moral or practical reason for artificially making them scarce?
So, are songs more like mathematics or pork bellies? Is scarcity/abundance the critical issue in determining whether songs should be property or not?
We have a few examples of non-physical goods (language, mathematics, scientific discoveries, “patentable” processes) that everyone involved in this discussion agrees should not be treated as property. With rare exceptions (atmospheric air) we agree that physical goods may be owned. We’ve been arguing about items covered by current copyright law. Are there any other non-physical goods, not covered by copyright, that currently can be owned?
The best candidate I can think of is a commodity contract. If I buy one, someone is obligated to deliver some goods to me at a certain time and place, and I am obligated to pay. Are we considered to own some non-physical property? Or maybe it’s better to just think of us as having obligations. I can buy & sell such contracts, but all I possess is a piece of paper with writing on it. Maybe it should be thought of as a debt. Is a debt property?
This article is about the CAUSE of scarcity, not the definition. That said, agreeing upon a definition of “scarce” is a good idea. I certainly can’t agree with your definition, because you reach this conclusion:
“When a good is abundant, there is no need to economize; all imaginable uses can be satisfied by the existing amount of the good, with some left over (with uses including “sell it on ebay”).”
Therefore things sold on eBay are not scarce??? Things sold on eBay are not rightful property???
The reverse. If something is abundant, I could try to sell it on ebay. I could try, but would likely fail. (With ebay, you never know.) I wished to point out that I was not limiting the meaning of “use” to exclude sale. As long as I can sell a unit of good, I have a use for it. Okay?
Maybe Alexander would like to twist this around so that songs are scarce. But which goods are we discussing? The song itself is unique, and not for sale on ebay. Ebay will sell you a CD, which is a physical object with information encoded on it. This is definitely scarce, but it is not what Alexander wants to own. Itunes will sell you the service of delivering a file to your PC. This also is not the property that A wants to claim ownership of.
Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, it is possible to use the legal system to make an abundant good scarce artificially. The question is, are there good moral and practical reasons for doing so? So even if Alexander could sell his property on ebay, this would not prove that the good was fundamentally scarce. We may imagine a tyrannical regime that would charge people for use of atmospheric air, treating it as a scarce good owned by someone, but that does not mean that atmospheric air actually would become scarce.
Ebay seems generally to “sell” scarce, owned resources. But not every “sale” so-called means the transfer of title to the “sold” “thing.” Some contracts have only one title-transfer: the monetary payment, which is triggered by a set of specified conditions. the condition can be the performing of an action (a “service” contract), some random event (a gamble or insurance contract), etc. None of this language means the thing “sold” is owned or ownable. To state this is to betray an amateur understanding of contract law and legal theory.
But the cause of scarcity, whether you have identified it or not, is not relevant here. My post showed that when we use the standard definition of scarcity, your conclusion that songs are scarce is wrong. Intangible goods are not scarce because we do not need to economize them. I can use the same unit of good to satisfy my most urgent use, my least urgent use, and all those in between. In fact, you have argued that everyone’s uses depend on a single good.
The fact that we can attempt to impose an artificial scarcity on such goods does not mean they actually are scarce.
Ownership of physical objects make sense. To own information makes less sense.
I like your approach, but you are mis-matching the elements of the analogy. Here is your analysis, corrected:
There is no extra labor involved in instructing a computer to copy a file once versus 100,000 times . . .
just as . . .
There is no extra labor involved in instructing a factory to copy an automobile once versus 100,000 times.
The supply of raw material needed to mass-produce song-copies is infinite, just as the supply of raw material needed to mass-produce cars is infinite.
Obtaining and transforming the raw material into car-factories and car-copies requires human effort and the expenditure of scarce resources, just as obtaining and transforming the raw material into song-factories and song-copies requires human effort and the expenditure of scarce resources.
“Knowledge and information need a pysical medium to be stored in”
So does orange juice.
I was trying to adjust Gary’s statement that knowledge “ha[s] no physical properties”. Technically he is correct, but only in the sense that we conceptually can separate knowledge from the physical medium in which it is encoded. Knowledge never exists without a physical medium of some kind, though of course the same knowledge may appear in different media.
As for orange juice, it needs a container to be usable/drinkable. If I spill it on the ground, it is still orange juice, but no one wants to drink it. If I remove information from all physical media, it no longer exists.
One of the core principles of quantum mechanics is that information is never lost, it simply changes form. When you destroy a hard drive, the information it stored still exists, because somewhere in the universe are sub-atomic particles all in different states than they would have been, had the information on the hard drive been different to being with. The information has been transformed from being useful, to useless.
What we typically mean when we say “information” is really “useful information”. And what we mean when we say “orange juice” is “useful orange juice”.
If you mix enough dirt with orange juice, at some point the reasonable person concludes it is no longer orange juice . . .
just as . . .
If you mix enough noise with information, at some point the reasonable person concludes it is no longer information.
As always, IP and PP are the same.
So, in a lifeless universe, there is still … information?
Anyway, who cares? These pseudo-scientific faux-deep statements are trotted out as if they justify socialistic IP laws. THey do not.
“Orange juice on the ground ceases to be orange juice”
I don’t think you have convinced me.
“The information has been transformed from being useful, to useless.”
So you’re saying the information could conceivably be retrieved, just that actually accomplishing this would be absurdly difficult?
Is this at all relevant, or are you just quibbling?
In any case, while we can move both the song and the orange juice from one medium/container to another, we cannot copy a glass of orange juice, at least, not yet. If we were able, would you object?
“What we typically mean when we say “information” is really “useful information”. And what we mean when we say “orange juice” is “useful orange juice”.”
Now I am quibbling, but no, orange juice is orange juice, whether it is drinkable or not. It is juice that came from an orange. Perhaps it is rancid orange juice, or contaminated orange juice, or orange juice in a large mixture of other substances, but still orange juice. Now we’re really getting metaphysical. What is the essence of orange juice? (Just kidding.)
“As always, IP and PP are the same.”
So, does that mean I am free to copy songs, or I should be prevented from copying orange juice?
Is orange juice still orange juice after I drink it and urinate into the toilet? There is some level of purity that will be considered orange juice, and then it will cross a threshold and no longer be considered orange juice. This threshold is completely arbitrary and subjective, of course. As with every other effort to name things.
In reality, there are only waves of energy that collapse into sub-atomic particles. Every “substance”, “element”, “object’, “thing” etc. is an abstract concept.
this is a reductionist, monistic, simpleminded approach. Objects are not abstract concepts. And legitimate concepts have referents. And you can’t say that all that exists is sub-atomic particles. There is mind and brain, person and body. these are different concepts with different referents. there is human action, and human behavior. etc. THey “exist.” The concept mind is not *the same as* the concept brain.
“Is orange juice still orange juice after I drink it and urinate into the toilet?”
Do you even remember the reason for this quibble, or are you just quibbling for quibbling’s sake? The molecules are the same, but the orange juice will be chemically changed by being digested and metabolized. What does this have to do with the original point? I can freeze the orange juice and launch it into space, and it will still be orange juice, but will not require a container. Eventually it will sublimate, etc. etc. but for a good long while it would not need a container.
Can we end the quibblefest now?
You wrote:
“Food and material goods are limited to the availability of the matter they are made of.”
There is an infinite supply of the matter from which food and material goods are made.
Saying “There is an infinite supply of the matter from which food and material goods are made” seems to imply that we have access to this. Perhaps it would be better to express it as “There is an infinite [amount] of the matter from which food and material goods are made.”
Great! There is an infinite amount of the matter from which food and material goods are made.
Besides the physical matter, there is only one other component of physical goods – human effort.
Matter is infinite, effort is limited. Bravo!!!
The limitation on human effort is the only cause of scarcity. Period. Intangible goods are scarce for exactly the same reason that physical goods are scarce.
Perhaps you only now realize the implications of this insight?
“Intangible goods are scarce for exactly the same reason that physical goods are scarce.”
And intangible goods are abundant for exactly the same reason that physical goods are abundant. So?
“Ideas and intellectual property, like all knowledge, have no physical properties and are easily shared.”
When you say “shared” you mean “mass-produced and distributed”. When you say “easily”, you mean “requires some amount of human effort”.
Songs, bicycles and diamond rings can all be mass-produced and distributed. Doing so requires some amount of human effort.
As always, when we correctly match the elements of the analogy, there is NO difference between IP and PP.
The above post is possibly your most concentrated disinformation effort so far, quite an accomplishment. Must I really spend time denying all these lies?
1. I don’t think it’s wrong to emulate. If I did, I would support emulate-rights.
2. I don’t think it’s wrong to learn.
3. I don’t think it’s wrong to compete (or complete).
4. I don’t support property rights in “ideas”. There is a difference between an “idea” and unique pattern of information. Sure, there will be a gray area as to whether a pattern is sufficiently complex and unique to validate a property right. The precise same gray area occurs in assigning property rights in physical things.
5. I am not a “liberal” in the current meaning of the word. You’re free to ideologically label me if you like, after all, I have labeled you an “Intellectual Communist”. But please don’t say “so-called liberal”, because it implies that I refer to myself that way.
“Why could we not expand the idea of intellectual space to include ideas, so that all ideas can be expressed as a unique pattern of information in intellectual space?”
Yes, but add location. An “idea” is an intellectual object, made of intellectual matter, that resides at a unique location in intellectual space.
“http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/definitions-of-key-terms/”
“An “idea” is an intellectual object, made of intellectual matter, that resides at a unique location in intellectual space. ”
So why have you excluded such a large category of ideas (math, science, language, patentable ideas) from being copyrighted? Oh yeah, homesteading. I look forward to the explanation.
Well, you do.
“2. I don’t think it’s wrong to learn.”
Yes, you do.
“3. I don’t think it’s wrong to compete (or complete).”
Yes, you do.
“4. I don’t support property rights in “ideas”. There is a difference between an “idea” and unique pattern of information.”
Hhahhahaha HAHAHAHAHH you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.
“Sure, there will be a gray area as to whether a pattern is sufficiently complex and unique to validate a property right. The precise same gray area occurs in assigning property rights in physical things.”
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHH. seriously. seriously. are you serious, dude? hahahha. Everyone now knows you are a joke here.
“5. I am not a “liberal” in the current meaning of the word.”
FINALLY something to agree on. FINALLY.
” You’re free to ideologically label me if you like, after all, I have labeled you an “Intellectual Communist”. But please don’t say “so-called liberal”, because it implies that I refer to myself that way.”
You don’t have any coherent labels. But I’ll give you one–you are a socialist, and an ignoramus. You should shut the hell up, listen and learn. Instead of pontificating like an amateur on things you know little to nothing about. Everyone knows that you have a self-interest in copyright, “Ace.” Nobody gives a flying fuck.
http://homesteadip.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-intangible-goods-are-scarce-and.html
In other words, copying something may or may not constitute trespass in intellectual space. If it constitutes trespass, then it is a violation of “copyright”. If not, then not.
Let me see if I can unreel it myself. Each song is a unique location in intellectual space. By composing the song, by making decisions about what melody to use, etc., you drive a stake at the location in intellectual space. Anyone who performs a song that is similar is trespassing.
But this does not explain the distinction you make between songs and bicycles with regard to homesteading. Most bicycles have a basic similarity, but songs also have many conventional aspects that the composer does not reinvent each time. Mathematical theorems are even more analogous to songs, in that some element of originality is required, with similar creativity and effort involved, with even more technical constraints.
Let’s face it, you just define “homestead” as “Alexander wins”. You have decided it means whatever it must mean for your conclusions to follow. But why should I buy into that?
Which are and which are not, and why? Oh, I get it, the ones that are homesteaded are copyrightable!
Okay, again a plea to explain “homesteading” in some sensible nonarbitrary way.
hahahhahah. are you stupid or dishonest or just ignorant?
By IP, I mean IP in general. According to my analysis, “copyright” is valid property, because “copyright” only applies to homesteaded objects. “Patent” is not valid property, because a “patent” applies to a method by which homesteading COULD happen, but is not an act of homesteading itself.
Can I homestead molecules? If I developed a nanotech gizmo that allowed me to construct molecules according to my imagination within the constraints of physics, could I copyright the result? Songs are like bicycles but words and notes are not like bicycle parts or molecules?
Rothbard, Hoppe and I disagree with you on “transform”.
Rothbard: “For remember always the basic principle: that all resources, all goods, in a state of no-ownership belong properly to the first person who finds and transforms them into a useful good (the “homestead” principle).”
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nine.asp
Hoppe: “In particular, once a good has first been appropriated or homesteaded by mixing one’s labor with it (Locke’s phrase) then ownership in it can only be acquired by means of a contractual transfer of property title from a previous to a later owner . . .”
Hoppe: “Finally, it would be equally impossible to engage in argumenta- tion, if one were not allowed to appropriate in addition to one’s body other scarce means through homesteading, i.e., by putting them to use before someone else does, or if such means were not defined in objective, physical terms.”
http://library.mises.org/books/Hans-Hermann%20Hoppe/Economics%20and%20Ethics%20of%20Private%20Property%20Studies%20in%20Political%20Economy%20and%20Philosophy.pdf
Uh, no. Hoppe does not. He and I are in complete agreement on all these matters. And as Hoppe was his best student, it is unlikely Rothbard’s views are that different, though he did have malformed views on IP. Unlike you, he had an excuse.
You say transformation is not necessary. Logically then, either Hoppe is misquoted above, or you’re wrong. So which is it?
You say transformation is not necessary. Logically then, either Hoppe is misquoted above, or you’re wrong. So which is it?”
Hoppe sees Lockean labor-mixing, transformation, as one type of embordering. I was very clear on this from the outset. Primarily because I am not trying to figure this out as I go, as you apparently are.
Transformation refers to re-arranging matter so that it better serves human needs.
If I understand you, then defining a border around un-owned land, while doing nothing useful with the land, is sufficient to establish a property right?
What would be an example of “embordering”, without “transforming into usefulness”?
If you want to understand, you must apply. Choose a specific example of a good to be analyzed, apply the key definitions, work forward, and see what result you obtain. If you get stuck, I will correct and complete your analysis. You will learn Intellectual Space, and in the process I will learn how better to present my thesis.
How is deriving an original theorem different from writing a song, with regard to homesteading? Both involve technical constraints, skill, effort, creativity. Aesthetics will influence the song more than the theorem, but that is not relevant. The main difference is, if I make use of a theorem, no laws threaten me with punishment. I can use it to write software, to develop further theorems, or to solve problems, without the permission of the author. Why is there no neighborhood of your “intellectual space” for mathematical theorems?
There IS a neighborhood in intellectual space for math theorems. Math theorem are made of intellectual matter, and are considered intellectual objects. Math theorems lack sufficient size, complexity and usefulness to function as consumer goods.
As I have explained ad nauseum, deciding when an object functions sufficiently to warrant property requires a completely subjective, arbitrary assessment of size, complexity, usefulness, originality, etc.
Not every song is homesteadable. If I write a song that is only 4 melody notes, I can certainly say that it is a new song. But it is not sufficiently large, complex and original enough to warrant property rights. It’s too insignificant.
Physical objects require precisely the same subjective, arbitrary assessments to assign property rights.
I’m just letting that sink in. Okay, consumers for such goods are a small group, I must admit. But they do exist.
Some theorems are extremely useful. Public key Cryptography would not exist without several theorems from number theory, and PKC is *very* useful.
I really doubt that mathematicians have any trouble generating more complexity than one of your songs. At the very least they could beat “Bebop a lula” or “Happy birthday.”
So, if I advise the mathematicians to start making their theorems bigger, will that satisfy you, and you will call for ownership of mathematical theorems? This would be easy for them to do, though it turns their tradition on its head.
There is nothing magic about a “song” automatically making it homesteadable, nor is there anything magical about a theorem making it non-homesteadable.
If you want to homestead a math theorem, then stake your claim, put up your fences, and defend it.
So, you seem to finally admitting that all “sufficiently complex and original, bounded, useful” intangible goods can homesteaded and owned. So most of science and mathematics, of language, most useful products of the mind should have been included in intellectual property and we should all be paying license fees to speak English and do addition and subtraction, except people were just too stupid to think of it, instead of finding the idea horrifying, absurd, and impractical.
I apologize for wasting your time, I didn’t think you actually believed that. I guess that was my mistake, I kept expecting you to make some lame distinction between songs and other intangible goods. But you think anything can be owned.
If it was subjective and/or arbitrary, the legal system couldn’t handle it. Maybe you mean intersubjective?
And it would face merely practical (not conceptual) limits, as anything too small, simple, useless or boring would never bring a return on invested effort. No need to prevent people from claiming ownership of worthless garbage.
In a limited sense, you’re right, a court could dismiss a case arbitrarily, even if the stakes are higher. The fact that there is a practical limit doesn’t mean it is completely subjective and arbitrary. If it was so subjective and arbitrary, maybe the court *would* punish me disproportionately for some de minimis damage to your wall, or fail to punish me for demolishing it.
See #3 here:
http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/25/the-alleged-case-agains-intellectual-property/
If you are unwilling to apply yourself, you will never learn.
So the design, the description of how to homestead something, can never be “sufficiently complex and original, bounded, useful, etc” to be homesteaded, is that it?
Underneath the ambiguous terms, we are talking about inventing stuff, right? So you’re saying, writing a song is homesteading, is “acquiring legal title to ownership of a resource by transforming previously un-owned matter into a more useful state.” And this “resource” is intangible, it’s true form exists in intellectual space, which is not part of the ordinary universe but a conceptual metaphysical realm. But inventing the telephone was not homesteading, it was just creating a description of how to make phones. There is no corresponding location in design space or idea space or intellectual space to represent the idea of a telephone or a design of a telephone, because that only tells us how to “acquire legal title to ownership of a resource by transforming previously un-owned matter into a more useful state” but when Bell created that idea he did not actually “acquire legal title to ownership of a resource by transforming previously un-owned matter into a more useful state.”
And why is that?
Because the former is an act of homesteading, the latter is merely a description of how an act of homesteading could occur. Must be the 10th time answering.