homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/
Finally, at long last, Stephen Davis had the intellectual honesty to admit what I’ve been saying all along. Kinsella’s anti-IP theory is simply an elaborate philosophical hoax. Kinsella has cleverly built his conclusion (property must be physical) into his premise (“rivalry” must be physical, “use” must be physical, etc.).
After following him down every intellectual dark alley and up every intangible steep mountain, and showing at every turn that IP behaves identically to PP, Stephen Davis finally stated the logical rule upon which he bases his arguments:
If X isn’t physical, X cannot be property.
-Stephen Davis
Thank you, sir. You are a gentleman and a scholar. Kinsella will not be happy, of course. But you can sleep well knowing you did the right thing.
----------
Alexander, the premise is not built into the conclusion. It takes
careful thought to realize that property rights are only necessary in
physical things. Your arguments are based on an alternate universe in
which intangible things are analogous to physical things, but, here on
planet Earth, they are not.
Have you read chapter 2 of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s _A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism_?
Have you read chapter 2 of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s _A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism_?
-
It doesn’t take much thought at all to understand your / Kinsella’s argument. It is:
1. Premise 1 – Property must be rivalrous (see Hoppe, et al.)
2. Premise 2 – Rivalry must be physical (assumed, by definition).
3. Conclusion – Therefore property must be physical. QED.
That’s it. Your conclusion is built into Premise 2.
Here are some reasons why, HERE ON PLANET EARTH, the analogy between physical and intangible things is appropriate:
1. Intangible objects can affect the outcome of human events, just like physical objects.
2. Intangible objects have discernible borders, just like physical objects.
3. Intangible goods are brought into existence by mixing labor with owned physical goods (i.e. homesteading), just like physical goods.
4. Copies of intangible goods can be mass-produced, just like physical goods.
5. The quantity of copies is finite, and limited by human effort, just like physical goods.
6. People voluntarily contract to buy and sell intangible goods, just like physical goods.
You have given 0 reasons why the analogy is invalid.
Yes, I love Hoppe’s – “A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism.” One of the more important points is that abolishing the property rights in producer goods will lead to the “Calculation Problem” and the “Incentive Problem”.
Curiously though, Hoppe does not provide a definition of “scarce” in Chapter 2. I submit to you that all scarcity derives from the limitation on human effort.
As Hoppe says, “For a concept of property to arise, there must be a scarcity of goods. Should there be no scarcity, and should all goods be so-called “free goods” whose use by any one person for any one purpose would not in any way exclude (or interfere with or restrict) its use by any other person or for any other purpose, then there would be no need for property.”
So, Hoppe defines a “scarce” good as a good whose use by any one person for any one purpose would in some way exclude (or interfere with or restrict) its use by any other person or for any other purpose.
He says: “I might, for instance, want to use my body to enjoy drinking a cup of tea, while someone else might want to start a love affair with it, thus preventing me from having my tea and also reducing the time left to pursue my own goals by means of this body. In order to avoid such possible clashes, rules of exclusive ownership must be formulated. In fact, so long as there is action, there is a necessity for the establishment of property norms.”
Also: “[C]hoosing always implies the incurrence of costs: foregoing possible enjoyments because the means needed to attain them are scarce and are bound up in some alternative use which promises returns valued more highly than the opportunities forfeited.”
Notice the reason why property rights are necessary in “scarce” goods: one person can’t use a “scarce” good for one purpose without “preventing” another person from using it for another purpose. This is what is meant by “conflict” over “scarce” goods; one person is prevented from using particular “scarce” means because it is “bound up in some alternative use.”
“Premise 2″ is based on the insight of “Premise 1.” Only because of the existence of “scarce” goods are property rights necessary, and the nature of “scarce” goods is such that they must be physical.
The beauty of ideas, knowledge, information, patterns, recipes, etc. (i.e., intangible things) is precisely that they are not “scarce” in this sense. Human action may be limited by the nature of our bodies and the physical things around us, but thankfully we can all use the same intangible things simultaneously without “preventing” other people from using them. If I want to use the same intangible thing as you, that thing is not “bound up in some alternative use”; you are completely free to use it and my actions do not “prevent” you from doing anything.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that your six claims are correct and that they’re relevant to the discussion of property rights. So what? The question is, why are property rights necessary in intangible things?
As the explanation above makes clear, intangible things are not “scarce” in the sense that physical things are, and people can’t “conflict” over them in the sense that they can over physical things. Therefore, property rights in intangible things are not necessary, and we should be glad for this!
Again, thank you for your honesty. You are stating again that your premise (#2 above) includes your conclusion (that property must be physical). This is absolutely disallowed in logical argument. You are free to say whatever you want on this issue. But it is not correct to characterize your writing as “an argument”.
Rather, you are accepting as SELF-EVIDENT, A PRIORI that “physical” is a necessary component of “scarce” and / or “rivalrous” and / or “use”.
Assuming a priori, self-evident facts is not necessarily wrong. Austrian theory is founded on such. However, it is disingenuous to disguise an a priori assumption as an argument. You and Kinsella should have the intellectual honesty to label your position for what it is: an assumption, not a conclusion.
As for me, I am not willing to assume that intangible things are non-scarce, non rivalrous. As I have argued, intangible goods are scarce and rivalrous for exactly the same reason as physical goods – the limitation on human effort.
Curiously though, Hoppe does not provide a definition of “scarce” in Chapter 2.
What is YOUR definition of “interfere”, just so I can demonstrate the logical implications of each definition.
This is why Hoppe uses the language “to exclude, interfere with, or restrict.” One person’s use of a thing “prevents” another’s; one person’s use of a thing means for another person that that thing is “bound up in some alternative use.”
Go on.
If one person’s use of a thing “prevents” another’s, and if one person’s use of a thing means for another person that that thing is “bound up in some alternative use,” how can that apply to anything other than physical things? How can one person’s use of ideas, knowledge, information, patterns, recipes, etc. “prevent” another’s use? If one person is using ideas, knowledge, information, patterns, recipes, etc. and another person wants to use them, how can it be said that those things are “bound up in some alternative use”?
When you copy, YOU ARE NOT USING THE WIDGET. YOU ARE USING THE FACTORY.
If you copy a bicycle, you do not interfere with the bicycle owner. You interfere with the factory owner.
I appreciate you weighing in on this:
The existence of a mass-produced consumer good is proof of the existence and use of a factory.