Intellectual Property and Economic Development | Stephan Kinsella

Archived from the live Mises.tv broadcast, this lecture by Stephan Kinsella was presented at the 2011 Mises University in Auburn, Alabama. Includes an introduction by Mark Thornton.
Slides and audio availble at c4sif.org/2011/07/intellectual...

[@yinzjagoffs]

Hearing such logic gives me such great ease. This is something I have known all my life, I just have never heard it before. There is hope.

[@CernelJoson]

@Distortion0 As I've already mentioned you can't check your models against reality if your interpretation of data is through the models. All economists do this, but the Austrians are the only ones honest about it. Every time government stimulus fails to revive the economy Keynesians claim we just didn't spend enough because if we did the economy would be better. This is a perfect example of begging the question. Empiricism in economics typically means correlation-causation fallacies.

[@Hashishin13]

@alalelalex "Can I claim ownership of any pool if I am the only one who swims in it?" The whole basis of homesteading is that the thing has to be unowned, which to me means the person has an unjust claim or there is no claim at all. A pool was constructed by someone before you got there so you have no claim unless that person died and had no heirs or will, this logic is already applied its just the government butts in and claims it for itsself.

[@Nielsio]

Great lecture. Liked the Q&A.

[@matthewapsey4869]

I agree completely with the moral case against IP, but still struggle to argue against people who say, 'What about medicines?' or insert innovation with large necessary investment that won't be worth it if people can immediately copy you.

[@CernelJoson]

@Distortion0 Austrians use the original definition of inflation which is expansion of the money supply; rising prices are only a symptom of that. Furthermore, the expansion does not affect all prices uniformly so it makes no sense to attempt to determine the "price level". Finally, the CPI is an arbitrary index, leaves out food and energy prices, substitutes expensive products for cheaper ones, and includes hedonic adjustments where they lower prices if they think products are better.

[@PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

Transcript is at the link in the description. I read the transcript--it was a very good lecture.

[@CernelJoson]

@CernelJoson The other thing I should point out is that despite creating trillions of new dollars the Fed pays the banks not to loan them out so most of those dollars aren't bidding up prices the way they would if the banks were spending that money. Nevertheless, alternative price indices show the cost of living increasing by around 10%, so unless you're claiming that the CPI is correct because the government says so I would take it with a grain of salt.

[@CernelJoson]

@Distortion0 No Austrian economist would attribute hyperinflation to welfare. Furthermore, Austrians use praxeology because controlled repeatable experiments are not possible in the social sciences and any set of data can be interpreted in various ways. The only way to disentangle cause and effect in unique and complex historical events is to have some prior theory. Just as the Pythagorean theorem is implied by the definition of a triangle, economic law is implied by willful action.

[@mattlm64]

I don't understand at all why people say "oh but there will be no inovation". It's backwards thinking. The is always the first to market advantage and innovation will be promoted because you can't just milk the same products all the time to get the most profits without patents. Innovation will still make money and the effect that removing IPs would have, I think, is more competitors will do partnerships, sharing costs of new innovations. Today you do see partnerships already.

[@SpookyFan]

Good talk. I hope those ideas become more popular.

[@Hashishin13]

@alalelalex Loss of market share has no bearing on what property is. What he means by exclusivity is that if I own an apple you can't own that same apple without potential conflict. If you sell your apples and then I come in and start selling my apples, there is no conflict over who owns what, you would just be angry that you now have competition. This anger over competition is irrelevant though as you didn't "own" your market share, because your market share consists of other people's actions.

[@Hashishin13]

@alalelalex I have, if everyone agrees with your claim then you have nothing to worry about. I see three ways of getting people to accept your claim, the first is generally illigitimate and usually backfires in the end, which is military might. The second is you explain yourself or have a prior agreement like the colonists did, this is where the homesteading arguement comes in. The third is you offer them some sort of payment, either from profits on the property or previous wealth.

[@Distortion0]

@shamgar001 When you sell a novel you're selling the utility generated by the narrative. When you sell a book, you're also selling, in addition, the utility generated by having a physical copy of that book. They're basically two different goods. If you're printing books in a way that's more expensive than amazon does, you're offering the same good for a higher price. If you offer the information and then allow customers to print it how they like, you can probably easily compete.

[@Hashishin13]

@alalelalex The problem with "usage rights" or co-owning as opposed to outright ownership is whats called "the tragedy of the commons". If you have usage rights and I have usage rights but nobody owns it outright then if either of us litters neither of us can do anything about it. With co-owners you each have the incentive to use up the property more then the other owner so you egt the better deal. One owner solves these problems.

[@Hashishin13]

@alalelalex The way I see it there are two types of ownership, one is the civil way in which we rationally discuss and only make claims that everyone else accepts, this is where homesteading, verbal persuasion and paying people come in. The other kind of property is the pragmatic kind that doesn't involve morality. If you can't defend your land it doesn't really matter how justified your claim on it is, it will be taken from you. The ideal way of owning property is by having both of these.

[@Hashishin13]

@alalelalex Yes its true, but only if the land was previously uninhabited/claimed. If you go into a national park and start clearing a path to claim for yourself, nobody can say that they are directly using or have homesteaded the land but they still have claimed it and would dispute your claim on it. So you see claiming is what is important, not creating or using something. You use the creation or using of something as a reason to justify your claim.

[@SpareSimian]

Is a transcript available? I can read far faster than I can listen to a lecture.

[@Distortion0]

@CernelJoson In the case of inflation, you don't need an "experiment". All you need to know is how the consumer price index measures inflation and when the CPI rises and falls. The CPI consistently contradicts Austrian predictions. I agree that theories need to make a lot of assumptions to explain the facts but empirical data provides the facts that need explaining in the first place. If you don't have a rise in prices, it doesn't make sense to explain why there is inflation.

[@Hashishin13]

@alalelalex Your ignoring my example of littering or other pollution, if you only own usage of it say for swimming how do you ensure it stays clean? I'm "predetermined" in that I have thought about this a lot and have come to a very definite understanding of the word property. Under your definition you own a time share, ask anyone you don't own time shares. Theres two versions of ownership, the one that I accept as most usefull is the one without time or other people limiting it.

[@shamgar001]

That's not really the same thing, since any given teacher didn't invent math, or even discover it, so it's not an intellectual creation. If I can't compete with $4, it's not because I'm being wasteful, it's because I made an investment. If I spend three months writing a novel relying on sales to pay my expenses in that time, and Amazon starts undercutting me, they're depriving me of my payoff. It's like if I built an office building and they started collecting the rent from its space.

[@Hashishin13]

@alalelalex You can justify complete ownership of a path by offering everyone who uses it something so that they accept your ownership. If everyone who uses it, has used it etc all agree that you own it then how can anyone who comes to it later disagree? Locke talks about homesteading land by "leaving as much or equal" amounts of land for other people. Basically its about offering something people are willing to accept, if we both landed on an island we would probably split everything.

[@Hashishin13]

@alalelalex No its based on use, and even if they were initially sharing it nobody would want to maintain, as they don't really own it. Even if the path were created and owned equally, it would be better run and maintained if everyone got together and decided on one owner, maybe the potential owner would buy the right and then charge for use or maybe he would get it free and allow free use to the current people but charge for people who came later.

[@Hashishin13]

@alalelalex subjective is that which is unique to a subject, if you think you own the island and I think I own the island maybe one of us is right, both can't be right and both can be wrong, it doesn't matter, what matters is what is finally accepted. If you say you will feed and house me and but you get to own the whole island and I accept then you get the whole thing unequally, right or wrong. Morality is obviously subjective, it changes geographically and temporally.

[@Distortion0]

@Hashishin13 Real wages (wage after corrected for inflation) have risen. The dollar "losing value" doesn't mean anything because a person can still buy more things with their paychecks than they could with "higher value" dollars. Everyone agrees that models require abstraction, the difference is Austrians don't check their abstraction against the real world. The concept of "value" here is vacuous, it's an entirely abstract term with no real world correlation.

[@donhosey1716]

How do I get your business card sir?

[@Hashishin13]

@alalelalex part 2 "I would also argue that you ONLY own the instance of your idea that YOU created" This is EXACTLY what the anti-ip people say, including me. If you make a painting you own that physical painting, but you don't own the concept of what was painted, as someone else could paint that without violating any of your physical property. If you want to prevent people from mimicking your painting you can keep it hidden, or only reveal it to people you trust.

[@shamgar001]

@Distortion0 In this case, we're both selling ebooks.

[@Hashishin13]

@alalelalex sharing is co-owning, rights to use are not owning, they are a contractual agreement between a user and the owner of the path. "if you use a river to go from A to B, do you own that river, or do you own the usage of the river" Use has nothing to do with owning, use is at best an arguement in favour of your claim to own it. As in I should own this because I use it and you don't. You can't own a right to use, you have a right to use but the word own doesn't apply there.

[@shamgar001]

I never said you are guaranteed profits or that one should be protected from loss. What I'm saying is that if I make an investment, someone else who did not take the risk should not be able to reap profits from it at my expense.

[@Hashishin13]

@Distortion0 So your caliming that people don't act? I think you mean "that I don't understand" when you say "abstract". Mises says people act willfully, do you deny this? Do you have empirical evidence that people don't act willfully?

[@Weirdomanification]

Interesting

[@Hashishin13]

@alalelalex "Buying out users of a path, implies that these people already own it in some way. " Yea, which is why I made reference to those who used the path, I forgot those who broke it in the first place, they have the most right to it. "If you claim that latecomers cannot dispute an exuberant property claim then you are trying to justify that the first American colonists could claim half of America." Well yes and no, I think if they could defend it then yes, but they couldn't so no.

[@Hashishin13]

@alalelalex "Rightful" is subjective. If we both landed on an uninhabited island and you set foot on it first then tried to claim the whole thing for yourself I would probably laugh at you first then deny your claim. Social acceptance comes in a number of ways, I don't agree with many laws on the books today but I at least appear to "accept them" because if Idon't I will be thrown ina cage by the people with superior military force, i.e. the police. Non-violent acceptance involves persuasion.

[@Hashishin13]

@alalelalex Everything physical.

[@Hashishin13]

@alalelalex No you can't claim that there should be competition over a single material thing as it causes conflict directly. Competiting in a market doesn't cause conflict directy at all, as we each own our own things and we had no right to someone else's money so we have lost nothing. Nobody argues in favour of a monopoly over a market here, I don't knwo where your getting that from, thats mercantilism not free markets. Yes Ip is in direct conflict with real property, which is why its wrong.

[@Hashishin13]

@alalelalex No I disagree with your analysis of homesteading. I think you don't even have to plan the flag, making a claim which everyone accepts is all that is needed for property to arise. You can get them to respect your claim through being militarily superior, winning them over with a homesteading arguement or paying them off. The claim is the basis, not what you did with the land.

[@shamgar001]

Here would be my objection to the total abolition of intellectual property: Suppose I write a novel which I sell as an ebook for $5 on my personal website. Then Amazon downloads my book and starts selling it for $4. I take exception that they would drive me out of business and make a profit on something to which they did nothing to contribute.

[@cleanjimmy]

your supporters would not shop at Amazon because they would want to help you, those who didn't support you would be able to access your work more easily, becoming supporters who bought your wares via your preferred method

[@damonthemoney93]

@SpookyFan I think that's inevitable :)

[@Hashishin13]

@alalelalex "then why justify your actions? Any claim you are making is only true for you and not for anyone else." This is idiotic. Morality is subjective but also subject to the will of those around you. Murderers try to justify their actions, and to them their actions are just, the rest of us disagree and use our superior power to subdue and imprison them. "What society accepts as morally just IS what is objectively true." Which society? There have been thousands all with differences.

[@Hashishin13]

@Distortion0 The US dollar has lost 95%+ of its value in the 100 years since the FED was created. Taking 19 out of every 20 dollars from your citizens through inflation in only one long lifespan is pretty ridiculous. Sure austrians claim they don't need to prove their economics, but they claim it in the way that 1+!=2 doesn't need to be proven, its just obvious if you understand what they are saying. I think that what they claim can be proven its just that economics is messy and unclear.

[@Distortion0]

@Hashishin13 To take an action is, by definition, to do something willingly. If someone, for example, twitched unconsciously, we wouldn't say someone "acted". It would be something entirely different. Mises makes quite a big deal about this tautology. All science employs logic, but most science verifies its verifiable claims. Austrian Economics does not. For example, they've been crying that the US is experiencing hyperinflation because of its welfare policies for years. This just isn't true.

[@solarcabin]

Copyright is automatic and all anyone has to do is not ppost a copyright notice and state it is in public domain. That is NOT what he has done and his copyright notice is very obvious on his works. If you believe he is not pursuing copyright go copy his books and try to resell them!

[@wowhallo]

I can't understand what kind of idiotic reasoning this is. You yourself say that copyright is automatic, but then you say that as long as you do not post a copyright notice then it's in public domain.

[@solarcabin]

BS both his website and his books have copyrights right on them. If he believed what he preached he could put them in public domain.

[@cleanjimmy]

has he ever enforced those copyrights? do you believe in climate change? if so how can you use electricity?

[@doko2nd]

But if I think of a recipe, how you are going to make it if I don’t tell it to you? You are either going to violate my physical property to steal it from my pocket or spend time and resources to figure it out. And even now there are fields where reverse engineering is either impossible or prohibitively expensive. He makes argument only for a reform and not abolishing of the patent system.

[@coindorni]

He quite literally says that you can keep things secret, there's no issue with that. It's your recipe, and it may not be possible to reverse engineer it, but that's not the issue and that's not a patent, which is defined as "a government authority or licence conferring a right or title for a set period, especially the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention". You, by being the only person who knows x, doesn't give you a license or sole right to its usage. I think you greatly misunderstood what Kinsella says and what he advocates for.

[@solarcabin]

A publisher does not own copyright to anything. I am a published author and that is total crap. "Unless indicated otherwise" is a BS statement to say he owns the copyright.

[@solarcabin]

Now I want to ask Mr. kinsella why he has a big Copyright notice on his website and all his books are Copyrighted for sale on Amazon ? Why he is such a hypocrite and can I just copy his books and start selling them without permission ?

[@shamgar001]

strawman.jpeg Are you even trying to understand my argument?

[@miltonchurchill8040]

It seems to me Mr. Kinsella's argument in favor of abolishing IP are utilitarian in nature.

[@Tenebrousable]

YEah it's exactly the other way around. Someone making the first seashell necklase doesn't give him the right to bash the next guy over the head and take "licensing fees" from him against his will. The law is usefull for the 1st guy, and totally unjustified.

[@miltonchurchill8040]

Unconvincing. Illogical. Utilitarian. Anti-property. Probably the worst piece I have viewed or read from Mises Institute.

[@chloeagnew1]

IP is claerly a violation of private property right.

[@Distortion0]

Ahh parxeology, or "I'm going to make an abstract theory and just ignore empirical evidence."