News Can Learning About Libertarianism Lead to Fiscal Conservatism and Profit?

[MFriedmam]

1)read this faq http://www.lp.org/faq"
2)LEARN SOME ECONOMY...i suggest you Milton Friedman,Hayek,Mises,Fukuyama and ask yourself "why economists are always fiscally conservative?"
3)Read Ayn Rand...i suggest you the masterpiece Atlas Shrugged
4)http://www.heritage.org/Index/TopTen.aspx
5)Profit!

 

[Alfi]

I would suggest a 'How to become ..' should be supplemented with a 'Why you should become ...'

 

[DavidSnider]

Atlas Shrugged?

Gee, wouldn't it be great if all the rich people in the country purposely ruined their own companies, took money from the government and went into hiding? OH WAIT. THEY DID.

... and who was overseeing the Federal Reserve Board for the past 20 years to make it all possible? Could it be Ayn Rand follower Alan Greenspan perhaps?

 

[noblegas]

Atlas Shrugged?

Gee, wouldn't it be great if all the rich people in the country purposely ruined their own companies, took money from the government and went into hiding? OH WAIT. THEY DID.

... and who was overseeing the Federal Reserve Board for the past 20 years to make it all possible? Could it be Ayn Rand follower Alan Greenspan perhaps?

Ayn rand did not advocate for government bailouts nor believe that the government should provide any subsidies to companies who requested it. She argued that they were not real capitalists if they were wrongly receiving benefits from the federal government.

Greenspan abandoned her principles on how the economy should function for she argued that a capitalist society would function properly and fully only if the money supply was backed by a valuable commodity like Gold or Silver. Seems like you need to read Capitalist : the unknown ideal and Atlas shrugged. I don't think you understand any of the fundamentals ideas that Ayn rand was advocating for concerning the economy and her idea of Liberty.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I need to read some Rand. I keep meaning to but I am always certain that she will just annoy me.

 

[DavidSnider]

I understand the fundamental ideas perfectly. It's a philosophy made up for a contrived fictional world.

Maybe watch this interview sometime where the real world is asked about:


Some Gems:
The middle east has no rights to their oil because they didn't invent the technology to take advantage of it.

Schools for "Subnormal Children" should be shut down in favor of helping the gifted and talented meet their full potential.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Some Gems:
The middle east has no rights to their oil because they didn't invent the technology to take advantage of it.

Schools for "Subnormal Children" should be shut down in favor of helping the gifted and talented meet their full potential.

I think these are sort of exaggerations. I have never heard of "shutting down schools for subnormal children" though I have heard of focusing on trade schools for those who may not be cut out for college and leaving college for those best capable of benefiting from it.

 

[Al68]

Atlas Shrugged?

Gee, wouldn't it be great if all the rich people in the country purposely ruined their own companies, took money from the government and went into hiding? OH WAIT. THEY DID.

... and who was overseeing the Federal Reserve Board for the past 20 years to make it all possible? Could it be Ayn Rand follower Alan Greenspan perhaps?

No, it was because of that socialist Chavez in Venezuela. He let that happen. It's all his fault. After all, he was in office when it happened.

Seriously, blaming a problem on Ayn Rand that happened because of actions Rand opposed is just delusional.

Those problems would be impossible in a society with that "philosophy made up for a contrived fictional world", if you're referring to free enterprise capitalism. It's pretty obvious you completely misunderstand the philosophy you're bashing.

The philosophy is called liberty, and fits perfectly well in the real world. It's economic oppression that fits some "contrived fictional world" where everyone excels and wealth is created despite the lack of incentives to do so. In the real world, restricting economic freedom impoverishes people.

Believing that people shouldn't oppress or coerce each other is just being a decent human being, despite claims of socialists and others that we're "for the rich", "against the working man", and various other nonsense designed only to stir up hatred.

 

[noblegas]

I understand the fundamental ideas perfectly. It's a philosophy made up for a contrived fictional world.

Maybe watch this interview sometime where the real world is asked about:


Some Gems:
The middle east has no rights to their oil because they didn't invent the technology to take advantage of it.

Schools for "Subnormal Children" should be shut down in favor of helping the gifted and talented meet their full potential.

Can you provide links for those quotes?

 

[DavidSnider]

Can you provide links for those quotes?

They weren't quotes, they were paraphrases from bits of the interview. Not sure exactly which part got to watch the whole thing.

 

[DavidSnider]

No, it was because of that socialist Chavez in Venezuela. He let that happen. It's all his fault. After all, he was in office when it happened.

Seriously, blaming a problem on Ayn Rand that happened because of actions Rand opposed is just delusional.

Those problems would be impossible in a society with that "philosophy made up for a contrived fictional world", if you're referring to free enterprise capitalism. It's pretty obvious you completely misunderstand the philosophy you're bashing.

The philosophy is called liberty, and fits perfectly well in the real world. It's economic oppression that fits some "contrived fictional world" where everyone excels and wealth is created despite the lack of incentives to do so. In the real world, restricting economic freedom impoverishes people.

Believing that people shouldn't oppress or coerce each other is just being a decent human being, despite claims of socialists and others that we're "for the rich", "against the working man", and various other nonsense designed only to stir up hatred.

1) Deregulation is not something Ayn Rand opposed.

2) Objectivists don't want economic freedom. They want strict control of the means of production. They view intellectual property as a natural right rather than a state granted monopoly. They want unlimited access to natural resources to do as they please and tend to have a disgust for the idea of keeping nature around for its own sake.

3) Look, I've read her books. She clearly supports a sort of oligarchy where the means of production and intellectual property are used to take advantage of people who don't yet have the ability to create that kind of technology.

 

[mheslep]

1) Deregulation is not something Ayn Rand opposed.

2) Objectivists don't want economic freedom. They want strict control of the means of production. They view intellectual property as a natural right rather than a state granted monopoly. They want unlimited access to natural resources to do as they please and tend to have a disgust for the idea of keeping nature around for its own sake.

3) Look, I've read her books. ...

Well then you miss read, especially when you say 'deregulation is not something [AR] opposed'. AR would never have had federal reserve board at all; it would not have existed to screw around with the interest rates. She would not have had something to deregulate in this case.

You also misstate AR re natural resources. AR would have all the natural resources owned by private entities to do with exactly as they please (barring externalities), to include setting up a park or preventing further development, exactly as private groups such as the Nature Conservancy have done. There are some good arguments that private ownership is superior for preservation given the record of some of the public parks.

 

[mheslep]

They view intellectual property as a natural right rather than a state granted monopoly.

So does the US constitution.

...nor shall any person [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[czelaya]

When I first heard of the word "libertarian" it was explained to me that libertarians were far right republicans. Then I briefly researched both the ideology and the political party. I specifically became very interested in libertarianism after reading Ron Paul's "The Manifesto". Soon afterward I read Charles Murray, "Why I'm a Libertarian" and David Boaz, "Libertarianism" that I found myself embracing the libertarian ideology as my own. I guess the greatest revelation of becoming a libertarian is that it's nothing new. It's basically the foundation of economic and personal freedom. Furthermore, I try to explain to people that libertarians are not far right republicans. But it seems that many democrats and republicans don't understand the Nolan Chart.

I've realized now to further educate myself in libertarian principles will require an extensive amount of studying and reading in economics (policies and history), world affairs, and government infrastructure. Thank you, Cato and Mises Institute.

 

[DavidSnider]

Well then you miss read, especially when you say 'deregulation is not something [AR] opposed'. AR would never have had federal reserve board at all; it would not have existed to screw around with the interest rates. She would not have had something to deregulate in this case.

I understand that, but again, the fantasy world where The Fed doesn't exist doesn't matter. What does matter is what people with Objectivist leanings do once they are put in real world situations and given real authority. Your argument reminds me of communists who say "Oh well, REAL communism has never existed, but I know it works!".

You also misstate AR re natural resources. AR would have all the natural resources owned by private entities to do with exactly as they please (barring externalities), to include setting up a park or preventing further development, exactly as private groups such as the Nature Conservancy have done. There are some good arguments that private ownership is superior for preservation given the record of some of the public parks.

I didn't misstate Ayn Rand. Yes, one of the consequences of private ownership of land is that some people may choose conservation. This is not the picture you will get out of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead where nature is around for no other reason than to be cut down and reshaped by the whims of the human mind.

 

[DavidSnider]

So does the US constitution.

The US constitution never defined what property was.

 

[Norman]

Interesting topic since I have some libertarian leanings in my political views. One thing that I feel is missed by the hardcore libertarians is that there are some things the government is actually good at (ok well maybe a better explanation is that there are somethings the government is better at than others).

For instance, fundamental research. There is no money to be made in answering questions about the beginning of the universe. In an ideal libertarian society, however, that would mean the only way cosmology research would be done is with a grant from a wealthy individual. So, would that sort of question ever be answered? I don't know.

 

[noblegas]

I understand that, but again, the fantasy world where The Fed doesn't exist doesn't matter. What does matter is what people with Objectivist leanings do once they are put in real world situations and given real authority. Your argument reminds me of communists who say "Oh well, REAL communism has never existed, but I know it works!".

Yes, the capitalism rand has envisioned has never existed because no one has tried laissez faire capitalism, unlike communism. This country has truly never had a laissez capitalist economy, even Rand acknowledges this fact. Whereas communism has been tried in multiple parts of the world, and has failed multiple times. Show me a society that has tried to implement full blown capitalism.

I didn't misstate Ayn Rand. Yes, one of the consequences of private ownership of land is that some people may choose conservation. This is not the picture you will get out of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead where nature is around for no other reason than to be cut down and reshaped by the whims of the human mind.

What is your point? Humans have always been altering their surroundings to suit there needs. If humans did not reshaped nature for their benefit, we would not be where we are.

 

[Al68]

1) Deregulation is not something Ayn Rand opposed.

That's right, she opposed the government intervention (regulation) that caused our recent problems.

2) Objectivists don't want economic freedom. They want strict control of the means of production.

We want control of any property to belong to its owner, not ourselves. You are very confused. Being on the side of liberty is not the same as being on the side of any particular property owner.

They view intellectual property as a natural right rather than a state granted monopoly. They want unlimited access to natural resources to do as they please and tend to have a disgust for the idea of keeping nature around for its own sake.

You again are obviously trying to use a "bait and switch" for which "they" you are referring to. First you imply "they" means people like me, then you use it to refer to someone cutting down their own tree? Are you so confused as to not realize that a person could be in favor of someone else's liberty without actually being them?

3) Look, I've read her books. She clearly supports a sort of oligarchy where the means of production and intellectual property are used to take advantage of people who don't yet have the ability to create that kind of technology.

Total nonsense. If you believe that, you do not understand her words at all.

Do you really think that you have a good understanding of Rand's position when your understanding of it is so grotesquely different from the actual position of those of us who agree with it?

 

[DavidSnider]

That's right, she opposed the government intervention (regulation) that caused our recent problems.We want control of any property to belong to its owner, not ourselves. You are very confused. Being on the side of liberty is not the same as being on the side of any particular property owner. You again are obviously trying to use a "bait and switch" for which "they" you are referring to. First you imply "they" means people like me, then you use it to refer to someone cutting down their own tree? Are you so confused as to not realize that a person could be in favor of someone else's liberty without actually being them?Total nonsense. If you believe that, you do not understand her words at all.

Do you really think that you have a good understanding of Rand's position when your understanding of it is so grotesquely different from the actual position of those of us who agree with it?

Answer this:
Does objectivism support granting patents to individuals that allow the state to take away the property of another individual who materializes the ideas contained within the patent?

 

[Al68]

Answer this:
Does objectivism support granting patents to individuals that allow the state to take away the property of another individual who materializes the ideas contained within the patent?

No. It doesn't.

 

[DavidSnider]

No. It doesn't.

So there is no concept of intellectual property rights? Or just no penalty?

 

[Al68]

So there is no concept of intellectual property rights?

Sure there is, but that wasn't your question.

 

[DavidSnider]

Sure there is, but that wasn't your question.

Yes, it pretty much was. What you seem to be saying is that the state does have a right to restrict another person's personal property rights (I.E. restricting the sale of their property for a period of time) because they were not the first to patent it.

EDIT: You have since removed the line that said this.

 

[Al68]

Yes, it pretty much was. What you seem to be saying is that the state does have a right to restrict another person's personal property rights (I.E. restricting the sale of their property for a period of time) because they were not the first to patent it.

That's a very different question. Restricting someone from selling patented products is different from confiscating property. But you knew that when you asked the first question.

But even that restriction is considered a "necessary evil" since we would still be in the stone age otherwise.

EDIT: You have since removed the line that said this.

EDIT: Oops, I need to stop trying to edit my posts after I make them.

 

[DavidSnider]

That's a very different question. Restricting someone from selling patented products is different from confiscating property. But you knew that when you asked the first question.

But even that restriction is considered a "necessary evil" since we would still be in the stone age otherwise.

Well, the circumstance I was thinking of is compensating the owner of the patent for all the items sold illegally.

The idea that we would be in the stone age if the state didn't enforce monopolies seems like an odd thing for an objectivist to be saying.

 

[Al68]

Well, the circumstance I was thinking of is compensating the owner of the patent for all the items sold illegally.

The idea that we would be in the stone age if the state didn't enforce monopolies seems like an odd thing for an objectivist to be saying.

I agree, but an objectivist wouldn't use the word "monopoly" to describe intellectual property rights, since it has another very common specific meaning.

But this is a case of libertarians making an exception to the normal case, similar to the way that public roads are an exception to the normal case of non-intervention of government.

Libertarians are not anarchists. You are simply giving an example of a libertarian compromise with statism.

 

[DavidSnider]

Libertarians are not anarchists. You are simple giving an example of a libertarian compromise with statism.

Yes, I am. That compromise is made because despite all the tough talk about free markets and competition, they too want some form of upper hand on other people.

 

[Al68]

Yes, I am. That compromise is made because despite all the tough talk about free markets and competition, they too want some form of upper hand on other people.

That sounds strange as a criticism of libertarianism. We're not libertarian enough for you?

We also support laws against fraud, murder, assault, etc. We are just way too oppressive.

Edit: I guess it only sounds strange because most of the criticism comes from a completely different direction.

 

[mheslep]

The US constitution never defined what property was.

Alright, but what ever we agree to be property (when you referenced it above), it is not granted by the state. Ownership of property is indeed a natural right in US history, not to be taken away arbitrarily by the state, and certainly not granted by the state.

 

[Al68]

The US constitution never defined what property was.

The US constitution specifically authorizes congress to protect intellectual property rights by "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;".

 

[DavidSnider]

The US constitution specifically authorizes congress to protect intellectual property rights.

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

This does not define ideas as property. This is granting congress with powers. It is not saying that intellectual property is a natural right.

 

[Al68]

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

This does not define ideas as property.

Of course not, ideas are not intellectual property. Inventions are. It's not like I will get a patent for my "idea" for a car that runs on water. I would have to actually invent such a design first. Then the invention may get a patent, not the "idea".

This is granting congress with powers. It is not saying that intellectual property is a natural right.

I agree, it's just authorizing congress to protect intellectual property rights. The constitution is the legal charter for the federal government, not a philosophy handbook.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Alright, but what ever we agree to be property (when you referenced it above), it is not granted by the state. Ownership of property is indeed a natural right in US history, not to be taken away arbitrarily by the state, and certainly not granted by the state.

As noted 'Intellectual Property' is a legal fiction granting the temporary right to exclusive use of an idea for profit. It is in fact given and taken away by the government and not considered a natural right.

Of course not, ideas are not intellectual property. Inventions are. It's not like I will get a patent for my "idea" for a car that runs on water. I would have to actually invent such a design first. Then the invention may get a patent, not the "idea".

A rather niggling and inaccurate distinction. A drawing and description on a piece of paper is all that is required for a patent. This would generally fall under the category of "idea". The idea need not have actually been fully realized in a complete and fabricated form and doesn't even necessarily need to actually work in order for it to be patented.
Also while patents are more precise in delineation copyright is not. Copyright is far less detail oriented. It only requires that one has used a very similar idea or even just a single part of an idea that is significantly similar to another.

 

[mheslep]

As noted 'Intellectual Property' is a legal fiction granting the temporary right to exclusive use of an idea for profit. It is in fact given and taken away by the government and not considered a natural right.

No, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of rights under the US constitution. All of those rights - speech, property, free association - are there before the government comes into being. And absent the rule of law, if I have a bigger stick than yours, I can come and deprive you of any of them, property and speech. We might have a lengthy discussion on the definition and limits of these rights, but government is instituted to secure these rights, not give them. The constitution is mainly a negative document insuring the government does not similarly infringe on them.

Saying that, say, the patent office of the government gives me intellectual property rights is like saying the county property deeds office gives me the rights on my home.

 

[russ_watters]

TheStatutoryApe - you've previously rejected the concept of "intellectual property" altogether, right? So any discussion of how it fits into the framework for rights in general is kinda moot - you're simply rejecting the concept out of hand and not dealing with the reality/history of how it is treated.

The reality is that "intellectual property" is property like any other: your house, your car, your land, your ipod -- your patent. All property. The primary difference with intellectual property is that it has an expiration date. But whether you agree that intellectual property should work this way, that doesn't have any bearing on the fact that intellectual property does work this way. This isn't an opinion to be argued, it is a historical fact.

 

[russ_watters]

Saying that, say, the patent office of the government gives me intellectual property rights is like saying the county property deeds office gives me the rights on my home.

Yes, that's a good example - those agencies don't grant the rights to ownership, they only keep track of the ownership.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of rights under the US constitution. All of those rights - speech, property, free association - are there before the government comes into being. And absent the rule of law, if I have a bigger stick than yours, I can come and deprive you of any of them, property and speech. We might have a lengthy discussion on the definition and limits of these rights, but government is instituted to secure these rights, not give them. The constitution is mainly a negative document insuring the government does not similarly infringe on them.

Saying that, say, the patent office of the government gives me intellectual property rights is like saying the county property deeds office gives me the rights on my home.

The constitution gives Congress the power to issue patents and copy rights. The constitution does not include intellectual property as an enumerated right. If it did then the government could not take it from you.

TheStatutoryApe - you've previously rejected the concept of "intellectual property" altogether, right? So any discussion of how it fits into the framework for rights in general is kinda moot - you're simply rejecting the concept out of hand and not dealing with the reality/history of how it is treated.

The reality is that "intellectual property" is property like any other: your house, your car, your land, your ipod -- your patent. All property. The primary difference with intellectual property is that it has an expiration date. But whether you agree that intellectual property should work this way, that doesn't have any bearing on the fact that intellectual property does work this way.

I did not reject the concept all together. I believe that it is a useful legal fiction. I do on the other hand believe it has been abused and current intellectual property laws should be changed. Particularly I have issue with the current idea that 'Intellectual Property' is a natural right as evidenced by the opinions in this thread. It was never meant to be, still is not, and in my opinion never ought to be.

As for 'Intellectual Property' being the same as any other property, that is false. There is a legal distinction between "Intellectual Property" and "Real Property" and they are treated rather differently. You may also want to note that your ownership of your home or any other 'real property' does not expire.

 

[mheslep]

As for 'Intellectual Property' being the same as any other property, that is false. There is a legal distinction between "Intellectual Property" and "Real Property" and they are treated rather differently.

Well there are many different types of property - real estate, financial securities, cars, planes, boats, and businesses. Granted, they all may be treated differently under the law. But the fundamentals are the same: owners can not be deprived of any these without due process of law, including intellectual property rights. IP rights are not an invention (hah!) of Rand acolytes.

You may also want to note that your ownership of your home or any other 'real property' does not expire.

Yes I mentioned that above. To my mind this doesn't mean that intellectual property is any less a property, it is simply different and has different problems of definition. Over time my original idea/invention likely becomes increasingly difficult to delineate from other technology, i.e., it becomes impossible to define the limits of my property over time. Witness the airplane, and the migration from the Wright flyer to a 787. Where would one cut out the idea of 'airplane' from a 787 and its millions of incremental evolutions? The point is the ideas become impossible to define as separate from others over time, thus they naturally expire.

Other forms of property are not immune from these problems of definition. Real estate title searches can be extremely complex. They always require an attorney in my state. Exactly where is that south east property corner on the back 40 acres, last surveyed in 1911? Oh wait, there's an old fence from the adjoining property running across the line, they'll have to move it. Oh wait, its been there 90 years and no one objected, sorry its grandfathered in this state. Well at least we enjoy this nice stream on the rest of the property, think we'll dam a bit a make a swimming pond. Oh wait, down stream people have water rights, our deed covenants say we can't touch the stream. And so on.

 

[Al68]

A rather niggling and inaccurate distinction. A drawing and description on a piece of paper is all that is required for a patent. This would generally fall under the category of "idea". The idea need not have actually been fully realized in a complete and fabricated form and doesn't even necessarily need to actually work in order for it to be patented.
Also while patents are more precise in delineation copyright is not. Copyright is far less detail oriented. It only requires that one has used a very similar idea or even just a single part of an idea that is significantly similar to another.

I pointed out that distinction in the context of whether I thought the law should prevent someone from selling a product that resulted partly from someone else having "just an idea" for it. In that sense a literary work, song, or invention is much more than "just an idea".

Yes, it may be niggling, but the distinction is important in the context of belittling intellectual property rights as exclusive rights to "just an idea". And the words idea and invention, while related, are hardly synonyms.

And you're right that it doesn't have to "work". Don't quote me on it, but I'd say there have been more patents for things that didn't work than for things that did. But the government isn't vouching for the quality of the design, just its originality.

But I wouldn't call it "legal fiction", because patent protection is being exchanged for public disclosure of the design. I agree that governmental patent protection itself is not a natural right, since it requires government action, but it's traded for what is a natural right: the right of an inventor to keep his designs private. Without patent protection, not only would there be much less incentive to invest in R&D and invent things, but there would be no incentive to publicly disclose the results.

Obviously the importance of those factors vary greatly with the particular field of technology, so I'm not saying the world would have ended if those miniature umbrellas they put in margaritas hadn't had patent protection. I know somebody was just itching to bring up that example.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I pointed out that distinction in the context of whether I thought the law should prevent someone from selling a product that resulted partly from someone else having "just an idea" for it. In that sense a literary work, song, or invention is much more than "just an idea".

Yes, it may be niggling, but the distinction is important in the context of belittling intellectual property rights as exclusive rights to "just an idea". And the words idea and invention, while related, are hardly synonyms.

I think our only difference here is that I consider an idea to be a rather weighty thing. So to call something "only an idea" seems silly to me. Some are simple, some are complex, some are grand, and some are worth a grand or two. I have no issue laying them all out under the same umbrella.

But I wouldn't call it "legal fiction", because patent protection is being exchanged for public disclosure of the design. I agree that governmental patent protection itself is not a natural right, since it requires government action, but it's traded for what is a natural right: the right of an inventor to keep his design private. Without patent protection, not only would there be much less incentive to invest in R&D and invent things, but there would be no incentive to publicly disclose the results.

No one has any natural rights to their ideas. Anyone can have them. I can come up with the same idea as someone else and attempt to do something with it. If I see an idea I like I can work with it and don't have to 'take' anything from anyone to do so. There is nothing stopping me from doing these things except for the legal fiction that this idea is the 'property' of some other person who came up with it first. That is what I mean by 'legal fiction'. We are sort of pretending, for utilitarian purposes, that this intangible 'thing' is similar to physical property and that it can be possessed and owned until we remove this legal fiction and it becomes unownable as it naturally is.

Well there are many different types of property - real estate, financial securities, cars, planes, boats, and businesses. Granted, they all may be treated differently under the law. But the fundamentals are the same: owners can not be deprived of any these without due process of law, including intellectual property rights. IP rights are not an invention (hah!) of Rand acolytes.

I never said that it was the invention of Rand Acolytes.
All of these types of property which you mention, except intellectual property, are things of which you can have exclusive possession. This is untrue of intellectual property, its 'ownership' being based solely on the belief and perception that the idea 'belongs' to a person. The idea can, and most likely will, wind up in the 'possession' of anyone who discovers it either on their own or through communication. It is through a legal fiction that only one person is allowed 'rights' to that idea.

And even aside from this other fundamentals of property ownership do not apply to intellectual property. As I already noted the law only allows you to 'own' an idea for a finite period of time.

You may not buy, sell, trade, or otherwise transfer ownership of a patent or copyright. Permission for rights to use may be given but you are not legally capable of transferring ownership in anyway unlike any other type of property.

The law does not punished 'taking' intellectual property since it can not be 'taken'. Rather it punishes one for theoretically 'stealing' potential profits from the 'owner' of an idea either by selling your own version of their idea or being in possession of something based on their idea without having paid them for it.

These are the fundamentals of intellectual property and none of them match up with the fundamentals of physical property.

Yes I mentioned that above. To my mind this doesn't mean that intellectual property is any less a property, it is simply different and has different problems of definition. Over time my original idea/invention likely becomes increasingly difficult to delineate from other technology, i.e., it becomes impossible to define the limits of my property over time. Witness the airplane, and the migration from the Wright flyer to a 787. Where would one cut out the idea of 'airplane' from a 787 and its millions of incremental evolutions? The point is the ideas become impossible to define as separate from others over time, thus they naturally expire.

Incorrect. Laws granting intellectual property are, and have always been, based on the idea of giving a person a limited amount of time to profit from their idea before it belongs to the public domain. It is not at all a matter of distinguishing one invention from another. In fact if a new invention is hardly distinguishable from an old one then it is not eligible for patent even if the old invention is now in the public domain. A person is certainly free to reproduce that old invention if they wish but they are not allowed a patent or exclusive rights to it. And that is the real point of the expiration. So that a company can produce an airplane without having to get permission from the holder of every single patent that has ever been granted for anything and everything to do with making an airplane. Ideas are supposed to fall into the public domain so that the world may freely benefit from them as it should be naturally, that's why.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, drafters of the Copyright Clause, were both quite skeptical to the monopolies of copyright, and monopolies of patents, and wrote extensively on the subject.

"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made anyone thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possesses as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
—Thomas Jefferson, to Isaac McPherson 13 Aug. 1813 Writings 13:333--35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

 

[mheslep]

Thanks for the Jefferson letter, I'd had not seen that one. Given my respect for Mr Jefferson, I may have to rethink. But I still see some fallacies below:

No one has any natural rights to their deas. Anyone can have them. I can come up with the same idea as someone else and attempt to do something with it. If I see an idea I like I can work with it and don't have to 'take' anything from anyone to do so. There is nothing stopping me from doing these things except for the legal fiction that this idea is the 'property' of some other person who came up with it first. That is what I mean by 'legal fiction'. We are sort of pretending, for utilitarian purposes, that this intangible 'thing' is similar to physical property and that it can be possessed and owned until we remove this legal fiction and it becomes unownable as it naturally is.

We've been through this and those assertions. I can also assert that the deed to your house is a 'legal fiction', and say that nothing is stopping me from moving into to your living room except that fiction. Indeed, there are people on the fringe in the US that completely deny the validity of land rights.

All of these types of property which you mention, except intellectual property, are things of which you can have exclusive possession. This is untrue of intellectual property, its 'ownership' being based solely on the belief and perception that the idea 'belongs' to a person. The idea can, and most likely will, wind up in the 'possession' of anyone who discovers it either on their own or through communication. It is through a legal fiction that only one person is allowed 'rights' to that idea.

See above. Circling back to the law is a fiction for the basis of the argument. Obviously I can have exclusive rights to a copyright or patent.

And even aside from this other fundamentals of property ownership do not apply to intellectual property. As I already noted the law only allows you to 'own' an idea for a finite period of time.

Yes, and as I've noted its this is because it is a practical impossibility to write the law in other way - its the nature of IP to be undefinable over time. Financial property can also share this trait.

You may not buy, sell, trade, or otherwise transfer ownership of a patent or copyright. Permission for rights to use may be given but you are not legally capable of transferring ownership in anyway unlike any other type of property.

This may be a semantic quibble, but clearly I can sell all rights to my patent/copyright. My name may be forever recorded with the original patent, as is the original owner of my home, but I can sell it for cash to someone else who then can collect the royalties, and I can then be sued by the new owner if I subsequently infringe on the patent even though I invented it. In all ways that we can measure, IP acts like other property.

The law does not punished 'taking' intellectual property since it can not be 'taken'. Rather it punishes one for theoretically 'stealing' potential profits from the 'owner' of an idea either by selling your own version of their idea or being in possession of something based on their idea without having paid them for it.

The asserted difference again. In matters that we can measure, they're identical. Granted that goes to how IP is actually treated under current law, not fundamentally what it is.

And that is the real point of the expiration. So that a company can produce an airplane without having to get permission from the holder of every single patent that has ever been granted for anything and everything to do with making an airplane. Ideas are supposed to fall into the public domain so that the world may freely benefit from them as it should be naturally, that's why.

I'm happy that it works out that way.

 

[DrClapeyron]

If you want to be libertarian the best two things to do are: side with a loser in every election and beat yourself senseless about things no one else cares about.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

We've been through this and those assertions. I can also assert that the deed to your house is a 'legal fiction', and say that nothing is stopping me from moving into to your living room except that fiction. Indeed, there are people on the fringe in the US that completely deny the validity of land rights.

I was referring to the concept of a person having exclusive possession of an idea. It is not possible. You may have exclusive possession of a house until such time as you give it up or someone takes it. But all the world can not be in possession of your home while all the world can be in possession of your idea. And no one has to take anything from you in order to be in possession of your idea. The concept of anyone person having exclusive possession of an idea is a legal fiction; ie, it does not reflect reality.

See above. Circling back to the law is a fiction for the basis of the argument. Obviously I can have exclusive rights to a copyright or patent.

I was describing reality. The concept that a person can be in exclusive possession of an idea is a legal fiction. There is absolutely no means for a person to assure their possession of, and rights to, such 'property' except through general acceptance of a fiction. You can not stand over an idea with a gun, you can not build a fence around it, you can not lock it away in a safe. It will always be possible for someone to have access to that idea no matter who they are, where they are, or if they have ever even met you or seen/heard/touched/ect 'your' idea.

Yes, and as I've noted its this is because it is a practical impossibility to write the law in other way - its the nature of IP to be undefinable over time. Financial property can also share this trait.

As I already noted this is false. It does not reflect the purpose of intellectual property laws or even the execution of them. The very idea of a patent is that it is definable over time. Any patent or copy right which encroaches upon a previous one, no matter how old, is illegal. Technically future patents rendering a previous patent 'undefinable' is not legally possible.

This may be a semantic quibble, but clearly I can sell all rights to my patent/copyright. My name may be forever recorded with the original patent, as is the original owner of my home, but I can sell it for cash to someone else who then can collect the royalties, and I can then be sued by the new owner if I subsequently infringe on the patent even though I invented it. In all ways that we can measure, IP acts like other property.

What is law other than semantics? There is a very important legal distinction in that a patent or copyright holder is always the 'owner' of their creation until such time as it expires. As 'owner' of the intellectual property they always possesses rights to it.
With intellectual property you can stipulate the use of the property in a contract. You can not do this with tangible property. Once sold the new owner of tangible property is capable of doing with it as they choose and you have no control over it.
If a buyer of intellectual property creates something new based on it they must get permission from the 'owner' to use it. When you sell tangible property you lose all control over it and any sorts of alterations, copies, derivations, ect.
With intellectual property you can still claim ownership and profit from that claim. You can not claim ownership of sold tangible property and profiting off of claims of owning it would be called fraud.
You can use your own intellectual property for your own purposes so long as you are not using it for profit (note that profiting from ownership is separate from profiting from use). Once you sell tangible property you have no right to any access to it what so ever.
If you die no one may inherit your intellectual property. If a patent or copyright are still in existence an estate must be set up to control them and collect any benefit and someone may be made beneficiary and/or executor. The 'ownership' still may not be given up to someone else and a buyer of that intellectual property is not even considered a 'joint owner' who will receive ownership upon death of the original owner.

So inability to transfer ownership of intellectual property is an incredibly important distinction, it is not merely an inconsequential bit of semantics. And we can see that in most important and 'measurable' ways intellectual property is treated quite differently from tangible property.

 

[Al68]

That is what I mean by 'legal fiction'. We are sort of pretending, for utilitarian purposes, that this intangible 'thing' is similar to physical property and that it can be possessed and owned until we remove this legal fiction and it becomes unownable as it naturally is.

I'd say that makes it "legal fact", since IP law does exactly that, but I won't argue the point. And since you previously said you didn't oppose IP rights, I'm not sure what your position is exactly.

With intellectual property you can stipulate the use of the property in a contract. You can not do this with tangible property.

Sure you can. People do it all the time. Deed restrictions are very common. As are sales contracts that do the same thing.

For that matter, I can sell anything I own with a contract that not only restricts its use, but stipulates that I get it back under specified conditions, that the buyer can't resell it within a certain time period, or anything else both parties agree to.

So inability to transfer ownership of intellectual property is an incredibly important distinction, it is not merely an inconsequential bit of semantics.

I don't know what to make of this, since patents can be sold, licensed, mortgaged, assigned or transferred, or given away just like any other property right.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'd say that makes it "legal fact", since IP law does exactly that, but I won't argue the point. And since you previously said you didn't oppose IP rights, I'm not sure what your position is exactly.

So a thing that is not true is a fact? Is a corporation a person?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction
This all started with whether or not IP rights were protected under general constitutional property rights and whether or not it is a natural right. I have been arguing that general property is not the same thing as IP and that you can not have a natural right to IP.

Sure you can. People do it all the time. Deed restrictions are very common. As are sales contracts that do the same thing.

For that matter, I can sell anything I own with a contract that not only restricts its use, but stipulates that I get it back under specified conditions, that the buyer can't resell it within a certain time period, or anything else both parties agree to.

A deed restriction has nothing to do with a contract for sale, it is established before a sale ever occurs.
And yes people can make contracts but they can only extend so far and once a piece of property is the actual property of a person you no longer have any control over it unless there is a joint-ownership of some sort.

I don't know what to make of this, since patents can be sold, licensed, mortgaged, assigned or transferred, or given away just like any other property right.

Rights can be sold, transferred, ect. Ownership always stays with the creator.

 

[Al68]

So a thing that is not true is a fact? Is a corporation a person?

No, it's an agent for several people. What is it you are saying is "not true" about IP rights, but the law says is true, making it a "legal fiction"? The law treats a patent like an entitlement, not a natural right.

A deed restriction has nothing to do with a contract for sale, it is established before a sale ever occurs.

The restriction's force lies in the fact that a sales contract (or right of way contract) stipulates the restriction. If someone agrees to a restriction when they buy property, then tries to sell it without the restriction (if still active), it's either fraud or a mistake by selling property rights they don't have. That's one of the purposes for a title search.

And yes people can make contracts but they can only extend so far and once a piece of property is the actual property of a person you no longer have any control over it unless there is a joint-ownership of some sort.

The contract extends as far as the parties agree for it to extend.

Rights can be sold, transferred, ect. Ownership always stays with the creator.

What "ownership" are you referring to, if not ownership of the IP rights?

 

[mheslep]

I can't nail down the exact basis of our disagreement here, that's why I mentioned semantics. Can we agree that patents and trademarks can be bought and sold, that this happens every day? Can we agree that once they're sold the previous owner may forfeit all rights?

... There is a very important legal distinction in that a patent or copyright holder is always the 'owner' of their creation until such time as it expires. As 'owner' of the intellectual property they always possesses rights to it.

That's false. If I am the owner, I can sell my patent/copyright to someone else and forfeit ALL rights to it. This happens all the time; I'll provide examples if you like. I've also worked for firms where the business owned all rights to any inventions I may have created, a condition of employment take it or leave it. I had NO rights to the invention, even though the original idea was largely my own. That's why, e.g., the USPTO has this http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week39/OG/help/help.htm#[B phrase in the application process, and not simply 'The Creators Name'. That's the way it works in the US, perhaps it is different elsewhere.

With intellectual property you can stipulate the use of the property in a contract. You can not do this with tangible property. Once sold the new owner of tangible property is capable of doing with it as they choose and you have no control over it.

Also false. I've sold real estate property with a covenant in the contract that the buildings on the property must be maintained to a certain standard by the new owner of the property.

If a buyer of intellectual property creates something new based on it they must get permission from the 'owner' to use it. When you sell tangible property you lose all control over it and any sorts of alterations, copies, derivations, ect.

That can be true. It's not absolutely true as it depends on the contract as above.

...You can use your own intellectual property for your own purposes so long as you are not using it for profit (note that profiting from ownership is separate from profiting from use). Once you sell tangible property you have no right to any access to it what so ever.
If you die no one may inherit your intellectual property. If a patent or copyright are still in existence an estate must be set up to control them and collect any benefit and someone may be made beneficiary and/or executor. The 'ownership' still may not be given up to someone else and a buyer of that intellectual property is not even considered a 'joint owner' who will receive ownership upon death of the original owner.

Also not absolutely true. Estates can of course hold on to the IP, but they can and do sell outright ALL rights to the IP unless prohibited by the Will/Testament.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, it's an agent for several people. What is it you are saying is "not true" about IP rights, but the law says is true, making it a "legal fiction"? The law treats a patent like an entitlement, not a natural right.

Read the link I provided regarding the definition of a "legal fiction". The idea that one person may exclusively possesses an idea is a legal fiction because it is not possible in reality to have exclusive possession of an idea. I already explained all of this.
The law treats a patent as an entitlement to "ownership", or exclusive possession, of an idea. It treats it like property to a limited degree.
This, as I already stated, has been my entire point. It is not 'property' in the same sense as anything else. It is not a natural right the same as the natural right to ownership of property as stipulated in the constitution. That is where this argument started.

The contract extends as far as the parties agree for it to extend.What "ownership" are you referring to, if not ownership of the IP rights?

'Ownership' of the idea itself! What the hell? I can not figure out how you two have such a hard time getting this. You seem to ignore about 90% of my points and find some small technicality to argue.

Lets put it this way. When you rent out a piece of property you are giving rights to the property to another person however limited or unlimited by the contract you are not giving them ownership of the property and they have none of the basic rights associated with ownership of the property such as the ability to destroy give away or sell the property.
Selling rights to IP is pretty much the same. You will maintain ownership of the IP and the buyer will only have rights, however limited or unlimited, to use the property but none of the fundamental rights of ownership.
You might say that if you buy IP rights from someone you can stipulate in the contract that you are capable of selling these rights yourself. True, but only rights not ownership such as if you were to rent a property from a person and stipulated in the contract that you are capable of subleasing which does not allow you to sell ownership of the property only rights to the property.
Also, for a good example, as owner of a piece of intellectual property you may give up the intellectual property to the public domain forfeiting ownership of it. A person who purchases rights to IP has no such ability because they do not possesses the ownership to be able to give it up in the first place.

Make more sense now?

I can't nail down the exact basis of our disagreement here, that's why I mentioned semantics. Can we agree that patents and trademarks can be bought and sold, that this happens every day? Can we agree that once they're sold the previous owner may forfeit all rights?

The owner may forfeit their rights by not acting on them but they can not contractually forfeit their fundamental rights as owner of the IP. A very basic and straight forward example would be that the buyer can not claim "ownership" of the IP (ie, "This is my invention") and in the case that they do claim ownership the actual owner, the creator, may sue them for having done so no matter what is in the contract (accepting binding moderation as a form of suing).
Trademarks are a different story. They technically are not even necessarily connected to a person or their creator, at least as far as US law, and are only considered IP because they are an intangible asset connected to an idea. You can not even maintain ownership of a trademark in and of itself, you must actually use it for business. Its quite a different animal from copyright and patents.

That's false. If I am the owner, I can sell my patent/copyright to someone else and forfeit ALL rights to it.

As I already noted you can not contractually forfeit all rights to your own patent or copyright. You will always possesses ownership of it. You can only transfer rights. See my argument above.

And yes corporations are capable of owning copyrights and patents as you note from your link. That does not mean that they can buy ownership of copyrights or patents. Generally a corporation owns a copyright or patent on the end product, the sum of the work of the individual creators that work for them. For anyone invention or piece of copyrightable material produced by a single employee to be protected though it must be patented or copyrighted under the creator's name regardless of their work contract or any preexisting agreement that the rights to their work will belong to the company.


Edit: I have just hacked up my post because I decided it was too unnecessarily long winded and trailed off in too many directions.

 

[Al68]

Read the link I provided regarding the definition of a "legal fiction". The idea that one person may exclusively possesses an idea is a legal fiction because it is not possible in reality to have exclusive possession of an idea.

If IP law said that, then it would be legal fiction, but it doesn't.

The law treats a patent as an entitlement to "ownership", or exclusive possession, of an idea.

No, it doesn't. See below.

'Ownership' of the idea itself! What the hell? I can not figure out how you two have such a hard time getting this.

Because we were talking about ownership of IP rights, not ownership of the "idea". Those are two different things.

IP rights are the right to restrict others' use of an invention, not ownership of the invention itself. That important distinction is made clear here:

A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention. Rather, a patent provides the right to exclude others...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent