Wenzel vs. Kinsella Debate on IP

The Robert Wenzel vs. Stephan Kinsella debate is set to air on Monday, April 1st (2013) on both gentlemen's podcasts (found here and here)..  This is sure to be an interesting April Fools Day.  But, who will be made out to be the fool: Wenzel or Kinsella?

To this question, my money is, sadly, on Robert Wenzel (whom I do follow and regard as a great liberty advocate).  Kinsella has reason, logic, and justice on his side and has responded at length about all of the possible objections and arguments for IP and he has continued to demolish them.

I have thought long and hard about the case for and against Intellectual Property (Copyright, Patents, and Trademarks).  As a software developer, I used to be in the pro-IP camp since much of my compensation comes from directly from my ability to turn ideas, patterns, and algorithms into lines of code that create software solutions.

But, the entire explosion of prosperity, products, and competition in the software industry as well as the legal battles between conglomerates like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, and other software/hardware makers has made me rethink everything about IP.

I've followed the whole Robert Wenzel versus Kinsella/Tucker debate for sometime (dating back to 2009).  I think the basic precursor to this entire debate revolves around 2 fundamental questions?

1) Why do we even need property rights?
2) What do we mean by the term property?

Hoppe (which both Kinsella and Tucker rely on as the basis of their argument against IP) wrote about the precondition for property in his classic "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism" starting in Chapter 2.  Anyone who wants to debate IP must read Hoppe's brilliant discussion on property.  The basic point comes down to the fact that in a world of scarcity and rivalrous goods, a demarcation of ownership is needed to prevent conflict.

As Hoppe points out, in the Garden of Eden, property rights for goods would not be needed or even possible since everything would be super abundant and manifest itself in whatever manner imaginable.  However, everyone would still have a property right in their own person since everyone would not be able to occupy the same space (Hoppe explains this better than I can).

The fundamental fact is that ideas are non-rivalrous and there is no conflict since no one can exclusively "control" or "own" an idea, theorem, algorithm, etc.  Why?  Because there is no reason why two or more people (living completely independently who live on opposite ends of the globe) cannot come up with the same idea or mental construct at a given point in time.

Also, there is no way to really "homestead" an idea in the Lockean way and exclusively "own" or "control" it (for the reasons I've given above).  Now, one may "possess" an idea, but it is impossible to exclusively control it given that the basic law of  humanity is that we have the ability to reason given we all possess a supercomputer atop our shoulders.

Lastly, a primary issue to the IP debate concerns two concepts: stealing versus copying.  A comment by Ted Sonnier in an EPJ post back in January eloquently describes how ideas (even genuinely original ones) cannot be "stolen" as well as the difference between control/possession and ownership.  He gives a great example of how there is no such thing as theft when it comes to ideas.  Ideas can by copied and/or built upon but they cannot be stolen unless there is an act of battery where someone is brainwashed or hypnotized (which obviously is a form of injustice).  The IP advocates try to equate copying with stealing and pose this act as a form of violence when no such violence has taken place.

Thoughts on Guns

Given all of the discussion and debate on the subject of gun control, the 2nd Amendment, and the amount of violence that exists in the United States recently, I thought I'd post some compelling videos which make valid arguments why the 2nd Amendment imbues the essence of self-defense and self-preservation. 

A Reply to Scott Weathers on Smoking Bans

Reprinted from a post on Define:Liberty

A guest column was recently published on Define Liberty by Scott Weathers on Smoking Bans.  Before writing this reply, I noticed many comments have already been posted to address the problems with Weathers argument.  While I agree with many of the comments, I want to dive a little deeper into the fundamental problems with the Weathers’ argument.

Weathers starts off his article with this to say.

The essential question of rights is not whether they are worth protecting, but which are worth protecting... we must recognize that rights often conflict and therefore must prioritize our most fundamental, necessary rights. American University’s smoking ban does just this. (emphasis mine)

Weathers concedes his argument is utilitarian in nature given the first few sentences.  While I acknowledge some libertarians consider themselves utilitarians in the “cost-benefit” persuasion, most libertarians reject this approach and adhere to the standard “non-aggression principle.”  If you are unfamiliar with this term, I would recommend any YouTube by Walter Block on the NAP.

Which rights are worth protecting?  This begs the question: what are rights?  Where do “rights” (if they exist) originate?  On the subject of rights I would recommend a recent post by Tom Woods who addressed this at a conference back in 2009.

Self-ownership and private property do not cause or create conflict.  They solve the problems of conflict and scarcity.  Self-ownership implies the exclusive use, control, and decision making over one-self and the property one acquires through “original appropriation” of un-owned resources or through the exchange of property titles and voluntary contractual arrangements between agents.

Upon this premise of self-ownership, norms of behavior become apparent of what is permitted and what is prohibited.

Private Property Means Owners Decide

Weathers continues,

Although many will decry AU’s smoking ban [...] Smokers can exercise their right to smoke, simply not in areas where it will harm the health of others. And very fundamentally, this is the right that must take precedence over the right to smoke wherever one pleases.

No disagreement here.  If the owner of a business wants to allow people to smoke on his/her property which the owner has originally appropriated or acquired through a voluntary trade/acquisition, shouldn’t the owner possess the legal right to determine the rules (contract arrangement) and conditions of how patrons use to his/her drinking establishment? After all, the bar patrons are “guests” on the owners property.

Property owners are the ultimate decision makers of how their property is used and the norms for how visitors use their resources.

Secondhand Smoke Exposure Claims

Every year, 46,000 Americans die of exposure to secondhand smoke [...] we must use every tool we have to cut the health burden of smoking [...] these are not just statistics, these are the deaths of real people because of secondhand smoke—thousands who die because of a habit that is not their own.

The USA Today article's non-specific National Cancer Institute study misses a critical point.  Of those alleged 46,000 poor souls who (allegedly) die from secondhand smoke, what type of exposure did these people have?  What exactly was the cause of death?  Were all of the people locked in houses bellowing with smoke 24/7?  Did these people have the choice to “escape” and/or “evade” the exposure to smoke?  Were any of the people former smokers who became non-smokers yet ended up living with a spouse who smoked?  How many non-smoking people each year (who live in a household with a smoker) die from something else other than secondhand smoke?  Were these people exposed to 100,000 hours of smoke?  1,000 hours?  1 hour?  How much exposure can one tolerate before it kills them?  You get my point.

The “secondhand smoke = 46,000 deaths” abstraction is effective at creating this mystical hobgoblin caricature in the minds of the people (much like other things despised by the Nanny State).  Is smoking (firsthand or secondhand) healthy?  No, of course not.  But, the question of how much exposure is negligible versus harmful versus toxic is a very important one to ask answer.

Read the rest of the article on Define: Liberty