Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[BitterTea]

Legitimacy is a difficult concept.  People do organise into societies and do make laws aimed at making life better.  If you feel the entire basis on which society makes laws is bad, it makes it hard for you to get things changed as its easier to change things incrementally than to wait for a revolution.

Indeed.

This comes about almost entirely because of the number one premise for our society: a monopoly on law making is required.

edit... "this" being "it makes it hard for you to get things changed as its easier to change things incrementally than to wait for a revolution". Without a monopoly on law, I could choose another provider of law.

see: Anarchy and the efficient law by David Friedman.

Interestingly, he appears to be a libertarian and believe in intellectual property law. However, he admits that this is because he is an author and wants to get paid for his work. He also admits that the proper amount of intellectual property law may be zero, he was merely approaching the question as an economist.

[1715229357]

1715229357

[1715229357]

1715229357

[FredericBastiat]

In the first 30 years or so of the United States, to pass on real estate owned to only one child was a will that was unenforceble.  The idea was that, massive land grants to former agents of the British crown would be honored within the lifetime of the living owner, but the grants themselves were 'unearned' and thus the living owners didn't get to decide how the land was dispersed after their death.  The idea of spreading it equally among heirs would prevent it from becoming a 'legacy' similar to a dukedom, and that the property would disperse to the society over a generation or two.  It worked, and is the primary reason that decendents of colony governors don't own half of Vermont or Louisiana.  They could have siezed the property outright under the same logic, but then they would be screwing over natural born decendents of the grantee who honestly had never done anything to deserve it.

Given what you said above (in bold):

So what if the property (real estate/physical property) was transferred prior to death? Would not that contract be honored? Seems like borderline theft.

I can potentially see how a contract could be null and void, and hence unenforceable, for a dead man. A contract is between 2 live individuals for it to be valid, but that would be one way to continue the yet-to-be-deceased's legacy.

We must protect property rights, including the right to transfer said property.

1) Why should any government agency have any greater right to confer the property of the deceased to anybody else better than the deceased himself?
2) Why not just let whoever hasn't claimed it to homestead it? Wouldn't the heirs have a greater claim to the property than anybody else?
3) Why shouldn't wills, trusts or other types of bequeathing documents have any force and effect?
4) Does the person have to "deserve" something before he can receive it? Gifts fall into this category.

[MoonShadow]

In the first 30 years or so of the United States, to pass on real estate owned to only one child was a will that was unenforceble.  The idea was that, massive land grants to former agents of the British crown would be honored within the lifetime of the living owner, but the grants themselves were 'unearned' and thus the living owners didn't get to decide how the land was dispersed after their death.  The idea of spreading it equally among heirs would prevent it from becoming a 'legacy' similar to a dukedom, and that the property would disperse to the society over a generation or two.  It worked, and is the primary reason that decendents of colony governors don't own half of Vermont or Louisiana.  They could have siezed the property outright under the same logic, but then they would be screwing over natural born decendents of the grantee who honestly had never done anything to deserve it.

Given what you said above (in bold):

So what if the property (real estate/physical property) was transferred prior to death? Would not that contract be honored? Seems like borderline theft.

I can potentially see how a contract could be null and void, and hence unenforceable, for a dead man. A contract is between 2 live individuals for it to be valid, but that would be one way to continue the yet-to-be-deceased's legacy.

We must protect property rights, including the right to transfer said property.

1) Why should any government agency have any greater right to confer the property of the deceased to anybody else better than the deceased himself?
2) Why not just let whoever hasn't claimed it to homestead it? Wouldn't the heirs have a greater claim to the property than anybody else?
3) Why shouldn't wills, trusts or other types of bequeathing documents have any force and effect?
4) Does the person have to "deserve" something before he can receive it? Gifts fall into this category.

Honestly, I don't know enough of the details of how things played out.  I don't know if anyone tried it or not.  You see, the argument was that the property wasn't legitimately owned by the grantee, but the compromise was that the heirs would actually get to keep the property as their own, (having the greatest claim towards homesteading because they grew up there) thus making that part their own legitimately, so long as the property was divided roughly evenly among the grantee's/living owner's children.  In Europe, legacies were maintained by granting all land to the oldest living son.  In any agricultral society, land ownership was political power.  In early America, it was the right to vote as well.  There were many social pressures besides this one law to not follow the European standard. 

[MoonShadow]

1) Why should any government agency have any greater right to confer the property of the deceased to anybody else better than the deceased himself?

No idea, but there was no clean solution.  Oftentimes that grantee didn't even take possession of the property.

2) Why not just let whoever hasn't claimed it to homestead it? Wouldn't the heirs have a greater claim to the property than anybody else?

Yes, and that is why the heirs actually got to keep a clean title to the portion of the property that they were granted in the will, so long as all of their siblings got roughly the same.  The property just couldn't be transfered to a single heir.  If there was only one heir, or if there was only one heir that the grantee actually liked, a portion of it could be donated to an intitution.  I'm not positive, but I believe that MIT got it's land grant like that; Yale, maybe.

3) Why shouldn't wills, trusts or other types of bequeathing documents have any force and effect?

Because the grantee didn't own the property, because the king of England didn't own the property.  The king of England never had the right to grant a deed to begin with.  It was unowned property, as far as the young US was concerned.  Again, it was a compromise in a situation that couldn't be resolved within the normal case law or British Common Law in any clean manner.  They literally did the best that they could.

4) Does the person have to "deserve" something before he can receive it? Gifts fall into this category.

Not at all, but the giver must honestly own the gift.  You can't steal a pie from your neighbor and then give half to your girlfriend, it's still theft of a whole pie.  The argument that this land was stolen/claimed by the king, and taken from illiterate American Indian tribes was never presented in that time, but it's true enough even though most of those tribes were long gone or long dead by the time that it was an issue for the young republic.  Do you understand that the heirs actually did get to keep the property?

[Hawker]

Legitimacy is a difficult concept.  People do organise into societies and do make laws aimed at making life better.  If you feel the entire basis on which society makes laws is bad, it makes it hard for you to get things changed as its easier to change things incrementally than to wait for a revolution.

Indeed.

This comes about almost entirely because of the number one premise for our society: a monopoly on law making is required.

edit... "this" being "it makes it hard for you to get things changed as its easier to change things incrementally than to wait for a revolution". Without a monopoly on law, I could choose another provider of law.

see: Anarchy and the efficient law by David Friedman.

Interestingly, he appears to be a libertarian and believe in intellectual property law. However, he admits that this is because he is an author and wants to get paid for his work. He also admits that the proper amount of intellectual property law may be zero, he was merely approaching the question as an economist.

Actually the monopoly of violence/law making thing is sort of a side issue.  The key decision is one of values.  Do you value the availability of movies higher than the ability to profit from copying movies?  Once you have decided that, whether you have one single lawmaker or a thousand is just a detail.

[BitterTea]

Actually the monopoly of violence/law making thing is sort of a side issue.  The key decision is one of values.  Do you value the availability of movies higher than the ability to profit from copying movies?  Once you have decided that, whether you have one single lawmaker or a thousand is just a detail.

"The key decision is one of values. Do you value the availability of cotton higher than the freedom of slaves? Once you have decided that, whether you have one single lawmaker or a thousand is just a detail."

I take it you didn't bother to watch the video, then.

[Hawker]

Actually the monopoly of violence/law making thing is sort of a side issue.  The key decision is one of values.  Do you value the availability of movies higher than the ability to profit from copying movies?  Once you have decided that, whether you have one single lawmaker or a thousand is just a detail.

"The key decision is one of values. Do you value the availability of cotton higher than the freedom of slaves? Once you have decided that, whether you have one single lawmaker or a thousand is just a detail."

I take it you didn't bother to watch the video, then.

Videos are for people who think slowly.  If the message is worthwhile, there will be a transcript.

Comparing being deprived of the right to profit from copying movies with the horrors of slavery is a childish appeal to emotion.  At least you haven't compared it to being in a concentration camp but  I'm sure you can find some minor inconvenience to compare it to.

[BitterTea]

Videos are for people who think slowly.  If the message is worthwhile, there will be a transcript.

Here you go: http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html

Comparing being deprived of the right to profit from copying movies with the horrors of slavery is a childish appeal to emotion.  At least you haven't compared it to being in a concentration camp but  I'm sure you can find some minor inconvenience to compare it to.

Sorry, I can't help that your argument for copyright is also a valid argument for slavery.

[Hawker]

Videos are for people who think slowly.  If the message is worthwhile, there will be a transcript.

Here you go: http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html

Comparing being deprived of the right to profit from copying movies with the horrors of slavery is a childish appeal to emotion.  At least you haven't compared it to being in a concentration camp but  I'm sure you can find some minor inconvenience to compare it to.

Sorry, I can't help that your argument for copyright is also a valid argument for slavery.

I think you'll find that most everything can be made into an argument for slavery or compared to genocide.  For example, "First they came for the Jews...then they came for the owners of intellectual property...then they came for me..."

See how easy and how stupid that is?  Why waste your time on it when I'm sure you could think of an intelligent answer?

[Hawker]

http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html

Sorry but the ideas are ridiculous.  How can you start from the point that there is no state?  Humans organise themselves - its as much part of our behaviour as eating.  As for his dispute resolution - "Implicit or explicit in their agreement would be the legal rules under which such disputes were to be settled."

A simple example would be inheritance.  A Muslim man marries a Christian woman.  They have a son and daughter.  They get divorced when the man wants to have both children circumcised.  The man goes to a Sharia court and gets custody of the children. The woman goes to a Christian court and gets custody.

Under these circumstance, the court with the money for a bigger army wins.  And there is no real scope for compromise - either the daughter is circumcised or not.

So unless you want a society where the guy with the money for a bigger army wins, you need to have 1 law.  Saying its cheaper to allow girls get circumcised than to fight the other guys army is not offering any improvement on where we are now.

The other glaring problem is that if a dispute does result in violence between police forces, the losing force is gone forever.  They are dead.  As time goes on, there will be fewer and few competing forces until you end up with one single force.  In theory anyone will be able to set up against them.  In practice, money applied to armies has an exponential rather than a geometric effect and all newcomers will be to weak ever to get a customer.  So you've worked your way back to a...state.

[Rassah]

http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html

Sorry but the ideas are ridiculous.  How can you start from the point that there is no state?  Humans organise themselves - its as much part of our behaviour as eating.  As for his dispute resolution - "Implicit or explicit in their agreement would be the legal rules under which such disputes were to be settled."

A simple example would be inheritance.  A Muslim man marries a Christian woman.  They have a son and daughter.  They get divorced when the man wants to have both children circumcised.  The man goes to a Sharia court and gets custody of the children. The woman goes to a Christian court and gets custody.

Under these circumstance, the court with the money for a bigger army wins.  And there is no real scope for compromise - either the daughter is circumcised or not.

So unless you want a society where the guy with the money for a bigger army wins, you need to have 1 law.  Saying its cheaper to allow girls get circumcised than to fight the other guys army is not offering any improvement on where we are now.

The other glaring problem is that if a dispute does result in violence between police forces, the losing force is gone forever.  They are dead.  As time goes on, there will be fewer and few competing forces until you end up with one single force.  In theory anyone will be able to set up against them.  In practice, money applied to armies has an exponential rather than a geometric effect and all newcomers will be to weak ever to get a customer.  So you've worked your way back to a...state.

What if the "force" is armed citizens themselves, who agree not to screw with each other's stuff, agree to choose a court both agree to go to for disputes, and defend themselves from any outside or inside agressors? Your scenario assumes that no one living under those police forces would care, will keep supporting them financially, and that most people are assholes.

[Hawker]

...snip...

What if the "force" is armed citizens themselves, who agree not to screw with each other's stuff, agree to choose a court both agree to go to for disputes, and defend themselves from any outside or inside agressors? Your scenario assumes that no one living under those police forces would care, will keep supporting them financially, and that most people are assholes.

Armed citizens are no more than a rabble with guns.  Faced with proper trained forces with tanks, artillery and aircraft, no individuals will take them on.  Especially if foreign states are interested in the territory and are financing one of the "police" forces.

[MoonShadow]

...snip...

What if the "force" is armed citizens themselves, who agree not to screw with each other's stuff, agree to choose a court both agree to go to for disputes, and defend themselves from any outside or inside agressors? Your scenario assumes that no one living under those police forces would care, will keep supporting them financially, and that most people are assholes.

Armed citizens are no more than a rabble with guns. 

Another term for such an organized group is a government.

[Hawker]

...snip...

What if the "force" is armed citizens themselves, who agree not to screw with each other's stuff, agree to choose a court both agree to go to for disputes, and defend themselves from any outside or inside agressors? Your scenario assumes that no one living under those police forces would care, will keep supporting them financially, and that most people are assholes.

Armed citizens are no more than a rabble with guns. 

Another term for such an organized group is a government.

Governments have trained forces with tanks, artillery and aircraft.  Since guns are pretty well obsolete in modern warfare, armed citizens can't do much.

That's why democratic government is a good idea.

[BitterTea]

Governments have trained forces with tanks, artillery and aircraft.  Since guns are pretty well obsolete in modern warfare, armed citizens can't do much.

That's why democratic government is a good idea.

Oh really? See: Iraq/Afghanistan. How is our modern military doing there?

Obviously we could just wipe them all out, but any invading government won't want to do that, they'll want to take control of the people, as a form of tax revenue. So yeah, an armed rabble is about all you need.

[MoonShadow]

Governments have trained forces with tanks, artillery and aircraft.  Since guns are pretty well obsolete in modern warfare, armed citizens can't do much.

Tanks, artillery and aircraft are weapons of war that are effective against other weapons of war, such as other tanks, artillery and aircraft.  They are not particularly useful for subduing a rebellion.  Your statements make it obvious that you never served in the military.  The basic unit of a military is the single person with a rifle.  This hasn't changed despite hundreds of years of technical advancements in the field.  The most demoralizing and dangerous opponent to go up against is a talented sniper.  During WWII, the Soviets invaded Finland in what they called the "Winter War", and the Soviets would carpet bomb entire sections of the Finish countryside to kill one farmer turned sniper who had become known as the "White Ghost" and the "White Death" to the Soviet troops.  He was the most successful single sniper in recorded history, and very likely was a significant factor in the Finns successful defense of country.  The proliferation of the privately owned rifle was a major factor in the Soviets never actually invading the US.  After the Soviet Union broke apart, and we gained access to old Soviet military documents, there was a case study done on the feasibility of a military invasion of the US.  They focused upon Chicago, and despite the level of gun control in that city, the Soviet military planners estimated that it would take at least a full battalion to capture and occupy just this one city.

Unless your goal is the absolute destruction of a population, 300 tanks are of small value against 10,000 armed and upset adults, particularly if they are not organized into a collective unit.  4th Generation warfare, look it up.

[Hawker]

Governments have trained forces with tanks, artillery and aircraft.  Since guns are pretty well obsolete in modern warfare, armed citizens can't do much.

That's why democratic government is a good idea.

Oh really? See: Iraq/Afghanistan. How is our modern military doing there?

Obviously we could just wipe them all out, but any invading government won't want to do that, they'll want to take control of the people, as a form of tax revenue. So yeah, an armed rabble is about all you need.

The reason the US is losing in Afghanistan is that it is focused on nation building.  If all it wanted was tax revenue, it could control a few bridges and and mountain passes and the Afghans would have to choose between starving and paying tax.

Much like the militias you'd have in a libertarian society in fact.  The Afghan model is not usually considered something to aspire to.

[Hawker]

Governments have trained forces with tanks, artillery and aircraft.  Since guns are pretty well obsolete in modern warfare, armed citizens can't do much.

Tanks, artillery and aircraft are weapons of war that are effective against other weapons of war, such as other tanks, artillery and aircraft.  They are not particularly useful for subduing a rebellion.  Your statements make it obvious that you never served in the military.  The basic unit of a military is the single person with a rifle.  This hasn't changed despite hundreds of years of technical advancements in the field.  The most demoralizing and dangerous opponent to go up against is a talented sniper.  During WWII, the Soviets invaded Finland in what they called the "Winter War", and the Soviets would carpet bomb entire sections of the Finish countryside to kill one farmer turned sniper who had become known as the "White Ghost" and the "White Death" to the Soviet troops.  He was the most successful single sniper in recorded history, and very likely was a significant factor in the Finns successful defense of country.  The proliferation of the privately owned rifle was a major factor in the Soviets never actually invading the US.  After the Soviet Union broke apart, and we gained access to old Soviet military documents, there was a case study done on the feasibility of a military invasion of the US.  They focused upon Chicago, and despite the level of gun control in that city, the Soviet military planners estimated that it would take at least a full battalion to capture and occupy just this one city.

Unless your goal is the absolute destruction of a population, 300 tanks are of small value against 10,000 armed and upset adults, particularly if they are not organized into a collective unit.  4th Generation warfare, look it up.

We are talking about conflicts between police forces in a stateless society.  A sniper on either side won't help.

Off topic, but can I recommend you read "A Frozen Hell" by Trotter.  It will give you a better idea of how the Finns beat the Russians.  The key factor was logistics for the Finnish army.  Once the Russians fixed their logistics in WW2, the Finns lost all they had gained and more.

I'm open to being corrected but as far as I know, there hasn't been a war between Western forces in which infantry did even 50% of the killing in over a century.  I read that in WW1 it was about 10% infantry and the rest artillery.  So if there are 2 courts and one has a police force with trained soldiers with aircraft and tanks, and the other has civilians equipped with firearms, the civilians will lose the case.

What puzzles me is why you'd even think that is a good way to settle a dispute.

[BitterTea]

What puzzles me is why you'd even think that is a good way to settle a dispute.

You're missing something very big. Most disputes between governments are resolved without violence. That is how disputes between systems of polycentric law would be decided. However, governments can fall back to war because they collect tax revenue. War is expensive, bad for the bottom line, means you have to charge your customers more. If they have a choice, they will leave you for someone who doesn't go to ar, and thus doesn't charge more. The people in charge of these organizations will know this, and will opt to resolve disputes peacefully, and only resort to violence in self defense, unlike nation states.

[Hawker]

What puzzles me is why you'd even think that is a good way to settle a dispute.

You're missing something very big. Most disputes between governments are resolved without violence. That is how disputes between systems of polycentric law would be decided. However, governments can fall back to war because they collect tax revenue. War is expensive, bad for the bottom line, means you have to charge your customers more. If they have a choice, they will leave you for someone who doesn't go to ar, and thus doesn't charge more. The people in charge of these organizations will know this, and will opt to resolve disputes peacefully, and only resort to violence in self defense, unlike nation states.

But with competing police forces, the most profitable way is the eliminate the competition.  That kind of war is like the warlordism you have in failed states.  Its very profitable.  So when there is a dispute, the economic incentive is to fight and the winning police force picks up the customers of the police force that was destroyed.