Topic: Read this before having an opinion on economics - page 7. (Read 25890 times)

That is simply false. There is still the incentive for the enjoyment of creating, becoming famous from creating, selling live performances, donations, etc. There are people that wish to create but can't because you can't use characters from existing works for fear of lawsuits. So it seems to me that even though there will be some discouragement to some people there will be encouragement to others. Which outweighs which? Do you have anything to offer aside from your gut feelings?

Actually it is something I would do on a weekend...can you say nerd?   The problem with this, though, is:who's economic theory? Austrian? Keynsiansim? Chicago school? The conclusions we'd come to would vary depending on which school we "followed".  This is why it's better if you actually explain your stand on Bitter Tea's questions instead of making us guess. That way, too, we can start the name calling when we discover we don't agree on economic theories. 

I realize reading economic theory is probably not on anybody's list of things to do on a weekend....  

but if you do, then you may know my answer to your questions.

I think this simplifies to: individuals have the right to control the use of the ideas they share with others, through force if necessary. Do you agree with this? Keep in mind that if I don't acknowledge your right to drag me to court, police will come and take me by force.

We agree on the rights of life, liberty, and property. From these principles, how do you derive the right to control the use of your ideas?

Even if I agree that there is a right to intellectual property, I do not agree that it supersedes the right to liberty of thought or action. How do you arrive at the conclusion that it does?

These are the points of contention that prevent me from supporting the idea of intellectual property.

If you took one of my ebooks and tried to sell it without my permission, then I have the right to redress the situation via the judicial system.

As I stated above, all IP laws do is to take something that would otherwise be a public good, and turn it into a private good. This is to avoid the free rider problem.

For argument's sake, let's remove IP laws and turn all intellectual creations into public goods. (please see links above so we're using the same definitions for the italicized terms) What then is your suggestion to avoid the free rider problem?

I liked your analogy very much actually. My conclusion from it is that without certain protections, people in my position are subject to the free rider problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem) Your analogy creates a net loss for society, not only for us individually. Neither of us can sustain the creation of lemonade so society loses since they can't get lemonade.

Speaking in terms of economic theory: my view is that IP laws attempt to take intellectual creations that would otherwise be public goods, and turns them into private goods.

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

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

Without IP laws, intellectual creations would remain public goods and are then subject to the free rider problem. This means that the creators of those goods would not have an incentive to continue creating them, and society would lose since it would have fewer inventions, etc.

Without IP laws, how do you suggest addressing the free rider problem?

I think it also has to be established that society can be benefited or harmed. No action can be taken against or for society, only against or for individuals. To say that the initiation of force is acceptable when it benefits society is to say that it is acceptable to aggress against some individual or group for the benefit of another individual or group.

Some people think initiating violence is acceptable as long as there is a net benefit to society. I disagree with that but I would also like to point out that it hasn't even been established that there is a net benefit to society as far as intellectual property laws are concerned.

I feel that it comes down to a simple question.

Do you have the right to use force against me in order to control the way in which your idea is used?

The point was only that some things can harm some people while helping others. That should be fairly uncontroversial. If you don't like the lemonade stand analogy then I'm sure you can tweak it a little so that it fits, instead of giving it away, selling it at a lower price or even the same price. I'm still hurting your business by not giving you the entire market to yourself. I'm sure you could come up with your own example if you gave it enough thought.

This leaves us with the real question regarding IP laws: are they a net benefit or a net harm to society? If you don't know one way or the other and can't provide evidence to backup your assertion then you have no business advocating the existence of such laws. One assumes that the state of nature is the default and that we don't keep laws on the books without good reason. I personally think that IP laws are a net harm because it stifles innovation, i.e. nobody can use the likeness of existing fictional characters to reinterpret them into new contexts and stories.

I see the net effect as harming both of us. You're giving people your resources in exchange for nothing in return. This results in a net loss for you. This is not sustainable. Unless you have the resources of a very wealthy person (and perhaps you do but I assumed we were discussing the ordinary person), you won't be able to afford to give away the lemons, the sugar, the water, the table, the chair, the sign, the napkins, the cups, not to mention the opportunity cost of losing that time to a money making endeavor.... maybe you could have been trading stocks instead of giving away lemonade.

Questions: what is your reason for giving away the lemonade? Do you foresee doing this for a long period of time? If so, how will you regain your costs so that you can continue? If won't continue for a long period of time, why not?

I, on the other hand, once I see that the lemonade market is not profitable, will either seek to make it profitable, or seek a market that is. I'm going to make money, one way or another. And I will do so by helping people.

I have found, the hard way, that people do not value what is given. I used to occassionally give away my time in the hope that the client would appreciate it. I found the exact opposite. The people who wanted, and got, my time for free were very ungrateful. The clients who pay are grateful. Just how it works.

If you own a lemonade stand and I start giving out free lemonade while standing next to it, I'm harming you but I'm also helping other people by giving out free lemonade. The question is a matter of whether or not there is a net benefit to society by IP laws. Just because the lack of IP laws may hurt the author of a book doesn't mean it can't help others.

Just off the top of my head....

Harm to me personally, yes.

Harm to society as a whole, yes.

The way I see it, you can't harm a single person and not have it effect others. Therefore, harming a single person harms society. The OP referred to a book, and a story about the broken window. It wasn't just the shop owner who was harmed in that incident. One can look at any sort of harm inflicted on a single person. It's NEVER just that person alone who suffers. Others suffer too.

It's like throwing a small pebble in a pond, the effects ripple away from the point of impact. Of course the biggest splash is where the rock landed, but it does create a ripple that travels outward.

Question: Do you believe that a single person can be harmed without it having a negative impact on others?

Read his post again. IP lets her/him share his knowledge to a lot of people. I wouldn't go so far as to say that depriving society of this knowledge does it harm, but it does benefit society to have it shared cheaply. And no IP won't mean the knowlege will be free. It means it'll be expensive, just like s/he wrote.

Perhaps s/he'll provide an example where it does harm. I can however think of several other examples where IP does harm instead. It's a double edged sword, that.

Harm to you personally or society as a whole? If it's the latter then I'd really love to see some kind of argument for that. The burden of proof is on you.

¶1: Computers are machines that are very good at perfectly copying information. The cat's already out of the bag.

¶2: Holding a gun to someone's head provides a powerful incentive for them to do what you say, but it does not justify the action.

¶3: You're assuming that you would not be paid without IP law. I don't acknowledge IP as valid, yet I still purchase books, movies, music that I enjoy or find useful.

This whole discussion about anti-IP is quite fascinating. I actually have a small amount of IP so obviously I am in favor of it.

One argument against IP seems to go along the lines that ideas don't change if they're copied. However, it seems to me that the more widespread ideas become, the more "diluted" they become. They don't transfer from one person to the next in an exact "copy." The more people they pass through, the more changed they are. I remember the "telephone" game in school. The teacher got us all in a line, and whispered a single word to the first kid. That kid then whispered the word to the next kid, and so forth all the way through the line of kids. By the time it got to the end, the last kid said what he heard. It was a completely different word.

I am of the opinion that more harm is done by a lack of IP than with IP. "People respond to incentives," is one of the first things learned in an econ class. IP provides a powerful incentive for people. As a very practical example from my own life: I sell a few ebooks on my site. They are $9.97 each. I wrote them myself, and they're based on my years of experience working with clients. They address very real issues and solve very real problems.

If a client were to pay me for my time to convey all that knowledge to them in person, by the hour, it would cost them literally thousands of dollars. I am not exaggerating here. But instead, I created four ebooks, and for under $40 the person can learn everything I've written there. It's really a bargain for both parties. I make money via scale by selling to many people, and the end user gets my knowledge for a tiny fraction of having me be there in person.

IP works for me at this time.

I can understand that curiosity can play a part. Some people will experiment no matter what. But money to be made? By bearing the cost and not getting the profit? You go write a book, borrowing money to sustain yourself while writing it, and then send it to me so that I can compete in selling it. Sounds fair, right? I can sell it for the printing cost plus a fraction of a percent and still make a profit. Can you?

I would say that data isn't an excludable good. Information sure is. Someone has taken time to order the data and make it useful. That's worth something.

How many times do I have to explain this to you? They research because there is money to be made, and humans are inherently curious, and because if they don't somebody else will.


No, it's absolutely nothing like that, information is not an excludable good.

But why do the research in the first place. That's the key issue here. It's like you homestead a house and spend a lot of time and effort on fixing it, and when it's done me and some friends move in and use it as we see fit. You do the work, we get the benefit. Sure, you do too, but we get it for free.