Comments for The Thought Circle

Comment on The Mises Institute Misses The Mark by Nicholas Martin

Nicholas Martin — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 06:12:41 +0000

No, there is no reason that it is not well defined. A hedging transaction can be very well defined, even more so by the metrics being used in the equation by the drafter. It is just as tangible as the blueprint for your house, which actually creates its value (same with your car). So in essence what you are advocating is that your car manufacturer should recieve all the profit from the sale of your car, not the creators of the input as it is now. Because, as an Austrian you do not think IP exists. This system makes cronyism and concetntrations of wealth even worse, not better. Think of how many ideas, methods, patents go into making homes, cars, furniture. Each of those is owned by their creator (or has since its creation been sold to the manufacturer, but believe me, the creator cahsed out big time upon its sale). So, no it does not promote growth, it promotes concentration of wealth in large manufacturers selling end products.

Also, this idea totally destroys the incentive to create scalable value. Scalability allows more economic progfress, because scalable products and services are thosw which take a fixed amount of labor, but can be infinitely replicated. Because time is finite, if you can create property which can be replicated and continually be alienated for value, you can then free up time for other pursuits, likely creating more ideas that will allow for similar treatment. The ability to create such value is a positive thing, most laymen refer to this a value-added services (although they can alos be products).

Comment on The Mises Institute Misses The Mark by Sandra

Sandra — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 05:24:47 +0000

Nick, I don’t see how ownership of an idea can be well defined. We can well define physical property because it is an instance or a particular thing, but we cannot well define an idea, meathod or the like in a way that a claim can be levied. The IP system tries and squish an idea into a physical description that is regulated by corrupt government.

I also think that IP laws are just a way for cornyism to protect its own survival. Capitalism would be more productive if the best production of any good took the stage; consumers would benefit form this competition… So, if ideas were not protected competition would bloom and growth would ensew, right?

Comment on The Mises Institute Misses The Mark by Nicholas Martin

Nicholas Martin — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 20:15:12 +0000

What I mean as a necessity of capitalism, is that, ownership must exist in order to improve goods for resale, otherwise goods are merely being recycled with old ideas and old goods. Being able to own the idea of an improvement or method, drives the value which is added to an existing good. Even if you wanted to take the position that the same system could be governed by private contracts, you are still necessitating a court to interpret that contract for or against you. Then, once you recieve a judgment you need an authority which can extract said judgment from said defendant. At this point you would just be quarelling over whether the entity exacting the judgment is a branch of the government or a private enforcement company. But if your principle objection is based on the force and coercion involved, then the entity employing force and coercion should be irrelevant, no?

Comment on The Mises Institute Misses The Mark by Nicholas Martin

Nicholas Martin — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 20:05:45 +0000

Ownership creates a monopoly, so long as you can enforce that right in a court of law. I don’t see how IP is any different. The right to exclude others from createsa micro-level monopoly on its value, as it then becomes part of the selling price upon its alienation. So if it is OK for that role in common law to be granted to tangible property, why is that different regarding intangible property? Intangible property is capable of replicating that same value that is protected by common law, so why should it not be afforded this same protection? Monopolies are not bad at the micro level, they are necessisty of capitalism.

Comment on The Mises Institute Misses The Mark by Sandra

Sandra — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 06:20:03 +0000

John,
You, nor anyone else on this blog, seem to understand what the Austrians’ argument entails. The main point, which you missed is that IP is coercive and creates monopolies; basically, you are allowing a company to be a monopoly of an idea, system, meathod, or anything else that comes from a simple thought.

I don’t know why you, being a libertarian, would resist the Austrian philosophy in such a misguided manner.