Questions From the Mighty Samson
Samson Corwell sent me some good questions on an-cap legal theory but I am too busy to answer. He said I could post them here. Feel free to respond in the comments…
An important thing to keep in my mind that a society’s legal system is an altogether separate matter from its form of government (i.e., stratocracy, anocracy, diarchy, monarchy, etc.). Legal systems can differ from each other in different respects, so elements which you or I may see as fundamental to a system of law might be missing from others. common law, civil law, and sharia are the three dominant legal system of the world. Common law places gives a good deal of weight to precedential case law decided by judges. Civil law’s key feature is codification. Sharia is, as you already know, religious in nature and is a bit more extensive than the other two, dealing also with hygiene/purification, diet, economics, and dress code. I’ve noticed that “polycentric law” seems to be a libertarian neologism, but I think that there a more mainstream name for that. A nicely organized chart summarizing the basic differences between the three systems can be found here. The table includes a column on “socialist law”, but there is debate in the legal community as to whether this constitutes a different system.
There are two types of cases in common law: criminal and civil. The distinction between the two is not one of “public versus private”, but rather one of burden of proof and the absence of the right against self-incrimination in a civil suit (i.e., the defendant can be made to testify). Although common law systems place great importance on precedent, basic systems of torts are still outlined by codified law. It is in this way that the libertarian solution to pollution is confused in that torts are not grounded in property rights themselves. I’m not sure on this point, but I think another difference is that double jeopardy does not attach in civil suits. The first principle of law is due process, and there are two kinds in the United States: substantive due process (a favorite doctrine of mine) and procedural due process.
Property law is one of the “core” legal subjects, but it’s a thousand times more complex than libertarians seem to think. In fact, property rights aren’t as fundamental/atomistic as many libertarians make it out to be. Some of its intracies include liens, adverse possession, conquest, and easements. A crucial distinction is made between real property (immovable) and personal property (movable). The difference between a property right in a plot of land and a property right in chattel is the difference between a property right in a location and a property right in a physical object. Property law outlines/creates the legal aspects of property itself, not crimes that may or may not involve property. There is even “quasi-property”. This is why the libertarian understanding of property and the rights associated with it is hopelessly muddled. The majority of law (i.e., contracts, crimes, laws of war, etc.) is to be found in other subjects. Another important thing to note is that “property” is what an entity has in something; it is not the thing itself. So, one can have a property right—an exclusive right to use—in intangible things (there’s no inconsistency or contradiction or whatever). Debt is one of these things.
As I’ve said, property law is only one legal subject and is limited in scope. There are many others like aviation law, space law, product liability, drunk driving, wills, child custody, personality rights, laws of war, maritime law, trusts, bankruptcy, equity, cyberlaw, and commercial law. They are irreducible and have distinct characterstics. As society develops so too does the law. Contract law in many nations, for example, now recognizes cryptographic digital signatures as legally binding. In this case the law needed to adapt to the rise of public-key cryptography. The development of radio required legislation to handle the matter of bands, broadcasts, and frequency jamming, too.
I hope what I’m writing here will help you to understand the nature of law and its disciplines. It cannot be looked at as a matter of markets/economics.
…
Mr. Murphy, how would you suggest that contracts could replace trusts, probate, wills, joint-stocks, and standard sales? Similarly, why should people adopt a libertarian scheme in favor of how mineral rights, water rights, liens, and easements work now? For example, the law in my state says that a person’s property line by the ocean extends to the high tide mark.
…
Another question, this time regarding the use of the term “intervention”. Why should things like intellectual property, prohibitions on child labor, or limited liability be considered anymore “interventionist” than property law or contracts? Surely contracts are nothing particularly special or more fundamental than the other things. An IBM or a Microsoft is not a network of agreements, but an organization. A joint-stock is property (of a sort) despite its intangibility. How do you deal with a body like the Catholic Church? How can a libertarian who is latched onto the concept of scarcity simultaneously advocate property in the electromagnetic spectrum? How do you deal with domain names and ICANN and internet governance (yes, it exists)? Or birth certificates?
“As society develops so too does the law” seems to answer the “how” questions pretty succinctly, as society moves in a libertarian direction so too will the law(s).
Could Samson be more explicit about what a libertarian scheme is? As, to my understanding, many of the institutions he’s presented are fully (or partially) compatible with the various schemes laid out. (For example, “Mr Libertarian” Walter Block himself has defended easements)
(I’ll provide a more in-depth response when I have the time if no one else is willing.)
Nope. Libertarians stretch contracts far beyond their operating capacity. Marriage, for instance, is not a contract. You can’t “get the government out of it”.
There have never been marriages without the state/licensing?
You’re focusing too much on what we consider to be modern governments. Even before the rise of the features we associate with the Westphalian nation-state there was still government and there were still rules for marriage. In the Middle Ages, nobles and priests were the government. That they lacked the more mechanic nature of today’s legalistic systems doesn’t mean they didn’t rule. The people in that day wouldn’t have let, say, a man marry a man. These things don’t occur in vacuums.
One of the chief complaints of libertarians is the modern nation state that emerged from the Peace of Westphalia. If you accept that there are quite different, yet possible alternatives (even if you don’t think highly of them) then you seem to be going in the right direction here Samson.
I don’t think the difference is a significant matter. Government is government. Taxes are as old as ancient Egypt and history is litter with examples of despotism. There is nothing particularly new about today’s governments except for the tools they have at their disposal.
Then you’ve probably hit an impasse.
Funnily, speaking of modern nation-states and then saying “government is government” rings much like a libertarian speaking of marriage and saying “a contract is a contract” – where one place significance is anyone’s guess, I guess.
Marriage includes many elements that cannot be replicated through contracts such as hospital visitation rights, right to adopt step-children, inheritance, power of attorney, joint filing for bankruptcy, and right to make funeral arrangements for deceased spouse.
Samson, are you being completely serious here? Even currently, power of attorney can be signed over to a principal who isn’t your spouse.
Uh, yes, I am. None of those things are contractual. I’ve gotten this from lawyers and legal scholars.
Whether they are contractual within the marriage isn’t the point. He said they could be replicated by contract. That looks plausible to me. Why can’t they?
Child custody is determined by the welfare of the child, inheritance is unilateral and occurs after death, hospital visitation rights oblige hospitals, funeral arrangements can’t be arranged by contract cause the person is dead, etc.
How they are *currently done* isn’t in question.
Inheritance can be determined by a will. Hospital visitation rights can be determined by the hospital, etc…
Inheritance can be determined by a will.
It can be, but it sometimes isn’t. There are defaults and they exist for good reason. Also, wills aren’t contracts, so that’s another point for me.
Which is what shouldn’t happen. Hospitals are not simple enterprises. They are at the intersection of vital situations and the nature of their function imposes obligations on them like allowing parents to see their children.
In other words, for the hospital visitation rights all you’d be doing is sweeping the problem under the rug.
“It can be, but it sometimes isn’t. There are defaults and they exist for good reason.”
If it *can*, then you’ve ceded the entire argument so that’s what, all the points for me? Do you see why I’m doubting your seriousness here?
“Which is what shouldn’t happen.”
According to whom?
“Hospitals are not simple enterprises.They are at the intersection of vital situations and the nature of their function imposes obligations on them like allowing parents to see their children.”
Again, how hospitals currently run is completely irrelevant.
You also have to realize that the libertarian scheme could also allow for arrangements similar to covenant (no divorce) marriages, something not many people might be too happy about. Such arrangements would be opposed and sought to be made void.
Look, most everyone understands that there are default inheritances and that these defaults can be modified by wills. Recognizing this doesn’t cede any points to you because it’s not a system that needs changing.
I’m giving you examples of why contracts can’t handle it.
“You also have to realize that the libertarian scheme could also allow for arrangements similar to covenant (no divorce) marriages, something not many people might be too happy about. Such arrangements would be opposed and sought to be made void.”
I’d imagine that voiding covenant arrangements wouldn’t be unnecessary if not too many people were happy about them.
I’m having difficulty with processing the double/triple negative.
“Look, most everyone understands that there are default inheritances and that these defaults can be modified by wills. Recognizing this doesn’t cede any points to you because it’s not a system that needs changing.”
Haha. What is this point system based on exactly?
“I’m giving you examples of why contracts can’t handle it.”
Can, hospitals not set rules on who can visit their patients or not? (I don’t care what they should or shouldn’t do)
“I’m having difficulty with processing the double/triple negative.”
Good call. Simplified: If people don’t like covenant arrangements there’s no need for a law against them.
“In other words, for the hospital visitation rights all you’d be doing is sweeping the problem under the rug.”
No, we’d be sweeping the problem back in the hospital. It’s proper place. Call me a conservative, but I think there are problems without solutions. Might be best to keep them as close to their source as possible.
Overly simplistic. Ignores social pressure, cultural norms, abusive spouses, and, most of all, the inability of someone to walk away if they change their mind.
“Ignores social pressure, cultural norms, abusive spouses, and, most of all, the inability of someone to walk away if they change their mind.”
Why? Why couldn’t one walk away from a covenant like, say, a mortgage?
Covenant marriage = no unilateral divorce.
Are we actually talking about modern covenant marriages and not libertarian restrictive covenants?
Sticking with this diversion though, it’s still fundamentally the same.
One can still exit the agreement, mortgage or marriage, and there are consequences. You may never be able to have another mortgage, same for marriage.
To translate this to the libertarian future: it’d be a breach of contract.
The point is that there shouldn’t be consequences.
Just like states shouldn’t be able to abridge fundamental rights (i.e., foot voting) or criminals shouldn’t suffer cruel and unusual punishment.
Strangely enough, the enforcement of racial covenants is unconstitutional.
“The point is that there shouldn’t be consequences.”
Shouldn’t!? Who cares?
“Strangely enough, the enforcement of racial covenants is unconstitutional.”
And?
Define contract. That might help advance the debate.
Written, spoken, or implied agreements to exchange promises or performance.
Seems sufficient.
Implied will haunt you. No Mulligans though.
Implied isn’t even really necessary for all libertarians, but many libertarians theorists do argue for a cultural default rule(s), so I’m trying to maintain a big tent here.
I forgot to add, that isn’t right according to common law as there has to be a ‘consideration’ exchanged in many jurisdictions. Not that that matters to your point.
I don’t see how homesteading and a rule prohibiting the initiation of force otherwise change those concepts of law which can be and will be adopted voluntarily.
And, even if people did not voluntarily accept them, the only way they could ACT on that disagreement would be by themselves initiating force against other people’s persons and property. The people who disagree are therefore not a concern in the sense of listening and patiently hearing their side of the story: They would be violent thugs who peaceful people have a right to tdeal with them with (defensive) force, for the thugs have already decided that peaceful debate and cooperation with others is not their concern.
you are not capable of rational thought because you think only in terms of slogans.
And you add so much clarity and knowledge to these discussions.
Rational thought does not mean advocating for violence against peaceful homesteaders and free traders.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Wow, where to even start. “Legal systems” are simply networks of arguments that enough people have found convincing that they become convention. Might-makes-right is also a “legal system” in this sense, it’s simply one that few people accept since the super mighty are relatively few in number. What causes a network of arguments to be convincing to a large enough group of people tends to be based on a bedrock of either naturalist deontology, utilitarianism or revelation.
One can find libertarians that base their arguments in any of these three buckets, or even combinations of them. Accordingly, Samson has no univocal opposition against which to rail. The theme that unites libertarians is that they tend to believe all current systems have rationally unjustifiable deviations from the bedrock principles they claim to gain authority from.
I’ll stick to what I know best:
“The development of radio required legislation to handle the matter of bands, broadcasts, and frequency jamming, too.”
“How can a libertarian who is latched onto the concept of scarcity simultaneously advocate property in the electromagnetic spectrum?”
Mr. Corwell,
From your question quoted above, I infer that you understand electromagnetic spectrum to be non-scarce. Yet from your previous statement (also quoted above), you show understanding that there can arise conflicts in the command of spectrum, which is a pretty good definition of scarcity.
You state that radio technology “required legislation” to arbitrate those conflicts. Yet it is an accident of history that governments decided to treat spectrum as a commons rather than private property.
Electromagnetic spectrum is not esoteric or intangible. It is a physical phenomenon that is defined by the dimensions of time, space, and – unlike land – frequency. Just as a person occupies space and time, an electromagnetic signal occupies space, time, and frequency. Rather than taking a bureaucratic, top-down approach to heading off conflicts in the domain of spectrum, governments could have treated it much like real property all along, by allowing transmitters to homestead frequency, space, and time.
Much has been written about this, so I won’t rehash the arguments. But personally, I have a good example of non-legislative governance of spectrum use: Shortwave broadcasters that cross entire continents. These broadcasters (my father used to work for one) gather twice a year to coordinate – voluntarily – their claims to frequencies over certain areas at certain times. Sometimes malicious actors do intentionally interfere (such as China or North Korea attempting to jam religious or Western broadcasts), but the nature of radio makes it easy for the transmitting and receiving parties to change frequencies, and costly for jammers to cover very much of the band.
My point is, even in the case of absolutely no formal rules backed by threat of force, technology arises to overcome the challenges. Indeed, technology is far apace of the legislation that attempts to “manage” spectrum. Governments also tend to make spectrum more scarce than it would naturally be, by fining anyone who attempts to use spectrum government has earmarked for its own use or politically powerful interests (such as television broadcasters), even if that spectrum is completely abandoned.
There is no inherent connection between scarcity and conflict. Conflicts arise over religions, best sports teams, who gets to keep the children in a divorce, and between ideological enemies.
No, I was saying that laws change with changes in society, i.e., abolitionism gained traction and slavery was eliminated, discrimination became such a problem that the Civil Rights Act was passed, laws against hacking became commonplace with the rise of the Internet, etc.
A few things:
1. This is far from obvious.
2. Different mediums have different characteristics and should therefore be treated differently.
3. Are you aware of movements like open spectrum that seek to have certain bands kept open?
Be careful to avoid reification here. The “spectrum” is more like a number line. It is indeed intangible. Two electromagnetic waves can occupy the same space at the same time.
I don’t think your distinction between “top-down” and “bottom-up” makes much sense in this context. Property still assumes a legal framework and disputes still make for docket bloat.
I can’t even begin to imagine how homesteading, an already cranky and arcane rule, would apply to the spectrum.
Sounds like tacit governance to me. And this pacifism would only last for as long as no one has a problem.
Is this an important difference? Because compulsion will be necessary for putting ends to fights that don’t resolve themselves peacefully.
How is government “managing” the spectrum? Does property law “manage” property?
The political influence that broadcasting companies have is a genuine issue. One example is in the net neutrality debate. But there is nothing wrong with current band allocations. What they have legitimately belongs to them, so there is no issue here.
What you may see as “abandoned”, others may not. Some bands are reserved for good reason, like the ones the military uses for defense operations. Only the military is allowed to use them because it can disrupt their work.
It’s good that Mr Corwell is asking these questions. It’s not very good to be starting with statements like “hopelessly muddled” or “I am helping you to understand what law is”. Most of these questions can quite satisfactorily be answered (and objections refuted) in Libertarian Law 101. It is a bit cocky for someone who quite obviously doesn’t know much about libertarian law. First advise: go to the number one source of Austrian-libertarian perspective on law and justice: Stephan Kinsella. He has all his media and books online for free.
I will not answer every single detail objection but rather will concentrate on the core.
Law is a set of rules that seek justice be done on every man. Justice means “to give everyone his due”. Legal problems only arise if there is a conflict. A conflict can only arise over scarce goods (by definition – scarce means there can be a conflict over it. Hence electromagnetic spectrum is scarce). If no conflict was possible, we would need no law, all action would be just. Rape or murder would not exist because it wouldn’t be possible that two people had a different idea about what to do with one body. Unfortunately we don’t live in such a world, hence the need for law.
Civilized people who don’t believe in illegitimate violence want to agree on universal rules that would, if followed, eliminate conflict. So they need to assign property rights in every scarce thing. In the case of human bodies it is the person occupying the body. In the case of things outside a body it is the homesteading rule (who comes first is the owner. If it wasn’t the first, it couldn’t be even the second, or the third, or anyone).
“Intelectual property” (copyrights, patents, trade marks, trade secrets, reputation rights etc) gives rise to no conflict. Two people can exercise full control of the same idea. Me acting on an idea dilutes in no way the ability of anyone else to act on it in the same way. Hence no need to have laws against it.
Everything else is just elaboration on these principles, it logically follows.
In Mr Corwell’s post there are some confusions: debt is certainly NOT an intangible thing. A debt is the result of a contract where one person exchanges property titles to a tangible, scarce thing TODAY in exchange for a tangible, scarce thing TOMORROW. A receivable is a title to a scarce, tangible thing (money), not an intangible one.
There is no substantive difference between land and chattel. Yeah, one is immovable and one is movable but that is not important. Both are SCARCE which is what drives everything.
IBM may be an organization but it can easily also be a network od contracts (for which “organization” or “firm” is just a synonym, a shorter and hence more useful term) which exchange property titles of shareholders, employees, customers, etc in a defined way. It is not relevant what it is today – today’s state of law is what we are examining here so that cannot serve as an argument.
Kinsella was a good suggestion but there might be an impasse between him and Samson. As, just like you mentioned, I’ve heard him say explicitly that a firm is nothing more than a “network of contracts”.
I have very good reasons for phrasing it like that.
I’m familiar with these arguments, especially the ones you’re using here.
He’s really not that great.
This is tautalogous since legal problems are conflicts and adds nothing to the discussion.
Absurd. That is certainly false. Justice has no special connection to conflict resolution. What conflict was God trying to resolve when he handed the Ten Commandments down to Moses? Bob, can I get you to weigh in on this one for me?
This genuinely seems nonsensical to me.
This is nonsense. There is no connection between property, scarcity, and conflict. Peace can occur without property rights and you can have property rights without peace. “Property” comes from “proper to” and signifies that which one legally has “exclusive moral jurisdiction” over (Ghs’ words). You’re muddling a moral/legal concept up with an economic one. Prescriptive versus descriptive. Don’t make that mistake because it’s a big one.
Like hell they don’t. Go to the RIAA and tell them you think IP is evil. They’ll freak out. Property rights have nothing to do with resolving conflict and this ignores other arguments made for these things.
Um, yes, it certainly is!
No, not always. Standard sales (i.e., buying a soda from a store) don’t involve contracts. Debt can also result from child support, alimony, and court damages.
This is word play. This is not how debt works.
Scarcity doesn’t do what you claim it does and my distinction between land and chattel was for a different purpose.
I am not convinced you are interested in a serious discussion.
You say “I understand libertarian law” (while asking Dr Murphy a whole bunch of quite elementary questions about it). You claim that justice has no connection to conflict resolution and the argument is supposedly that God handed out something (well, I am an atheist but even if I wasn’t, this is just arguing from authority. A pretty good one admittedly, if you believe in God, but still).
Yes, there is connection between property, conflict and scarcity, I explained what it is. Something is scarce if a conflict can arise over it, if it is impossible that two people can use it at the same time. (It’s just a definition but highly useful because conflict is what we want to avoid). Property rights then assign the one person who has the right to use the scarce thing. All legal systems assign property rights – the libertarian system is unique in that it avoids conflict. It is the only system where the first owner is the right owner. The first comer cannot conflict with anybody because there is not anybody else – he was the first. All other legal systems assign property rights to some second comers in some cases – which gives rise to a conflict with the first comer. If you want to avoid that, libertarian law is your law. If you enjoy to fight, well, good luck. But you will not be able to justify it, you just have to pray that you have stronger muscles.
The RIAA may freak out but that does not mean there is a conflict over an IDEA. That just cannot be done. What there really is a conflict over is my MONEY which they claim they own if I listen to a Madonna song or something like that. Besides, “real” property never expires, patents expire after 17 years or so, that should stop you to think about it.
Standard sales do involve contracts, a contract does not have to have a form of a signed piece of paper. Yes, debts can also be the result of action other than contracting, such as damages, but either way it is not intangible. If you have a debt, you owe something – this something is always tangible.
This probably relies on some rather dubious assumptions as to what constitutes use. Two people can use the same computer at the same time. Two people can also use the same phone at the same time.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Tricky devil. Thought you could sneak one by me, eh? Libertarianism doesn’t award property to the first comer. It awards it to the homesteader. You’re using “first comer” as a synonym for “homesteader”. And “homesteading” hardly even refers to a clear principle because it’s a label used to describe all sorts of disparate actions.
Absurd on it’s face. Plenty of people disagree with it, so trying to implement it would generate conflict. It’s funny though. Plato argued against private property on the grounds that the disparities it can allow for can generate social instability. And I think his argument makes much more sense despite disagreeing with his conclusion.
It’s a counter-example that falsifies your claim and I said justice has no intrinsic connection to justice. Read.
Yes it does!! This is so freaking Orwellian. War is peace in your mind.
And what people are fighting over with EM rights is the transmitters, if we use this line of thought. Physical/economic reductionism is crap.
Trademarks don’t expire either. Checkmate.
No they do not.
Word games again. You’re just saying “it’s this, not that” when “that” is part of a larger concept.
Two people can use the same computer at the same time.
Yes, but each one can only use part of the processing power and part of the memory.
Two people can eat of the same cake, but they can’t both eat the whole cake.
Exactly. I guess he would have to argue that there can never be any conflict because there is just one good: the planet Earth. And we can all use it!
Just to note, I regard these scarcity arguments as word play, so this isn’t really a counter-point.
Libertarianism doesn’t award property to the first comer. It awards it to the homesteader.
Which is the first person to put it to use. Which is what is meant with the first comer.
Well, I don’t know about much of this except that it is basic common law that sales are a form of implied contract. By picking up a notebook at a stationary store, I am agreeing to an offer to buy it at a certain price. If I walk out without paying, I’m in breach. I’ve done quite a few other things wrong too (conversion, shoplifting) but I’m also in breach. Now I’m not sure if this principle helps either side in the debate because in all honesty I’m not sure what’s being debated exactly.
Uh, no. That’s simply shoplifting.
I’m not sure you’re understanding me. Several kinds of claims can arise from walking out. A tort claim – conversion; a criminal claim brought by the state – shoplifting – and a contract claim. The theory is implied contract. For example, if I go into a barber shop and get a haircut, there’s an implied contract that I will pay for it. If I walk out without paying, that’s a breach of the implied contract. It’s probably also a misdemeanor in most states. One act can give rise to several legal theories.
How do you do the quoting thing? That’s neat.
No, two people cannot use the same thing, or control it. How do you make two phone calls to two different people from my phone, especially when I am in London and you in the US? This is a bizarre statement.
Yes, first comer is synonymous with homesteader. The principle is clear – he who sets borders around something unowned claims it for himself. The practical way to set the borders depends on custom and of course there can be confusion in certain cases, but that’s how the world is and it is not unique to libertarian law. However, in 99% it is clear, even kids know what’s theirs, even dogs do. What is unique about libertarian law is that once it’s established who owns it, it stays his.
Besides, if this was a valid argument against homesteading, it would be also against first comers, so hard to see how i can be sneaky.
A thief may also disagree with me locking my house, so what? Tough noogies. Of course there will always be people trying to claim what is not theirs. They are criminals. The idea is that for THOSE who WISH to avoid conflict, these are the only general, not arbitrary, rational rules of assigning property titles.
Again, RIAA are NOT fighting me to listen to the same Madonna song. They are after my MONEY. Or my body. Always a scarce good. They can listen to Madonna all they want, me listening to her too doesn’t prevent them.
How could I steal something when RIAA did not lose anything? What is it that was stolen?
No, transmitters is a bad analogy. Again, ideas can be used by anybody, radio frequency cannot.
It’s not a checkmate if you take a pawn. You would make a point if ALL IP was forever. I make a point if AT LEAST one is not. Because all property should be forever, no exceptions, ever.
By contract I mean a transfer of a property title from one owner to another. Maybe not your kind of definition but that’s just symantics.
Either way you still have failed to demonstrate the relevance of scarcity. You continue to mix up economic concepts with legal concepts and fail to understand that “property” simply signifies exclusive use.
Glad you agree tax evaders are criminals.
Now you’re making even less sense. How about this: if YOU wish to avoid conflict with non-libertarian, don’t push your favored scheme. You’d be the one creating the conflict.
More word play. They are fighting against you listening to Madonna. Period. This line of argumentation is just terrible.
Irrelevant.
What the hell are you talking about? Of course more than one person can broadcast on the same frequency. It’ll cause interference, but it’s not physically impossible.
Look, you cannot handle my arguments and your response is just “irrelevant” or “word play”.
If this is your idea of an honest rational debate, it’s just a waste of my time and let me discontinue, You have an agenda that I don’t care for, you’re not looking to find the truth and I don’t want to be part of that.
All the best.
Because multitudes can act.
I think it is quite clear now you are not interested in a rational, honest debate. You have your agenda, in my opinion you are not trying to find the truth, you are not making many arguments, you are not answering my objections, you are not getting my points (especially on RIAA) instead you are calling what I think are valid arguments “irrelevant” or “word play” (whatever that means) or make bizarre, incomprehensible statements (e.g. “multitudes can act”, how the heck this is going to allow you to use my phone is beyond me), this is just a waste of my time. So if you allow me, I will discontinue.
All the best.
RIAA is trying to control the right to listen to the song. They are claiming a property right in the sounds. This even seems like a good example of a first use based right since Madonna and the record company produced the sounds. They have agreed to split the money they can get from selling the right to listen.
I support privacy rights. I don’t think you should be able to take a picture of someone in certain circumstances without their consent or release it without their consent. Scarcity has no relevance to this. No property rights are assumed. You are quite simply wrong on all counts.
Privacy is the scarcity of secrets.
A secret is something known privately but not known to the general public… once others know it the secret is gone.
Not really.
As if that changes anything! Never heard of court orders?
Libertarianism doesn’t award property to the first comer. It awards it to the homesteader.
Which is the first person to put it to use. Which is what is meant with the first comer.
Okay, people, let’s review the history behind the word “property”. Contra these quirky economistic arguments about “scarce resources”, the concept of “property” is much richer. I’m let Jame Madison do the talking (link):
It’s a shame, really, that this kind of sophistication is so hard to find nowadays.
That’s not word play?!
Touché. I suppose I just wanted to show some of the word’s historical meaning. You have to understand how the usage differed back then. Instead of saying “X is my property”, they would say “I have property in X”. So, as far as I can tell, when John Locke said every man has a property in his person, he didn’t mean that one’s body was a piece of property. What he was saying was more like each person is self-sovereign. This is a fair bit different than Rothbard’s cruder, more reductionist use of the word. If you don’t believe me, just look at how William Lloyd Garrison, Thomas Jefferson, or other people from that time.
In other words, by this usage it is perfectly coherent to speak of, say, a “property in one’s works” or a “property in one’s likeness”.
I’m going to declare that to be just another point for Rothbard and modernity. This is, of course, a matter of personal taste, but I’m a big fan of the eliminating flowery language and breaking things down to their crude foundation. On this front libertarians are very refreshing, second only to egoists. (Minus the one Hegelian exception, obviously)