Intellectual Property

[Syock]

Your response is true from a minarchist or statist position in which there is a gov. to enforce these limitations.  

Where I come from (philosophically) the limitation on how I use my property is predicated that I don’t violate your property.  

If I drive my car into your front room, then there is a problem.  Otherwise, I can drive my car as I please…

So you think there would be no enforcement of anything in anarchism?  That really is the 'anarchy = chaos' that no one wants.  Not everyone would agree with your philosophical view, without enforcement you really can get away with murder.

A contract violation is a contract violation.  Property is property, intellectual or otherwise.  Your view on things would see it that I could skip out on gambling debts, as it isn't someone else's property.  If your driving on a private road, you abide to the contract of driving on that road to follow whatever rules they come up with.  If you violate that contract, you are in contract violation, property violation.  You can't just drive as you please.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Look, a person can sell anything he wants anyway he wants but in an anarcho-libertarian sense, you have no way of enforcing these preconditions.

As far as the trees example, sure, I could agree to the precondition but my kids or grand kids who inherit the property may not.  Even if I violate the condition…what is anyone going to do about it?  In an anarcho sense…nothing. 

(If I feel that strongly about these trees, then I’m sure as hell not going to sell my land to anyone.)

It’s only in a society that has a government that these ridiculous types of contracts and agreements are enforceable and thus exist.

So you think market anarchism means no contract law? I strongly disagree.

[Dagnytg]

Your response is true from a minarchist or statist position in which there is a gov. to enforce these limitations.  

Where I come from (philosophically) the limitation on how I use my property is predicated that I don’t violate your property.  

If I drive my car into your front room, then there is a problem.  Otherwise, I can drive my car as I please…

So you think there would be no enforcement of anything in anarchism?  That really is the 'anarchy = chaos' that no one wants.  Not everyone would agree with your philosophical view, without enforcement you really can get away with murder.

A contract violation is a contract violation.  Property is property, intellectual or otherwise.  Your view on things would see it that I could skip out on gambling debts, as it isn't someone else's property.  If your driving on a private road, you abide to the contract of driving on that road to follow whatever rules they come up with.  If you violate that contract, you are in contract violation, property violation.  You can't just drive as you please.

The problem with your statement is the use of the word “enforcement”.  It’s strange to hear a libertarian use such a word. (You’re not alone though…)

The reason this word looks so out of place is that we are not about enforcement. Enforcement demands aggression.  As libertarians, we are all about non-aggression.  It’s part of the ethical foundation from which we derive our vision of freedom. 

There are many utilitarian reasons why intellectual property is not property but the most compelling reason to me - in order to have such property, we have to violate our ethics to uphold it. 

If I have to use aggression to enforce my property rights, then I don’t have property in the libertarian sense, I have government.  In the true sense of the word property, I have only to protect it. 

[Syock]

The problem with your statement is the use of the word “enforcement”.  It’s strange to hear a libertarian use such a word. (You’re not alone though…)

The reason this word looks so out of place is that we are not about enforcement. Enforcement demands aggression.  As libertarians, we are all about non-aggression.  It’s part of the ethical foundation from which we derive our vision of freedom.  

You speak to me as if I am new to libertarianism or ancap.

Enforcement does not demand initial use of force, just retaliatory force.  If you want complete non-force your looking for pacifism.  Libertarians and ancaps tend not to be pacifists.  They are not all about complete non-force, merely the non-initiation of force.  Retaliatory force is all well and good.  

There are many utilitarian reasons why intellectual property is not property but the most compelling reason to me - in order to have such property, we have to violate our ethics to uphold it.  

If I have to use aggression to enforce my property rights, then I don’t have property in the libertarian sense, I have government.  In the true sense of the word property, I have only to protect it.  

A contract is a form of protection.  There is no violation of ethics to uphold it.  You seem to not see that 'to protect it' you must use force.  Not initial aggression, but force none the less.  There is also a contract that allowed you to get your property, and implied contracts with anyone that enters your property.  That is where protecting it comes in.  

Contracts do not have to take the form of a long legal form with people signing it.  In fact they rarely do.

[Dagnytg]

So you think market anarchism means no contract law? I strongly disagree.

I believe in contracts, but individuals will only engage in contracts with people they can trust. In other words, in an anarcho-libertarian world, a person's reputation and his word will have great value. This is because there will not be a government or a convoluted legal system to enforce arcane contracts.

In today's world, lawyers, with the idea of protecting one’s interests (i.e. mistrust), write contracts. The concept has become retaliatory.

In an anarcho-libertarian world, contracts will be about mutual agreement and understanding. They will be about relationship. This is reinforced by the fact parties engaged in these contracts have a reputation to uphold. Not wanting to destroy one's reputation as an honest businessman or woman will carry the day. If there are disagreements, these will be ironed out privately or through arbitration. Again, people will be more concerned with their business reputation and thus, the business relationship.

Today, we live in a world of mistrust and therefore, retaliation (see syock).  It is a perverse outcome of an overly regulated and legalistic structure created by government. That is not the true nature of contract.  The true nature of contract is about relationship, agreement, and understanding.

To answer your question...I do not believe there will be much need for contract law because people will embrace negotiation over retaliation and relationship over mistrust.

[Syock]

I see no reason to believe all people will suddenly have good intentions.  The true nature of a contract is simply what is in the contract.  It is not inherently good or bad or trusting or mistrusting. 

[JustSayNoToStatism]

So you think market anarchism means no contract law? I strongly disagree.

I believe in contracts, but individuals will only engage in contracts with people they can trust. In other words, in an anarcho-libertarian world, a person's reputation and his word will have great value. This is because there will not be a government or a convoluted legal system to enforce arcane contracts.

In today's world, lawyers, with the idea of protecting one’s interests (i.e. mistrust), write contracts. The concept has become retaliatory.

In an anarcho-libertarian world, contracts will be about mutual agreement and understanding. They will be about relationship. This is reinforced by the fact parties engaged in these contracts have a reputation to uphold. Not wanting to destroy one's reputation as an honest businessman or woman will carry the day. If there are disagreements, these will be ironed out privately or through arbitration. Again, people will be more concerned with their business reputation and thus, the business relationship.

Today, we live in a world of mistrust and therefore, retaliation (see syock).  It is a perverse outcome of an overly regulated and legalistic structure created by government. That is not the true nature of contract.  The true nature of contract is about relationship, agreement, and understanding.

To answer your question...I do not believe there will be much need for contract law because people will embrace negotiation over retaliation and relationship over mistrust.

I don't buy this. You made a few good points, but overall, I think you missed.

People can go into a contract with the friendliest and best intentions, but bad things can still happen.

Of course contracts are defensive. That isn't going to change in ancap. Just because people will settle privately doesn't mean that the contract serves any less of a purpose. Agreements, contracts, tomato, tomoto.
Specifying the rules for settlement in the event of a dispute is a CRITICAL part of doing business, especially in the ancap I envision.

[Dagnytg]

So you think market anarchism means no contract law? I strongly disagree.

I believe in contracts, but individuals will only engage in contracts with people they can trust.
To answer your question...I do not believe there will be much need for contract law because people will embrace negotiation over retaliation and relationship over mistrust.

I don't buy this. You made a few good points, but overall, I think you missed.

I’m not sure where I missed.  In fact, I think I covered it all.  Your post is an affirmation of what I said. I think you do buy into it.

People can go into a contract with the friendliest and best intentions, but bad things can still happen.

True…but that doesn’t imply they sue each other, which is retaliatory. 

Because there won’t be enforcement mechanisms to collect, individuals will be forced to do business with people they can trust.  That trust is going to come from reputation and reputation is something that has to be earned and built overtime. In turn, it can be ruined very quickly.  Thus, there is a built-in incentive to behave ethically and make things work.

Of course contracts are defensive. That isn't going to change in ancap. Just because people will settle privately doesn't mean that the contract serves any less of a purpose.

I didn’t say contracts didn’t serve a purpose.  I clearly said they serve the purpose of creating trust and preserving relationships with the guiding force being reputation.

Agreements, contracts, tomato, tomoto.

I think you believe I am arguing semantics but I’m not. I am only defining what a contract would be in an anarcho-libertarian world (and should be in absolute terms).

Specifying the rules for settlement in the event of a dispute is a CRITICAL part of doing business, especially in the ancap I envision.

The critical part of doing business is making sure things work to the benefit of both parties. It won’t require retaliation or coercion (remember there won’t be incentives to pursue that line of action).  Furthermore, it doesn’t require much law. 

Syock...my reply to you is forthcoming...

[Syock]

There is no reason to expect different behavior from people and companies in a different form of society.  Nothing you have said is any different now than it would be then.  Companies sue each other all the time.  That isn't going to stop.  A contract doesn't create trust, it creates guidelines for each party to follow.  Sometimes people and companies will break a contract if they believe it is in their best interest.  I've had it happen to me.  There is great incentive to retaliate at times.  For me the retaliation was to keep food on the table for my then 30 employees that just lost three years of work in a day.  It was settled out of court, what you would call negotiation, but it is still the same thing with a different name.  

We're just talking in circles at this point.  I see no reason to continue. 

[Dagnytg]

You speak to me as if I am new to libertarianism or ancap.

Enforcement does not demand initial use of force, just retaliatory force.  If you want complete non-force your looking for pacifism.  Libertarians and ancaps tend not to be pacifists.  They are not all about complete non-force, merely the non-initiation of force.  Retaliatory force is all well and good.  

I was kind of hoping you were new to libertarianism because I can cut you some slack on the word enforcement but there is no way I can forgive your use of the word retaliatory. More specifically – “Retaliatory force is all well and good.”

Retaliation is a form of aggression and there is nothing good about it. I don’t know if you looked it up, but it's associated with vengeance and getting even. 

I’m not sure if you are making a semantic mistake (using the wrong word to describe something else) but regardless, what you’re describing is neither libertarian nor anarchist.  Unless, of course, your describing the anarchy = chaos that you were accusing me of in reply #30.  A society of retaliation would surely become that.

I don't know of any anarcho-libertarians that use the word retaliatory or its derivatives. I'm sorry. I have written with some of the best of them. I have read some of the best of them and I never once saw that word used in conjunction with libertarianism.

I'm not sure if you're confusing anarcho-libertarianism with minarchism, objectivism, or statism. Either way, you need to take some time for contemplation and introspection. Perhaps a review of our ethical foundation would be beneficial. (I suggest Ayn Rand.)

Sometimes people and companies will break a contract if they believe it is in their best interest. I've had it happen to me.  There is great incentive to retaliate at times.  For me the retaliation was to keep food on the table for my then 30 employees that just lost three years of work in a day.  It was settled out of court, what you would call negotiation, but it is still the same thing with a different name.

I see, based on this comment, there is a psychological reason for your use of the word retaliation. You feel victimized by the experience. Perhaps, you have created a worldview from it. Like a woman who deems all men untrustworthy based on a bad experience.

I’m sorry you have had this experience but it is no excuse.  As libertarians, we are required to elevate ourselves above the emotional and embrace the objective.  We are required to embrace our ethical tradition. Last, but not least, we are endowed with the belief that people are inherently good. Failure on any of these fronts makes us nothing more than statists or worse…

Syock, I wish you the best of luck on your intellectual journey.

Note:
How you’re able to believe that negotiation is just a different name for retaliation is beyond me. In retrospect, I really think the problem here is poor word choice. I believe that’s all it is… at least I hope so. 

[Syock]

Do you consider self defense to be force?  It is not initial use of force.  It is optional to use it.  It is retaliatory.  It is force met with force.

To defend your property, be it land, or a contract, requires a use of force.  Your not starting the use of force in either case, as the person who violated your land or contract did that.   You have the choice of what to do from there.  If you even merely tell the intruder to leave, your using force in return to theirs.  You could choose not to use force, and allow them to do whatever they want.  That is non-force.  That is pacifism.  

I am amazed you never heard anyone use that term before.  I am not the first to use it.  I believe you are attributing more to it than it is.  Since you won't 'forgive' me for using a term as it is defined, then I won't forgive you for talking down to me.

I'm out of this thread.  

[derick]

To defend your property, be it land, or a contract, requires a use of force. 

This is not necessarily true. Rothbard wrote about merchants in medieval England that operated on an entire structure of merchant law. The merchants courts were purely voluntary arbitrators, and the decisions were not leagally binding. This was a successful system because they relied solely on ostracism and boycott by the other merchants in the area. There was no "force" involved, if a merchant ignored a decision or refused to submit to arbitration, other merchants would publish this fact and refuse to deal with such merchants.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Example of needing to use force to enforce a contract (ie, defending property): evicting someone who stops paying their mortgage. You can't "ostracize" them out of that one. Paying off that home would have taken 15-30 years. Most people would find it worthwhile to kill your credit score for a free house. So what if they can't use credit cards in the future...That's not much of a deterrence.

[derick]

Example of needing to use force to enforce a contract (ie, defending property): evicting someone who stops paying their mortgage. You can't "ostracize" them out of that one. Paying off that home would have taken 15-30 years. Most people would find it worthwhile to kill your credit score for a free house. So what if they can't use credit cards in the future...That's not much of a deterrence.

I happen to believe you could ostracize them out of that one. If you are the owner of that mortgage, you could publish the situation and the other "merchants" that the morgagee depends on could punish them in many different ways, without the use of force. The mortgagee could resume payment or they may have to move to another area, either way you would get what you want. Is that a perfect situation? I would say no, because no system is perfect. 

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Example of needing to use force to enforce a contract (ie, defending property): evicting someone who stops paying their mortgage. You can't "ostracize" them out of that one. Paying off that home would have taken 15-30 years. Most people would find it worthwhile to kill your credit score for a free house. So what if they can't use credit cards in the future...That's not much of a deterrence.

I happen to believe you could ostracize them out of that one. If you are the owner of that mortgage, you could publish the situation and the other "merchants" that the morgagee depends on could punish them in many different ways, without the use of force. The mortgagee could resume payment or they may have to move to another area, either way you would get what you want. Is that a perfect situation? I would say no, because no system is perfect. 

Maybe. Even so, if someone steals something worth $100K+, I don't have any sympathy for them.