Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (56.8MB)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 437.
My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property with Stephan Kinsella. We focused here mostly on property rights and other precursor concepts. We plan to have a followup discussion to get into the nitty gritty of the application of these more basic concepts and principles to the topic of IP. (Spotify)
Shownotes:
In this episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz engages in a thought-provoking discussion and debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian writer and patent attorney, on the moral status of intellectual property. The complexity of the issue sparks a deep dive into the ethical and legal dimensions of IP rights, leading to a conversation so rich that it had to be continued in a future episode.
Kinsella, known for his critical views on intellectual property, challenges conventional notions, while Michael offers his own perspective. This episode promises to be a captivating exploration of one of the most debated topics in the intersection of law, philosophy, and economics. Tune in for a rigorous and intellectually stimulating debate that leaves no stone unturned.
Grok shownotes: In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (KOL438), recorded on October 23, 2023, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella engages in a rigorous debate with Objectivist Michael Liebowitz, hosted by Michael Malice on The Rational Egoist, focusing on the legitimacy of intellectual property (IP), particularly patents and copyrights (0:00:00-10:00). Kinsella argues that IP violates property rights by granting state-enforced monopolies over non-scarce ideas, emphasizing that property rights apply only to scarce, rivalrous resources, and critiques IP’s economic harms like litigation costs and innovation barriers, explicitly addressing the concept of rights as man-made constructs rather than entities that “exist” or can be “discovered” (10:01-40:00). Liebowitz, defending IP, contends that it protects creators’ moral and economic interests, arguing that intellectual creations justify ownership akin to physical property, and challenges Kinsella’s dismissal of IP’s incentives (40:01-1:10:00).
Transcript and Detailed Grok shownotes below:
DETAILED GROK SHOWNOTES:
-
0:00:00-7:00 (Introduction and Opening Statements, ~7 minutes)
Description: Host Michael Malice introduces the debate, framing it as a clash between Kinsella’s libertarianism and Liebowitz’s Objectivism on IP, noting the topic’s complexity (0:00:00-0:02:00). Kinsella opens, arguing that IP, particularly patents and copyrights, violates property rights by creating state-enforced monopolies over non-scarce ideas, grounded in Austrian economics’ focus on scarce, rivalrous resources, and briefly mentions that rights are normative concepts, not entities that “exist” to be “discovered” (0:02:01-0:04:30). Liebowitz begins, defending IP as a moral and economic necessity, arguing that intellectual creations, like novels or inventions, justify ownership akin to physical property, aligning with Ayn Rand’s philosophy (0:04:31-0:07:00). The tone is civil, setting up a philosophical divide. Key Themes:-
Introduction of debate topic and participants (0:00:00-0:02:00).
-
Kinsella’s anti-IP stance, emphasizing non-scarcity and rights as normative (0:02:01-0:04:30).
-
Liebowitz’s Objectivist defense of IP as a creator’s right (0:04:31-0:07:00).
Summary: Kinsella opens with a libertarian critique of IP, noting rights are not “discovered” entities, while Liebowitz defends IP as a moral extension of property rights, establishing the debate’s core conflict.
-
-
7:01-22:00 (IP and Property Rights: Philosophical Foundations, ~15 minutes)
Description: Kinsella elaborates that IP restricts the use of non-scarce ideas, violating property rights over tangible resources, and explicitly states that rights do not “exist” as objective entities but are man-made normative concepts to resolve conflicts over scarce resources (7:01-12:00). Liebowitz counters that IP protects the creator’s moral right to their intellectual effort, arguing that creations like a novel embody labor and value, justifying ownership, and accuses Kinsella of undermining creators’ incentives (12:01-17:00). Kinsella responds that IP creates artificial scarcity, contradicting the non-aggression principle (NAP), and reiterates that rights are constructed, not “discovered,” challenging Liebowitz’s assumption that creation inherently grants property rights (17:01-22:00). The exchange is rigorous, with philosophical differences clear. Key Themes:-
Kinsella’s argument that IP violates property rights and rights are normative constructs (7:01-12:00).
-
Liebowitz’s defense of IP as a moral right tied to creation (12:01-17:00).
-
Kinsella’s critique of artificial scarcity and rights as non-discoverable (17:01-22:00).
Summary: Kinsella argues IP’s illegitimacy, emphasizing that rights are man-made, not discovered, while Liebowitz defends IP as a moral necessity, highlighting a libertarian-Objectivist philosophical divide.
-
-
22:01-37:00 (Economic Impacts of IP: Innovation and Costs, ~15 minutes)
Description: Kinsella critiques IP’s economic harms, citing studies (e.g., Boldrin and Levine, 2013) showing no clear innovation benefits and billions in litigation costs, arguing that IP stifles competition and innovation, particularly in tech (22:01-27:00). Liebowitz counters that IP is essential for industries like publishing and software, preventing free-riding and ensuring creators profit, claiming historical innovation relies on IP regimes (27:01-32:00). Kinsella responds that market mechanisms, like first-mover advantages, incentivize innovation without IP’s coercive monopolies, and notes that rights are not objective entities to be “discovered” but tools for justice, challenging Liebowitz’s utilitarian assumptions (32:01-37:00). The debate grows intense, with economic evidence central. Key Themes:-
Kinsella’s critique of IP’s economic harms and lack of innovation benefits (22:01-27:00).
-
Liebowitz’s defense of IP as essential for creator profits (27:01-32:00).
-
Kinsella’s market incentives argument and view of rights as non-discoverable (32:01-37:00).
Summary: Kinsella highlights IP’s economic costs and advocates market alternatives, reinforcing that rights are constructed, while Liebowitz defends IP’s necessity, underscoring their economic and philosophical divide.
-
-
37:01-52:00 (Utilitarian and Moral Arguments for IP, ~15 minutes)
Description: Liebowitz emphasizes IP’s utilitarian benefits, arguing that patents and copyrights prevent underinvestment in creative industries by rewarding creators, and morally justifies IP as recognizing the creator’s effort (37:01-42:00). Kinsella refutes this, citing empirical studies (e.g., Machlup, 1958) showing inconclusive innovation benefits, and argues that IP’s state-backed monopolies violate the NAP, stating that rights are normative constructs, not “existing” entities to be discovered, challenging Liebowitz’s moral framework (42:01-47:00). Liebowitz accuses Kinsella of ignoring practical realities, like the need for IP in publishing, while Kinsella uses analogies (e.g., a recipe vs. a car) to clarify IP’s artificial restrictions (47:01-52:00). The exchange is heated, with philosophical tensions evident. Key Themes:-
Liebowitz’s utilitarian and moral defense of IP to reward creators (37:01-42:00).
-
Kinsella’s empirical rebuttal and view of rights as normative, not discoverable (42:01-47:00).
-
Liebowitz’s practical concerns vs. Kinsella’s principled analogies (47:01-52:00).
Summary: Liebowitz defends IP’s utilitarian and moral necessity, while Kinsella counters with empirical evidence and the view that rights are constructed, highlighting a divide between pragmatism and libertarian principles.
-
-
52:01-1:07:00 (Market Alternatives and Objectivist Principles, ~15 minutes)
Description: Kinsella argues that market alternatives, like open-source software and branding, outperform IP in fostering innovation, citing Linux as an example, and reiterates that rights are man-made tools, not objective entities “discovered” in nature, challenging Liebowitz’s Objectivist framework (52:01-57:00). Liebowitz counters that open-source is an exception, insisting IP is critical for mainstream industries like film, where high costs require profit guarantees, and defends Rand’s view of rights as objective (57:01-1:02:00). Kinsella challenges Liebowitz’s reliance on state coercion, arguing that IP contradicts free market principles, while Liebowitz accuses Kinsella of utopianism, emphasizing practical needs (1:02:01-1:07:00). The debate remains intense, with philosophical differences clear. Key Themes:-
Kinsella’s defense of market alternatives and rights as constructed (52:01-57:00).
-
Liebowitz’s insistence on IP’s necessity and objective rights (57:01-1:02:00).
-
Kinsella’s critique of state coercion vs. Liebowitz’s practical defense (1:02:01-1:07:00).
Summary: Kinsella advocates market-driven innovation and views rights as man-made, while Liebowitz defends IP and objective rights, underscoring libertarian versus Objectivist perspectives.
-
-
1:07:01-1:22:00 (Q&A: IP’s Economic Impacts and Rights’ Nature, ~15 minutes)
Description: The Q&A begins, with an audience member asking about IP’s economic impact, prompting Kinsella to cite studies showing IP’s high costs and minimal innovation benefits, arguing that markets incentivize creativity without coercion, and emphasizing that rights are normative, not “existing” entities to be discovered (1:07:01-1:12:00). Liebowitz responds that IP’s absence would lead to underinvestment in creative sectors, citing film and music, and defends rights as objective per Rand’s philosophy (1:12:01-1:17:00). Another question on rights’ philosophical basis leads Kinsella to stress first-use principles, while Liebowitz defends creation-based rights, accusing Kinsella of ignoring practical outcomes (1:17:01-1:22:00). The Q&A highlights the philosophical divide. Key Themes:-
Kinsella’s critique of IP’s costs and view of rights as normative (1:07:01-1:12:00).
-
Liebowitz’s defense of IP’s economic role and objective rights (1:12:01-1:17:00).
-
Philosophical divide on rights: first-use vs. creation-based (1:17:01-1:22:00).
Summary: Kinsella defends market alternatives and constructed rights, while Liebowitz emphasizes IP’s necessity and objective rights, reinforcing the debate’s core tensions.
-
-
1:22:01-1:37:00 (Q&A Continued: Practical Implications and Philosophical Divide, ~15 minutes)
Description: An audience question on IP’s practical implications prompts Kinsella to highlight open-source successes and IP’s litigation burdens, arguing that market competition drives innovation, and reiterating that rights are man-made, not “discovered” in nature (1:22:01-1:27:00). Liebowitz counters that IP is essential for competitive industries, preventing free-riding, and accuses Kinsella of utopianism, defending Rand’s view of rights as grounded in objective reality (1:27:01-1:32:00). Kinsella challenges Liebowitz’s state reliance, emphasizing the NAP’s principled stance, while Liebowitz insists on pragmatic governance to support IP (1:32:01-1:37:00). The Q&A underscores the ongoing divide. Key Themes:-
Kinsella’s open-source examples and view of rights as constructed (1:22:01-1:27:00).
-
Liebowitz’s defense of IP’s practical necessity and objective rights (1:27:01-1:32:00).
-
Kinsella’s NAP focus vs. Liebowitz’s pragmatic state defense (1:32:01-1:37:00).
Summary: Kinsella critiques IP’s burdens and defends constructed rights, while Liebowitz emphasizes IP’s practical role and objective rights, highlighting libertarian versus Objectivist views.
-
-
1:37:01-1:54:11 (Conclusion and Final Q&A, ~17 minutes)
Description: Kinsella concludes, urging rejection of IP as a violation of property rights and state coercion, directing listeners to c4sif.org for resources like Against Intellectual Property, and reiterating that rights are normative constructs, not entities to be “discovered” (1:37:01-1:40:00). Liebowitz makes a final defense, arguing IP’s necessity for innovation and moral recognition of creators, accusing Kinsella of ignoring economic realities, and defending rights as objective (1:40:01-1:43:00). A final audience question on IP enforcement prompts Kinsella to emphasize market alternatives like branding, while Liebowitz defends state-backed IP to prevent free-riding (1:43:01-1:50:00). Malice ends the debate, with Kinsella and Liebowitz acknowledging the discussion’s depth, leaving little common ground (1:50:01-1:54:11). Key Themes:-
Kinsella’s call to reject IP and state coercion, with rights as normative (1:37:01-1:40:00).
-
Liebowitz’s defense of IP’s economic and moral necessity, with objective rights (1:40:01-1:43:00).
-
Final Q&A on IP enforcement, highlighting libertarian-Objectivist divide (1:43:01-1:54:11).
Summary: Kinsella concludes by advocating IP abolition and constructed rights, while Liebowitz defends IP’s pragmatic and moral role, with the final Q&A underscoring their philosophical divide.
-
YOUTUBE TRANSCRIPT
cause Strife between Libertarians and between Libertarians and objectivists
than intellectual property so I’m an advocate of intellectual property myself
but I wouldn’t say a passionate one it’s not an idea that I’ve thought of very thoroughly throughout the years so I
decided to have an opponent of IP on and who better than today’s guest he’s a
prominent libertarian writer a patent attorney and someone who’s written extensively on the subject Stephen canel
Stefan sorry Stefan canella welcome back to the show
thanks well they may hear my dogs howling because there’s an ambulance going by and the dogs howl when that
happens so I apologize for that but so Stefan what exactly is IP what is
intellectual property well that’s that’s actually a good question maybe the right
way to start um make sure you can hear me um anal or property is a class of
legal rights um that have to do with creations of the mind okay you can say
it that way um it didn’t used to be a coherent legal
category so like you could think of the classical law as Co covering property
rights in physical or tangible or corporeal objects like your body and the
things that you own like land and uh and your body um but then there emerged in
the last 100 200 years U this category of intellectual property which was um
which was invented in my view to justify government granted Monopoly
privileges which undercut natural property rights in tangible corporeal
objects um and so intellectual property today refers to
primarily patent and copyright but also trademark trade secret and other uh
rights that the state classifies under the same umbrella but patents deal with
um inventions like if you come up with with in your mind with a creative way to
to use the resources at your disposal to yield to better result you can claim
that as an invention by filing for a patent for it under the US legal system
or and and similar systems in other countries and copyright deals with the
um the legal protection of artistic or creative works of what we call original
authorship um like movies and novels and uh software so basically IP is a broad
term but it refers to the way the law tries to give legal protection to these
intellectual creations of the mind okay in that you mentioned natural property
rights and I I think I’m accurate if I’m not tell me but that you like me are an
adherent of the idea of natural rights and the tradition of a John Lock Frederick BOS or or iron Rand is that
correct uh more or less I mean I do think there are some problems with the natural law approach but uh their con
their conclusions are basically correct I mean Hans harmer and haa has sort of a different take on it uh you could argue
with there is a gap problem but basically yes we we we Libertarians and
we objectivists I think agree with a set of natural property rights
uh based upon the nature of man and his relationship to reality and and those
property rights are basically the rights to uh acquire and to use resources in
the world according to a scheme of property rights that that determines who owns which resource so that we can live
in a conflict free way like that’s the ultimate um description of the system
that we all favor I think even objectivist would would agree so far with this description of it I would
agree with all but the the the last part and and I’ll tell you why a right as
traditionally defined uh in the in the natural right sense because we could get
into Rights created by government you know the right to do process for instance that’s I wouldn’t say is a as
a naturally existing right that’s a formulation by government or a right to
trial by jury things that by the way totally agree with that that’s something most people miss so there are certain
rights that we call civil rights which are only that only arise in the state of
of a government right so for example yeah there’s no right to do process there’s no right to be Presumed Innocent
um but those rights emerge as a cautionary sort of limit on the
governmental mechanism that enforces rights right so we sort of assume or we
pretend that a prophylactic or a fictional fictional right uh to do
process or to be Presumed Innocent but it’s really a disguised limit on the
state’s Powers that’s what it really is ideally the those types of created rights would be in place to enforce and
protect naturally occurring rights correct and the right to vote by the way the right to vote is not a natural right
either no no it right only in Civil Society right right so a a right in that
the natural right sense is traditionally defined as a moral claim or or a just claim to something it means that the
thing is Mine by right by by the nature of morality this thing is mine that’s
fair now in i i a definition or I don’t know a definition but an explanation
that you gave in a a paper I believe the paper is called the case against intellectual property something along
those lines if I messed it up a little bit I apologize but you wrote that the purpose of property rights is to
allocate scarce resources to permit peaceful Cooperative productive use of these
resources the first thing that I take issue with is with the purpose of property rights because purpose implies
that there’s an intention that somebody is deliberately creating this and
property rights I believe exist independently of intent or creation
they’re they’re a natural function of the human right to life
okay I hear that but but um and again um from our previous uh discussions your
readers might know so I’m a objectivist or a former objectivist so I’m familiar with this way of looking at things but
um when you say the so the purpose of property rights so
uh the purpose of Norm what’s the purpose of norms in general right or or rights and moral truths well if you if
you say the purpose of norms because Norms can be created right like we can have manners thank you please you’re
welcome things of that nature that are created for for a purpose those things are created I I wouldn’t say that
they’re necessarily moral or immoral but moral truths are not created and this
goes into a lot of the the the stuff that you talk about that but they’re discovered right so we we can discover
that man has a and I say man because it’s just too clumsy to have to say men
and women every time I’m including the the entire human species right so we
have a specific nature and we have to CH we have to discover the proper way to
live because and prop by proper I mean what’s going to further our lives Keep Us Alive it to flourish over the the
longest period of time possible we have to discover that those ways of living
that we discover that help to facilitate our well-being and Longevity are moral
truths like in in one place you refer to them as rules I wouldn’t call them rules because they’re not like commands that
you have to follow it’s a choice I want to live I want to I want to achieve my
happiness now how do I go about doing it so that’s the the sort of base of
morality put in layman’s terms of course I mean you know Iron ran puts it rather more sophisticatedly but I don’t want to
get into the whole thing because I know that you understand the objectivist ethics and the people listening
understand it as well yeah I don’t disagree with anything you said so far um when I say Norms or rules um there is
a distinction between laws and legal rights and between morals okay sure you
can say that the the latter underpins the former and that’s fine and I agree
with that actually um manners are not
the things you should do in your life the moral things you should do in your life manners and things like that are
not things that are necessarily rights violations or property rights right
property rights you could think of as a subset of of of morality uh to be crude
about it I don’t think that’s actually quite right but that’s one way to think about it like as human beings we have to
live by our reason according to a rational code of values that guides us
that’s the objectivist mentality and approach which I roughly agree with um
and a core of that is the political subset of like what interpersonal ethics and norms and laws should we
support uh in furtherance of that and that is why we believe in private property rights and the non
non-aggression principle and things like that which even Ein Rand more or less agreed with like the
non-aggression principle is a is a is a is a standin for the political ethics that underg her
capitalistic political philosophy right so these rights the the
the natural rights for lack of a better term these naturally existing rights I I
should I think would be a more accurate rate of way to put it so if I have the right to life that means the right to
protect my life the right to sustain my life to take those actions necessary let’s stop let’s stop for a second so we
so first of all um I don’t I I mean I don’t want to say that rights exist because that concedes too much I believe
to your to this to this way of looking at it um because I do believe in a
normative and dualistic way of looking at things so we can say that a chair
exists and my body exists but when we say that a right exists that’s a
complicated way of saying that we think that the proposition that you should or should not do this or this this action
is justifiable or not is Justified so it’s it’s a normative it’s a normative
and reasoning thing yes so I I I I I would be by the way the same thing
applies to more abstract things like numbers like yeah numbers are a useful concept but do numbers exist in a
platonic realm I don’t think so I don’t think no I don’t either I don’t think morality does either exactly so so
morality is not so to so let’s not say that you have a right to this and that
right exists like because that’s a way of hiding the issue of or evading the issue of how do we justify that claim
that you should or should not be able to do something because that’s the that’s that’s the ultimate issue by by
exist right is it means ultimately that I have the right to I am I have the the
right to do something without somebody else using Force to prevent me to stop me from from taking yeah I know I know I
know but but that’s so what what you what you what that means is that when you make the assertion or the
claim that you don’t have the right to interfere with my use of this resource in a certain way
that that you can’t justify the use of force to stop me from doing this like
it’s a complicated thing but that’s really what it means right and I think that ultimately is compatible with
randian style minarchism or libertarianism or rights or whatever but ultimately I agree with rights are a
claim to some resource right um but that is a normative claim
or rule-based claim yes but that doesn’t mean like either it exists or it’s a
human invention I mean I I get what you’re saying I don’t know if I agree with that what what do you mean what I
mean is this so if you what I mean is this if you see human beings behaving if you and I are sitting back and we’re
watching yes and we understand the nature of human beings we understand what human survival requires we can
discover the the the moral standard the actions that that person ought to take
if that person wants to live and prosper those things are facts they they don’t they’re they don’t exist in the sense
that I’m discovering them in some other realm or that I’m discovering them intrinsically in an object they dis they
exist be because of the relationship between human beings and the external reality in which they live that’s fine I
I I mean I would I guess quibble I wouldn’t say they exist I would just say that well it’s a truth that we can recog
ize we can recognize that nature the nature of man means that there are certain ways humans ought to live if
they want to fulfill their po potential I agree with that okay so now if if property rights are an
extension of the right to life that and this these are naturally no so so let’s back up so this okay so you would
disagree with this well I don’t I don’t think there’s a right to
life okay what how couldn’t there be a right
to life well because number one is too vague well I mean you realiz what it
means you have to I mean obviously it’s a it’s a statement and then you have to ultimately Define and exp what you mean
the right to life simply means that I have the right to to protect my life and to take the actions necessary to sustain
it without violating the rights of other people I I actually don’t agree with that I don’t think that’s that that’s too that’s too vague and um okay so
first so so give me a second so first of all you you could imagine a welfare statist who would say well yeah we have
a right to life and that means that you have the right to housing and medical care and
food right well well no you could I mean somebody can obviously say whatever they want but in order to do that you would
have to violate somebody else’s right to life exactly then that would be in but
the point is the point is your argument then would turn on what the right to life is so like you think there a right
to life which is fundamental but to me a right is an enforcable claim against a
an actual resource but the life is just a metaphor or it’s like a high level
concept that describes I mean you can’t have a right to life because okay what would it mean to have
a right to life it so it would mean that you don’t have you would agree with me that you don’t that doesn’t mean you
have a positive claim on the efforts of others to sustain your life right no I I
told you what what what a right to life ultimately means is that I have the the right to protect my life from assault
from attack from others and I have the right to take those actions necessary to sustain my own life but you everybody
has this the equal right but you say that your right to life means you have a right to protect your life but that’s
but what is your life what do you mean by life my existence my existence is a
rational human being so now Michael Lee I’m means the right
to exist it it means the right to take those actions necessary to sustain my
existence because if you put it in the terms I have the right to exist well then that would mean that whatever I can
go attack people to exist and I don’t because everybody else has this the equal right as the I I agree I agree but
I’m I’m getting somewhere with this so so basic Rand so Rand
recognized um that we are not ghosts
right we are material corporeal human beings with with a physical body correct
yes she said that we’re an integration of mind and matter yes well yeah philosoph we’re not we’re not just
matter we’re not just we’re not a corpse and we’re not a ghost we’re an integration of mind and matter totally
agree however the only way that your rights can be violated and she said this
was by the initiation of physical violence and physical is a corporeal term sure and that is but physical
violence can only be applied against your body correct uh not against your not against your
identity not it can be but no but it’s important to state that if you’re
initiating Force against my body that you could do so an attempt to get me to stop thinking to stop speaking to stop
do that’s why that’s why it’s it’s an integration you’re you’re you’re ultimately initiating violence against
me not just against an a physical body or an abstract mind it’s against me that
the violence I don’t agree with that I don’t or I guess I would say I don’t care in other words okay ultimately what
matters is that there’s another human being that is using physical Force to affect your body without your
permission well it might that’s that’s kind of my point is it might not just be to affect my body if you take my life
for instance if you kill me you don’t just kill my physical body you kill me
and and me entails a thinking entity that has both mind and body you don’t
just kill my body I agree with that but that’s why we oppose aggression we oppose aggression because it could have
results that we don’t we don’t like sure and and let me just say that it’s important to to state in this context
that yes the initiation of force is ultimately the only uh the rights
violator but fraud would also be a violation of Rights we okay we could
talk about fraud but the point is you just said force force is a physical thing it can only be applied against
physical bodies I know I don’t I don’t I don’t disagree with what you’re saying about if if somebody somebody obviously
cannot initiate Force against my mind absent my body or your soul or whatever
or your personality or your identity I agree with you hardly all I’m saying say is that just like that is the case that
as long as I’m me you can’t just initiate Force against my body either see you’re recognizing one half of it
but not the other half if you initiate Force against me while it might the initial contact obviously is with a
physical body but you’re affecting me as a person which includes my mind my
personality my thinking it’s impossible not I to I totally agree but
but let’s let’s take another way of looking at it um would you agree that there’s a
conceptual distinction between the brain and the mind uh I would agree that there’s a
conceptual distinction but the Mind cannot exist independent of the brain so
when you when you’re identifying them yes you’re identifying two separate facts one is corporal one is abstract
yes and the same thing with the identity the personality the soul you might call it the mind yeah of of a human being my
body is distinct from my personality and my personhood
correct uh yes your your body is conceptually a different thing yes
correct sure right and so when we live among
other people the only way that rights can be violated is by the use of physical Force but physical force can
only be wielded against corporeal physical t ible
objects so I don’t disagree with primary political and interpersonal prohibition
is against the use of force that invades the Integrity or uses the body of
someone or their other property without their permission that’s the see hold on but that’s a key and that’s what I was
just gonna say right because it’s not just if somebody comes on to my my property I’m in my house and they steal
my car they’re not necessarily I may never even see them so they have an initiated physical Force directly
against my body I I totally agree but they have it it is an indirect use of
force in the sense that now the only way I can get it back is that it’s implied
that they’re going to use okay okay give me a second I know where you’re going with this and I’ve thought about this myself I I don’t agree with that I think
that basically you’re you’re trying too hard to stretch the concept of physical
Invasion and force to cover TR trespass I think the better way to do it is just
to be honest and say listen um um I have a a property right in my body and if
someone uses Force against my body that’s aggression in other words we’re trying to stretch a concept of
aggression or or Rand called the non-ti non noninitiation to force too far um if
someone steps on my lawn or takes my car without my permission technically speaking you’re right it’s not an act of
aggression because they’re not committing trespass against me but what they’re doing is they’re using a
resource that I own without my permission that’s a type of trespass but is it a rights violation yes but you
just a second ago said that the only rights violation can be if they physically aggress against your body and
to say the otherwise I didn’t I didn’t I I said that’s what I’m Rand and that’s what the summary view sort of implies no
I don’t think that the only way to violate rights is to um I do think the only way to violate rights is to uh in
made the borders of a resource that’s owned by a person but I do think the person’s ownership of his body is
distinct from his ownership of other things but he does have ownership of those things so then you would say that
a a right to a rights violation would be
any trespass against the person or property of somebody else except that I
wouldn’t use the word property because it’s misleading but I would say I would say the owned resource of another person
but sure okay but what would be the difference between owned resource and property well
because the word property uh uh uh is misleading in this context
because the word property properly used means um a property of the person right
which is why the word sort of being used to refer so in other words let let me give you an example you own a
car the average person would say that’s your property right and so then if you start
referring so I would say the more technical technically precise way to do it would be to say you are a person you
own your body you have certain rights and you own the resources that you acquire by contract or by homesteading
and then the question is who owns the contested things when people have disputes like who owns the car for
example and if you own the car is someone takes the car they’re trespassing by using a resource that you
own if you refer to the thing owned this property the better way to say it is you
have a property right in the car okay and the reason is because in the IP
context which we might not even get to but this is fine that we can but um in the IP context people will say oh
canella thinks that people shouldn’t own ideas or information or knowledge and he says that you don’t have a property so
so canella says that U uh uh that uh ideas aren’t property like that’s not my
argument at all okay not about whether ideas or property when you when you use
the word property as a synonym for the for the object of the of the thing that
that there a property right to you confuse everything so for example I would just say in plain
terms I have a property right in my body I own my body okay I have a property
right in this car I own the car but I wouldn’t say the car is my property
because that word property is misleading because it can mean um let’s say let’s
say I’m a guy that has a house and a spear and a fishing net all these things are things that
I’ve acquired these scarce means of action these these resources I’ve Acquired and they’re my property because
they kind of they extend my reach into the universe so we call them my property
but they’re not my property like if I say a car is a red car one of its
properties is its is its color but that’s a different see that’s the problem I’m having Stefan is that that’s
a word that can mean multiple things I agree that’s why I’m try but it doesn’t but it doesn’t negate the use of the
word property in the sense that I say that this microphone is my property right like you take the word sanction
the word sanction can mean both to give give give permission and it can also mean to
punish right but if you’re using the word contextually in Theo you know the
manner in the appropriate situation it doesn’t negate the meaning of the word I agree and that’s fine even in my book I
I use the word because you can’t avoid it I’m just simply saying that there’s a danger
of when the IP discussion comes up people say canella thinks that ideas aren’t property in other words they
think the discussion is whether X is or is not property but property just means
a property of something the the question really is is X the type of thing that
can be owned and who is the owner that’s really the question so we need to go to the real question without getting mired
in that’s that’s fine with me I don’t I mean I don’t because to me it means the same thing in in the present context is
my property and the thing that I own are the same thing I I know this is a lawyer
thing I do sometimes no no it’s okay I mean I I listen intellectual clarification is vital when when we have
these discussions because otherwise people end up debating about two totally separate things but but but but let me
let me give one example why it could matter sometimes so so let’s let’s say that you say that well um canella is a a
a Texas or Louisiana based guy he’s got these books he’s got this characteristic he got this age this history these are
all his properties right so he owns his memories he owns his life he owns all
the so like if you bundle all these things into these sort of vague Concepts then you can get output that like people
can disagree with and there’s no way to really sort it out and you have to be able to sort
things out I’m with you on that all right go ahead okay so just back to the
so the the purpose of property rights that’s so once you start with that
statement the purpose of property rights now if what you’re if what you’re saying you can say the nature of property
rights too like what what property are yes and I I would agree with that
because when you say the purpose now if you’re talking about the purpose of government laws no protecting property
rights that that would make sense because now you’re talking about legislation human purpose human desire
human will so if you say the nature of property rights then you would say it it
means basically when I own something or I have a property right in something it means that I have the right of use and
Disposal the right to exclude others from it the right to physically defend
that thing should somebody else attempt to take it from wait wait say say those again cuz I think I agree with the last
two but the first one I’m not sure about say again what do you think that a property ownership of a resource means
it means ultimately I have the right to use it I have the right to dispose of it assuming it’s a physical thing so I own
my mouse what what does dispose mean what do you mean dispose I can throw this away if I want to I can do I don’t
I don’t well hold on where are you going to throw it away like on someone else’s property well I I
could throw it in my garbage or I can smash it with a hammer on my own desk it’s mine I can do whatever I want
that’s called that’s called abuse so I agree with that you have the right to uh exclude people I’m not sure that you
have the right to uh I’m not sure if you have the right to well go go ahead tell
me what basically it’s just that I I can ultimately use Force to prevent somebody
else from using my property right that’s the right of exclusion I agree with that okay so but you don’t but you don’t have
the right to use it that’s that’s the part was disagreeing with I don’t have the right to use my property
correct okay I disagree but I’m going to hold you to that and I’m going to hold you to it for a
reason I want you to remember that you just said you don’t have the right to use your property not not by virtue of
being the property the right you just said the owner by right to being an owner by right to being right to own is the right to exclude it’s not the right
to use okay so so for example if I if I if I own a
sure do I have the right to use the gun well this is the and this is going
to get us when we get to the intellectual I mean to the intellectual property piece and this is why it’s important to sort this out because yes
you have the right to use the gun but but but it but but there is no just
simply owning something like one of the arguments against I IP is that when you have IP you’re excluding somebody’s
right to use their property in the way that they want to that’s why I’m being careful that’s why I’m being careful I
know where you’re going but one you just said you have no right to use so that’s hard for me to see how that could even
be an argument against it but secondly there’s all kinds of restrictions on how I can use my property I cannot there’s
not this is the point this is so if I so if I own a bat do I have the right to whack you in the head with it simply
because I own okay but then there’s but then there’s a restriction on the manner in which I can use it the same thing
with the no no no no this this is the we should stop here because okay this is
where that’s why I simply said you don’t owning something doesn’t give you the right to use it so you can’t just say
well uh I can’t use my bat to kill you it’s like but I never said that using the bat no no no no you didn’t what I’m
no but you have written that intellectual property prevents of pro of
owner of a physical item from using it as he as he says that’s your argument
one of the arguments against intellectual property well well the problem with intellectual property is that it it gives a third party the right
to to prevent someone from using their property as they see fit but you just
said you have no right to use your property so why would that even be a
problem you have so so you have the right to do anything you want as an
action in the world as long as it doesn’t use someone else’s property
without their permission that’s the way to look at it as long as it doesn’t or violate somebody else’s rights which is
the same thing well but because attacking a human being I mean you could hit somebody in the face and you’re then violating their rights I mean the you
know the cliche is I I have I the right for me to swing my hand stops where your face begins but but that’s just nonsense
because it’s not I don’t have the right to punch you in your face yes you do I have the right but you you just just to
come up to you and whack you in the face no of course when you’re having these discussions of course there’s a given context if I’m retaliating from you
hitting me of course in the context the reason you don’t have the right to hit me in the face is because I own my body
and only I have the right to decide who can use my body without my permission I’m saying the nature of property rights
is a right to exclude it’s not a right to use and the reason I say that is because yeah in general it gives you the
right to use it because most uses of my resources are not violations of other
people’s property so if I have a home next to you and I shoot off fireworks
for a party in my home I don’t have to have a right to shoot fireworks I just
have the right to do whatever I want as long as I’m not violating your property rights but then that would include if
you have the right to do whatever you want whatever you want necessarily includes the right to
shoot fireworks it’s just a broader way to State the same thing yes it is so you do have a right to shoot the fireworks
the right to it’s it’s an implication of the way rights work the way rights work is
they’re negative and that everyone has the right to to act as long as they don’t use the
resources of another person without their consent that’s the ultimate issue yes so you so the proper way to to put
it when you say I have the right to use would be I have the right to use something that I own so long as I don’t
violate the rights of somebody else stop for a second stop look what you just said so yeah it’s not the right to use
what you own it’s not it’s not an unqualified use
wait wait go with me for a second yeah it’s not the right to use what you own it’s the right to do anything so in other words but that would include the
right to use what I own Stefan it’s the right to do whatever I want as long as I don’t violate the rights of somebody
else if it’s whatever I want that necessarily includes the whatever necessarily includes to use what I own
and it but it all when you’re dealing with the rights framework entails not violating the rights of somebody else
okay that’s fine but but just take this example some guy steals a gun from my
house he doesn’t own the gun I still own the gun correct yeah yeah and he shoots some with it okay
now the reason he doesn’t have the right to shoot the other guy is not because he doesn’t own the gun it’s because he
doesn’t have the own he doesn’t own the other guy’s body well that no I wouldn’t agree I would I would agree with you he
doesn’t have the right to shoot the other guy’s body but he also doesn’t have the right to use your gun it’s not
it’s not exclusion it’s not just that it’s not just one thing he doesn’t have the right to possess your gun he doesn’t
have the right to carry your gun he doesn’t have the right to use your gun and he also doesn’t have the right to shoot somebody else to totally agree but
my point is if I own a resource like if I own land or I own a house or I own a
rocket or fireworks or whatever mhm my right to use them is simply a default
of the fact that I can do whatever I want to do as an action as long as I’m not using the resources of another
person so you can’t say well so so here’s my point here’s my point um if I
own a if I own my fist in your example of punching someone in the nose or if I
own a gun yes I have the right to use it in a general sense because that’s just a way
of explaining the fact that no one else has a better claim to that resource and they can’t object to me using it but
they can object to me using it if I use those means whether I own them or not that’s
why I brought up the other example so if if I use a stolen gun or a gun that I own it doesn’t matter if I own the
resource that I’m using if I use that as part of a means of attacking the property of another person or
trespassing without their permission then I’m committing an action that violates in other words what I’m trying
to focus on is the essential element of an act of crime or trespass that you and
I both would condemn is an action not the improper use of a means or resour no
it’s the violation of somebody else’s rights correct by whatever means that you use whether it’s an owned piece of
property or whether a stolen property if I’m violating so but in the case of the gun prior to the the shooter ever
shooting at somebody else he’s already violated my rights if he’s taken my gun correct but so so so so but if I he
doesn’t have to fire it he doesn’t have to do anything with it once he’s taken it from me he’s dispossessed he’s
violated my rights so let’s now get to the the fundamental issue so you and I are neighbors and I have I’m doing a
fireworks launch and I have a a rocket that goes up everything I’m doing is
with with property that I own right now the rocket goes up and it goes onto my neighbor’s property and and
destroys it house okay so now I think we would both agree that I have trespassed and I have used his property without
without his permission well you’ve destroyed his property without his permission yeah right but what I did was
an action like the problem with what I did was my action my use of resources to
invade the borders of his property but but but but you would not say that oh
aha this is a case that illustrates that property right are not absolute because
canella normally has the right to shoot fireworks off but he doesn’t have the right to shoot fireworks off that
destroys his neighbor’s property in other words the fact that you define property rights at my neighbor’s
property okay does show that my property rights are limited not at all and and I think that what what partly what is
happening in in this discussion and tell me if I’m wrong is I think that people have wrongly criticized you in the past
misrepresent that’s why I wrote a chapter yeah right and and and a lot of what you’re responding to are these unjust
arguments against IP so so people will say oh canella you say that the problem
with IP is that it violates your it restricts your use of your property but
however property rights aren’t Unlimited in the first place but you did say that though you do say one of the problems is
it necessarily restricts the right of somebody to use their property in the way that they want to that’s not your
only argument against IP but you have said it in the case of both copyrights
and patents I know but but I know but they but I’m right about that their response is that their response is that
oh canella you can’t be correct that that that the problem with IP is that it
limits your property rights because all property rights limit property rights here’s my point the they think can I ask
you a question are you saying that it’s simply the correct way to State it in your view would be is that they’re
unjustly limiting the use of somebody else’s property that’s one way to put it
the other way is that property rights are limits on actions not limits on property rights this is the fundamental
thing to understand so a property right is a limit on action it’s not a limit on property rights if you have a property
right in your house and you have inviable absolute property rights in your house okay that is not a limit on
my property rights it’s a limit on my actions it’s it’s a limit on what I can do sure I don’t disagree that’s why I
gave the example like if I violate your property rights in your Castle in your house by sending a rocket over there or
shooting a bullet into it it doesn’t matter if I own the bullet or I own the gun it doesn’t matter if I own the
resource it just means that I committed an action that violates your property rights the whole Foundation of
everything like this is that there are the there’s the assumption that we have an inviolable absolute property right in
our resources and if if I say that well uh you can’t you can’t commit an action
that violates my castle that just is a demonstration of the inviability of property rights you
can’t use that as an example to say well canella you just admitted that all property rights are um uh are are are
are are conditional and so you can’t complain that that IP rights violate
property rights IP rights are are unjust because they violate property rights not
because they limit actions this is a fundamental point it’s really hard to explain but this is what I’m trying to get at
here yeah I I all I’m my only point in bringing the the that up about there are
restrictions on property because if if the argument is simply it’s a restriction on their right to use their
property then that is not a valid argument if it goes beyond that then you
then you can elucidate the argument as you’re doing and that’s that’s fine but but but but that’s what the argument is
because so so in IP I make the AR I make the claim that’s the following let me
just Stitch it out really clearly and you tell me where you think I’m wrong okay um I think we agree with this Rand
would agree we we’re we we’re not ghosts we have physical corporeal bodies we need to control our bodies and have
physical Integrity in our bodies which is why we agree with laws against murder and rape and that kind of stuff right we
also need to go into the world which is a world that initially was unowned and
we need to go and Homestead and use resources right these are means of
action in me’s terms these are scarce resources and if you want to avoid
conflict then human laws and Norms evolve that regulate who can own what
and we roughly agree that basically everyone has a property right in things
that they first own or that they acquire by contract it’s very simple okay do you would you agree with
me that the right to property precedes the legislation yes okay so I don’t I don’t
agree with I’m not a menist I don’t agree with legislation at all at all okay so you I agree with law but not
legislation okay well well law is just legislation I mean it doesn’t have to be done by a it doesn’t have to be done by
a government body but no no no no law is not legisl legisl is a unique form of law that that that modern democratic
states form yeah law that’s not really important for what I’m saying here I agree but
so so property rights exist or or they come into being not as a means to
prevent conflict the reason you create laws protecting property rights it can
be said is to prevent conflict but that’s not why property rights exist I I don’t know I I I don’t know if I agree
with that but I don’t it matters too much comp it’s a complex thing it is because I like you know you’ve asked me
about this previously and I told you I can’t discuss it because I simply don’t know enough but I’ve spent you know the
last week and I’m by no means putting myself on par with you who studied this your entire life you know what I mean
like I’m not doing that I wouldn’t like there’s so many aspects of this discussion that I would simply be unqualified to even delve into like you
said I mean we’ve only touched on copyrights and patents briefly but I saw there’s also trademarks and trade
secrets and things that I just don’t understand and you know does it go for 50 years after the person dies or they
only exist during the person’s life all that stuff I’m not qualified to to delve into well I’ll I’ll tell you how I think
we should proceed by the way let me just tell you how think we should so I I like how you’re going at this systematically
and and reasonably um we have to get to the point of what rights are and how
rights are created or identified yes here that’s that’s the fundamental dis
agreement yeah the reason I’m laying this groundwork is because it will when we get to that point you’ll see that
I’ve already answered half of these objections well that see that and there in lies what I was just going to say
because in my reading reading of your work and reading the the you know Wikipedia’s definition of Ip the history
of Ip and all this stuff and what I’m seeing is the fundamental difference between
Libertarians who uphold IP and Libertarians who don’t and by the way
I’m excluding from this simple utilitarians because I don’t I don’t think either one of us is a utilitarian
we’re not making economic arguments so but the fundamental difference between
what traditionally would be called natural rights Libertarians or natural rights classical liberals or natural
rights proponents the difference here is in the nature and source of rights so
from my perspective the the the right to life is the primary right and I’ve
stated what I meant by that the right to property emanates from the right to life the right to life is a a direct coroller
of the objectivist ethics that my life is the standard of ethical value and
therefore I must have a moral claim or a right to that which is the source of morality which is my life so that means
I have the right to take the actions necessary to sustain maintain and flourish without violating the rights of
others that includes discovering uh appropriating
and creating property right so from there
again you see why well I’m no I I I I want to put out my whole position so that then we could actually you know
delve into it so therefore I look at as I’m trying to maintain my life and do what best for my life I can put in the
time effort and I can create something of value whether it be an invention a
book whatever yeah so if I’m putting in time effort in time and effort and It
ultimately results in value creation that is in furtherance of my right to life I would say I have a right to that
property but you would say that that’s not actually the source of property that’s where the almost
everything in that chain of reasoning is confused and wrong um
because that’s why in the beginning I said I don’t think there’s a right to life because that’s not like a coherent
again there’s no welfare right to life which I think you agree to So when you say right to life if so
would you disagree just one second I don’t mean to interrupt but I want to just get clarity would you disagree with what I said of what the right to life
consists if you call it something else it’s fine but the right to life means the right to to protect maintain and
further my existence so long as I don’t violate the equal right of others to do the same because that’s all that’s meant
by the term only if by that you mean the right to uh defend the bodily Integrity
of your body so so well well I would see there and there in lies the problem because
the right to life if I to sustain my life I necessarily have to acquire and
use property so if I don’t have if I don’t have the concomitant right to acquire and use property then the right
to life is ultimately meaningless I agree but I think there is no right to life I mean there I don’t know what that
means to say I would say there’s a right to the bodily Integrity of your body and
there’s a right to the exclusive control of resources that you acquire that are
unowned or that you acquire by contract I mean I would agree with with that and the all you’ve done there is combine the
right to life and the right to property like when people say you have the right to property that does not mean you have
the right to have other people give you property it doesn’t mean you have the right to steal other people’s property the right to property is simply
shorthand for the right to create acquire use dispose not not create not
here here’s where we disagree everything you said I might agree with but not the word create we don’t create property we don’t
create value and by the way there’s no right to Value so that’s the other problem with this objectivist way but
but well I didn’t say there was but if you if I create a home do I not own the
home assuming I do it with resources that I own I mean now if I go and steal somebody else’s stuff and build a house
that’s it’s a complication but assuming I own the resources to create a home to it’s not a complication if you steal the
resources you don’t own the house that’s my point that’s you build a house with resources that you own you own the house
but it it’s not because you created it it’s because you already own the input
factors but how do I come to own the input factors homesteading and contract okay
well how do you give me an example of homesteading you said occupancy for instance you find a resource in the
Wilderness that’s not owned and you claim it and you use it and you appropriate it to yourself This is locki
in 101 I mean this is well hold on but lock talks about ownership in the terms
of applying your labor he used the term mixing your labor with the property so
but but you say it’s that’s not the case you said it’s occupancy that matters no I never said that that’s someone else
what I said was that lock made a mistake in saying that the reason you own the things that you occupy is because you
owned your labor I just simply said he made a mistake in his argument you can take that out and his argument still
works in other words okay no I’m listening to you I’m just I
was looking for what the phrase I was I wanted to find but so okay so occup so
the loan and I think the randan view and the classical liberal View and the libertarian view is
that we come into the world and we own our bodies because we’re self owners which means we own our bodies
right you guys call it the right to life or something but I mean well I think that the problem is with the and this
gets back to an earlier discussion that we had to that ownership is is not a primary right to legitimately morally
own something is is a coroller of pre-existing Concepts pre-existing
actions pre-existing rights that that necessarily stems from the the right to
life to to talk about a natural right to ownership as opposed to a natural right to life doesn’t make any sense you it’s
not how do you get to your ownership or your right to property or your right to act absent the the pre-existing right to
your own life that’s a whole that’s a whole different discussion about how you justify these rights I do think that the
natural law reasoning if you make some assumptions roughly makes sense like if
we share certain values about life and prosperity and cooperation and we have
certain knowledge about economics and the way the world works and politics it’s pretty obvious that we need to we
ought to favor a system of rules that generate that lets us use resources that
were unowned and that we can acquire by contract and that our bodies are should be Pro protected from trespass I mean
this is not that complicated right um there are many ways of getting to the
same conclusions and that shouldn’t be surprising because um
I’m just I’m having I’m having a a problem with what would be the difference why do I own something that
I’ve discovered and appropriated that hasn’t been previously owned by something else but I don’t own something
that I’ve created that wasn’t prly El so that’s the Crux of the issue so in the
first case it’s because you have a you’re the first one to start using it and you have a better claim than anyone
else this is how homesteading works for the human race to survive people have to be able to use things to use things they
have to be the first one to use a thing that was being not being used before that’s what ownership right yeah I have
the right if no one else owns it I I mix my labor with it for you know lack of better term than I own right exactly
because no one else has a better claim because they’re not the owner you’re the you’re the first owner the first possessor the first user so that’s why
property rights are based upon possession in the first place well and no one can gain If you deny the
right to use resources that are unowned then the human race would would would be snuffed out and we would not be talking
about an ethic appropriate to human prosperity and human life no you would
have no I I’m not arguing we have to favor we have to favor a system where if
there’s an unowned thing people have the right to use it and to bring it into
ownership we have to favor that because otherwise we die out there’s just see
here okay and I I I absolutely agree with what you just said you have the right to use it but you previously said
there’s no right to use so I don’t well okay mean when I
said that what I meant was ownership is not the right to use it’s the right to exclude that’s what the right is as a in
a legal sense so but okay see there’s the another problem is we’re not talking
about in a legal sense we’re talk totally I totally agree and this is
gonna be We’re not gonna have time to no no but listen it’s fine we we I can have you back on I definitely want want to
discuss so here’s a distinction there is a distinction in the economic concept of use and the legal concept of the right
to own something possession versus ownership there is a distinction so in
economic terms um an actor like cruso on its Island by himself uh must use
means of action to get things done including his body his ability to control his body and other resources at
his disposable at his disposal that he possesses there’s no other people
there’s no conflict there’s no interpersonal morality there’s no
right the whole concept of Rights doesn’t come into play however the economic concept of possession and
control does play there so when we talk about people using resources in an
economic sense what we mean is they have the ability to use these means to achieve their ends right so they they
they have the right to use it in in a legal sense um what what you could think
of the law as a way of of solidifying or extending possession into
ownership see I don’t I don’t that implies that you need law for ownership
and I agree with that no no it doesn’t mean you no I well I you you don’t need
legislation but you need law of course yeah law wait you that’s what law is law
yes properly speaking law whether it be an A minarchist or an ancap Society the
purpose of law is to protect pre-existing rights rights that already exist prior to the enactment of that law
and if I have the right to ownership or I have the right to the property that
I don’t I don’t know if they re- exist or not but but the point is that if they don’t Stefan if they don’t
then law can’t violate rights but that’s why I said earlier when you say rights
exist they don’t exist in the same way that facts exist so so so can law violate
rights the legal system can have unjust legal rules yes but can can a law
violate rights only actions can violate right but but a
law a law necessitates action so if I Outlaw something then I’m saying that
the state or the ancap protective agency or anybody else can go and use Force to
prevent an action from taking place can the law or or the laws agents violate
rights okay but then the rights have to pre-exist law that’s fine okay that’s okay so you said you had to go and I
don’t want to I think it’s a good place to stop I definitely want to have you back to continue the discussion but you
see where we’re going so we so we’re kind of getting to the point of the core of Rights and then IP is just on top of
this like the core issue is before we so the fundamental mistake I believe that
the Randy’s make is it’s what you said earlier you you inserted the word creation yes and the reason is because
you think of in terms of the purpose of of morality and political ethics as
coming up with a system that promotes human life and that includes the ability
of humans to act and to pursue their values and that way of looking at it
assumes that values are things that we create and things that can be owned and pursued and protected by law and that
leads to the IP idea that’s the fundamental mistake I believe and it comes from the mistake and this is why I
said that earlier property rights come from um and things outside of ourselves
they come from two acts homesteading unowned resources which Rand agrees with
by the way and con contract like acquiring something by contract but when you say also creation you’re inserting a
third thing but the reason is because and the example you gave was building a cabin or
something like that but that’s already with your own resources there’s no new property created that you have a
property right to okay so let me ask you a quick question before you go all right if somebody were to come with a a wind
blower let’s say and blow down my cabin leaving all the pre-existing resources
intact have they not violated my property they they not they’ve destroyed
my creation they they they have committed an act of trespass against the physical Integrity of your of your
resources but they haven’t the the resources are still there the only thing that Integrity has been violated is the
cabin well they they’ve invaded the borders of my property by rearranging what what was
there yes they have it’s like if if I if I yeah if if I if you have a painting
and I take the painting and rip it to shreds um you still have the pieces of paper the scraps of paper or the paint
and the pigment but but I have creation yeah they have created disorder
and they violated your property rights I I believe so but it’s not it’s not because you have a property right in the
creation it’s because you have a property right in the physical physical Integrity of the resource that you own
this is the whole point of property rights it’s it’s it’s a property right and the physical Integrity but I own the
house right I own the cabin well you own that’s why I said property rights a
right to exclude by owning a cabin it means that you have the right to prevent other people from affecting the physical
Integrity of that thing just like if you own your if you’re a woman and you have you own your body you have the right to
tell a man no for sex like you have the right to exclude that’s the essence of
property rates is the right to exclude and that extends to your cabin or things like that and when people use physical
Force to invade that that’s where there’s an act of trespass but none of that implies that there’s a property
right in the value of things or that you acquire property by I never said you had
a property right and the value but this is here’s the two points that we’re going to pick up next time just in case pick up that one and the other one is
yeah creation and whether property rights if the fundamental of property rights is the right to exclude Stefan
thank you so much it’s always a pleasure to have you you are a true gentleman in
the way that you conduct yourself when you disagree uh and I really appreciate it all right let’s do part let’s do part
two later I’d love to we will thank you so much for now this is the rational egoist signing out I’m Michael lioz till
next time
