KOL491 | Trying to Persuade Paul Cwik of the Case Against IP

Okay, Paul. Hey. Okay, Stephen. We just were chatting a little bit. Um, we're going to do a little podcast talking about um IPSUs and catching up and as you and I I was going to ask you the same question as you as you were saying. We we've known each other for quite a while, but we don't know each other that well. So, um, let me let me let me do a quick introduction for the listener as to what we're going to do and for you two and then we can then we can talk uh casually first. Um, I wanted to talk well I've wanted to talk to you for years about your views on intellectual property because I think they differ from mine and I wanted to kind of see where we diverge and if I can make any progress and the reason for this is um over the years um actually persuaded people in person to change to my view. I mean, there's lots of people that have come around to my view of thinking online, but I've actually had conversations in person and and uh and they they say, "Oh, you you persuaded me." And I've always wanted to catch that on on film. So, today's your chance. But even if we don't do that, we can see where we disagree. But anyway, okay, let's resume our We were having a conversation. So, I was explaining that I'm um I'm 60 years old now. I'm kind of retired. Um, but I do um a lot of uh this type of work still, intellectual uh uh uh libertarian theory work. And uh by the way, this podcast is not um a normal podcast. I don't usually interview people. I think I've done it two or three times over the last 10 years. Usually, it's just a collection of when I'm interviewed by people on their podcast. So, you're a special guest. >> I appreciate that. >> And we were saying I think I I you and I probably known each other for 15, 16, 20 years. When did you start going to Mises events? Let me ask you that. >> My first Mises event. >> Yeah. >> Uh was 1990. >> Okay. Well, I started going in 1995. So maybe we started seeing each other around that time. >> Well, I would have been a Mises fellow at that point at Auburn. So that's probably it. So it's been a good 31 years then. >> Yeah. So I was like for the first like I think the Austrian scholars conference uh I started going in 95 and I went to every one of those for about 13 14 years. Um >> then that's yeah that's it then. >> Yeah. But you're right. We don't know a lot of I I mean I generally know you're just a good guy and an Austrian and I assume a libertarian and all that but uh yeah tell tell me tell me what's your story. So you're working as a professor now. What what's your what's your background and what's your deal? >> Okay. So, uh, so I grew up in Michigan and, um, uh, went to government school K through 12 and then, um, I I guess it was just sort of fortune that, uh, I I ended up at Hillsdale for my my undergraduate. And at Hillsdale College, we had um, Austrian economics as the primary um, type of economics taught there. And uh Richard Ebling was uh the mis professor >> and um >> so I grew up knowing only Austrian economics. I was never anything other than an Austrian economist. I I started off as a a polysai major and after a semester or two I switched to uh political economy and when I was thinking about graduate school they said if I I become a pure economics major then uh I'd have an easier time getting into grad school. So I graduated with just a pure econ major and a math minor. Uh but I've I've had a lot of overlap with polyai as well. So um so then I I >> hold on hold on let me ask you so so um was Evelyn your only sort of Austrian professor or were there others? >> Um so let's see Gary Wolram started there. Uh and he he he is the first one introduced me to Bastia. Um so Friedick Bastia, the libertarian uh economist, French economist from uh the early uh first half of the 1800s. Um and he is not a an Austrian per se, but he's a fellow traveler. Uh I had another guy uh named Ed Facy and he was not a very good professor but he actually did his dissertation um in an Austrian style and he showed it to Hayek and he was he was part of the Mont Pelerin conference. He was one of the the first people in um um the South Royaltton Conference back in 1974. Uh and then there was another young guy and I don't think I don't know if he finished his PhD or not. Um but he was only there for like a year or two. Uh and he was a thorough hayekian. >> And then there was a mainstream guy there who was also very friendly to Austrians. Um uh I actually when when I was taking macroeconomics I I took I audited the other guy um his name was Van Eaton uh because he was the more mathematical more Keynesian cross sort of thing because I knew I needed it uh for grad school. >> Yeah. >> So I applied for uh for grad school and I got into a bunch of places but uh Tlane University offered me um a free ride for five years plus. It was like a $17,000 uh stipen which which was pretty awesome. So I went to Tulain and >> Oh really? So you so you went to Tain. So I'm you know I'm from Louisiana so you're from my home you went to my home state. >> Yeah. Yeah. And and uh I loved New Orleans. I loved my apartment. Um it was fantastic except for the program. >> I I hated the program. Uh there were 14 other students. Uh, seven of them were from mainland communist China. And this was in the early 90s. This was 92,93. And um, they didn't care about economics. They wanted to get to grad school. Uh, they wanted uh to get math PhDs. They couldn't get in. They wanted physics PhDs. They couldn't get in. What else has a lot of math? Oh, economics. So, they they didn't know who Adam Smith was. They had no idea. Uh, but they could do all the math. Uh, five of them were from uh, India. So, then one guy was from the newly formed Czech Republic and he was just a weirdo. >> And then, uh, there was Tim. Tim was from Virginia. >> And so, uh, um, you know, so that was that was our class. >> Tim, sorry, Tim. Tim who? >> Um, what's his last name? Um, he's not an econ. Well, he >> Oh, I see. Just a friend. Okay, never mind. I just like to talk about someone we know. I think he actually works uh for the federal government in DC now. >> Well, let me ask you this. So, why did you go to Hillsdale in the first place? >> Um, well, I was interested in in politics. I I was I went to a high school of, 1800 students and I think there were like six conservatives. So, um >> So, you were already you were already conservative or libertarian or what? >> Um Okay. I I I didn't know really anything about um you know like libertarianism or or that but you know Alex Keaton was my hero uh from Family Ties, right? >> Yeah. You sound like me. I was a Reaganite and a and a and a Alex Keaton guy in in in in high school. So when you you chose Hillsdale on purpose and um did you sort of when you were exposed to uh >> Austrian stuff were you were you also exposed to libertarian stuff and started becoming libertarian then or how did that happen? >> Um >> or are you libertarian? I should ask. >> I've always I've always been free market and um you know I don't know if it's ever been you know like oh I'm I'm libertarian. Oh I'm conservative. You know, it's never been one of those things, right? I I I I don't remember actually saying, "Ah, now I'm a libertarian or >> Well, well, let me ask you. Are are you a libertarian?" >> Um, I think I'm a small L libertarian and a small L Republican. I'm not a party person. Uh, I'm a free market guy. Um, I think >> Wait, what do you mean? What do you mean small L Republican? What does that mean? >> A small R Republican. >> Oh, okay. So, so you're more like a classical like a classical liberal type. >> I'm Yeah, I'm I'm I'm a classical liberal. Uh I'm a a minarchist. I'm not an anarcho capitalist. Um >> but are you like are do you like actually have a strong opinion or are you strongly in favor of the state or you're just not really persuaded of the anarchist case or something like that? So, so I I so f first of all uh as a as a practical matter uh we are so far away from from anarcho capitalism. I I really think we need to put all of our energy into uh minimizing the state and pulling in the same direction. >> No, I agree that that's that's the activist that's the activist perspective. Yeah, but I'm trying to understand where you're >> right right let keep going. Um, and so, so as we whittle down the state and and if we're we're at that sort of minarchist thing, I'm willing to dip my toe in anarcho capitalism. >> Got it. Got it. >> But I don't think it's going to work, >> right? And I can't quite >> put my finger on on why it's a human nature thing. >> No, that's reasonable. But what what what makes you think we're going to You said as we start whittling down the state, as we get closer, then we can choose the more radical option or whatever. But what makes you think we're going to whittle down the state? What makes you think we're heading in that direction at all? >> Well, I I I want to be optimistic, right? I mean, >> why what don't you want to be realistic? >> Well, I think realism tempered with with some optimism, right? I mean, um you you you have to you have to think or at least hope that your your ideas are having some impact and resonating uh with people. Um, I mean, >> plus I think I think the truth >> Sorry, >> I don't know what you mean by that. You have to think that. I I don't I I don't see a lot of evidence that our >> I have to think that. >> Really? >> I think so. Um, uh, I think optimism is a choice, right? So, I choose to be optimistic. >> Well, optimism Yeah, I agree. But you can be realistic and optimistic as well. Um, but okay, but let's continue on your personal story. Well, I I think I think that that that the if if our if our ideas are true, if our ideas are correct >> and if interventionism does lead to emiseration and and depression um that um you know that that markets will will find a way and re reassert themselves. I mean maybe maybe it is a naive optimism. I think I think it's I think it's naive in the sense of um look it's it's possible that the gray goo might kill us right the robots might kill us or plague or nuclear weapons or AI >> and we might know this but we might not be able to stop it I mean there are certain aspects of human social behavior that might lead to a like a prisoner's dilemma type outcome where >> I mean the problem is we have politics and we have the state and so uh so this collective action that we have that we have the natural tendency among people for for states to emerge or for power to emerge and I just don't see that stopping um just because fre market economics is correct that there's an efficient and a just way to do things doesn't mean that the free market will win but anyway that's a different issue um >> no I I I see your point um and you know there's a lot of validity right there absolutely >> I mean I I kind of you probably read all this but you know I I I like the ideas of remnant from um um um Albert J. Knock. This idea of the remnant so and fighting on the right side of things. I mean, the reason I I'm part of this is because I want to discover the truth and be a good person and lend my hand towards pushing in the right direction. Even if it's futile now or futile in the end, I still want to be on the right side of things. So, and preserve the ideas for when when the time is right for people to grab them, even if it's not now. But yeah, >> and and and and in that way, I always keep fighting. I mean, I I there's all these people that came in from the Ron Paul revolution and they think they're going to change things by voting and then nothing happens and three years later they they become alt-riters or they burn out or they become post libertarians >> and they get frustrated and they give up because they were told that that if you just put your heart down, you you put your your effort to it, you're going to make a difference and then they don't make a difference. >> I mean, the Libertarian Party, >> not fast enough. Well, it's exactly they they have short they have high time preference. They they want it now. They stamp their little feet and if they don't get their way, then they move on. And um I never I never trust anyone who's not been a libertarian for at least 15 years. I mean, >> I see. Y >> just like uh just like I didn't want to learn my my my sister's boyfriends or husband's names until they've been around for five years because it wasn't worth the mental effort to to to put them in my head. U if you know what I'm talking about. But um okay, but let's back up. So you so you came from you came from Michigan. By the way, my my my son's girlfriend is from Michigan and I just went to Grand Rapids um for the Libertarian Convention. It's it seems like a a wonderful state. Um what what part of Michigan are you from? >> Um right there. >> I I don't know. >> North of Detroit. >> Uh everyone from Michigan puts their hand up and points, right? That's that's that's what we have to do. Uh, you're not really from Michigan if you don't do that. Uh, it's it's north of Detroit. >> Like like in Louisiana, you're from the bottom of the boot. >> Um, well, we're north north of Detroit in a place called uh Sterling Heights is where I grew up. And um it's uh it's a it's a big city. It's uh six miles by six miles. It's 36 square miles because the Northwest Ordinance makes it all sort of squares and such. Um, >> you sound a little bit like me in your in your polit politics because I was like apolitical and I never knew, you know, was interest technology. So, I never knew anything about economics or history or politics, but I was vaguely pro- Reagan and Redeye Rand and then realized I was libertarian and that, you know, that was it. I never went through the leftist phase. I never went through the Republican phase really except for kind of propatriotic, pro-American capitalism type stuff. But um um so you came from like a conservative type background or family or what? >> Well, my my parents they voted but they were not really political. Um I'm the the oldest in uh in my family. I've got a brother, younger brother and sister, and I am by far the most political of them. >> Um, my brother is a little bit more now, but um, you know, not so much. Uh, >> and were you Catholic or religious or what were you? >> Yes. Yes. I'm I'm currently Catholic. Uh, in fact, >> I'm Eastern right Catholic. >> I was confusing you with actually it was kind of conf because I don't know you that well. I was confusing you with Sean Written Hour because I know you guys both and I I was thinking, wait, there's a there's a guy slightly younger than me who's a Catholic economist there, but that's Written Hour. I assume you're familiar with Written Hour. >> No, written Hour is not Catholic. >> Oh, he's not? >> No. >> I thought his book had some Well, his book He >> Christian. >> Okay. Okay. >> It's not Catholic. >> Well, then I was conflating you with him then, maybe. Because I thought he Catholic. >> I mean, he's a good person to be conflated with. I'll take that. Yeah. Well, his book is impressive. I I haven't read all of it, but I've read through it and it's impressive. And um even though I'm a former Catholic and and atheist now, I'm um I'm very I'm very I'm 99% Catholic. I'm just missing the faith part. >> I see. Um >> the part I have no choice over. >> Um and and I know that you're friends with James Yoey, right? >> Very good friends with James. The new James. He's a pretty strong Catholic as I recall. >> Well, and also Jeff Bar. You probably know Jeff Bar. >> Um, you probably know his face. I'm trying to >> Well, Jeff Jeff Bar there's I assume you know him because um there's a group of of of the younger guys. I'm 60 so I'm calling him younger but um there's a group of people that were all from Las Vegas. They were all Rothbart and Hapa students and Yi was part of that. >> Yeah. Y >> and so was Scott Kiar and Rich Tedor and Leah Glo and Joe Becker >> and and Jeff Bar and Doug French. >> Yeah, I was I was not part of that circle, but I kind of knew them as a as a collective group and so so I was putting them in >> and they're all great, especially the ones I know well like Lee and Doug and uh >> I just saw Lee recently too. So >> Well, yeah. Yeah, I think he was at the one of the conferences doing something on their their kind of modified theory of the business cycle based upon limited liability which I don't agree with. We keep fighting about that but uh but Bar is a strong Catholic. The point is Jeff Bar is a really smart lawyer but also um an Austrian and uh a very strong very strong Catholic. Um >> did he present at uh the last conference? He might. It was either him. I think it was either him or Lee. Uh or maybe them. >> There was There was a paper on um a ghost town. Was that his? >> I don't think so. >> Okay. >> This is more about their theory that limited liability because I'm like a defender of the corporation like Hessen and they're they think that limited liability is a problem and that it contributes to the business cycle the business cycle which I don't think I think is a stretch. But anyway, >> I've I've I'm I'm aware that that argument exists, but I haven't delved into that one. >> Um >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, so yeah. Um >> well, it's it's it's not a good argument, but it's not as bad as your IP argument, which we'll get to in a second, but Okay. Okay. So, um >> Fair enough. But this is helpful that you said you're you're kind of like a classical liberal libertarian, but I but I assume that at least you generally agree that individual rights are good, property rights are good, free markets are good, capitalism is good. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Uh we should have limited government at at at most. We should have strong principles >> that we follow for limiting the state and for protecting property rights, that kind of stuff. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. So, so we agree. And you and and you're and would you say you are an Austrian, correct? >> Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. >> And are you a Mizian Rothbartian Austrian or just a general Austrian or a Hayekian or a Carnarian or what kind of Austrian are you? >> Um, so so I think I've I've kind of gone through through phases as I've uh read more of them. Um, but I think coming back to Mises is sort of my my center. Um, so you know, for a time I was like, "Ah, this Bombard guy is really awesome." And then, >> well, yeah, sure. Of course. >> Uh, >> and then and then I was like, "Oh, you know, Rothbart and I read, you know, but but I kind of just keep keep coming back to to uh uh Mises as the as the center." Correct. And I and I appreciate uh all of all of the different nuances. Now to to be an Austrian economist doesn't mean that you need to have a certain uh political uh point of view because unlike what um Peter Bedkkey has pointed out uh there are socialist Austrians in the past. There have been you know >> I've heard that I don't quite I can't ever keep it straight in my head who that is or how that could be. I agree with you. Who >> I can tell you some names. >> Okay. Who are they? >> So, one is MA Abrams. >> Um, and I'm looking at his book right now. It's called uh money. Um, this was written in the 1930s. And he goes through highex triangles and he talks about the macroeconomy using a structure production and and all of that. And then at the very end he says um you know an investment um is is the problem. So we just need to socialize it. >> See I don't understand how you could be an actual let's say a mazeian because I think Hayek I'm not a Hayek fan. I'm not a Hayek fan. I think he's all over the map and he's he's a dilotant and incoherent and um I've just never learned anything from Hayek really that's reliable. Uh but but that's that's a unique perspective I know in our circles. Um I'm not a high fan but I'm a huge Mises and Bomba and Manger um and Rothbart all that that line of Austrian economics and I just I know that Mises I know that the right view is to have a valuefree in in terms of economics is a descriptive science and it's not >> it's not a normative or a value science. Uh however, the reason Mises was basically a proto libertarian was because he was a decent person and he understood the implications of his economic reasoning. And so he said >> he was basically a consequentialist. And he said people call him utilitarian. I think that's not true. He's not a utilitarian. He's a consequentialist. Which means that he he recognized that if you favor you the general things most decent people favor, which is flourishing of all people, >> uh, society, you know, prosperity, harmony, avoiding disputes, and if you understand the basics of economics, then you would favor private property rights. And >> right, >> it's that simple. You know, >> I I think I think that's partially it. uh Leland Jerger who is on my dissertation committee um he describes >> Wait a minute. Wait, so how how was that because he wasn't in two lane he was just like an outside >> No, I we didn't finish that story but but just to finish this thought and then we can get back to my story. >> Okay. >> Um he he pointed out or he said that he Joerger was a rules utilitarian. >> Yes. and and he thought that Mises was also in that category of a of a rules utilitarian. >> He might be, but my point is he's not a utilitarian in the sense that the Austrians criticize utilitarianism in the value sense of being able to to add up value. >> That's that's absolutely true. >> However you I mean there's Randy Barnett in his introduction to his structure of liberty. He has this, I think, a pretty nice um distinction between um consequentialism and utilitarianism as a subset of that. And I think that utilitarianism as we classically understand it is is incoherent because of the criticism of Austrians about value. >> You can't make interpersonal utilitarian. >> Yeah, it can't be. It's not. Although David Freriedman says you can, but he's he's just autistic. Um uh uh it's [ __ ] Um, but I I I mean, by the way, >> had that debate with Joerger as well. >> Yeah, I think you Joerger is another dilotant who's completely wrong on almost everything I've written by him, but I I I read by him, but I haven't read a lot of his Fluttering Veil stuff, but I think he's totally wrong on his Hayeki and stuff about the knowledge problem and his he's just another I I can't stand that guy. He lied about Rothbard. um he was so desperate to attack Hapa that he he said that Rothbar recanted his support for um uh Hapa's argumentation ethics right before he died, which is a complete lie. I know these guys very well. Um there's no evidence for that. He just asserted that. Um and also I had this article in Liberty magazine where I was arguing about intellectual property and Joerger and I'm a fellow atheist by the way, okay? But I I just had some argument. I was debunking one of the arguments for IP. Um and part of I can't remember how the argument it was about rights or something. And I was saying something about self ownership >> and the the precise and I try to be precise in my legal reasoning and my libertarian legal theory. When you talk about self ownership, which is the implicit view of all libertarians, which is the core of the non-aggression principle, you can't hit someone, you can't murder someone because they own their body. It means they're a self-owner. But what you really mean is they own their body. Okay? People don't like to say that because they don't like to think of the body as a as a article of commerce. But that's what you mean. You don't mean that you own your soul. You mean you own your body. Okay? So that's basically what self ownership means in my view. So I mentioned that and then Joerger says, "Oh, canella is like u believing in the soul and the and the mindbody dichotomy and all this crap." So he thinks he's talking to a to a religious person, but I'm a fellow atheist and like anyway, I'm not a fan of Joerger because of that. But um >> but um anyway, so go back to let's go back to your story. So you were at you were at two lane and then >> I went to Two Lane. >> Okay. >> Um and so so I had a um basically a free ride and a big stipend. Uh so they they you know like pay me for living expenses and such. >> Yeah. >> Super nice. Um and um all of my my classmates were either from China or India and and highly mathematical people. >> And then the professors right there was one guy he was uh uh Turkish his name was Insan Tanali and he taught math econ and could not understand him. the uh econometrics professor was from Korea. His name was Hanik Lee and it was it was >> that's interesting. So, >> so when you went you said you were in Hillsdale that you were told if you if you study a pure economics degree that would give you a better chance at getting into um a good grad program something like that, right? >> And uh but you were aware >> I mean you said you were taught mostly Austrian econom economics in grad undergrad but you you were you you were aware that it was a minority >> perspective correct? >> Yeah. And I had a minor in math. So you knew what you were you knew that when you went to grad school you would be entering the the the what do you call the lion's den. You knew that was going to happen. Correct. >> Yes. But but the so so the problem is is that there was no economics. It was only math. >> I got it >> right. There the the um one of the >> and the teachers were bad and the students were bad. Okay. I get it. >> It wasn't just that the students were bad but the teachers were bad >> and you couldn't understand them. Yeah. >> And and uh the the Korean he he did he had a matrix, right? And it's M by N. >> Yeah. >> Okay. He say it's M. >> Yeah. >> And then he would write it in cursive with three humps or two and a half humps, right? I'm like, what is is that like N as in Nancy or M as in Mary? And oh, it was Oh, it was so frustrating. >> Well, I was a little surprised by that because uh Tulain's a good private university. I I mean I went to uh I was electrical engineer major at LSU and then I went to grad school at LSU and I saw the same thing. Well, in in undergrad, let's say 1/4 of the teachers were foreigners and they were hard to understand. But in grad school, it was heavily a heavily Indian and Asian uh classmates and professors. My wife was a double E. She had trouble understanding half these guys. So, it wasn't even the the subject matter. It was the professors and the language they spoke. But I'm surprised that t like there's lots of competent mainstream economists in the US. I don't why would Tulain have to hire uh a foreign professor? That seems odd. >> Now, now there were a couple of of uh Americans uh and a Canadian. Um the Canadian, his name was Ernie Tanner, and he taught macro and I did very well in that class. Um but then um like two years into like two years afterwards he died of a heart attack. So um and then there was another guy uh Pritchard he was a an economic historian uh in nometrics which is um taking mathematical models and applying them to history and such and uh Jeremy Atac is kind of like the big name in that area area. Um and so so he was doing some interesting things with uh the slave market because New Orleans had those records such so he was doing some interesting stuff but he was not like first year grad student professor >> and um this the economics department was not part of the business school that was part of arts and sciences. uh when we did take a finance class, a graduate level finance class, um I think the level of professorship went up a little bit because that was in the business school, but uh I was very frustrated and after um my first year there um I I knew I didn't want to stay there and they I I they have the um a master's degree, right? It's like the by the way MA. It's like oh you know oh did you know by the way you just earned a master's. So so for a year and a half you could earn earn a master's degree. So um so I came back after that first summer and I basically said um I'm here for one more semester and I'm gone. And uh and they they like okay don't let the door hit you I guess you know. Um but anyway, so I got my masters at Tulain and while um I was there I was also in the process of reapplying to uh some other schools. So when I graduated from Hillsdale in '92, uh a couple of my friends, one went to George Mason and Pete Calcano, he went to Auburn University and Pete and I would talk to each other uh you know like maybe every six weeks or so, every month and a half. And uh it's like you're learning about what I'm doing this stupid math stuff, you know, like oh you're learning about you know this cool economics thing. And so um you know and the Mises Institute was there. >> Yeah. >> So I I transferred um into to Auburn and >> Oh, I see. Okay. So that was before that was when they still had a they don't then they got rid of the PhD program eventually, right? >> Yes. Well, yes. And then it kind of came back, but it's an Aggie Econ. Wasn't Wasn't Wasn't Scott Ki was Scott Kiar there when you were there or? >> So, yeah. So, so I um uh I went there and so Pete Kalcano was two years ahead of me. Uh he was with uh Sandy Klene in that group. >> Yeah. >> And um and so my group had uh Greg Dempster. He's over at uh Sydney and uh Luis Tico >> um and a couple of others. And then the year behind me is after Yoey and Scott Kajar and uh a couple of other guys came over from Vegas. >> Uh because Rothbart just died >> at >> and and so I think there was not in the econ department the Tor Macan was there for a while, right? Am I or no? Or was he at a different he was a Chapman? Never mind. But uh >> who's who were the Rodrik Long was there, I guess. >> No, Long was not there at that point. >> Well, who were the professor the the people in our circles that were professors at at Auburn? Weren't there a few >> Garrison obviously? >> Oh, Garrison. Right. >> Right. So So obviously Garrison. Uh Mark Thornton was was >> Oh, Thornton. Right. Right. >> And and he still kind of does. Um um and then you have Bob Eland. OB obviously. >> Yeah. and um Eland and with him was a Bear. Abear is a fellow traveler and and so uh the the chair of the department was David Leand and he was Austrian friendly, right? So so there weren't any people there that were hostile, >> right? >> Openly hostile to Austrian. uh they were Austrian accepting through Austrian approving to being actually Austrian. Uh and then Joerger was there uh teaching classes because he's he retired from Virginia at that point >> and uh I actually took his last um economics class he ever taught. Um so >> I see I see. Well, and by the way, I didn't mean for this history of the United States. I didn't mean for this to be a bio biographical interview, but we might as I think some of this some of this is actually relevant to what we're going to get into because it it kind of helps flesh out um our perspectives on um on the foundational issues. Um >> that could be um and so the Mises Institute was there. I was a fellow. We did uh brown bag lunches where we you know went through you know man economy and state. Uh we had nation, state and economy by messes right and we went through different Austrian works. We had um some people came for long chunks of time. Uh Sanford Akita came down and he was working on >> interventionist stuff and so he came down and >> I just saw him at u I think I saw him at the app meeting. I think we sat we sat next to each other at dinner. Oh, >> wonderful. I hope he's doing well. >> He seems to be doing great. Um >> Peter Klene then obviously came uh not as a professor at Auburn. Um and um you know and so so we were we were a tight group and that was when they were building uh the the first part of the Mises Institute building across the street >> uh or down the street a little bit. >> Yeah. Yeah. And um and so then they had the uh the first Austrian scholars conference which uh which I went to and uh I've been >> Do you know what year that was? I've been I could never find was around 92 or something like that. Does that sound about right? >> No. No, it's later than that. It's uh it's probably 95. It could be 94. >> See, I went to the one in 95, but I >> was Was Peter Bedkkey there? >> Pete Becky was at one of the first ones I went to for sure. Did you go to the one with Peter Bedkkey? >> Yes. >> Then that's the first one. >> The one he got in the fight with Hapa in the hallway about >> the first one. >> Okay. Um >> Yep. That's the >> I thought I thought it was a revival. I thought it was a revival of an old thing and had been revived like in 1992 or something. Um >> so it was revived only after Rothbart died. >> Um yeah, apparently. Apparently. Uh but that was the first that was the first one that the the Mises Institute put together, right? Some other group may have put one together. Uh but that was the first Austrian scholars conference. And then >> how do you know how do you know that's the first one? >> Um >> me just going from memory. >> Well, yeah, because I was a I was a fellow there. Um and that was the first one and then they've been dating them ever since, right? Like the 10th annual and and such based on that one. >> Okay. Well, I guess my me so my original recollection was that was the first one, but then I got I started thinking in the last year that it was like the third or fourth one and I had missed the earlier ones, but I guess my original >> Now they have Mises University. >> No, I know. I'm talking >> back in the late 80s. >> Are you still involved with Mises Institute? >> Yes, I am. I'm going to be giving um a couple of talks at uh Mises University in July. In fact, I'm teaming up with Sean Rittenau. Uh we do kind of a duo. It's like uh Austrians you've never heard of. So >> Okay. Interesting. >> Well, I guess I guess you're aware of the uh the sort of the split between Hoa and me and all these guys and and Mises and all that. >> Well, I I to get into it, but I'm just make sure you're aware of it. >> I I know that there is a split. Um, I read what was posted on I guess it's hapa.com or whatever whatever that web page is. Uh, but I don't know more than that. >> Yeah. Gotcha. Gotcha. >> I don't I don't um I'm not part of the inner circle or anything. And um you know, >> lucky you. Lucky you. I mean, I was, you know, I was a senior fellow there from 90 from 2009 to 2013 when u I I I I rage quit after uh I was stabbed in the back by Gordon and Solerno and Rockwell. So, uh I'm I've just had it with these [ __ ] to be honest. Um >> I I I don't know anything about that. I I >> I don't I don't try to pick fights. I mean, intellectual fights are are one thing, but um you know, I >> but then but then I'm not I'm not a huge name like Canalo, so you know what who can get mad at me? It's like getting mad at Toast, right? >> Okay. Um All right. Well, that's a good background. So, let me let me see if I can frame this without unfairly framing it and see where we disagree. Um, >> because you've already I think you and I agree. We we both agree on the fundamentals that there should be property rights. Y. >> So would you would you agree that this I don't think that libertarians always think of it this way, but the way I've had I've been forced to think of it to explain my my view of rights and intellectual property and other things is that when when we talk about individual rights and we talk about the non-aggression principle, that's really a shorthand for a a cluster of of property rights principles because you can't know if something's aggression unless you first identify who owns what, right? So, it's not a it's not it's although Rand called it and Rothbart originally called it the non-aggression axiom, it's not an axiom and it's not even an independent principle. It's more like a summary of what we view as permissible or legitimate. Um, so in other words, you can't say that me taking your your watch is theft unless we know whose watch it is. Right. >> Right. Right. I mean, we can we can deconstruct, you know, like all the words like what does it mean to be aggression, right? Um >> well, aggression means using someone's resource without their permission. I think that's what it means. So, but the question is whose resource is it? >> Well, is is um is a threat than aggression. >> Well, that's that's an application. That's a different issue. But I mean, just so I think the answer is yes. And that's what I'm saying is that that that you've got um um a few things that that that need to be defined. >> No, I know. I agree. But but the core the core the core libertarian principles the way I view it is this >> is that it can be reduced to property rights. >> Well, that's what Rothbart Rothbart said that all rights all human rights are property rights. >> Right. That's what they are. their property right is the is the legally or socially recognized right to exclude someone from a resource um or to control it but really to exclude and in the case of your body the presumption is that everyone is a self owner that they're the owner of their own body which is why it's another way of saying that murder and slavery and battery and assault and rape are are are a crime because it's the use of someone's body without their consent Right now, you and I would agree agree to that. Um, I don't know if all people do. >> No, I know. I'm talking about libertarians. That's what I'm saying. I'm trying to find where we disagree where we where we diverge. So, we would agree that there's self ownership and the presumption is that everyone owns their body. >> Yes. >> Or another It's another way of saying that murder is wrong or slavery is wrong. >> I agree with that. Yeah. >> And with an exception for like self-defense. In other words, if if I'm hitting your body, it might be permissible if you're if I'm defending myself if you're in the process of trying to attack me. >> So, but the so that means you could say that that means that you've when you start attacking me, you've transferred ownership. You've alienated in a sense um part of your own ownership rights of your own body. You've kind of consented by your act of aggression against me to my using force against you to stop me. That's one way to look at the reason why there's an exception to the idea that you can't use violence against someone's body. You can use it if it's in self-defense. >> Um, I'm not trying to trap you with this. I'm just trying to >> I'm thinking that that's >> um that that you don't so so by by my aggressing upon you um I don't know if I I forfeit my rights to my body but you know like >> to a certain but to a certain extent you do. Yeah. >> Sorry. to a certain extent you do and not maybe forever, but you've you've consented. You basically laid down the rule that now it's permissible to use people's bodies without their permission because that's what you're doing in that action. So, you effectively consented to a self-defensive maneuver by your victim. >> Yeah. I'd have to I'd have to think about that wording, but in general, yes. >> Yeah. And then for that's for bodies but there are other resources in the world that as Mises would say we use as means of action scarce resources right yes >> and those are tools or resources that we that were there thing there are physical things out there in the world that were previously unused and unowned and that people start to use as part of action >> and that when they because of the nature of scarce resources there's a potential for conflict between actors in the use of these resources. And because of this potential for conflict, then in society, we we develop laws or property rights that say who the owner of these things are. And though and the ownership rights are assigned in accordance with kind of three simple principles. One is the the core principle is original appropriation or homesteading. The first person who starts using a resource that was previously unclaimed and unowned is the presumptive owner. like that's just that's how you acquire ownership of an of an ownable thing or you could transfer it by contract to someone else. That's the second principle. And then the third one was if if you if you if you violate someone's property rights by committing trespass or hurting them, then you might owe them compensation um to to to for restitution or or recompense. So then you would have to transfer some of your property to them u for that. So basically you can identify who owns a resource by saying is it a human body? If it's a human body the owner is that person unless he's committed aggression. Okay that's self ownership. But for other resources whenever there's a dispute about who owns that resource, we simply say who who started using it first or who got it by contract. Like that's how we decide who the owner of a resource is. that's what it means to be in favor of private property rights and and and and um and free enterprise and libertarianism. Would you would you kind of agree with that general way of putting it? Um, so I I I I I read through all of this, which was the 70 80 pages of stuff you sent. >> Okay. >> And um um I've got a lot here that I'm kind of juggling and I don't want to I don't want to jump over too many things. Um but let me let me ask from just at the top right at at at the the the meta level uh maybe not metal level but let me let me ask you this. Do you agree that from a lock in point of view that copyright is a legitimate right? So if if someone says I'm a lock in that it's okay to der that that from that position you can derive copyright. Okay, before before I answer that, let me let me let me lay the groundwork for the listeners a little bit. So, >> Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah. >> You wrote a paper. You presented something at Auburn maybe back in >> 2008. >> Wow. Okay. So, 2008 and I I think I >> surprised myself. >> I was a commentator or something on it or I was in the audience and you and I have had we've we've talked about it back and forth because I think you're wrong and I'll explain why. Um, that's what this is about is is is how and would you would you agree with me that if we're going to talk about this in the end, we have to in the we have to basically have a definition of what we disagree about and what intellectual property is, we have to do that at some point. >> I I think I think that's going to come out and I think I think I know where we disagree. >> Okay. >> Um, and >> yeah, and your question is not a bad one, but before I get to that, so let me let me lay the groundwork a little bit more. Um, >> absolutely. >> And so, uh, would you also agree that probably until the the internet around 1995 and when I wrote my article that's that started our our p the perspective of the my perspective on this was around 2000 or so >> 2001 was your article and then there was a lot of blogs that came out in the early 2000s and that's that's what I was um interested reading all of that sort of >> right. So 2000 Yeah. And so would you agree that in our circles in sort of Austrian circles most people who paid put their attention to this issue more or less tend to agree with me on this at this point. Would you tend to agree with that? >> I don't think there's been push back on you. So yeah. >> Okay. Um >> because I didn't do anything with my paper because I've not been when I wrote it I didn't have I showed it to a libertarian friend of mine. >> Yeah. >> And he was a a big Rothbart hoppian sort of guy >> and um and he said that that he thought my criticisms were fair but um because I didn't have like my own positive theory >> um he he he said I needed to do that first. And then it was years later that I kind of developed my own, >> you know, positive theory. But >> but because it was so many years later and I was busy doing all these other things, I've I've never really circled back to it >> um to kind of put it together and and quite honestly, I I should have probably published it back then um >> but but I didn't. So >> I think it's I think it's not ready and maybe after this conversation if you still want to publish it or version you could do it then after after seeing what you would need to address but um >> yeah I think so. Um but um okay so you asked about lock um >> yes >> well and we don't need to go into a full-blown definition first but but you asked about copyright so let me just for the listener let me just explain >> um there is a field of law which is called intellectual property law and it it embodies what's called intellectual property rights that is a new term which originated in the I think in the in in the sometime in the 19 or 1800 late 1800s 1900 probably I think the early 1900s when there was a debate about the two about intellectual property um which up until that time had been called what's called either monopoly privileges or it wasn't called by a unifying word it was just different discrete types of of rights >> patent law the the most important types of intellectual property are patent law and copyright law which are legislatively or statutoily and federally granted in the US and then there are other types like trademark and trade secret and then there are even other newer types but the the main or those four are the what's called the the paradigmatic quartto two are common law based trademark and um trade secret although they've been legislatively codified and two are statutebased or legislation based which is patented copyright and those two patented copyright are authorized in the US constit stitution when they be they were they were recognized as temporary monopolies by even the defenders. But then when the free market economists in the 1800s started opposing them because they were seen as restrictions on freedom of trade and in the free market and freedom of comp and they were seen as anti-competitive. The defenders of these things started calling them intellectual property rights to make them sound like property rights to avoid that criticism. So that's why we call them intellectual property. Now u but the question from a libertarian point of view is whether these rights are legitimate, not whether they're property. I think you would probably agree with that. Um now you so you asked me about and and in your paper you you tried to say that >> um the copyright subset of IP defended by Rothbard, which is like a type of contractual copyright might be defendable, which I disagree with. But so you were trying to defend one type I think in your paper. Um and so that's why I think you asked me about Loach. So >> yeah, I can I can clarify this as we go on. >> Okay. So Loach um my view is number one it doesn't really matter what Loach believed because he could be right or wrong. So we don't want to go with argument from authority. But my view is lock did not believe in intellectual property. But he has been he has been by the proponents of intellectual property like Adam Mosaf and these others who dishonestly try to enlist Thomas Jefferson and the founders and lock on their side. Um because they're trying to make an argument from authority because they're trying to mask the fact that it was a propaganda term. intellectual property was a propaganda term that the proponents of of these monopoly privileges came up with to to hide the fact that that's what they are. And so now they're trying to say it's a natural right and it was always seen as a natural right even though if you read the constitution it says to promote the progress of science and the arts. It's like it's a clearly utilitarian thing and that's why they're therefore granted for limited times. Lach himself was in favor loosely of some type of copyright, but only on on credential or consequentialist grounds. He did not say or think in my view that it came from his it was an implication of his natural rights views. And there's a scholar named Ronan Deasley. I've got this all over my website who is who's commented on this. He's more of a deep uh historian. And he he concludes that Loach and this is just a guy with no skin in the game. He's just a regular mainstream historian. Um, Loach did not um himself uh maintain that his views on homesteading and property rights implied intellectual property or copyright at all. Um, so I I don't think I don't think copyright is an implication of Lock's views. If that was is that if that was what your question was? Well, um I I was I'm not really interested in in what Loach concluded per se. Okay. >> Um because the way the way that I read Ethics of Liberty is Rothbart is a a lock in uh guy in that book, right? >> Yes. >> And um you know, maybe today he would have changed his mind or whatnot, but but >> I think he would have. Yeah, I do think so. But that's a different issue. Yeah. I I I mean I I I only have what you know what's written and what he's published. Um um and so from from his point of view uh the Rothbard point of view is is he's very lock in in his approach and then from that you can extend copyright. Now um >> but that's not hold on that's not what Rothbart does. Rothbard extends copyright based upon a contractual argument based upon his own reformulation of contract theory which had nothing to do with lock. Um and let me also you say let me also mention one thing about Rothbard. Um okay >> maybe you're maybe you're aware of it maybe you're not. Um >> maybe not. So Rothbard as you know um in 1988 in the Liberty magazine symposium about Hoppa's argumentation ethics um sort of hailed Hapa's argumentation ethics as as a vast improvement over his own natural law or natural rights version of of rights which he said was almost wimpy in comparison. So the point is he he sort of showed the humility to admit that someone could make an improvement on his theory and he also conceded that his his argument for rights wasn't sort of airtight. Uh I think he was appealing to certain intuitive principles that we kind of share but it wasn't really 100% airtight. Um and number two in and Hapa is himself 100% with me on this issue uh that you may be aware of. He's 100% against intellectual property. In in 1988, there was a panel at Mises Institute or one of their one of their conferences before I was involved with them before I had written on IP. And actually Leela Jagger was on the panel, David Gordon, Murray Rothbart, and Hoa. Those four guys were on a panel. >> Okay. and and the in the Q&A session someone asked a question of Hapa and they said it was about knowledge like if someone comes up with a useful idea >> then if someone else learns about it can they use it or is it their intellectual property and Hapa immediately said well you you can't own ideas anyone who knows of information right >> that can guide their ideas can own it >> so the point is he instantly came up with a kind of a key reason why there's something incoherent about intellectual property as a right and but the point is that Rothbart was sitting right next to him this is 1988 >> and Rothbart had already was about to endorse his argumentation ethics and Rothbart didn't say anything so I think that is some and and hapa agrees with me now that if Rothbart had lived a little bit longer he would have agreed that he had made an error on the um on his what I call uh uh copyright by contract argument um which is what he does in the ethics of liberty that you're talking about. So that's the stage >> and let me summarize tell me see if you agree with this. So what Rothbart argues is that >> um he first argues against patents somewhere in man economy and state but he doesn't really have a good argument for it other than it's sort of unfair for the an independent inventor to uh be prevented from using his invention if someone else gets a patent on it. But that's not really to be honest the main problem with patent law. So Rothbard, everyone says he's anti patent. >> I'd have to look at that again. It's been a while. I I don't remember it exactly. I I'll I'll defer to you on that one. >> He he's critical of patents for two reasons. Number one, it's it would be unfair in the case of an independent inventor to for him to have a patent. >> And number two, um it distorts because patents are only granted for certain types of invention, but not for uh abstract ideas or scientific theories or mathematical theorems. So if you can't get protection on one but you can get protection on the other then it would distort the amount of resources and R&D that would go into different fields. So it distorts the market for >> fundamental research and Milton Friedman made the same critic. So there's sort of two >> that that's empowering market, right? >> I I think that may be empowered market. Um >> yeah I don't disagree with that at all. In fact I am not >> I don't disagree. Yeah. >> I'm not in favor of patents. >> No. and Rothbart wasn't. But my point is, everyone says he was against patents, but he he he was just against it for a couple of criticisms, not the fundamental criticism. He never went that deep into it. And number two, he's not really against patents because his argument that he gives in the for new liberty, I'm sorry, in ethics of liberty for what he calls contractual or common law copyright would cover inventions because the example he gives is a mouse trap. if you remember >> that was and that's what that's what patents cover, not copyright. So yeah, >> he's he's calling it a a common law copyright, but it covers inventions. So he really does by the back door think he's arguing for a type of contractual patent. >> Yeah. >> Um and and and by the way, not only that, >> he this is another mistake he made inadvertently, I'm sure. As I said earlier, patent and copyright were purely creatures of statute. They were authorized by the constitution. They were enacted in 1790 by the congress in the patent patent act and they were the precursors were the statute of an in England in 1623 for patents. >> I'm sorry, the statute of monopolies in 1623 for patents and the statute of an in 1710 for copyright. So copyright and patent are have their origin in statutes and legislation. M >> and those practices. But there was a a narrow type of right recognized on the common law and it was called common law copyright. And what that it was more like a trade secret. And what it what it said was if you have a manuscript >> that's unpublished like in your desk drawer, >> right? someone steals it from you and they they race to the printer to try to print it, you can stop them from printing it because you have a common law copyright to be the first one to print it. >> Um, which is very similar >> bailment sort of thing, isn't it? >> It's like bailment. It's like trespass. It's almost It's also like trade secret, which trade secret law says if you keep something secret and someone violates a contract to keep it secret, you can you can you can use court action to stop them from leaking it further if they haven't done that yet. So you can you can trace this common law copyright. It's not really a copyright like we think of it now, but the the my point is the term common law copyright was already in existence and it referred to this narrow right >> to be the first one to publish something that you kept secret. >> I see >> that was basically abolished by the copyright statutes when they came they they preempted the field and that's the main thing that doesn't really exist anymore. >> Interesting. So when Rockird when Rockbird >> So when Rothbart talks about he's not in favor of of patent law, >> but he's in favor of common law copyright. >> Yeah. >> He's reviving a term that used to refer to a narrow copyright right. >> But he's talking about something different based upon his contract theory. So >> if anyone knows about this, it's going to lead to confusion, but no one understands it anyway. But the point is he came up with a a a sooie generous doctrine on his own which was rooted in his contract theory wasn't rooted in lock and he called it common law copyright even though that term was already used for a defunct common law doctrine and even though it referred to inventions like a mousetrap and not books although I guess it would apply to books too. So, it's basically a very >> undefined all over the map theory, >> an odd mixture. >> And and and the the key mistake he makes in my view is that he says that he's he also combines in this doctrine of the common law and of the law which says that um ownership of a thing like a piece of land or a car um doesn't you don't lose ownership of something if someone steals it from you. Okay. Which is true. So if someone steals >> rights are violated, you're you don't lose your rights. Yeah. >> Well, if someone steals my watch from me, I still am the owner of the watch. And if I >> you still have the rights. They're just being violated. >> But if the thief sells it to a third party >> and the thief is long gone, and I I find >> I find the the good faith purchaser or a bonafide purchaser who was an innocent person who bought the watch >> from the thief. And now I can get the watch back. The question is who gets it back? And most libertarians would say, "Well, the owner gets it back because the thief couldn't transfer to the buyer any rights greater than he had." And the same thing is true in real property law where if I own a house, let's say I own a home and it's subject to a mortgage, >> right? >> That really means the ownership rights are divided between the the the the tenant or the user or the naked owner, we've been saying in the civil law, and and the mortgage holder. So the the rights are divided and if I sell the home to someone else, they don't take it free and clear. They take it subject to the mortgage because I can only transfer to the buyer what I have the right to sell them. Okay. That's a doctrine. >> Go ahead. >> I mean, if if you're if you have a mortgage and you say that the collateral is the house, right, and you sell the house, um you still >> you sell the you sell the hand you sell the land with the house, >> but Yeah. Right. But but you you saw the you saw the property, right? Um I mean I I let's say I'm the owner. I have the mortgage and and you know >> each each month um I don't have to pay off that mortgage. I could continue to I mean I was just using the house as the collateral um to it. Right. So >> that's actually not that's not that's not true. You do have to pay What do you mean you don't have to pay it off? No, I mean I do have to pay it off, but but let's say I I mean why I mean I mean I'm I'm thinking maybe I could take other assets as as substitute collateral and just >> only only if the bank agrees to it. Only if the lender the creditor agrees to it. The creditor has a property right interest in the house. That's called security. They they have collateral. they have um they have a mortgage on the house and in the case of real prop of movable property like a car it's called a you know a security device or security interest they >> so so they they have okay it's like co ownership >> lawyering comes in handy uh >> well it's like co ownership I mean look if if you have a car and and you have a loan the car is the collateral >> so the bank actually has the right to uh to have a say on the collateral and if I >> yeah in fact if you ever noticed Have you ever have you have if you have ever paid off a car loan or or or a house, then the bank sends you the they they hold on to that title, you know? >> Yes. Yes. Um it's it's been a long time since since that's happened. Um >> well, the point is this is an old doctrine of the law. This is a >> well I'm just kind of working it through because because I haven't really I'm not a lawyer. This is what this is what Rothbart Rothbart relied upon this when he said when he tried to extend his contract his common law contract his common law copyright idea. >> He relied upon the the the idea that if you own property you can only transfer as much of it as you own which is true. So I if I if I stole a watch I can't I can't I can't give you good title to the watch if I sell it to you. >> Right. Right. Right. I get it. If I if I have a house burdened by a mortgage, if I sell it to someone, they can buy it from me, but they they still is still subject to the mortgage. >> Yeah. If they buy if they buy a half a million dollar house and I have $200,000 mortgage, I have to pay off the $200,000 out of the proceeds. Well, it depends on the it depends on the mortgage, but I mean but um you could theoretically you could have a you could have a creditor that says, "I don't mind if you sell it, but you're still on the hook for the loan and then the buyer the new buyer is still on the hook for the loan and I still have a security interest in the house." I mean, you could do it however you want, but the point is there's effectively a co-owner and as you when you own something, you can only sell what you own. That's the point. You can only sell what you own. >> Okay? So Rothbard uses that in his ethics of liberty to argue for this common law or contractual copyright which covers a mousetrap which is an invention that would be covered by patent law. But anyway, so his argument is this that he he he recognizes the problem with this. See what he says is that if let's suppose I own I come up with a better way to make a mousetrap literally >> okay >> and I sell this mousetrap to people but I know that as soon as my competitors learn of my improvement on the mousetrap the the example I gave of this in in the in my n in my 2001 article was nitnol you remember nitanol was this memory metal that it was like a spring and I said I don't know what if you have like a tefloncoated spring or nitten all spring, but it was some improvement to the mousetrap. Okay. >> And the way the free market works is if someone learns that you you have a better way of doing something, a new service or a new product, then if it gets more if you make a profit because you're attracting compet uh consumers, then people emulate that. That's what the free market competition process is all about, right? And >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so and so you know that people might start competing with you and this is why people want to get a patent or a copyright. They want to have the the state prevent people from competing with them. So Rothbart says well if you're selling this mousetrap when what you do is you sell it to a bunch of buyers but with every one of those guys you have a contract with them where they agree I guess they agree not to copy it or something like that. Okay. So, he's sort of imagining that there's a piece of there's a physical object that's owned by the by the by the buyer, but there's like this connection between the mousetrap and the seller and and the and the right to copy is missing from it. Like you see in this weird metaphysical idea like like you have a mousetrap >> and normally you have the right to copy it but it's missing the right to copy because that right to copy was retained by the seller which is a very weird way of thinking of things. And by the way this is what's upsetting a lot of people today with this right to repair. People are using copyright and patent to say that you don't really own your tractor or you don't own your car or you don't own your computer because we can disable the heated seats in your Tesla or we can disable >> Yeah. Yeah. >> computer if you don't pay your software license and that's pissing or or or you can't even repair it yourself. You you violate our copyright. So basically, you see how this sort of violates the idea that if you sell someone an object and they pay you for it, and they're supposed to be the owner, but they don't have the right to to use it, it's like they don't really >> simple. You're right. >> Right. >> Which and there's nothing wrong, by the way, with co ownership because as again in the case of the house with a loan on it, that's a co-ownership situation. There's nothing wrong with that as long as it's consented to. But what Rothbart does is he says, "Okay, even if you sell these mousetraps to a bunch of buyers and you get them to agree not to copy it." >> Yeah. >> By the way, he slips he he he he evades the or he he doesn't address the issue that that would that would mean your price would have to be greater because you're imposing an inconvenience or a burden on the buyer. Now, they're liable for damages if they copy it or they can't you they can't copy it now. So if they were willing to pay $10 for the mouse trap, they might only be willing to pay nine now. So it's going to reduce like this is not costless to insist upon this u this this impairment of your sale. >> Plusive that's secondary issue. >> It's secondary. But so that's I think it's impractical is my point. But anyway, let's suppose you sell it to a million people and your mousetrap is a hit and every one of your customers has an agreement with you that they can't copy it. Rothbart sees it. The problem is what about a third party who who buys the mousetrap and copies it because under the law you the the buyer the the third party buyer is not in what we call privity of contract with the seller. So he's not obligated to not copy it. So Rothbard makes that he makes an analogy to that that doctrine I mentioned earlier about you can only sell what you own. He says, "Well, the first buyer of the mousetrap can only sell what he owns to his his buyer, and he doesn't own the right to copy. So, the mousetrap is still missing the right to copy." >> But you see how odd that is to say that the mousetrap is missing the right to copy. Because the problem with that is that it assumes that you need the right to copy to copy things, >> right? So, for example, if I see you just selling a mouse trap, that's a new mousetrap. Let's forget about patents or anything like that. I just see uh Paul uh by the way, am I getting your name? Is it Swick? >> It's it's S Sw is how you pronounce it. >> Swick. >> Yeah. >> Oh, and on the side I I mentioned to you earlier that coincidentally there's this guy named Brian Swick who is >> Yeah. Whoa. I mean it's rare to so he's actually written on intellectual property too. So I I it's kind of odd that your name and his would come up for the two thinkers who have written on intellectual property. Um because your name is fairly rare I would think in the west. >> Uh it is it is there's there's a few of us uh in in the United States. Uh but you know I don't know. So, but to so the the problem with Rothbird's way he's framing this is you don't need permission. You don't need to have the right to copy in a thing to copy it. Like if I just learn of the fact that there's a guy named Paul Swick who is selling a better mousetrap, like literally a better mousetrap, >> right? >> Then I'm going to start making my mousetrap better too, >> right? like I I don't need your permission to do it because >> I'm not violating your rights in doing it. >> Right. >> So So the that's that means that that's the flaw in Rothart's art. So Roer, what Rothler says is that the the third party buyer, I think he calls him Brown also doesn't have the right to copy because he got it from a guy who didn't have the right to copy. >> But that's just another way that's another way of trying to say that he really is in privity of contract even though he's not in private contract. >> Right? So that's my point about why I think Rothbart's argument is flawed and fails and that's what you sort of tried to rely on in your argument. Well, this is this is part of of what my friend was telling me is like I don't really have or in this paper I didn't put forward a a positive theory of of you know it's like well how do I think about you know property >> or a def or a definition which is why if you're going to if you're going to say as a libertarian and if you agree with me that >> there are property rights in material tangible scarce resources >> allocated in accordance with self ownership of your body and with with locky and homesteading and contract of other things. If you already agree with me on that, >> then if you say and then there's there's also a property right in intellectual property, >> you need to number one define what you mean by that and number two justify it and number three show how it's compatible with what you already agree with. I think you might agree with me. >> I almost agreed with you. Yes. >> Okay. So, so do you believe in intellectual property and what is it and why? >> Okay. So, so um I don't I don't know if I have a a proper definition of intellectual property rights for you to meet all all your your standards or whatnot. Um but let me tell you where I stand on on the four things, right? So, when it comes to patents, I'm against patents. Why? H >> why? >> Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. >> Uh when it comes to copyright, I'm in favor of copyright. >> Okay. >> When it comes to uh trade secret, I think that's okay. And um and I forgot what was the fourth one. >> Trademark. >> Trademark. Um you know, I honestly don't know. Um, >> let's just talk let's just talk about copyright because the other two are two >> that if you buy copyright you you get trademark as well. >> No, you don't. You don't. They're too different. But let's just talk about copyright. >> Okay. Um so so the way that I separate out in my mind um copyright from from patent is that a patent is to protect uh something that is discoverable in the natural world. So if I come up with a new uh mouse trap as you say or other mechanical device that's simply an application of of physics right the >> and laws of physics if I develop a drug that cures cancer that's an application of chemistry something that's also discoverable in the natural so when Alexander Graanbell and the other dude invent the telephone and one guy I think Bell gets to the patent office a half an hour before the other guy. Um I I think that's completely illegitimate because these are are independently discoverable and and such because it's about um discovering what what takes place in the real world. Okay. >> By the by the way, just as an aside, until Obama's America Invents Act in 200 >> until what? >> Whenever that was >> until what? until Obama's America Invents Act in 2012. >> Invent >> America Invents Act. It was it was a revision to patent law. >> Until that happened in than the US, the US was a different was unlike every other country. >> Uh it was the first inventor to conceive that would win in the case of a patent battle between two independent inventors. It wasn't the first one to the patent office. So the example you gave was actually wrong. I mean, >> is it actually wrong? Do you know the story? Well, I don't I I know that there were multiple independent inventors at the at the at the time for almost every notorious invention like the light bulb and airplanes and none of these things happened. The transistor, calculus, which was not patentable, but you know, Lenness and Newton, marginal utility theory was came up with by four guys at the same time. Um, >> yeah. Yeah. >> Uh, Clark. But anyway, uh, no, the point is if Edison, did you mention was it Edison was your example? >> No, it was Belle. >> Okay. If Belle got to the patent office first, he could still be beaten by another guy if he conceived of it first and show that he conceived of it first. I had no idea. >> I know. And and by the way, that that law changed in 2012. Now it's the first of the patent office wins. But up until then, there was something called an interference proceeding where you had to you could have two people prove. That's why they would have to keep track of their of their of their inventor notebooks to have a log to prove when they conceived of it because that would could matter if if someone beat them to the patent office. They could they could still beat them. Um but interesting >> there is a use for contemporaneous notes. Well, there's not anymore because now it's the first of the patent office, but there there was. But um but >> and Ein Rand made that mistake, too, when she was defending patent law. She thought mistakenly that >> it was the first guy to the patent office that got the patent because that is the rule in every other country. >> Huh. >> Is it's the rule in America now. So, she thought that was the rule that the first guy to the patent office would win. And so, she said that, well, I'm in favor of patent rights. I random favor patent rights. But people had but I know that some people say that it's unfair the first guy to get to the patent office wins. But here's why it's okay. >> She was defending something that wasn't even the law. Like she she had the law backwards. But anyway, >> well now now I guess she's up to date, right? Um >> she she luckily got up to date after she died. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Anyway, so so so go ahead. Just so you're saying that you think it's unfair for someone to get a monopoly on the use of an idea that that that is basically an implication of the laws of nature and the way things work. >> Well, I mean, regardless of it's fair or not. I mean, I think it is unfair. Um, I just don't think that you have a right u, you know, to something that is independently discoverable in in nature. Well, what do you have a right to? >> Well, if if you have the ability to discover um you know, Tylenol, acetaminophen, um why can't I independently also discover acetaminophen, right? I mean, >> no, my point my point is but you do agree that we have rights to scarce resources that we find that were unused in the world, right? Means of action. >> Yes. But I I disagree with you later on where you say that um scarcity is the key to rights. >> But would you would you agree that that human action um there are two fundamental ingredients to all human action and to successful human action? That is the availability of efficacious scarce means of action and also knowledge that guides your action. Would you agree that that's an accurate way of explaining praxiology? Um I mean I guess that that fits the ends means framework, right? So >> well it it fits the action framework. I mean you can't have action without scarce means and you can't have action without knowledge that guides your action, right? You have to have both. >> I think I I mean it's it's scarce. Yes. Um >> well that's what's we we use means to achieve things but we also have knowledge. I mean you can't conceive action without knowledge. >> There's a I I don't want to get I don't want to get too too far ahead, but um I don't think scarcity is a good standard for rights. >> I'm not talking about scarcity. I'm just asking you about human action. Would you cons would you concede that human action to have successful human action? You need both the availability of scarce means >> and you need you need knowledge. >> I guess. Yeah. They and they they play different functions and roles in action. One is using a re a means to interfere with the way the world works to causally achieve your outcome. And the other is knowledge about these >> doesn't have to be correct. It's just it's just that that you believe it. >> Well, but well, no, that's the subjective aspect, but it does have to be correct for for for for your action to actually employ the right means to achieve the desired result. I mean, knowledge is practical and useful. Um, let's say I want it to rain and and so I engage in a rain dance because I believe it. >> Yes, >> that fits your definition, right? >> No, I think you then your action would not be successful. You wouldn't call >> it might not be successful, but it would still be an action. >> I said earlier about su the successful human action requires the availability of means and knowledge that guides the knowledge about cause and effect and the way the world is. that knowledge is what guides your action. I'm just saying I'm just saying I'm distinguishing the the knowledge that guides your action from the means that you use to to act. Those are different parts of action. That's all. >> Yeah. Is is my belief then knowledge and and I'm I'm I'm just >> I think Oh, yeah. You can have you could you could have bad you could have you could have your your knowledge is always guided by your beliefs. That's true. And the knowledge, the belief can be accurate or inaccurate. That's true. >> Okay. Okay. Then yes. Um because as an entrepreneur, I I guess what my customers want next quarter, you know, >> that's different. That's that's not knowledge of the future. That's not knowledge at all. That's the entrepreneurial uh skill. That's verse you. I always mispronounce that word because I don't know German. Uh you know, >> you know how to pronounce Yeah. that word. Um no your action is is guided by knowledge that you do have about cause and effect um uh uh human nature facts about the world like that is part of what guides your actions. It's also then when you act it's a judgment about what you what you forecast for the future. But that's not knowledge really. That's your that's your forecast for the future. >> Okay. I mean I mean I I I guess generally I'm not sure. I mean, I I I think I'd be much broader and allow error or >> I do I do too. I do too. I And I You're right. I'm derailing this. The reason I I I interjected was you said you don't think that um there's a right to um to an invention, which is a it's a recipe or a technology or a way of doing something. And I simply said, well, then what do you have rights to? Because I'm I'm I'm trying to divert your attention to the fact that what our rights are is rights to control the scarce means of action, not knowledge anyway. Because human action is a combination of knowledge and means and property rights apply to the means, >> right? >> I I I follow what you're I follow what you're saying and and I think that that that um that here's here's where where we we disagree. Um, so I think I'm I'm the guy that says um that there is such a thing as labor, right? That that that um that it's a it's it's a it's a tradable good. >> Hold on. Is is there is there leisure? >> Yes, that's a consumpable good, >> right? Those are both goods. Um I >> Well, hold on. Hold on. That's not But let's be technical. leisure is not a good >> good is is a is a conditional thing. It's not um it's not necessarily a physical thing. I think that and this is this is where let let me back up a little bit and lay it out and and maybe maybe you you you >> Well, hold on before you do that. Let I derailed you. I want you to complete what you you were saying you you reject patent law because of certain reasons and I I wanted you to explain it but I was probably too premature but basically for some reason you reject patent law. You don't think there's a right to an invention >> right because it's discoverable in nature. >> Okay. So but then you were going to say for copyright but then what? >> So then so then copyright is a is a creation of my mind um is is is the the right from of of ownership that comes from the creation of my mind. And so, uh, I create a a story, a book, I create music, I create, uh, computer code, right? I do one of these things that that gets labeled as as an object of intellectual property. And how it's instantiated is is not as important, right? But it's a particular pattern of words. It's a particular pattern of musical notes. It's a particular >> it's what you want to say. I think what you're you want to say is original unlike it it's it's a it's something that wouldn't exist without the without the creative effort of the the creator >> and and um yes and uh so um and I think I cited FA Harper who said you know that uh it's it's that that active creation and the active ownership arise simultaneously. >> Correct. But you I think I so first of all I I assume you would agree then that Rothbart's argument doesn't suffice because number one he's talking about an invention the mousetrap and number two >> yeah I'm not I'm I'm not relying on on Rothbart at at this point you know okay but you in your paper you did put down my >> the way that I see it >> right >> and and it's because I've I've created this this pattern that is unique to the world. I take ownership over it. >> Well, but that's not an argument. That's like your that's your conclusion. So the question is so you're kind of assuming that uniqueness is relevant. I don't know what uniqueness has to do with it. I mean the reason I laid out the the the property rights we agree with in ex in external resources earlier. that is it's an unknown thing that is we can determine the owner by locking homesteading and contract basically those two principles. Um notice that creation has nothing to do with that. >> Yeah. And I've read your stuff on on this and in in this and and I have some thoughts on it. Um should we go through it? >> Well, no. I want to ask you why do you think that creation is why would the fact that you created an identifiable pattern mean that you own it? >> I think it's sufficient condition >> for for ownership. >> But what does ownership then what does ownership mean to you then? >> Uh control And that that what that's what a title is is what um I telling other people what they can and cannot do with their titles, their property and such, right? All right place restrictions on everyone else's ability to use their property as well. >> No, they No, no, they don't. That's that's a fundamental mistake. Um, >> right. Rights rights are not a restriction on property rights. They're a restriction on actions. >> Um, if if I don't I don't know if I follow the distinction there. >> Okay. Let let me give you an example and see if you agree with this. Um, if if you own a knife >> Yeah. and I steal the knife from you and I stab someone with it. >> Um, are you liable for that? >> No. >> Why? >> Because it wasn't my action that stabbed the person, >> right? So action is what it makes you liable. And number two, if I stab someone with your knife that I stole from you, am I liable? >> I'm sorry, what was that? >> If I stabbed an innocent person using your knife that I stole from you, am I liable? >> Yes. even though I didn't own the knife. >> Yes. >> So, ownership of an object has nothing to do with your responsibility. So, if I have a property right, it doesn't limit doesn't limit >> Wait. So, so ownership of an object has nothing to do with responsibility. >> That's not what I said. What I said is you're what I said is you're responsible for your actions. >> Yes. it. But but that but when you're responsible for an action, it's it's irrelevant whether you own the thing that you used. I'm responsible for hurting you. >> Yeah. >> When when I use something to do it, whether I own that thing or not. >> Okay. >> So the reason I'm responsible is because I'm not entitled to to invade the borders of your resource because you have a property right in it. Your property rights put a limit on what I can do, what actions I can do. right >> with any means. So it's not a limit on my property rights, it's a limit on >> I see what you're saying. I see what you're saying. So property rights do not limit other property rights. >> Action not limiting your property right. >> Correct. Which is why >> Okay. >> Which and that's important because people say when I say the problem with with copyright is that it basically limits what I can do with my property. And the response from your side is well that's not a problem because all property rights limit other property rights. It's like that's not true. Property rights do not limit others property rights. >> Right. But it does limit the person's action then. >> Correct. >> Okay. So then you're not allowed to then use your property in this particular way. Right. >> Not allowed. I'm not I'm not So if if you were to say you have a copyright, what that means? >> Hold on. Let's just let's just follow this for a second. Right. So, if I have a property right to my body and you have a knife, you're not allowed to stab my body because I own my body. Yes. >> I'm not allowed to hit your body with my fist. I'm not allowed to >> to hire a hitman to hit your body. >> So, there's a limitation to your action with your fist and your knife >> because you have a property right in your body. That's what it means for you to have a property. >> If I have a property right to to my my book, then that limits your action on your >> Hold on, hold on, hold on. You got when you say book, do you mean the pattern or do you mean the physical book? There's a difference. >> The the pattern. >> Okay. So, you have a property right and the pattern. What does tell me what that means. So, because if I have a if I have a property right if you have a property right in your car or your body, then what that means is I can't I can't invade the borders of it without I can't tr I can't alter its physical integrity. I can't use it without your permission. That's what it means, >> right? >> In that case. Yes. >> In that case. That's right. In that case, >> and and what I'm saying is that that that's not the only case, right? I'm >> That's fine. That's fine. Hold on. Hold on. >> I'm broadening it to include obviously copyright, right? Because I don't have a problem with that. >> No, but here's here's the thing. A pattern of information is not an independently existing thing. >> How? It never >> it doesn't exist otherwise until I make >> it doesn't ex it doesn't exist at all in a sense the pattern is only the the way that another thing is is rearrang is arranged >> right >> in other words there has to be a substrate >> a medium >> a medium a carrier >> and and I recognize that but the the I don't think that oper limited just to physical things and and but you have to get there. You got to get there. You got to get there. So you can't just So if you already agree that we can identify the owner of a scarce resource. Okay. I'm not saying that that's the only thing that exists. I think that is true. But but let's just say we only agree for now that there are there are scarce resources that are means of action. >> Yep. and that there should be property rights in those and that they should be they should be allocated in accordance with lock and homesteading and contract like that's it basically. >> Okay. Um >> hold on. If you agree with me on that then then if you come up with a third category and you say but there are other things that exist because I created it and it's useful and I can sell it and buy it blah blah blah. Um, and that also I'm the owner of that because I created it. Although I'm not the owner of the the land because I created it. I'm the owner because I homesteaded it. Like you never create anything in homesteading theory. >> Okay. >> So, this is let's talk about that then. >> Okay. >> Um, because I wanted I wanted well I've I've got some things that I wanted to to just to make sure that I'm I'm on the same that I'm understanding you correctly. Uh first um so so you say that um and and maybe I'm wrong on this, but you say that tangible goods exhibit rivalous consumption characteristics and that can be a source of conflict. >> Did I write that? >> No, that's my summary of of what I read. >> Okay. Yeah, it doesn't sound like something I would say. >> No, no, no, no. And so therefore, therefore, property rights are needed to reduce conflict because property rights clarify who has control or title. Um I would I would put some nuances but I think basically >> I'm in the right direction. >> Yeah. There's a potential for conflict over the use of resources. >> Okay. >> And therefore property rights emerge as a way to allow people to use resources uh without conflict by identifying who the owner is. >> Okay. Um now as I read through your stuff um it's you you kept pointing to scarcity as being the key point. Um, but I I think that scarcity is not really your key point. I think it's really rivalous consumption. >> That's correct. I I later on and in fact I use a different word now called conflictability, but rivalousness gets closer to what I'm talking about. >> Yeah. Yeah. So I think because I I I don't ever want to straw man an argument. I always I always want to steal man an argument. You like make make the other side stronger. And I think if you use rivalist consumption as opposed to scarcity that strengthens your argument because >> and and I I do and the problem with scarcity is it's it can lead to equivocation because it's used in two senses. It's used in the sense of lack of super abundance and lack of abundance and those are two different things in economics and in politics. >> It is. It is. And I'm I'm glad that we can >> because people on your side will say, "Well, good ideas are pretty scarce." I mean, I hear that so many times. It's like, yeah, but that's not >> that's not the kind of scarcity we're that we're talking about. You know, we're talking about rivalousness. Yes. Or conflictability as >> Okay. And then and then then the next point that I have from your side uh from your your writings here is that intellectual property rights flips the script because they tell the owner of resources what they cannot do. >> Well, that is actually the fundamental critique of of of of copyright because that's what you're talking about here. Okay. is that it basically copyright is a is a net it's a yeah it tells them what they can't >> okay I'm just I'm just trying to make sure that I'm on the I'm in the right >> it's a it's what I call a a negative servitude it's a non-consensual negative servitude that's fundamentally the problem with IP rights granted by >> by by statute law it's it's it's it's a taking of your property rights by by in the form form of a negative the grant of a negative servitude. Yeah, that's the problem with it. >> Okay. Now, my note to myself after that, I say that all rights place limits on the use of resources, >> which I already that's why I already addressed >> and now we're now we're getting to that point. So, so you can see where where my my notes are. Okay. So, this is good. Um, >> by the by the way by the way, one aside there. Um, even if your perspective was correct that that property rights put limits on other property rights, that still doesn't mean that every property right that you that you propose is legitimate. So, for example, I could say some girl's getting raped by some guy and she complains and he says, "Stop complaining." And she says, "But I own my body." And he says, "Yeah, but all rights are limited." I mean, you can't just assert a right to something because rights are limited. >> Yeah, it's an observation, not not necessarily an argument. Um, there were a couple of points on the scarcity thing that um that I have, but since you've kind of um set that aside, I don't have to to worry about that. >> Um, one thing on on using conflict as as sort of like your highest value. Um I and I know that you know this, but there's there's conflict um that's going to result because of intangible things. Uh non-rivalist things. People go to war over religion and such. >> Okay. Okay. I've got >> I'm just I'm just pointing out that that Yeah, but hold on. I I sent I sent you like a hundred pages or 300 pages of stuff to read and I know you didn't read it all, but um >> I got through most of it. >> Yeah. will buried in there. So, I've actually I've addressed that too somewhere. This >> did you? Okay. >> This this people fight over religion thing. And that that is another that's why it's so important to be precise in our descriptions because what people they're using that as a shortorthhand when they say people fight over religion. That's not really true. What what they're doing is they're they're they're explaining the reasons why people fight over resources. So a fight is always a fight over a scarce resource or a conflictable resource or a rivalous resource like >> uh so if if if >> no that's the motivation for your action but your action is the object the action is the use of a resource without permission by someone else. In other words there's no you never fight over religion. Religion is why you fight. >> I don't I don't think so. >> Yeah. So like for example, if I >> if if there's a a Catholic and a Protestant and the >> Yes. >> and the the Protestant says that this is not uh this this wafer here is not Christ and he spits on it and the next and then the the the Catholic's reaction is is a punch to the face. >> Right. Uh that's that's not really a motivation over saliva on a piece of bread. No, but but the but but but but the act of aggression is the punch. That's >> I'm not saying conflict is is is intangible. >> No, the conflict is physical >> can lead to conflict. >> No, but you when they fight over religion when you so they but that's a way of saying that the reason that they're having a physical a physical conflict over their bodies is because they have a reason. And the reason is they disagree on religion. But the reason is non-tangible. >> Of course, reasons are always non-tangible. >> Well, well, then they're fighting over an intangible thing, not over a scarce resource. They fight with scarce resources. >> They're not they're not fighting over the use of scarce resources. >> Well, I I I think that's wrong. When you say they're fighting over that, that expression is talking about the physical thing that they're actually physically fighting over. In other words, people use what you they use that framing that you just used. They use that as an excuse. >> Yeah. >> As an argument. >> We're agreeing on this one. >> Why? Tell me why. >> Uh because because we're when I say that I'm fighting over the idea, the the the conflict is is really the the fact that you disagree with me and that's the conflict, not not how you're instantiating your idea. Okay, if you if you go back to like Hapa and Lock and these things, we talk about property rights emerging um as a way to order who can use a resource over which there might be conflict normally, right? If you don't know who owns it and that means multiple people might want to use it because it's that type of thing that can only be used by one person. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> It's a rivalous resource, right? When when you have rivals resources, there can be conflict over those resources. Correct? >> And therefore, we assign property rights. >> The vast majority. >> Say again. >> That might be the vast majority of of conflict. >> It's all conflict. Conflict is the is the is the clash over physical things. >> So, I had a a bunch of students ask ask me to do a reading group this last semester. And so, um, so we read 1984. >> Yes. >> And, uh, the main character, Winston, was being tortured because he didn't love Big Brother. >> Yes. >> It's It's conflict over an idea. >> No, it's conflict over his body. So then the question is who who has the right to use his body? He thinks he has the right to use it, but the state thinks they have the right to use it, and they use force to to use >> the idea. Isn't Isn't Is the idea the use of the body? I mean, I guess I guess this might be where your atheism is where >> it's got nothing to do with atheism. Even if I even if I was the theist, it would be the same answer. It's got nothing to do with with with the position position on religion or soul or body or anything like that. >> So So you're saying that it's physical because of the way the neurons are firing. >> No, I'm saying it's physical because that's what that's what that's what when we say we're against the initiation of force. The word force is in there. When we say human action, employ scarce means what does it mean to employ? It means to physically do something. We do live in a physical world. Even if there's a spiritual world in addition, >> right? >> We do. We do live in a physical world. There is cause and effect. >> Then maybe we're just talking past each other >> probably. I think it's but it's an important semantic thing to get straight because in the law for example, if if I commit a crime, >> there's a difference between intentionality and motive. Okay. So if if if I >> between intentionality and and motive. >> Yeah. And most people don't they're not clear. They they they mix them up. So let me give an example. >> Okay. Please. >> Let's suppose let's suppose let's suppose I rape you. Okay. I rape you. Now >> I just watched Pulp Fiction last night. So I have a very >> Perfect. So the action is a crime if it's intentional. That is I I meant to do it. >> Uhhuh. I mean, if I'm if I'm sleepwalking or something, it might not be a crime, but it's if if it's an action, it's intentional, but the reason I'm doing it is my motivation or my purpose, my end. Maybe I'm doing it to humiliate you. Maybe I'm doing it because someone's paying me. I mean, >> oh, I see. >> So, the motive, the reason I'm doing something is different than what I'm doing. Just like if I kill you because you refuse to become Muslim, um the reason I'm killing you is because of a religious difference. But what I'm doing is intentionally invading the borders of your body. >> That's a conflict. >> So it's it's it's a check mark. Is it intentional? Yes. No. Versus accident. And then if it's intentional, then what's the motivation? >> Correct. Then and then that would have that in a in a just libertarian say restitution system then we would take that into account like in the punishment. So for example if I broke into here >> so I I've got my my Catholic and my Protestant and uh the motivation is is the religious difference. >> Correct. >> My punching the person is intentional. >> Correct. But >> and and the conflict is the physical force used against his body, >> right? But >> that's the conflict. There can there hold on. There can only be a conflict because the body is physically scarce and because there's physical force that can affect it. Right? If we were if we were ghosts or angels that are invulnerable, there could be no physical conflict. Or if we lived in a world of super abundance, like that's the point is conflict is the clash of the in incompatible uses of things that are of their nature rivalous. That's what conflict is, >> which >> which is why it's wrong to say people fight over religion because what they're saying is they're explaining the the motivation for the fight, but the fight is the physical clashing over over things that can only be controlled by one person. at a time. It's a little bit semantic, but it's just precise. It's like because it avoids equivocation. >> I think I follow what you're saying. Um and I think I can I can put it into the the Protestant Catholic >> Yeah. >> thing. I'm not sure if I can put it into the Winston 1984 thing yet. >> Well, they're using his body. I mean, look, if you let's let's say today's world, >> all he needs to do is ascent, right? And then it stops. Yeah, but but but they're threatening to hurt his body if he doesn't ascent. So they're assuming ownership of his body even though he's the rightful owner of it. So it's a it's it's a dispute over who owns his body. I if you put a guy in prison in today's world for not paying taxes or for selling cocaine or for not signing up for the for the selective service or for the draft. >> Yeah, I'll have to think about this. He's being >> he's being enslaved by the state. The state is assuming ownership of his body and that's why there's a conflict because only one of them can use the body at a time. >> He's the rightful owner. They're not. >> So you're saying that the word over is >> at least ambiguity. It leads to ambiguity because it makes people think, well, >> you're pointing over to motivation. You're not pointing over to the >> the action itself. Yeah. The physical the physical conflict itself. >> I see the distinction. I don't know >> like like let me give you another example. No, I'm >> I'm following it. I'm just not sure if it's if it's if it's >> enough work to justify your point. That's what I'm going for is is that I'll have to think about it some more. >> Well, I was kind of just say you you mentioned that I was saying I've actually already dealt with that in my writing because I I I basically I've heard every I think at this point I've heard every >> objection, >> every possible objection and I've already dealt with every single one of them. Um >> which is why I think that there I mean look there are decent arguments for the state. There are decent arguments for min men minarchy. There are decent arguments for taxation. There's decent arguments for war. I don't agree with all of them, but they're not they're not implausible on their face. >> But there are no good arguments for the drug war and there are no good arguments for intellectual property in my view. Like they all fail. Like they're all absurd and they all fall apart. Um >> well I I can say that um uh while some people might be very doctrinary and and singularly focused um I have changed my mind on on certain issues from time to time. It doesn't happen that often but the drug war was one of them. Um >> I I was uh in favor of the drug war for a long time and then and then I did you know change my mind on that. a preponderance of evidence and logic and such. So, you know, um I guess there's always hope for me, right? >> Um okay. So, um, but I was but my my point was was on the the premise of of diminishing conflict. And, um, if if I accuse someone of violating copyright and you say there's no such thing as copyright, um, and so then I take the law into my own hands. I initiate conflict. Um I see that conflict could exist in both worlds, right? And the question then is why would a nonIP world have less conflict than an IP world, right? So if if the notion is is to reduce conflict um >> I don't know I don't know and I don't know how how one could actually prove one way or the other that that with IP you get less conflict without IP you get less conflict. >> Yeah. Well I >> we live in an imperfect world. >> Yeah. So I I I think I see where this has to go um for you to go in that direction. So, one thing you would have to um you'd have to clarify what you mean by intellectual property or by copyright because you can't just say if I create something that's uh original. I mean, even the copyright law has certain standards that are put out in the statute and that the courts have developed over time because not everything I mean the title to your novel is not copyrightable because it's too short. It's too descriptive. It would impinge free speech too much. But >> and a common trope like, you know, good guy gets bad guy in a story can't be copyrighted. So there's standards that have to emerge for what counts as sufficiently unique and original and and how long it lasts, >> all that. Yes. >> So So that would have to be part of it. >> I agree. >> But you you would also have to um you'd have to also acknowledge that you you're okay. The reason I was talking about the substrate earlier is and the and the even if we regrant that this pattern of information that someone originated and so-called created like a poem or the plot for a novel or a painting >> or Lord of the Rings, >> right? Although none of those things are completely original. They're all cumulatively based upon the existing culture that went before it. Nothing is ever 100%. But let's let's just say it's original enough to be different. >> Y >> um um and I agree that for most for many original copyrighted works um they're the type of thing that are so unlikely they wouldn't emerge on their own without an intent without an intentional active creative mind behind it. Um, I yeah, you could come up with silly things like, um, a billion monkeys in a billion universes would finally have typed Romeo Juliet or or Atlas Shrugged, but as a practical matter, it it only Atlas shrug the pattern for Atlas Shrugged only exists because Einrand existed and did it. Okay, I agree with that. I just don't think that's relevant for ownership because if you notice when I said that when there's conflict over scarce res or conflictable resources we identify the owner by asking who was the first user that's homesteading >> and who got it by contract from someone else. None of those have to do with creation because we don't we don't think we created those things. So >> so let's get into that. And then finally, and finally, we have to recognize that the a pattern of information, which is what Atlas Shrugged, the book is >> separate from the physical book it's written on, >> y >> never exists as an independent object on its own. It's always just the arrangement or the impattering of a substrate. And if you can see it or understand that then I think you will see that in general the the characteristics or properties of things that are ownable are not themselves ownable. So for example if I own a book which has atlas shrugged printed on it. >> Yeah. >> The book has a lot of features. It has a weight. >> Yeah. >> It has a color. >> It's physical. Well, it has characteristics that define what it is and that that I that that are part of its identity, >> but that doesn't mean and if I'm the owner of that book, that means that I can prevent someone else from using that book without my permission, but it doesn't mean that I own the weight of the book. It doesn't mean that I own the age of the book. It doesn't mean I own the color of the book. And it also doesn't mean that I own the patterning of the book which is what you effectively have to say >> which is but the so when you say that you own the book the physical thing right you do own its age and its its >> I don't I don't I don't own its age. >> I mean it's just a characteristic of the thing. If you own the book you own >> But you don't own you don't own characteristics. That's the point. If I own a red car I don't own red. >> Oh. Oh, I see what you're saying. >> I don't own redness. >> You don't own >> I own the car that happens to be red. >> Okay. Yeah, I I see. Okay. Yeah. Um that's that's >> you don't own the properties of property. That's why I don't call it property. I call it a resource that's owned that you have a property right in. If you call it a property, then you start. So then you have people which you said earlier, people always say, "Hey, canella doesn't believe that ideas are property." That's not actually my argument. It's not that ideas aren't property. is that there are only property rights in physical resources over which there can be conflict and an IP right is not actually a legitimate assignment of property rights in the things over which there can be property >> right but that's that's that's your conclusion >> you well you can't own you I I think it's impossible to own ideas >> I I agree with that if we're using the ideas as the as in the broad sense. >> You can't own patterns. >> Well, I think you can, right? And that's that's part of our our conflict here. Um, so let's >> but but but but but would you agree that the pattern can has to be carried in a substrate? >> It can't exist in some platonic free floating form just out there. >> It's not discoverable. Right. That's >> correct. >> That's I I can see that. >> That's why I set patents over here. Right. I can I can see that it's not discoverable. >> Okay. Um but it is it is created and can it exist in in say the human mind? Do do you say that that because it exists only in the human mind that that's the media in which it it resides? >> I don't think it exists anywhere. I think I think it doesn't exist in the same way that a table or a car exists. Okay. As a physical thing >> does not exist in the same. just the it's it's what we see conce it's what we perceive with our senses and with our rational faculty and the way we organize things that we we identify but it's always observed as a result of some physical phenomena some impingement upon our sensors you know our senses um and it's it's witnessing the way that an existing thing is arranged like a book >> I think we can say that that um you know the my my my my phone is is a unique identifiable thing. Um and I can say that this pattern of ones and zeros is a unique identifiable thing. It is agree from something else. And so there but the reason you own your phone >> rights around it. >> Hold on. But the reason you own your phone is not because it's unique and identifiable. That's got nothing to do with why you own it. You own it because you bought it from a previous owner. >> So let's let's go down that path a little bit. Can we? Sure. >> So homesteading um so um I think so so tell tell me about um how how we get through to homesteading right so uh how does one become the first occupier uh what's the limitation to the occupation so we have Crusoe. He steps on an island. Um, does he own the entire island? What if he doesn't step on an island? He steps on a continent. Um, >> Neil Armstrong own the whole moon. Right. >> Well, imitation of of that that >> occupation. The reason I asked you earlier if you more or less agree with me on private property rights is that then it's irrelevant how we deal with the edge cases or the application of the difficult issues. We we agree in principle that humans need to act and to do that they need to use things in the world that have never been used by someone else. So there has to be a first user of a thing. >> Yes. for humans to survive >> and for there to be so that means so that means first possession >> or original appropriation is implicit in in human survivability and action. And if we're going to have a system where conflict is reduced, that is when there's a potential for conflict over the use of these things that were previously unused and that someone first started using there, then then the property rights will always necessarily have to recognize that the first user has a better claim than the second user. Now, how far that use extends >> the speeding, let's let's slow down a a second, okay? Um, but my my objection is that the first occupier to identify >> the first occupier is that it depends on on labor. And now you're going to say, well, it depends on action. There's no such thing as labor. But >> no, I never say there's no such thing. I just think that labor labor is a subset of action. Labor action can be labor laser or leader. But yeah, it's action. Action is always part of the first use of a resource. That's true. >> Yeah. But how how does that distinction create the difference between mixing labor to create the property? Right. >> So it's not mixing. So this is the locking the mistake is the over over reliance by by lock and his followers on >> Yeah. But I'm not I'm not talking about lock. I'm just talking about Paul, right? And and so so when I'm looking at this and I >> but what I'm saying is you don't own the resource because you mixed your labor with it. Well, put it this way. You do own your resource because you mixed your labor with it, but only because that's the way you identify that you're the owner. It's an identification. It's not because you owned your labor. In fact, you don't own your labor. Labor is just an action. >> Okay. So, so we'll we'll just can can we use labor for convenience sake? >> Yeah, labor labor is a type of action. I don't I don't deny that. So, so my my use of labor then identifies what I claim from own from an unowned resource and that's what then gives me as the right of first occupier. >> So homesteading >> papa would say that this is called embroidering. It's basically but all embroidering is an action. all useful resources in action, >> right? >> Well, so the general principle in my view is is creating an objective link. Okay, that is something that can't just be done by verbal decree because verbal decree, which is why I don't own the moon or Mars. >> Right. Right. >> But because any number of people could say they own this thing. Oh, there there there there's a mountain top over there. No one's ever been to it. I hereby claim that I own it. Well, a million people could say that at the same time. And so that that that type of rule wouldn't >> reduce conflict. So because the rule has to reduce conflict and because it has to permit the first objective use of an unknown resource and because once you own something then it can't be taken from you without your consent by like a mises type aggression analysis. you get to the fact that any property rule has to basically be >> anchored in the first use >> use >> establishing an objective link between the actor and the resource and that >> basically means the homestead the the general idea is embroidering establishing a a border around it that that defines what it is and your by your use of it sometimes that is transformation which is a labor type activity. Sometimes it's putting a fence around it also action, >> right? >> Some some but basically you do something that is a way that p publicly indicates that you have now made a use and a claim of this thing and it's no longer unowned, no longer part of the commons. That's to me what homesteading is. That's the >> I'm enclosing this pattern of words property right. >> Okay. But when we're talking about enclosing a piece of land, we're talking about enclosing a thing that is a means of action >> over which there can be conflict. >> Yeah, >> there cannot be conflict. Just like there can't be conflict over religion, there can't be conflict over a pattern of information. The conflict is always >> No, there can't. >> Yes. You say that that you created it and I say that I I created it. >> I don't I don't care if you created it. I I'm I'm okay with >> that's the conflict. No, the conflict is when you want to prevent me from using my printing press to print a a book that looks like yours. That's the conflict is when you claim a property right over my printing press. >> Yes. Yes. It's >> But it's So again, like just like the fight is not the fight over religion. The fight is not over the pattern. The fight is over the physical book that I own. I own the paper. I own the printing press. I own >> And I'm limiting your use of it. Absolutely. >> Exactly. But I never So here we come to the heart. >> Other property rights. I'm >> That's what No, but property rights don't limit property rights. We already established that. >> No, you're right. I am limiting your use of your property in the same way that all property rights limit the use of all other property rights. >> Correct. But you can only do that if you can show that my action violates your property rights. So that's why your argument is circular and question begging. Well, you need to show doing the same thing then. >> No, because we are you and I both agree already that there are property rights and should be property rights and scarce resources. We've agreed on that already. >> Well, >> if you were a socialist, we're going to have a different argument. >> You you're saying so you're using the word scarce again, right? >> Okay. Rivalous. Let's say rivalous. Fine. >> And and honestly, um I don't see this is why I was trying to bring in the conflict thing, right? where it seems like your highest value is then it if it must lead to a decrease in conflict. >> No, it's not my highest. So that's another it's not my highest value. It's just that what that's what libertarian principles mean. Libertarian principles say that aggression is not justified. It's what what Nosik calls a side constraint on action. It doesn't mean it's the only value or the highest value. It just means that you can't justify an action or a law that commits aggression >> that takes someone's resources without their consent. It doesn't mean it's the highest value, >> but it does mean that that the fact that the world has scarcity, sorry, the the fact that there's conflict possible in the world and the fact that people most people value >> Yes. >> avoiding conflict is the is the reason why we come up with these property rights, right? to >> right I get that support they're the normative support for possession of a resource >> right but that's not the only source of conflict is is rivalry's use of uh of >> it is that's that's why I fought with you earlier on the word conflict it is the only source >> I guess that's another >> let me let me give you one I don't know if you had time to read this but the core way I look at the core problem with IP rights we could talk about just patent or just copy Right. Um, and this this will help explain why I'm against this property right in a pattern of information is because the pattern of information doesn't exist on its own. It only can be instantiated in an existing tangible physical material resource. Because of that and because those resources already have an owner identified with homesteading and with contract, then effectively what the ownership what the ownership of a of a property right in the in the intangible pattern of information is is it's an ownership right in their existing property already. And that's a new it's a it's a new ownership rule that overrides homesteading and contract. And the example I can give is what's called um um a negative easement or a negative servitude which you're probably familiar with at least in the HOA or homeowners association context right where you have a neighborhood which has a master plan and they lay down this this real property right that's shared by all the neighbors which is basically uh restrictions on use >> and it's a contra contractual and property. >> It's a it's a negative covenant. Yeah. >> It's a negative covenant or a negative easement or a negative servitude we call it in the law. And the reason it's permissible is because just like if you own a house and you give a security interest in it to the bank, you can divide it ownership up. >> If I own a house, I can >> you contractually agree to and you purchase the house. I get that. But what you agreed to is you agreed to you're the only one who can use the house or sell it. >> But you can't modify it without permission of your neighbors. Basically, >> you've given them a veto right, >> right? >> That's called negative that's called a negative servitude. >> And the reason it's legitimate is because it was consensual. You consented to it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Just like if a girl has sex with some guy, it's not rape because she consented. But if she doesn't consent, it's rape. I mean, consent makes all the difference, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm not disagreeing with any of this. >> And and the thing for for for co copyright rights is it's it's basically the grant by the state to the copyright holder of a negative servitude over my printing press. >> Well, we're not >> even though I didn't consent to it. It's non-consensual. That's the problem. >> Well, I I I don't know. You see, because we're at at like this sort of metal level of whether it is or is not a right, whether it's codified by the state or not is kind of a secondary issue. >> Well, that's I don't whether it's a state or not. I mean, to have to have >> to have someone >> other enforcement mechanism. It's not nec to have a to have a to have another citizen in the world. >> Mhm. >> To have the author of the book have the right to prevent me from making copies of that book with my printing press means that he has a negative easement or negative servitude over my printing press >> even though I didn't grant him one. >> Yes, >> it's non-consensual. That's the fundamental problem with it. So, you need to show how I granted that. And your argument seems to be, well, I created it. But but that's circular because you're you're assuming that creation or originality or uniqueness is the hallmark of property rights. But it's not. It's not a source of property rights. Uniqueness is not a source of property rights. It's enclosure of an unknown thing. Well, act actually what what what's going on is I'm using I'm using my labor to enclose. >> Yes. >> U Okay. So, so, so I think we were both in an agreement on on enclosing, right? So, I can have a no smoking policy in my house, right? because I've enclosed the common air in my house. >> No, no, no. Hold on a second. No, no. I think you're I think you're you're trying >> air is good. >> The air in my house. And I can say no. >> Yeah, but enclosure just has to do with the way that you become the owner of an unknown thing. It's about homesteading. Mhm. >> You don't have the you don't have the right to uh prevent someone from smoking in your house because >> you enclosed it. >> Have ownership now. >> Yeah. But but you might not have you might have bought the house from someone else. Like it has nothing to do with enclosure. Enclosure is a concept that just that explains why the original first >> take you take a common. Okay. So so there's there's land unowned, right? I built the house and and now I can say no smoking because I've enclosed that. >> You've you you can say no smoking because you own it. >> Yes. Because I've >> you own it. You own it because you establish an objective link. You establish an objective link by embroidering it. >> And so IP encloses the commons of letters or ones and zeros or musical notes and creates the scarce good. >> But don't you see how you're you're shifting to this weird metaphor now? And you're using the word in a totally different sense. I mean you can make all kind I could say well I enclosed >> because the enclosure requires is requires an action and the creation of the pattern creates >> butction enclosure enclosure requires a specific type of action and the action is the objective link that makes a connection between an actor and a resource. Yes. That was previously unowned. that was previously unowned. That's a resource. That's a scarce means of action, a rivalous resource. That's the whole point. >> And so when Tolken wrote um Lord of the Rings, it was previously unowned. >> No, but you but but but listen to what I just said. Enclosure is not is just one way that you can homestead a resource. It's just one way. The basic idea is embroidering it by performing an action that establishes a link between the actor and a previously unused rivalous resource. >> Why does it have to be rivalous? >> Because the whole purpose of property rights is to prevent conflict over the over rivalous things, things over which they can be rivalry. >> That's I guess that's where where we where we're disagreeing. Um is that >> that's why they have to be over rivalries. Because because >> let me let me let me ask you some some other questions. Um right >> is there is there fraud in in your your situation in your world? >> Yes. I have I have a whole section of my um in my book on on on why fraud is a fraud is a type of u of aggression and and um and and by the way why it does not justify trademark law because trademark law has nothing to do with fraud contrary to propaganda to the contrary but yeah f fraud fraud fraud is in essence a type of theft by trick >> and that is basically the use of the use of someone's resource without their informed consent. Okay. Um, what does informed mean? >> Well, without I can just say without consent. It's not it's not consent. >> Okay. >> The reason I'm using that is because that people understand that that term from the from the surgery concept where um where the surgeon cuts you open to perform a procedure and they're doing something to your body that in some context would be considered aggression because they're cutting they're cutting you open. Yeah. But but then the the justification is well it was consented to. But then the question is, well, did you give meaningful or informed consent? Did like, did he tell you, okay, I'm going to go in to take your appendix out, but if I see a tumor next to it, I'm going to take that out, too, or was that So, it's got to do with communication and consent is always a matter of communication. >> Okay? >> And that's that's a matter of custom and language and and default presumptions and context. So whether it's informed or not is just a factual question about what was actually understood by the parties. >> Okay. I've got a lot of questions and and I just kind of want to because I'm gonna I'm gonna interview you now. You might >> but I'm curious what's the relevance of the fraud thing. But but yes I but yes >> I'm not well because so here's here's my next question. If I print a certificate put my name on it and a law school logo on it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Is that okay? >> Well, that's What do you mean? Okay. >> So, I I I hang it in my office and it says that I have, you know, certificate from a law school and I have my name on it. >> Okay. >> I'm using my property, you know, to to make a certificate with a law school logo. >> Well, if I if I shoot you, I'm using my property and it's still not permissible because you have a property right in your body, >> right? But what's >> if I if I defraud if I defraud you, it's not a it's it's it's it's an act of fraud because I'm I'm taking your resource like if if if I if I use if I defraud you out of your money like you pay me for a rotten rotten basket of a rotten truckload of apples that are I know are bad. >> I'm I'm I'm say I pretend to be a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer. Never been to law school. And I have this certificate that says, you know, my name and and law school on it. And uh now I I I want to hire myself as a as a as a lawyer, right? Am I committing? >> No. Yeah. Yeah. I know where you're getting it going with this, but I I'll I'll entertain every second because But um um No. So the my my answer is it depends on the context. And I'm also a big believer in caveat mour. I think people should basically suffer the response of being an idiot. Um, yeah. >> So, that's why that's why although I'm against fractional reserve banking, I'm not I don't think it should be illegal. I think it's a good thing if people are parted with their money by putting it in fractional reserve schemes. Um, >> okay. >> But in principle, if you lie to a customer and you say, "I'm not going to lend your money out uh and then you do it," that's a type of of trespass. there's either conversion or it's fraud or contract breach or something because you told them you weren't going to do it. So, if you deceive a client into hiring you and paying you money to represent them uh in a case where they need a lawyer and you take their money, >> uh I would say in if the case is the details if if if the circumstances are are fit fit are right, then yeah, they have a claim to sue you for um for um you have to you have to pay them something for for violating for for defrauding them. Yeah. >> So I think I think but but but by the way fraud has literally nothing to do with copyright at all. >> I'm I'm just I'm just thinking broadly in these things. >> Um can So So I you you said I don't own labor, right? Um can I can I retain a lawyer? >> What do you mean can you retain a lawyer? >> Right. I want to hire a lawyer on retainer. Can you pay someone? Can you pay someone? Can you make a conditional a contract with a conditional payment on the on the performance of an action? Yes. >> I mean, not I Yeah. I mean, >> that's what employment is. >> What am I contracting for then? >> Okay. So, this I have another chapter on this. This is this is another mistake people make. They say that if you can sell something, it means you own it. You don't own what you sell. That's conflating economic with with legal terms. So I see it. >> So some >> you got to explain that one. >> So some some contracts are simple contracts where it's a it's a trade of one good for another, right? Like I I hand you an apple, you hand me your banana. That's just an exchange. And in a legal system where the property rights are recogn >> it's a trade in titles and it's a trade it's a ch it's a trade in in possession. Um, some contracts are more complicated. Some have an element that is future-based. So, um, I give you a dollar now and you pro you promise to give me, um, an apple tomorrow when your crop comes in. >> So, I'm giving you the dollar now and you're transferring a future uh, apple to me in the future. I mean, so you could have contracts like that. Um, I could also instead of giving you making an exchange for an exchange of titles, contemporaneous or future-based, it could be for services. So, for example, if I want you to give me a massage, I could say, I'm going to pay you for the massage. And in economic parlance, it's an exchange. But in legal in legal in in libertarian legal terms, it's only a one-way exchange. It's a it's it's an exchange of title to the money, but the service is not sold legally because it was not owned. It was just an action that was performed. What's happening here is that I'm using my ownership of the money and my ability not to give it to you, my ability to refuse to give it to you to give it to you only on the condition that you perform an action that I want you to perform. So basically it's a one-way it's an employment contract and the contract is this. If you perform this action then you get the money. So it's a conditional title transfer. So that's what happens when you hire a lawyer. You're basically saying if you perform certain actions then the money that I own X dollars becomes yours. >> Okay. Um, can insurance companies exist? >> Sure. >> What property right is in the contract? >> That's more complicated because if you do what Rothbart did and you reformulate the so the the way it would be looked at now is that um rights there are rights and obligations. So contracts are basically enforcable obligations that are the result of well contracts are obligations that are the result they're enforcable obligations that are the result of making certain enforceable promises. That's how the contract law works. Now the problem with that that Rothbart and Evers saw and they're not lawyers. So their their theory had some mistakes but it's it was a brilliant reworking of the theory is that uh contracts are really just transfers of title to resources. Um once you understand that almost every legal classification of existing complicated contracts like insurance contracts would need to be reframed in his terms. And there's been no need to do that because we don't have Rothbart system in practice or any anywhere and I'm the only one who really would try to do it. Now I have some ideas about how you would do it. So basically an insurance contract and it rests upon other fictions like the the corporation which is another whole can of worms. But if you just assume there's a group of people >> operating calling themselves an insurance company, they presumably have certain assets at their disposal which could include in economic terms um uh liabil u intangible assets which are contracts with other people, >> things like that, reinsurers or or or whatever um shareholders u things like that. Um so basically it's a promise. is an enforcable promise on the part of the insurer to transfer money to you under certain specified conditions like if if you have an insurable event happen. Um so so basically >> is I mean the the the promise is not the property. So the the way I would look at that is that the contract is is a conditional future assignment of owned resources by the insurance company to the client. Um that's another earlier I said that I I agree with more careful legal scholars like others that we should avoid the word property to refer to the thing owned that so like so I wouldn't say it's the property. So property is the property of something. That's like saying it's it's characteristic. I mean, so it's always about a resource. >> Property in your world is sort of like capital in my world. >> Well, capitalism >> it means so many different things in all these different contexts. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That's why I that's why I say that uh you have a property right in a resource, but it's not property. Like that car, if you say that car is my property, what you mean is that car is a material rival or resource over which someone is the owner or over which someone has a property right. >> I mean that's why the word property arose that way. It's it's a proprietary interest in it's proper that you are the one who can control who gets to use it. >> So over time just like we say um >> that car has certain properties. It's it's red its horsepower or its properties. >> Yeah. >> If if I start using >> if I start using a resource as a caveman like a a leather skin or a spear, it's an extension of myself. It's one of my properties. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I see what >> So, we start saying it's my property, but and then we then we lose we lose the remembering of that connection and then the question becomes Canella doesn't believe in ideas or property. It's like it's it's never that they're not property. It's it's what types of things that we can identify with useful concepts that exist are the types of things over which there can be conflict and over which and which can serve as use means of scarce as means of action and those are the subjects of property rights. >> Okay. >> And we identify the owner by the the four principles of homesteading and contract and the others. >> Yeah. Um, so >> do do you sort of see how this fits together? Like if you start reshuffleling and making sure that you use careful terminology to make sure they fit together, eventually there's no room left for IP rights because you end up basically favoring >> it. Still seems to come down just to a couple of of definitional things like the the the original principles uh or the original foundation things. Um, >> that's why I asked you that's why I asked you if you agreed with them in the beginning. >> Well, I knew that and and I was trying not to immediately agree to them because >> all of this stuff downstream >> because like scarcity, right? And and >> um >> so so why shouldn't we create property rights on anything that's controllable? because it it's almost for the I'm going to give sort of a um more I'm going to go metaphorical now and use analogies. Um >> as an Austrian you understand I think that money is ne is a necessary institution that overcomes two problems. One is the um the double coincidence of wants. >> Yep. And the other is the inability to meaning easily the inability to compare um heterogeneous goods to engage in calculation. >> Um >> um but money is so as money is a useful institution which helps us get into a catillactic economy and a and get out of border and have far more efficient uh means of production. Right. >> I appreciate your use of the catalactic economy. Thank you. Well, that's what it means, right? It means >> Yes. Yes. Yes. No, I I I love it. That's great. >> But but but money is not wealth itself. Money is the means we use to trade among things of of that we that we that are consumer goods effectively and capital goods that produce the consumer goods. Correct. to simplify to simplify um u and which is why mises and rockbart maintain that any supply of money so you need money to have an advanced economy to avoid the problems of barter but any supply of money is optimal >> yes >> okay >> I I wrote a a mises.org or thing two summers ago about that. >> Okay. Well, would you send me that after remind me just up on mises.org. >> I want to see it. >> Okay. >> Um it might be relevant. This is something I've written. But um but uh >> I'd be happy to. >> But the point is understanding that understanding that any supply of money is optimal and that money is not it recognize that money is not wealth and that's why if you increase the money supply it doesn't create wealth. I mean, you could use >> that's basically my argument. Yeah. >> Okay. But what I'm getting at is if you do create more money, it always comes at the expense of something else. It even if it doesn't create the business cycle, which it does, and even if it doesn't lead to canion effects, which >> which it does, >> it does, and which I'm skeptical of anyway. But that's a whole different issue. >> No, it has to. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm skeptical of the concept of canon, but that's my Austrian heroes. But anyway, >> even if it doesn't even even if it doesn't set in motion the the the business cycle, um it always redistributes wealth because it gives money to someone else >> and then they get they can spend it. Yeah, I know. >> Uh and so it bids up prices and whatever. So you you can't because money is not wealth. Creating more money always is a way to redistribute wealth. Same reason that we we libertarians tend to say we oppose positive rights and we favor negative rights. What we mean by that is that >> yes >> it's okay to impose an obligation on people to leave every everyone alone. But you can't give someone a positive obligation to give them food and welfare and all that. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Because you can't get that. You can only get that by taxing people. >> Yes. Yes. Right. >> Nothing is for free. If you could just wave a magic wand and say, I'm going to double the money supply and make everyone rich. Or I can wave a magic wand and say everyone has a negative basic income for the rest of their lives and there's no impact on anyone. Hey, might as well do it. But nothing is for free. And it's the same thing with with inlaw for property rights is that once you understand that the nature of property rights is as a normative support mechanism to support the institution of physical use of physical means in action over which there can be conflict. And once you understand that the only just way to do that is the natural way which is assigning it in accordance with first use and that that's the ownership is maintained until that ownership right is transferred by contract like that's it. Once you understand that, you see that if you create new rights in things that don't independently exist, but that only exists as a feature of a thing that already existed and is already covered by the the first rules, >> then you have to basically take those property rights away. But if I could take >> that's basically >> if I could take the ingredients that you're using for first use and and use that to create a an intellectual property right, then it would be legit. You're saying that I can't use those same tools to derive that intellectual property right and therefore it's illegitimate. partly and I'm saying that informed by what I mentioned earlier which is you have to recognize the distinct but equally important roles in human action of knowledge and of scarce resources. They're they're both you can't imagine human action without both because >> but now we're using a different sort of scarce because now we're talking about like at the margin scarce resources not not non-rival not rival risk and consumption resources >> well human action >> you see how you you've switched the that to actual scarce >> I'm using the word scarce because that's what Mises uses when he talks about the the means of action but what he's talking about is >> is you're you're saying that there's there's uh fewer means than ends scarce in that sense. >> No, I don't mean that. What I I don't mean that. What I mean is that there's there's there's a mises and and and and the others uh explicitly I have a chapter in my book called goods me scarce and unscares written with Tucker um and there's Mises and the other guys and what they say is that they distinguish between the general conditions of human action and the scarce means of action. Okay. Now, they do use the word scarce, but they're talking in praxiology about the types of things that you employ to make a causal change in the course of affairs in the universe, right? This is what mean I mean scarce. >> Scarce meaning what then? I mean, you have scarcity. >> I think I think it means rivalries. Basically, it means conflictable. It means causally efficacious things that can can make a change in the world >> but not scarce and but not rivalous and cons well >> it's not yes that's why the concept of rivalist is not exactly uh it's it's closer to it that's why I call it conflictability >> but I think basically Mises's means of action as the core component of human action action are basically the same as rivalous means rivalous things >> and basically the same as conflictability. >> I've got one more big not big uh but question that came up in my my uh reading of your stuff. Um and it's if you could explain what you meant by the sloppy use of ownership in the Bitcoin context. Well, they're so they're doing >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> They're doing what? Just for the same reason that earlier I said it's better to use the word property as the right of an actor over a resource instead of using it to refer to the thing. And also to keep in mind the distinction between legal concepts and economic concepts. >> Um even Mises did >> I guess that's where I get lost. Mises was careful about that in in socialism and human action where he distinguished between what he called um he called it catillactic or sociological ownership to refer to what we would call possession which is a purely descriptive human action category that would apply even to Crusoe on his island. He calls that ownership but he he he puts a qualifier. He calls it catalactic ownership. He distinguishes that between what he calls juristic ownership which is what we mean by ownership or legal ownership. So the point is in careful analysis there's a distinction between possession of a resource which is part of human action in praxiology and between the legal right to use the resource that's ownership. Okay. Now if you understand that property rights emerges as a normative social legal institution on top of the practice of possession and control and its purpose is to prevent conflict over these things by giving a normative like superructure like it's it's it's to prov basically the purpose of property rights and the legal system is to provide normative support for possession. That's the relation between the two. Okay. >> Can can there be ownership without dispute >> or is there only ownership with dispute? There can only be ownership over things that could there could be dispute over because the whole purpose of property rights is to solve the the possibility of conflict and there can only be conflict over conflictable things >> which are the basically the scarce means of action. >> So that's the reason why I keep using that word scarce because Mises uses it. But yeah, I think we could be I mean I I I would I I think I could dispute someone or con engage in conflict if they you know stole my book, you know, >> but but what you would be doing is you'd be you'd be saying that okay in the default world before we get to uh I forgot what I was to say, but uh before okay in in the in the default world let's let's say we don't have patented copyright recognized there's no statute. So we just have an emerging society where everyone minds their own business and people engage in trade and they they recognize the need for property rights so they don't have disputes over these things. Right? >> And the basic rules every if you ask someone to articulate it and you have a smart legal philosopher comes around and codifies it. The implicit idea behind the property rights rules that they use when they go to court to dispute who owns these things is who got it first and did you get it? Did you or or or who did you get it from by contract? Like that's how you >> I follow that. I I really really do. And and if we're starting from a a peasant society, right, there's really >> there's there's really no other thing. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, so I'm so so I'm imagining now that we we how does it get introduced into the picture? Even the narrow form you're like this copyright idea you're So, basically in this society, anyone who thinks about it would would have to recognize that the reason people do better in the world and has successful action is they have better means or good means and they have better ideas. Like those are two important functions of features of action, right? the the knowledge that got and over time these these ideas what Hayatt calls the fund the fund of experience every generation learns for the last like our technology is better than the Romans. So when you when you act, you can you can use the resources at your disposal, the scarce resources, the means, the the at your disposal, the capital in the world, and you can also use the growing body of of what Rothbart calls recipes or technological knowledge. Those two things both inform both go into your action, right? And the so over time people do this but they would recognize the distinction between the the things that you use to affect the world the means of action and your property rights are necessary in them because there's conflict over them and this ever growing body of knowledge which is the fund of experience everyone can dip into to guide their actions and then someone comes along and says well you're I I was selling copies of Atlas Shrugged and now you you see that it's it's popular with the audience and so now you started making a copy using your printing press and your ink. I'm asserting ownership of that because it's it's original. And everyone's going to say, well, no, you're trying to say that I don't own my resource because >> yeah, >> because you've come up with you've come up and I in in in 2001 in my shorter article on this I published on L Rockwell, I called it um something about Napster and and in defense of Napster and the second homesteading principle. Basically, you're coming up with a second homesteading principle. You're saying that in addition to the first homesteading principle, now there's another homesteading principle, which is if I come up with a useful or unique or original pattern of information that gives me a negative ownership right over your existing resource that trumps your >> I get it. >> And you have to but and and then your argument is, well, yeah, I have the right to stop you because all rights invade other rights. It's like, "No, they don't." And also because I'm the creator of it. And I'm like, "Well, creation is not a source of property rights." >> Well, okay. So, >> all this means is the burden of proof is on you to show >> I I I see what you're trying I see what your claim is and your argument and I appreciate it. I do. Um although although I think that you can't just start with with homesteading, right? You say um I have to trade it. But even even trading is reduct you can reduce that back to homesteading right >> contracts. Yes. Yes. That's why contract is secondary. >> All of that can can go back to homesteading. But >> correct. >> If I argue that that the first occupier is is dependent upon the labor, >> right? That some action. >> Hold that thought. Let me um I need to take a bathroom break. >> I'm Oh my goodness. It's almost two o'clock. Okay, I could took a quick bathroom break. Okay, tell me what's going on logistically. >> Um, so, so it's it's almost 2 o'clock and I've completely lost the time uh because I've been enjoying this very much. Um, I I >> I enjoy uh talking with you. Um, I I've learned quite a bit. Um, I can't say that I've I've changed my mind yet, but you've certainly given me more to uh to think about and refine and and and yeah, >> go from there. Um, >> well, let me say about I I your questions are really really good. I you're thinking hard about it and you're thinking sincerely about it, so I appreciate that. Um, and your questions are actually excellent. Um, >> a lot of them involve complicated things I've had to think about and and and reply to already. So, >> there's a reason. Yeah, there's a reason why you're repeating some things I've heard before. It's because that's the obvious response to some of these ideas. Um, but yeah, but I think that's I think we made some good progress today in understanding where we're coming from. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I I think that that um that while we agree that homesteading is is sort of the the the key that then everything kind of superructures on, right? Um, I I think that that I would say, but if we take a step further back, that homesteading requires an action. And that action, I'm just going to call it labor. Uh, that that action is what also can create this unique combination of letters or ones and zeros or musical notes and such. And that that then basically derives the same sort of way that you're saying is is homesteading. Um so so I don't I mean I I see that's where the tension is is is if IP gets wedged in that way >> um and you say no and I say yes and and I think that's that's that's where we branch. >> Yeah. And I think you see you I think you see you would have to >> I think everything else kind of falls into place once you get get that point >> but you would still need to have a a really careful definition of what you mean by IP because your theory would support patents according to most of your fellow IP people. In other words, you'd have to show that it only applies to copyrightable things and not to inventions. And you know, you'd have to come up with >> maybe trademark. I don't know because honestly that's that's outside of my my thing. My I was talking to my wife about this yesterday and she said, "Well, would there be any brands in uh in Canela's world?" >> That's like saying, "Would there be people would people have names?" >> Right. But if I make and hold on, do people people have names now? People Hold on. People have names now even though there's no trademark. Even though you can you can name your you can name your son John G. >> Right. But I don't know. Right. >> Well, I'm just saying that there would be brands. The question the question is not would there be brands. The question is would you have a an intellectual property right in your brand? >> Right. I mean would there be any economic benefit of it? >> Of course there's reputation rights. People have names for a reason. But if I sell uh uh a copy a knockoff of a Gucci bag, is that fraud or is that just me property? >> Do you do do you think do you think when people buy a a $20 Gucci bag off >> you use Rolex? >> Okay. Do you think when someone buys a $20 Rolex that they're being defrauded? >> Um I don't think that's relevant. >> Well, you just you just asked me if it was fra if it was fraud. If it doesn't matter whether I perceive it or not, right? Isn't isn't the fraud on the on the person that is lying? The seller who is lying. Isn't it only that the fraud? I mean, you say, you say, um, well, I sold him a $20 Rolex. And I say, but you told me it was a Rolex. I was fraud defrauded. And you say, well, you didn't really believe me. So, I'm asking you, do do you I'm asking if you think that the person buying a fake Rolex is defrauded. That's a simple question. >> Um, then let's go with yes. >> What? How are they defrauded if they if they intentionally buy a fake Rolex? >> Because the person who sold it to me said it was a real. >> But that's okay. In that case, yes, there's the fraud. But that never happens. This is not what happens with fake Rolexes. >> But we're not talking about what actually happens. We're talking about the the metaphysical level here. >> Yes. I think if you if you well I'm a big believer as I said earlier of caveat mour. I think if you're an idiot you but but in principle if you lie to someone and you say I'm sell a better example is if I go to a Rolex store in the mall >> and I I spend $10,000 on a Rolex and it turns out that that is a fake. >> Yeah. >> Is there fraud? I think there's either fraud or contract breach. Yes. >> Okay. But if I buy a knockoff Rolex on purpose to save money, I'm not defrauded. The problem with trademark law clause, it prevents the the seller of the fake Rolex to selling it to me and it prevents me from buying it. Even though we're I'm I'm an innocent victim. I mean, there's no victim of that of that fraud. >> If if I take my name and put it on your book and I sell it as if I was the originator, is that fraud? theor it could be in theory it could be fraud of the purchasers of the book. Yes, in theory >> in principle. >> Okay. Okay. >> But but that's not what copyright law prevents. >> What's that? >> Copyright law has nothing to do with that. Copyright law is notution. >> It could be fraud. That we already have we we already have fraud law. That's why I say we there's no case for IP law because we already have fraud law. And there's a if there's a case of fraud or contract already Okay, I don't have time right now, but honestly, I would love to know where those things what the differences between the two are of how fraud law um >> yeah, I'll send you I'll send you some links. I'll send you some links. >> Not not a hundred links, please. >> No, these are mostly short short links. And and if you send me send me your link to your uh to your uh >> my article. Absolutely. >> Upcoming money supply paper. >> Now, Stefan, um my my dissertation was was u finance and and business cycle stuff. >> Okay. Um all of this is kind of like an interesting side hobby. Okay. >> You're stretching you're stretching your brain. >> Well, look, I enjoy it. I really do. I enjoy uh >> But you don't claim to be an expert. I know. But you did give a paper on this and uh you know >> but I didn't do anything with it. Although >> probably why >> I did have one guy actually submit an article I think it was either a libertarian studies or or quarterly journal of Austrian economics attacking my my conference paper and it was it was a hack job but um you know it's like that's that's really going that's really stretching to uh to attack a a conference paper that was never published. Could uh do you if you can if you can remember or find that and send me a link to it or the paper? Uh >> I don't think I'm >> Huh? >> I don't I don't think I'm allowed to because I was I was asked as a as like a reviewer. >> Is this recent? >> Well, a couple years ago. >> Well, maybe it's been published is my point. >> Oh, I don't think so. Or it might have been published somewhere, but it was rejected by whatever journal it went to. I not by I didn't I wasn't the one that rejected it, but but >> No, I got it. I got it. I got it. >> It was not a well-written paper, but just the fact that someone was attacking a 2008 conference proceeding paper. >> Paul, that was me. >> Oh, was it? Nice. >> No, >> nice. Um, no, I'm I'm just saying that I do I do enjoy um talking to um um very smart people about these sorts of things. um about issues and such. Um we're a small group, you know. Um >> I know >> there's there's not many of us. In fact, um do do you do you remember Anthony Mueller? >> Yes. Where's that name? Where have I heard that name? >> Well, he was born in Germany and he moved to Brazil and uh well, anyway, he just passed away in May. >> Yes. Yeah, I think I knew that. And um you know he was one of the few people that that uh are into Austrian capital theory. And I'm like oh we lost that other one. I was I was telling my wife I'm like there's probably only like you know maybe maybe a dozen of us at most in the world that are interested in you know Austrian capital theory and the math and all that sort of stuff. So >> well um if I'm not mistaken didn't Hayek write on that? Yeah, >> because I I'm I'm a huge, as I mentioned, I'm I'm not a Hayek fan, but um I I got this post about it and and I think Hopper or someone said that um he's Hayek and and he he's pretty good on that, but that's the one thing I've never read by Hayek and he said that like only three people in the world have read that or something, but it's true. So, so over my shoulder are the are my my Hayek books and my mis books and my anyway um but pure theory of capital is is uh Hayek's main book and and if you read the the introduction uh by Larry White he's basically says don't read this book read Roger Garrison's book. >> Yeah. Well, it doesn't mean that it's bad, but I mean I'm just saying that I I I I reserve my criticism of that book because I've heard good things about it. It's just the one thing I've um >> everything else I've read by him. You know, >> if if you're ever interested in in capital theory, like just broad broad capital theory, there's a book by uh Mock um no sorry by Lutz Friedri Lutz FA Lutz uh theory of capital and the theory of interest. Um, and they're the they go through um like the chronology of of people through history. And uh I stopped reading once I got to Canes because it sucks after that. But um um I mean it's it's Hayek Hayek was kind of going in this direction and none of the profession followed it, not even the Austrians. So it kind of kind of goes down this branch that never gets picked up. Ludick Lauman comes in the 50s and he extends it in a very different direction and now Peter Leuen and a couple of others have been kind of reformulating some stuff. So I I find it really interesting and you were asking me uh in the emails what have I been working on and this is the stuff I've been working on. >> So I've you kind of caught me right at this optimal I just finished with this. I'm about to pick up this and I'm I'm not a good multitasker. I've learned this and it's like I want to focus on one thing and you kind of hit me right at that sort of sweet spot where I could do kind of a a dive. Maybe not a deepest of deep dives, but just refamiliarize myself with all this and I could at least talk intelligently with you. >> Well, you did. You did. But no, I I'm I'm afraid I'm not that interested in capital theory. Um >> that you don't have to be afraid. >> I'm not. I just I I I I'm I I've dipped my toe in some of it and not not high, but I'm I'm I'm I'm pretty sure I would be um I'd be a critic of I'd be a critic, but without enough basis to mount a good criticism, but a critic of of their use of their of their treatment of of intellectual property as as a capital resource. So which which means which means a sort of a big confusion about the >> it's it's something I do want to write someday. It's it's basically I want to turn my attention to something that um um Bomba started in his thing about uh whether uh uh legal rights are economic goods. Yeah, I think there's my paper. >> Yeah, it's got some good stuff in it, but no one else. There needs to be a new more comprehensive explanation of a big mistake or some mistakes in economics um in political economy in general where people conflate economic and legal concepts and they don't adequately distinguish between them. Um you know, just the the fractal reserve thing treating IUs as money. I mean IOU is a legal is a legal instrument. It's a promisory note. >> So that rests upon or or like the theory of the firm talking about corporations or employees. >> Those are all legal concepts not economic concepts. So I think there's too much >> well yeah the economist doesn't look at the firm in the same way that uh or or a company is the same way the lawyer does. They don't but then they use corporations as examples of the firm and and they use and and you know this cosian transaction cost idea that >> the reason that the firm emerges or the corporation emerges is to have employee employees instead of having renegotiated contracts all the time because of transaction costs and >> it's mixing together economic and descriptive phenomena with legal and normative phenomena and I think that that leads to >> contamination sometimes >> you know you look at at at Bomb Viser Mises and Hayek and their degrees are not economics. They didn't have each other. >> Yeah, they're law I know. >> My friend better on that. >> Well, my friend Jeff Bar that I was just talking about, he he he might write a paper on like what's changed or how could we revive that? And I think that it wouldn't be a good idea to revive it now because the law schools are not like the law schools used to be. >> It was more of a good classical liberal education and a thinking education. Uh it's more juristprudence in a sense, I think. Um, but yeah, something interesting about the fact that a lot of these guys had law degrees. >> Yeah. Yeah. Interesting. Well, all right. Um, I really appreciate uh our discussion. Um, hope hopefully I'm not in too terrible of a light on your podcast. >> No, it it was it was good. It was fun. I'm glad we did it. Um, but we'll we'll talk we'll talk further, but send me that article and I'll send you a couple of links to um um >> Now, you said that you wrote about this in your book and your chapter in your book and your book and your book. >> I'll point you to exactly where. >> Okay, fantastic. Okay, cool, man. All right. I thank you. >> Take care. >> All right. Bye-bye. >> Bye.