Hello friends. I have found a blog you may wish to visit; or you may wish not to visit. Either way, here is the link.
http://amerrycangrrl.blogspot.com/
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
End The Drug War
The Drug War is easily the most repugnant domestic policy that our government pursues. It's more like a war on the black underclass. The government has created a system with policies like the minimum wage, welfare, and the withholding tax of social security, that disincentivizes legal employment and incentivizes black market employment. And when members of the black underclass rationally decide to sell drugs rather than take a minimum wage job that is taxed, precludes them from getting welfare, and requires a significant amount of productivity from day 1, our government persecutes them.
And in persecuting the breadwinners of the black underclass, the government has created even more disgusting consequences. They've completely disincentivized the formation of stable families as well as the impetus to sustain wealth over generations. Let me explain. When the expectation of the breadwinners is that they will be dead or in jail within ten years (dead, because without access to the court system disputes are resolved with violence; and jail, for obvious reasons,) they rationally choose high time-preference behavior over low-time preference behavior. Why save for retirement or for your kid's college fund when you'll be dead or in jail? It is completely rational for these breadwinners to spend extravagantly to enjoy the freedom they have while they have it.
This leads to every black generation having to start from scratch, with no accumulated wealth to build on. Think about how the white middle and upper class became wealthy - earlier generations had the freedom to make money unimpeded by outside forces, and they did so and passed on wealth to their progeny, who used the accumulated wealth to make even more money and so on and so forth. Our government, with its "liberal" and paternalistic policies, has left the black underclass in stasis, excluding them from the economic growth that the rest of us enjoy.
[censored] the costs for a second. Look at the effects. In communities like East St. Louis, Detroit, Baltimore...everywhere we can see the wreckage of the drug war around us.
It has to stop.
And in persecuting the breadwinners of the black underclass, the government has created even more disgusting consequences. They've completely disincentivized the formation of stable families as well as the impetus to sustain wealth over generations. Let me explain. When the expectation of the breadwinners is that they will be dead or in jail within ten years (dead, because without access to the court system disputes are resolved with violence; and jail, for obvious reasons,) they rationally choose high time-preference behavior over low-time preference behavior. Why save for retirement or for your kid's college fund when you'll be dead or in jail? It is completely rational for these breadwinners to spend extravagantly to enjoy the freedom they have while they have it.
This leads to every black generation having to start from scratch, with no accumulated wealth to build on. Think about how the white middle and upper class became wealthy - earlier generations had the freedom to make money unimpeded by outside forces, and they did so and passed on wealth to their progeny, who used the accumulated wealth to make even more money and so on and so forth. Our government, with its "liberal" and paternalistic policies, has left the black underclass in stasis, excluding them from the economic growth that the rest of us enjoy.
[censored] the costs for a second. Look at the effects. In communities like East St. Louis, Detroit, Baltimore...everywhere we can see the wreckage of the drug war around us.
It has to stop.
Monday, July 9, 2007
There is nothing wrong
There's nothing wrong with being innocent and not wanting a national ID card. If you seriously want to extend it to a logical conclusion, then all 'innocent' people should have no problem with implanted brain chips that show whereabouts and thoughts. I mean, if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about!
Which brings me to my next point. The state's view of innocence is markedly different from actual innocence. I don't smoke weed, but I have no problem with it and wouldn't call anyone that does 'not innocent.' There are plenty of laws that implicate truly innocent people, but the state's oft errant notions of public policy will make innocent people guilty, punished, and socially tarnished. Unless you're a perfect angel, please spare me the talk of 'innocence.'
I can't believe I actually have to argue this crap. A national ID card ON TOP of the bs we're already subjected to? How about a state agent in each home? How about detailed records of everyone's purchases? How about phone taps on every phone?
I mean, think about it; if you're innocent, why not?
Which brings me to my next point. The state's view of innocence is markedly different from actual innocence. I don't smoke weed, but I have no problem with it and wouldn't call anyone that does 'not innocent.' There are plenty of laws that implicate truly innocent people, but the state's oft errant notions of public policy will make innocent people guilty, punished, and socially tarnished. Unless you're a perfect angel, please spare me the talk of 'innocence.'
I can't believe I actually have to argue this crap. A national ID card ON TOP of the bs we're already subjected to? How about a state agent in each home? How about detailed records of everyone's purchases? How about phone taps on every phone?
I mean, think about it; if you're innocent, why not?
National I.D. card
History
National ID cards have long been advocated as a means to enhance national security, unmask potential terrorists, and guard against illegal immigrants. They are in use in many countries around the world including most European countries, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. Currently, the United States and the United Kingdom have continued to debate the merits of adopting national ID cards. The types of card, their functions, and privacy safeguards vary widely.
Americans have rejected the idea of a national ID card. When the Social Security Number (SSN) was created in 1936, it was meant to be used only as an account number associated with the administration of the Social Security system. Though use of the SSN has expanded considerably, it is not a universal identifier and efforts to make it one have been consistently rejected. In 1971, the Social Security Administration task force on the SSN rejected the extension of the Social Security Number to the status of an ID card. In 1973, the Health, Education and Welfare Secretary's Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems concluded that a national identifier was not desirable. In 1976, the Federal Advisory Committee on False Identification rejected the idea of an identifier.
In 1977, the Carter Administration reiterated that the SSN was not to become an identifier, and in 1981 the Reagan Administration stated that it was "explicitly opposed" to the creation of a national ID card. The Clinton administration advocated a “Health Security Card” in 1993 and assured the public that the card, issued to every American, would have “full protection for privacy and confidentiality.” Still, the idea was rejected and the health security card was never created. In 1999 Congress repealed a controversial provision in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 which gave authorization to include Social Security Numbers on driver's licenses.
In response to the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, there has been renewed interest in the creation of national ID cards. Soon after the attacks, Larry Ellison, head of California-based software company Oracle Corporation, called for the development of a national identification system and offered to donate the technology to make this possible. He proposed ID cards with embedded digitized thumbprints and photographs of all legal residents in the U.S. There was much public debate about the issue, and Congressional hearings were held. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich testified that he "would not institute a national ID card because you do get into civil liberties issues." When it created the Department of Homeland Security, Congress made clear in the enabling legislation that the agency could not create a national ID system. In September 2004, then-DHS Secretary Tom Ridge reiterated, "[t]he legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security was very specific on the question of a national ID card. They said there will be no national ID card."
The public continues to debate the issue, and there have been many other proposals for the creation of a national identification system, some through the standardization of state driver's licenses. The debate remains in the international spotlight – several nations are considering implementing such systems. The U.S. Congress recently passed the REAL ID Act of 2005, which mandates federal requirements for driver's licenses. Critics argue that it would make driver's licenses into de facto national IDs.
What's all the fuss with the Real ID Act about?
President Bush is expected to sign an $82 billion military spending bill soon that will, in part, create electronically readable, federally approved ID cards for Americans. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the package--which includes the Real ID Act--on Thursday.
What does that mean for me?
Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards.
National ID cards have long been advocated as a means to enhance national security, unmask potential terrorists, and guard against illegal immigrants. They are in use in many countries around the world including most European countries, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. Currently, the United States and the United Kingdom have continued to debate the merits of adopting national ID cards. The types of card, their functions, and privacy safeguards vary widely.
Americans have rejected the idea of a national ID card. When the Social Security Number (SSN) was created in 1936, it was meant to be used only as an account number associated with the administration of the Social Security system. Though use of the SSN has expanded considerably, it is not a universal identifier and efforts to make it one have been consistently rejected. In 1971, the Social Security Administration task force on the SSN rejected the extension of the Social Security Number to the status of an ID card. In 1973, the Health, Education and Welfare Secretary's Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems concluded that a national identifier was not desirable. In 1976, the Federal Advisory Committee on False Identification rejected the idea of an identifier.
In 1977, the Carter Administration reiterated that the SSN was not to become an identifier, and in 1981 the Reagan Administration stated that it was "explicitly opposed" to the creation of a national ID card. The Clinton administration advocated a “Health Security Card” in 1993 and assured the public that the card, issued to every American, would have “full protection for privacy and confidentiality.” Still, the idea was rejected and the health security card was never created. In 1999 Congress repealed a controversial provision in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 which gave authorization to include Social Security Numbers on driver's licenses.
In response to the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, there has been renewed interest in the creation of national ID cards. Soon after the attacks, Larry Ellison, head of California-based software company Oracle Corporation, called for the development of a national identification system and offered to donate the technology to make this possible. He proposed ID cards with embedded digitized thumbprints and photographs of all legal residents in the U.S. There was much public debate about the issue, and Congressional hearings were held. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich testified that he "would not institute a national ID card because you do get into civil liberties issues." When it created the Department of Homeland Security, Congress made clear in the enabling legislation that the agency could not create a national ID system. In September 2004, then-DHS Secretary Tom Ridge reiterated, "[t]he legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security was very specific on the question of a national ID card. They said there will be no national ID card."
The public continues to debate the issue, and there have been many other proposals for the creation of a national identification system, some through the standardization of state driver's licenses. The debate remains in the international spotlight – several nations are considering implementing such systems. The U.S. Congress recently passed the REAL ID Act of 2005, which mandates federal requirements for driver's licenses. Critics argue that it would make driver's licenses into de facto national IDs.
What's all the fuss with the Real ID Act about?
President Bush is expected to sign an $82 billion military spending bill soon that will, in part, create electronically readable, federally approved ID cards for Americans. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the package--which includes the Real ID Act--on Thursday.
What does that mean for me?
Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards.
What rights have you lost in the war on drugs?
I have lost the ability to not be intimidated by police during traffic stops. Prior to asset forfiture laws there was no direct cash incentive for police departments to unilaterally encourage officers to look for excuses to pull people over just so they can try to intimidate the driver into allowing a search intended to discover drugs/cash so they can confiscate the car/cash and have it go into funding their department.
I have lost the expectation of privacy on my person when inteacting with a police officer.
I have lost the expectation that I be treated in a dignified and respectful manner by police, rather than an intimidating manner.
I have lost the freedom that comes with the knowledge that we are safe in our homes and the feeling that police are on are side, the feeling that police desire to serve the citizens.
I have lost the expectation that I will be treated fairly if interacting wiht the police.
I suggest you look up some asset forfiture cases when some family had their house confiscated because their teenage son had a couple bags of weed and is accused of dealing. It does not have to happen to ME or to YOU for it to be harming both us, ALL of us.
The way it is SUPPOSED to be is that the government are our SERVANTS. The JUDGE is our SERVANT. The police are are SERVANTS. When we walk down the street, the police are supposed to be there greeting us curtiously and tipping their hats to us, "Anything I can do for you today sir?" "You have a nice day now, sir." None of them are supposed to be short tempered or mean spirited or act in a way that shows they have contept for us. Ever.
I have lost the expectation of privacy on my person when inteacting with a police officer.
I have lost the expectation that I be treated in a dignified and respectful manner by police, rather than an intimidating manner.
I have lost the freedom that comes with the knowledge that we are safe in our homes and the feeling that police are on are side, the feeling that police desire to serve the citizens.
I have lost the expectation that I will be treated fairly if interacting wiht the police.
I suggest you look up some asset forfiture cases when some family had their house confiscated because their teenage son had a couple bags of weed and is accused of dealing. It does not have to happen to ME or to YOU for it to be harming both us, ALL of us.
The way it is SUPPOSED to be is that the government are our SERVANTS. The JUDGE is our SERVANT. The police are are SERVANTS. When we walk down the street, the police are supposed to be there greeting us curtiously and tipping their hats to us, "Anything I can do for you today sir?" "You have a nice day now, sir." None of them are supposed to be short tempered or mean spirited or act in a way that shows they have contept for us. Ever.
War is not good for the economy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
War is always -EV. It can't possibly be +EV.
Let's look at the aspects of war.
There's control of resources (land, oil fields, whatever). This is basically EV neutral - either you control it or I do, we can't magically make more appear. Some of these resources will be destroyed during the conflict, but we'll account for that later.
There is the production aspect (tanks, bullets, bombs, etc). If this were +EV, why wouldn't we just build a bunch of bombs and constantly drop them in the ocean? Then we would get the supposed benefits of the increased production without killing anyone. Obviously, this production (in and of itself) is not beneficial, or else it would be conducted outside of war.
Next, there is the destruction (of buildings, infrastructure, etc). This obviously must be -EV, or else we would indiscriminately destroy things all the time. Of course, we do destroy buildings outside of war, but only when the alternative use of the property is higher than the value of the existing building. War destroys these useless buildings, but also destroys useful infrastructure (and in fact, seeks to destroy the most useful things).
Finally, there is the killing. Pretty clearly this is -EV. I hope that isn't up for debate.
So, every aspect of war is basically -EV (or neutral at *best*). On top of that, every aspect of war also violates human rights. Force is not a legitimate means of controlling property; taxation is not a legitimate means of increasing production; destruction of others' property is criminal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WWII didn't end the depression.
Before we examine why, it's important to note what caused the depression in the first place - mainly the Federal Reserve mucking with the money supply (i.e. stealing from the populace) and causing inflation.
The (incorrect) Keynesian view is that the depression (and recessions in general) was caused by consumers' failure to maintain spending levels. That's flat out wrong. The business cycle is caused DIRECTLY by manipulations of the money supply - inflation - directed by central banks.
War is expensive. The money that is poured into it has to come from somewhere - the people, through either taxes, or more inflation. Further, spending on war is money that is not helping the economy in the way typical consumer spending does.
During WWII, for instance, unemployment was low, but that was largely due to conscription. People who weren't in the service were working, and had money in their pockets, but didn't have a lot of spending choices due to rationing and shortages. In short, most people were still rather poor.
What actually ended the depression was the *end* of the New Deal, the government's "war on the economy". When the economy tanks, the government must be stopped from intervening - government monkeying is what causes the problem, why would anyone think more of it will help? Bad investments have to be liquidated. Government spending must be cut. Most importantly, the central bank must not try to "reinflate" the currency.
War is always -EV. It can't possibly be +EV.
Let's look at the aspects of war.
There's control of resources (land, oil fields, whatever). This is basically EV neutral - either you control it or I do, we can't magically make more appear. Some of these resources will be destroyed during the conflict, but we'll account for that later.
There is the production aspect (tanks, bullets, bombs, etc). If this were +EV, why wouldn't we just build a bunch of bombs and constantly drop them in the ocean? Then we would get the supposed benefits of the increased production without killing anyone. Obviously, this production (in and of itself) is not beneficial, or else it would be conducted outside of war.
Next, there is the destruction (of buildings, infrastructure, etc). This obviously must be -EV, or else we would indiscriminately destroy things all the time. Of course, we do destroy buildings outside of war, but only when the alternative use of the property is higher than the value of the existing building. War destroys these useless buildings, but also destroys useful infrastructure (and in fact, seeks to destroy the most useful things).
Finally, there is the killing. Pretty clearly this is -EV. I hope that isn't up for debate.
So, every aspect of war is basically -EV (or neutral at *best*). On top of that, every aspect of war also violates human rights. Force is not a legitimate means of controlling property; taxation is not a legitimate means of increasing production; destruction of others' property is criminal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WWII didn't end the depression.
Before we examine why, it's important to note what caused the depression in the first place - mainly the Federal Reserve mucking with the money supply (i.e. stealing from the populace) and causing inflation.
The (incorrect) Keynesian view is that the depression (and recessions in general) was caused by consumers' failure to maintain spending levels. That's flat out wrong. The business cycle is caused DIRECTLY by manipulations of the money supply - inflation - directed by central banks.
War is expensive. The money that is poured into it has to come from somewhere - the people, through either taxes, or more inflation. Further, spending on war is money that is not helping the economy in the way typical consumer spending does.
During WWII, for instance, unemployment was low, but that was largely due to conscription. People who weren't in the service were working, and had money in their pockets, but didn't have a lot of spending choices due to rationing and shortages. In short, most people were still rather poor.
What actually ended the depression was the *end* of the New Deal, the government's "war on the economy". When the economy tanks, the government must be stopped from intervening - government monkeying is what causes the problem, why would anyone think more of it will help? Bad investments have to be liquidated. Government spending must be cut. Most importantly, the central bank must not try to "reinflate" the currency.
Abolish Intellectual Property You Foolsh
One of the greatest tragedies of intellectual property law is how it generates intellectual confusion among successful businesspeople. Many are under the impression, even when it is not true, that they owe their wealth to copyrights, trademarks, and patents and not necessarily to their business savvy.
For this reason, they defend intellectual property as if it were the very lifeblood of their business operations. They fail to give primary credit where it is due: to their own ingenuity, willingness to take a risk, and their market-based activities generally. This is often an empirically incorrect judgment on their part, and it carries with it the tragedy of crediting the state for the accomplishments that are actually due to their own entrepreneurial activities.
Certainly there is no shortage of narratives ready to back up this misimpression. Countless business histories of the US observe how profits come in the wake of patents and thereby assume a causal relationship. Under this assumption, the history of American enterprise is less a story of heroic risk and reward and more a story of the decisions of patent clerks and copyright attorneys.
As a result, many people think that the reason the United States grew so quickly in the 19th century was due to its intellectual property protection, and assume that protecting ideas is no different from protecting real property (which, in fact, it is completely different).
A clue to the copyright fallacy should be obvious from wandering through a typical bookstore chain. You will see racks and racks of classic books, presented with beautiful covers, fancy bindings, and in a variety of sizes and shapes. The texts therein are "public domain," which isn't a legal category as such: it only means the absence of copyright protection.
But they sell. They sell well. And no, the authors are not misidentified on them. The Bronte sisters are still the authors of Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights. Victor Hugo still wrote Les Miserables. Mark Twain wrote Tom Sawyer. The much-predicted disaster of an anti-IP world is nowhere in evidence: there are still profits, gains from trade, and credit is given where credit is due.
Why is this? Quite simply, the bookstore has gone to the trouble of bringing the book to market. It paid the producer for the book and made an entrepreneurial decision to take a risk that people will buy it. Sure, anyone could have done it, but the fact is that not everyone has: the company made the good available in a manner that suits consumer tastes. In other words, with enterprise comes success. It is no more or less simple than that. IP has nothing to do with it.
So it would be in a completely free market, which is to say, a world without IP. But sometimes businessmen themselves get confused.
Let's consider the case of an ice-cream entrepreneur with a hypothetical brand name Georgia Cream. The company enjoys some degree of success and then decides to trademark its brand name, meaning that it now enjoys the monopoly on the use of the name Georgia Cream. And let's say that the company creates a flavor called Peach Pizzazz, which is a great success, so it copyrights the recipe such that no one can publish it without the company's permission. It then realizes that the special quality of its ice cream is due to its mixing technique, so it applies for and achieves a patent on that.
So this company now has three monopolies all sewn up. Is that enough to ensure success? Of course not. It must do good business, meaning that it must economize, innovate, distribute, and advertise. The company does all these things and then goes from success to success.
If you suggest to the founder and CEO that we should get rid of intellectual property law, you will elicit a sense of panic. "That would completely destroy my business!" How so? "Anyone could just come along and claim to be Georgia Cream, steal our recipe for Peach Pizzazz, duplicate our mixing technique, and then we'd be sunk."
Do you see what is happening here? A small change that would threaten the very life of the business is indirectly being credited, by implication, for being the very life of the business. If that were true, then it would not be business prowess that made this company, but government privilege, and that is emphatically not true in this case. The repeal of intellectual property legislation would do nothing to remove from the business its capacity to create, innovate, advertise, market, and distribute.
The repeal of IP might create for it an additional cost of doing business, namely efforts to ensure that consumers are aware of the difference between the genuine product and impersonators. This is a cost of business that every enterprise has to bear. Patents and trademarks have done nothing to keep Gucci and Prada and Rolex impersonators at bay. But neither have the impersonators killed the main business. If anything, they might have helped, since imitation is the best form of flattery.
In any case, the costs associated with keeping an eye on imitators exists whether IP is legally protected or not. To be sure, some businesses owe their existing profits to patents, which they then use to beat their competitors over the head. But there are costs involved in this process as well, such as millions in legal fees.
Big companies spend millions building up warchests of patents that they use to fight off or forestall lawsuits from other companies, then agree to back down and cross-license to each other after spending millions on attorneys. And no surprise, just as with minimum wage or pro-union legislation, the IP laws don't really hurt the larger companies but rather the smaller businesses, who can't afford million-dollar patent suit defenses.
$16
"What you are not permitted to do in a free market is use violence in the attempt to create an artificial scarcity."
The Internet age has taught that it is ultimately impossible to enforce IP. It is akin to the attempt to ban alcohol or tobacco. It can't work. It only succeeds in creating criminality where none really need exist. By granting exclusive rights to the first firm to jump through the hoops, it ends up harming rather than promoting competition.
But some may object that protecting IP is no different from protecting regular property. That is not so. Real property is scarce. The subjects of IP are not scarce, as Stephan Kinsella explains. Images, ideas, sounds, arrangements of letters on a page: these can be reproduced infinitely. For that reason, they can't be considered to be owned.
Merchants are free to attempt to create artificial scarcity, and that is what happens when a company keeps it codes private or photographers put watermarks on their images online. Proprietary and "open-source" products can live and prosper side-by-side, as we learn from any drug store that offers both branded and generic goods inches apart on the shelves.
But what you are not permitted to do in a free market is use violence in the attempt to create an artificial scarcity, which is all that IP legislation really does. Benjamin Tucker said in the 19th century that if you want your invention to yourself, the only way is to keep it off the market. That remains true today.
So consider a world without trademark, copyright, or patents. It would still be a world with innovation — perhaps far more of it. And yes, there would still be profits due to those who are entrepreneurial. Perhaps there would be a bit less profit for litigators and IP lawyers — but is this a bad thing?
For this reason, they defend intellectual property as if it were the very lifeblood of their business operations. They fail to give primary credit where it is due: to their own ingenuity, willingness to take a risk, and their market-based activities generally. This is often an empirically incorrect judgment on their part, and it carries with it the tragedy of crediting the state for the accomplishments that are actually due to their own entrepreneurial activities.
Certainly there is no shortage of narratives ready to back up this misimpression. Countless business histories of the US observe how profits come in the wake of patents and thereby assume a causal relationship. Under this assumption, the history of American enterprise is less a story of heroic risk and reward and more a story of the decisions of patent clerks and copyright attorneys.
As a result, many people think that the reason the United States grew so quickly in the 19th century was due to its intellectual property protection, and assume that protecting ideas is no different from protecting real property (which, in fact, it is completely different).
A clue to the copyright fallacy should be obvious from wandering through a typical bookstore chain. You will see racks and racks of classic books, presented with beautiful covers, fancy bindings, and in a variety of sizes and shapes. The texts therein are "public domain," which isn't a legal category as such: it only means the absence of copyright protection.
But they sell. They sell well. And no, the authors are not misidentified on them. The Bronte sisters are still the authors of Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights. Victor Hugo still wrote Les Miserables. Mark Twain wrote Tom Sawyer. The much-predicted disaster of an anti-IP world is nowhere in evidence: there are still profits, gains from trade, and credit is given where credit is due.
Why is this? Quite simply, the bookstore has gone to the trouble of bringing the book to market. It paid the producer for the book and made an entrepreneurial decision to take a risk that people will buy it. Sure, anyone could have done it, but the fact is that not everyone has: the company made the good available in a manner that suits consumer tastes. In other words, with enterprise comes success. It is no more or less simple than that. IP has nothing to do with it.
So it would be in a completely free market, which is to say, a world without IP. But sometimes businessmen themselves get confused.
Let's consider the case of an ice-cream entrepreneur with a hypothetical brand name Georgia Cream. The company enjoys some degree of success and then decides to trademark its brand name, meaning that it now enjoys the monopoly on the use of the name Georgia Cream. And let's say that the company creates a flavor called Peach Pizzazz, which is a great success, so it copyrights the recipe such that no one can publish it without the company's permission. It then realizes that the special quality of its ice cream is due to its mixing technique, so it applies for and achieves a patent on that.
So this company now has three monopolies all sewn up. Is that enough to ensure success? Of course not. It must do good business, meaning that it must economize, innovate, distribute, and advertise. The company does all these things and then goes from success to success.
If you suggest to the founder and CEO that we should get rid of intellectual property law, you will elicit a sense of panic. "That would completely destroy my business!" How so? "Anyone could just come along and claim to be Georgia Cream, steal our recipe for Peach Pizzazz, duplicate our mixing technique, and then we'd be sunk."
Do you see what is happening here? A small change that would threaten the very life of the business is indirectly being credited, by implication, for being the very life of the business. If that were true, then it would not be business prowess that made this company, but government privilege, and that is emphatically not true in this case. The repeal of intellectual property legislation would do nothing to remove from the business its capacity to create, innovate, advertise, market, and distribute.
The repeal of IP might create for it an additional cost of doing business, namely efforts to ensure that consumers are aware of the difference between the genuine product and impersonators. This is a cost of business that every enterprise has to bear. Patents and trademarks have done nothing to keep Gucci and Prada and Rolex impersonators at bay. But neither have the impersonators killed the main business. If anything, they might have helped, since imitation is the best form of flattery.
In any case, the costs associated with keeping an eye on imitators exists whether IP is legally protected or not. To be sure, some businesses owe their existing profits to patents, which they then use to beat their competitors over the head. But there are costs involved in this process as well, such as millions in legal fees.
Big companies spend millions building up warchests of patents that they use to fight off or forestall lawsuits from other companies, then agree to back down and cross-license to each other after spending millions on attorneys. And no surprise, just as with minimum wage or pro-union legislation, the IP laws don't really hurt the larger companies but rather the smaller businesses, who can't afford million-dollar patent suit defenses.
$16
"What you are not permitted to do in a free market is use violence in the attempt to create an artificial scarcity."
The Internet age has taught that it is ultimately impossible to enforce IP. It is akin to the attempt to ban alcohol or tobacco. It can't work. It only succeeds in creating criminality where none really need exist. By granting exclusive rights to the first firm to jump through the hoops, it ends up harming rather than promoting competition.
But some may object that protecting IP is no different from protecting regular property. That is not so. Real property is scarce. The subjects of IP are not scarce, as Stephan Kinsella explains. Images, ideas, sounds, arrangements of letters on a page: these can be reproduced infinitely. For that reason, they can't be considered to be owned.
Merchants are free to attempt to create artificial scarcity, and that is what happens when a company keeps it codes private or photographers put watermarks on their images online. Proprietary and "open-source" products can live and prosper side-by-side, as we learn from any drug store that offers both branded and generic goods inches apart on the shelves.
But what you are not permitted to do in a free market is use violence in the attempt to create an artificial scarcity, which is all that IP legislation really does. Benjamin Tucker said in the 19th century that if you want your invention to yourself, the only way is to keep it off the market. That remains true today.
So consider a world without trademark, copyright, or patents. It would still be a world with innovation — perhaps far more of it. And yes, there would still be profits due to those who are entrepreneurial. Perhaps there would be a bit less profit for litigators and IP lawyers — but is this a bad thing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)