Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: What is property?
Message-ID: <775@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Apr-85 16:28:48 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.775
Posted: Mon Apr  1 16:28:48 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Apr-85 01:44:06 EST
References: <764@bunker.UUCP> <862@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 147

(I deleted a bunch of the articles listed under references;
I hope no one is upset by that fact.  The list was quite long.)

Replying to <mike's reply to me:

> In article <764@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
> >2) Such a trust fund would be more complicated
> >than a will, on average, and would therefore mean more money for
> >lawyers and less for those I want to get it.

> Interesting claim - and I suspect wrong. Do you have any proof, like a
> comparison of the weight of paper describing the same size trust fund
> and will?

Of course I don't have proof; we are talking about something
which would be done in hypothetical Libertaria.

> >I thought one of the principles of libertarianism is to make
> >things simpler.

> Making the law simpler is among the aims of libertarianism. "Things"
> would be more complicated for most people, as they couldn't depend on
> the state to prevent them from doing something stupid.

Then you agree that the trust fund, set up to achieve the effects
now achieved by a will, would probably be more complicated.

> >I can promise now that what I own will be someone else's,
> >effective when such-and-such an event occurs.  If the specified
> >event is my death, than the promise is called a will.

> Yes, but what if you no longer own it after such-and-such event? That's
> the point: after you're dead, you have no rights to be violated,
> including property rights.

The transfer of ownership would be considered to be simultaneous
with the death.  Again we see that the trust I want to set up to
replace the will must be more complicated; I am not a lawyer, but
I am sure the trust can be worded to achieve the effect I want.

"I hereby give to X (my heir), joint ownership of Y (my property),
subject to the following terms: 1) As long as I am alive, such grant
is revocable at any time for any reason or no reason; 2) As long as
I am alive, my right to use, or determine the use of, Y overrides
the rights of X to use or determine the use of Y."

Now I think that that would have the same effect that a will has today,
although it might take a few iterations in courts to nail it down.
But it is certainly more complicated than "I bequeath Y to X."

It certainly doesn't seem desirable to have property become the
the government's when someone dies (as suggested by ?); if the
government is too big now (which I believe, and I thought that
libertarians did, too), then having it inherit everything, which
will make it bigger, isn't a good idea.  Giving things away in
anticipation of death will delay but not prevent the government
from owning everything.

> >> It seems that if somebody using something doesn't deprive you (even
> >> temporarily) of the use of the property, then your property rights
> >> haven't been violated.
> >This sounds like you think that as long as I'm not using my property
> >(or can't for the moment, or don't want to), then it's all right
> >for someone else to use it.  I don't think that's what you mean,
> >but I can't think of another interpretation.

> That isn't what I meant. It seems even backwards of what I meant. Let me
> try again (pause for thought). Ok, for hard property, if you can't
> possibly *ever* use something, then somebody using the property won't
> deprive you of the use of it. Any claim of "ownership" is ludicrous,
> like you trying to claim the rings of saturn, or some european country
> trying to claim the americas.

I understand that claiming the rings of Saturn would be ludicrous,
but some European countries could certainly use the Americas, so
I don't understand what you mean by that example.  How does claiming
a parcel of land discontiguous from the land I currently stand upon
differ from claiming a parcel of land adjacent to it?
The only thing that prevents the Europeans from claiming the Americas
(or vice versa) is the fact that the Americas are currently occupied.
(Even that didn't stop the medieval Europeans from doing so.)

For that matter, how do you know I can't *ever* use the rings of
Saturn?

> Assume that I buy some object X, and make a
> copy of it via the fruits of my labor. It's mine, so I can do with it as
> I like, right? Well, no, not if some "intellectual property" adheres to
> it. I can't give it to someone else. In other words, the concept of
> "intellectual property" means that I can't give the fruits of my labor
> to someone else. This hardly seems like a libertarian ideal.

You are also trying to give someone fruits of *my* labor -- inventing
something, or writing a new novel (a redundant phrase) surely takes
more labor than simply copying either.

> >If you appropriate
> >such intellectual property apart from the manner in which I have
> >decided to distribute it, then you are depriving me of a portion of
> >my living.  Or are you really saying that I can only sell one copy
> >of anything I write?

> No, you can sell as many copies as you want (and can convince other
> people to buy). It's just that you have to make sure that they don't
> distribute it in a manner other than as you wish. If you give it to them
> for some sum of money, then it's theirs, and they may do with it as they
> wish, including give other people copies of it. If you make them sign a
> contract stating what they will and won't do (like give it away), then
> they will be held to that contract. I.e., copyrights and patents don't
> exist, but trade secret still works.

So you support the idea of intellectual property, if it is
protected by trade secret, but not copyright or patent.

Therefore, just as the effects of a will can be simulated by a sufficiently
complicated trust fund, a copyright or patent can be simulated by
a sufficiently complicated trade secret agreement.  I predict that
a group of lawyers will get together and write a standardized trade
secret agreement, design a suitable logo to replace the (C) symbol,
(which logo is, of course, subject to the same type of agreement),
and authors will affix the new logo to their works instead of the
(C), after paying Copyrights, Inc., the appropriate registration
fee.  Purchasers will then have to explicitly agree to abide by
the contract, which we used to call a law, before they can purchase
the work.

What's the practical difference?  I.e., why is this a better
system than the one we have now?

> So, as stated above, the law got simpler, but your life got more
> complicated.

If my life is going to get more complicated, then what's the
advantage of the law getting simpler?  Except that I will
have to give more of my money to lawyers to get the same
effect?

> You can't depend on the state to do things for you, you
> have to plan ahead to see that they get done the way you wish.

This is already true; the state is not going to do things the
way you wish, especially in the case of a will.  But you seem
to be trying to make it harder to do the same things which can
be done now.

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys