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!mcnc!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Re: What is property? Message-ID: <791@bunker.UUCP> Date: Mon, 8-Apr-85 10:09:03 EST Article-I.D.: bunker.791 Posted: Mon Apr 8 10:09:03 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 10-Apr-85 06:19:46 EST References: <764@bunker.UUCP> <862@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> <775@bunker.UUCP> <882@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct Lines: 239 > In article <775@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. > > Gee, that's odd. I thought we were discussing the question of wills. > Since such things wouldn't exist in Libertaria, your original point > doesn't make sense. Of course, this wouldn't invalidate the question > that was asked - whether a trust fund or a will that covered a set > amount of money was heavier. I guess ducking the question was easier > than answering it. OK, one more time, slowly: If, in Libertaria, there is no such thing as a will, then people who desire to achieve the results which a will is supposed to achieve will create some other legal document, such as a carefully worded trust, to replace the will. How do you suggest I prove that such a trust, which doesn't exist, since Libertaria doesn't exist, would be more complicated than a will is today? And how can you accuse me of ducking the question, when you quoted my answer? "Do you have proof?" "I don't have proof." An amazing new way to "duck" a question. I confess! I was speculating! I made a statement I didn't have 29 reliable authorities to quote! I stated, *gasp*, an opinion. I did try to explain why I had that opinion, but, alas, I cannot prove it. (Of course, I am sure you have proof that things in Libertaria would work as you hope.) > >> 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. > No, I don't agree. You made an invalid jump from the general (most > things) to the specific (wills vs. trust funds). The question of trust > funds remains open, but I expect that the trust fund and the will would > be about the same. Fine, where's *your* proof? In any event, the main point is that results achieved by a will could be achieved in Libertaria by some other document -- do you dispute this (speaking of question ducking)? If the will effect can be simulated by some other document, why is it important to eliminate the will? > >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." > You're right, that would be hard to make lawyer-tight. The problem (as > DMcK pointed out) is that "the moment of death" is hard to define > exactly. You want to try? Difficult from a medical standpoint, but not from a legal standpoint. Legally, the moment of death is when the coroner signs the death certificate. (Of course, if a person for whom a death certificate has been duly signed turns out to be alive, there are nasty problems, but that's already the case.) > Me, I don't need to. Your property remains in > limbo until you're buried (or whatever), at which point "society" gets > it. > >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. > > That ? was me (among others). Sure, the US government is to big. The > problem isn't the bigness per se, the problem is what I call the > "bloat:" the excess size the government has because of it's monopolistic > tendencies and collecting subsidies at gunpoint. You can remove the > bloat directly, or you can remove the monopolistic tendencies and > subsidies. I prefer the latter. Feeding the government unused properties > (most of which it claims anyway) would ease the transition. > I've dealt with the silliness of "the government owning everything" > elsewhere in the newsgroup. > >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.) > Maybe you're getting the point, but I doubt it. Is that type of snide remark really necessary? > The only thing that > keeps the Europeans from claiming the Americas is that someone is using > them - i.e., that they would deprive the current owners of their use of > the property. Maybe some countries refrain from invading (or "using") other currently occupied countries out of respect for rights, but other countries have no such respect for rights, and refrain from invading other countries only out of respect for military strength. > Now, if nobody were using the Americas, then they would > have a right to claim them - if they started using them. If not, then > *anyone* else could claim them. (I hope we all agree that what medieval > Europeans did to the people who were using the Americas was, well, > medieval.) Well, no, I don't agree that what medieval Europeans did was "medieval;" such behaviour doesn't seem to be limited to any particular era. I agree that it was morally wrong, if that's what you mean. > >> 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. > Nope, you still have the fruits of your labor. You've got the object you > invented, or the novel you wrote (unless you gave me the only copy of > said thing). If I create another copy, it is the fruits of *my* labor, > and my labor only. True, you may have spent more labor in making the > original than I did in making the copy, but none of your labor went into > the copy I made. The design is incorporated into the copy as much as it is into the original (otherwise, you could have built your machine independently, rather than copy it). The design is the fruit of my labor. Ergo, your copy contains the fruit of my labor as well as yours. > >So you support the idea of intellectual property, if it is > >protected by trade secret, but not copyright or patent. > > No, I *do not* support the idea of intellectual property. I support the > idea of the sanctity of a contract. Contracts can be used to keep > ideas to yourself, but such behavior is antisocial, akin to not feeding > a starving person. > >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. > > Sorry, but putting a magic symbol on your toy (document, rom, pc layout, > or reactionless drive) won't add any protection to it. You still have to > get your purchasers to sign a license agreement. Also, Copyrights, Inc. > won't be able to keep anybody from putting their symbol on a document > after they've seen it, unless, of course, everybody who sees the symbol > has already signed a contract stating that they won't do so. Sort of > makes it worthless. What? No Trademark protection either? You're going to let anyone use a company's name freely? How will I know that anything I buy is what it claims to be? > >What's the practical difference? I.e., why is this a better > >system than the one we have now? > The system - even the screwy one you presented - has taken the monopoly > of a service away from the government, and put the service in the free > market. This should (most likely will) reduce the size of the > government. Ditto for the cost of the service. I think it's a fine idea to reduce the size of the government -- now, what does that goal have to do with the elimination of the concept of intellectual property? > >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? > Yes, but if you don't want the effect, you don't pay for it, as opposed > to now, where everybody is paying for. Who knows, even those who want it > might wind up paying less for it. "WHO KNOWS?" You are proposing radical changes to the government (almost to the point of disbanding it entirely), and you don't know what the effects will be? > >> 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. > I'm trying to do the same thing everybody does when they design a > society - make it easy for people to behave correctly, and hard for them > to behave incorrectly. It's just that I object to shooting or > imprisoning them for behaving incorrectly, so incorrect behavior must > be discouraged in less obnoxious ways. I guess another misconception bites the dust -- I thought libertarian ideology held that each person should be able to decide on an individual basis what "correct" behaviour is; and now it seems that the libertarians (at least one, at any rate) want to impose their moral standards on the rest of us, the difference being that they want to use more subtle means of doing so. > Of course, if the state isn't going to do things the way I wish, doing > away with it would seem to be the best alternative. Simplistic. The state does some things the way I wish, but not others. Let us not throw the baby out with the bath. >