Wenzel-Kinsella debate on IP

[jj-]

Robert Wenzel and Stephan Kinsella debated on Intellectual Property. Wenzel pro-IP, Kinsella against.

Link to the debate. (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/04/kinsella-crushed.html?showComment=1364858957536)

Review from the Daily Paul (http://www.dailypaul.com/280355/a-review-of-the-kinsella-wenzel-ip-debate):


Disclaimer: I'm a regular reader of Wenzel's blog.

Having said that, this was not a debate. This was Kinsella generously attempting to give Wenzel a lesson in IP and law on various levels, and Wenzel substituting loud noises for sound arguments in an attempt cover up his quite-obvious ignorance in the subject matter. It was evident that this was going to be the case from the very beginning: Kinsella opened with a pertinent statement, outlining his main arguments.

Wenzel? Opened with a completely irrelevant, sanctimonious b!tch session: "I didn't call you names leading up to this debate, Stephen, why did you say something mean about me?"

I don't use the word often, but this was truly PATHETIC on the part of Wenzel.

Wenzel's combination of petulance and ignorance throughout was utterly unbearable. That Kinsella stuck around as long as he did is nothing short of miraculous.

To put it in terms that I think all of us can understand: Ever have a debate with someone when they don't really make an argument at all? They just kinda yell things or try to tell you what YOU believe, when they actually don't have a clue about the issue? They can't answer any questions you pose, and instead evade them at all costs or repeatedly cite what they think are "gotcha" points that are actually ignorant strawmen built on a foundation of sand? And worst of all, they actually think this means they are "winning"?

That someone in this debate was Bob Wenzel.

Kinsella was stuck trying to explain and distinguish terminology to the uninformed Wenzel most of the time, as the precision of the technical language involved- let alone IP theory generally- was beyond Wenzel's grasp. While Kinsella has posited an entire theory, with well defined terms, Wenzel has not even outlined any fundamentals or definitions before or during this "debate". As such, he merely attempted at various points to "appeal to authority" by throwing out a few quotes, without any semblance of theory underpinning the baseless claims or criticisms he was arbitrarily tossing around. Unfortunately for Wenzel, Kinsella was more familiar with the actual context and implication of those quotes- namely, Rothbard's - than was Wenzel. Thus, even Wenzel's own best shots merely resulted in self-inflicted wounds.

Start to finish, I was embarrassed for Wenzel.

Incidentally, the bloody mary example that Kinsella gives at approx 1 hr 32 min, to me, demolished the singular point Wenzel thought he had been making the entire time until then: that ideas are scarce (a point, by the way, that in the manner Wenzel was attempting to make it was riddled with ambiguity and without context in which to consider what he might actually be driving at anyways). Kinsella demonstrates through this example that one may take another's idea without affecting another's property at all, and that the implications for any concept of property rights would be profound if one deems this an illegitimate act (as the logical implications of Wenzel's singular point - even without a proper theoretical construct, since he hasn't ever offered one - would).

In any case, for as much as Wenzel talked (or more accurately, blogged) leading up to this, I was stunned at how truly and utterly pathetic he was. There is no other way to describe it.

I was literally shaking my head.

Awful.

This "debate" was a failure on all counts. Those who disagree with Kinsella will be immensely disappointed in Wenzel's complete ignorance, which left him unable to discuss the subject matter in any productive capacity.

And those who agree with Kinsella have nothing to celebrate, since there was no meaningful challenge presented.

I started this post by saying "I'm a regular reader of Wenzel's blog."

I'll be reading with new eyes. His self-righteous feigning of expertise here signals to me some serious cracks in the foundation of his credibility.

[jj-]

Mises.org related thread (http://mises.org/community/forums/p/33192/516503.aspx).

[Christian Liberty]

I have to listen to this. I'm somewhat pro-IP at the moment. I can understand why some are against it, but I think to say that just because the pirate happens to own certain physical materials means that he has a right to simply copy someone else's work and sell it as a profit when obviously the vast, vast majority of work on a film is intellectual. This is doubly true with authors.

Kinsella would have to have a very, very good argument to convince me on this. As a wanna-be author, I do not think someone should be allowed to just read my work, copy it, and sell it at a profit when I've spent four months writing the book. Am I entitled to any sort of profit on the book? Of course not. If you don't want to read it, you don't have to purchase it. But let's face it, the vast, vast majority of the work that will be done on that book will be by me, coming up with ideas and writing. The amount of work required to physically copy the pages is minimal. So while it might be absolutely philosophically consistent to say that if you own the pen and the paper you can write whatever scribbles you want on it and sell it at a profit, the reality is that the time taken to create ideas is important. Or at least it is important to me.

I admit that I do think IP should eventually expire, which is admittedly somewhat inconsistent. I do not see any good reason why anyone in the world should not be able to copy and sell a copy of the Bible or the Qu'ran at this point, even if we actually did know who the heirs to the original authors were. I don't even really think DC comics should really own Superman anymore. But I don't think you should just be able to take someone else's work right after they create it and take the profits they worked for with zero effort.

I agree that piracy is not precisely theft but it is similar. I don't support ruining the lives of teenage pirates but I do think piracy does need to be illegal.

[Occam's Banana]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cNZujsBZMBQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cNZujsBZMBQ

[McChronagle]

it was more entertaining than anything to me. id give more credit to wenzel that that reviewer does. im waiting to see wenzels other points he was going to go on making if kinsella wasnt completely misunderstanding and avoiding wenzels first arguments. wnezel treated it more like an interview instead of a debate but kinsella was asking for the "interrogation" with his comments before the whole thing

[K466]

Holy crap. I'm stunned at Wenzel's performance, absolutely embarrassing. Of course Kinsella's insults were just as problematic, but this was supposed to be a debate on IP, and when it came to substance Kinsella wiped the floor. Finally, half way in, Wenzel began to offer some actual arguments against IP but I'm pretty sure they all fall short of refuting Kinsella.

What a terrible format, they should have debated in person or through public blog posts.

Right now I suggest Wenzel bail himself out by saying this was all a big April fool's joke.

[TaftFan]

I've never seen Wenzel but it sounds like he was picked on when he was a kid.

And I probably lean more on his side in this debate too. But he has been pulling diversive crap for a long time.

[emazur]

Couldn't give this more than 30 minutes before shutting it off. Even though I'm on Wenzel's side in favor of IP, he had extremely poor form, acted like a hothead, and didn't provide much in the way of substance. Kinsella pretty much kept his cool (must have been difficult) and tried to steer the debate based on the merits but it takes two to tango.

If you've ever seen the train wreck of an interview where Alex Jones interviews Peter Joseph (the Zeitgeist guy), you'll pretty much get a repeat of that with this debate. Do yourself a favor and skip it.

[A Son of Liberty]

I intend to skip it. I read EPJ every day, and Wenzel's sophomoric snipes at Kinsella and Tucker have grown tiresome. I understand Kinsella has made a few comments of his own... one would think two of the better known personalities would have a little more respect for our movement than to behave in such ways. Have some dignity, gentlemen.

[Cowlesy]

lolol, so Captain Angry vs. Admiral Angrier -- probably good entertainment.

[matt0611]

I intend to skip it. I read EPJ every day, and Wenzel's sophomoric snipes at Kinsella and Tucker have grown tiresome. I understand Kinsella has made a few comments of his own... one would think two of the better known personalities would have a little more respect for our movement than to behave in such ways. Have some dignity, gentlemen.

Same, I read EPJ because there's some decent stuff posted on it and I agree with Wenzel on a lot of things, but I've been saying for the past 7 or 8 months that he seems like such an ass to me. I've lost a lot of respect for him because of his snipes at Schiff, Tucker, Rand etc

[green73]

I found it entertaining, shocking, and sad. I could not believe the name-calling from both men. It stayed lively throughout, though Wenzel unfairly controlled the whole thing and refused to answer Kinsella's questions. Basically his position boils down to the notion that ideas are scarce. He fallaciously compares an idea being stolen to something tangible (e.g. a car). I say Kinsella destroyed him.

[familydog]

Wenzel is pathetic. He is a cranky old man who seeks attention by name calling and berating anybody who disagrees with him. He is an embarrassment to the liberty community. I listened to support Stephan Kinsella. As usual, Kinsella's sound logic was completely dismissed.

[spladle]

Wenzel is pathetic. He is a cranky old man who seeks attention by name calling and berating anybody who disagrees with him. He is an embarrassment to the liberty community. I listened to support Stephan Kinsella. As usual, Kinsella's sound logic was completely dismissed.

+rep

I challenge any of the individuals in this thread claiming to side with Weazel on this issue to present a coherent definition of intellectual property that is compatible with liberty and a free market.

[spladle]

I found it entertaining, shocking, and sad. I could not believe the name-calling from both men. It stayed lively throughout, though Wenzel unfairly controlled the whole thing and refused to answer Kinsella's questions. Basically his position boils down to the notion that ideas are scarce. He fallaciously compares an idea being stolen to something tangible (e.g. a car). I say Kinsella destroyed him.

My only disagreement with this post is that I think Kinsella's name-calling was unreasonably restrained. Weazel deserves the deepest shaming and scorn imaginable. No amount of verbal abuse could possibly be enough. The pathetic piece of trash needs to slit his own throat, crawl into a hole, and die.

[Christian Liberty]

I found it entertaining, shocking, and sad. I could not believe the name-calling from both men. It stayed lively throughout, though Wenzel unfairly controlled the whole thing and refused to answer Kinsella's questions. Basically his position boils down to the notion that ideas are scarce. He fallaciously compares an idea being stolen to something tangible (e.g. a car). I say Kinsella destroyed him.

I don't think its quite exactly the same, if nothing else no physical violence is involved, but I do think there are parallels. I have to listen to this first though. I suspect that Kinsella will win the debate, as everyone here seems to think that that was the case.


+rep

I challenge any of the individuals in this thread claiming to side with Weazel on this issue to present a coherent definition of intellectual property that is compatible with liberty and a free market.

I'll have to watch the video first, although I'm not sure that I can. I admit that absolute logical consistency would probably lead to IP not existing, but I think its a necessary evil since the vast, vast majority of the work that goes into creatitng the sort of things that would be covered by IP is... intellectual.

[Danan]

I don't think its quite exactly the same, if nothing else no physical violence is involved, but I do think there are parallels. I have to listen to this first though. I suspect that Kinsella will win the debate, as everyone here seems to think that that was the case.



I'll have to watch the video first, although I'm not sure that I can. I admit that absolute logical consistency would probably lead to IP not existing, but I think its a necessary evil since the vast, vast majority of the work that goes into creatitng the sort of things that would be covered by IP is... intellectual.

Those things existed before IP existed. The enlightenment philosophers, scientists and engineers didn't like IP laws at all, as they went diametrically against the principles of a free knowledge society, which was crucial in enlightenment thought. All the progress in this era came about because people love to think, research, develop, tinker and create and don't even need a profit motive to do that.

Every economics textbook states that IP laws are artificial government granted monopolies. Because that's exactly what they are. However those textbooks wrongly assume that they most likely enhance technological advancements.

That's a pretty great article too:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-law-the-real-reason-for-germany-s-industrial-expansion-a-710976.html

[spladle]

I'll have to watch the video first, although I'm not sure that I can.

I'd advise against trying. I couldn't make it past the 30-minute mark, and from what I've read of the comments, I'm far from alone.


I admit that absolute logical consistency would probably lead to IP not existing, but I think its a necessary evil since the vast, vast majority of the work that goes into creatitng the sort of things that would be covered by IP is... intellectual.

Strictly speaking, it is possible to fit IP into a logically consistent property framework. If we accept that all property rights are contingent creations of the state and therefore subject to revocation on a whim, then IP is easily justifiable on the grounds that the state makes the rules. Of course, that line of argumentation also allows for the legitimacy of slavery, so . . .

The claim that the vast majority of the work that goes into creating certain things is intellectual represents a twisted revival of the labor theory of value. I'm convinced that a careful examination of the premises underlying your faith in the legitimacy of IP will change your mind. For starters, you surely reject the LTV in favorite of the subjective theory of value, right?

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm busch-league - at best - when it comes to IP, but what always seems to get me about it is, first, it seems like a notion of property which is entirely dependent upon the state (and thus incompatible with individual sovereignty), and second, and much more importantly to me, what happens when two people come up with the exact same "idea" at exactly the same time? This seems to me to be what separates "intellectual property" from real, physical property - two people can't occupy the same physical space at the same time; but two people could conceivably come up with the same "idea" at the same time.

[K466]

BTW, as pathetic as Wenzel's performance was, I don't want to imply Wenzel is no longer worthy of respect. His blog, EPJ, and especially his NY Fed speech and his new Soviet Union speech, as well as his Austrian economics commentary/predictions, are extremely valuable. I read everything he posts and will continue to do so. His reputation took a big hit yesterday but he still has quite a bit left.

Just want to put things in perspective...

[A Son of Liberty]

BTW, as pathetic as Wenzel's performance was, I don't want to imply Wenzel is no longer worthy of respect. His blog, EPJ, and especially his NY Fed speech and his new Soviet Union speech, as well as his Austrian economics commentary/predictions, are extremely valuable. I read everything he posts and will continue to do so. His reputation took a big hit yesterday but he still has quite a bit left.

Just want to put things in perspective...

I agree with all of this. I just wish the guy would put the petty sniping - especially against his intellectual comrades - aside. He'd hold so much more credibility in my eyes if he'd just respectfully but directly challenge those with whom he disagrees.

[awake]

It always comes down to whether violence should be employed to enforce the right of the IP holder over the non IP holder, as the concept of rightful property is the base of action. If copying IP against the wishes of the holder is theft, then there should be no excuses, and the full weight of the law should be brought to bear on all the criminals.

The problem: currently there is not enough police or justice providers to properly handle the mass of thefts that are happening and increasing by the day. So many more law enforcers will be needed. Many many more.

The question stands: how much are the taxpayers willing to spend on this war? And there is absolutely no way to win this war unless all internet traffic is examined for IP infringement. Are we all willing to have every electronic transfer combed for criminal behavior?

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm busch-league - at best - when it comes to IP, but what always seems to get me about it is, first, it seems like a notion of property which is entirely dependent upon the state (and thus incompatible with individual sovereignty), and second, and much more importantly to me, what happens when two people come up with the exact same "idea" at exactly the same time? This seems to me to be what separates "intellectual property" from real, physical property - two people can't occupy the same physical space at the same time; but two people could conceivably come up with the same "idea" at the same time.
Exactly! I brought this up in an earlier IP thread, some 2 months ago. Classic example-Calculus was discovered by Newton and Leibnitz at almost the same time. Nowadays, credit is shared equally among them.

[K466]

Now Wenzel is out with a substantive argument; be it right or wrong, this is what he should have done in the first place. In fact, the debate should have been in this format (writing).

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/04/understanding-scarcity-with-little-help.html

[silverhandorder]

My comment on his page. Let's see if he allows it through.


Ideas are not scarce. Just because you pay for an idea it does not make it scarce.

If anything I would say that you are not entitled to profit. Just because you worked on something does not mean that you deserve to gain the value that YOU think is right. Only the market can decide this.

This means you have to deal with market realities. If your product can be infinitely copied at no cost then it is your duty to protect it accordingly. If you sell it to someone you have to recognize the possibility that the product will be copied infinitely.

If I was a company that provides security services I would not enforce such a contract. Because it is simply to expensive to go after everyone beyond the first person you contracted with.

Whether you support the state enforcement or the anarchist enforcement it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we agree on whether we should spend our efforts enforcing IP. To this I stand with Kinsela and think that we should not.