[ExI] intellectual property again.

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> But, as you know, contract-based anything would not apply to third parties. The scenario you cook up seems unlikely and would depend on luck: that almost all people in a society concur with a particular IP regime. Add to this, just what constitutes IP is unlikely to be agreed upon in enough cases that my guess is a bona fide free society would not have it or it'd be confined to small groups -- which is the equivalent of not having it. Also, even were many people to agree with this, this would only be them agreeing to something and not a ground for forcing others to comply.
>
> And, yes, people can come to consensual arrangements that might look like IP, but they're not the same thing -- just as we can all agree to give away to charity anything we make over, say, $1 million. But that arrangement would not and should not bind others. Don't you agree? True IP would have to be like physical property: something that does bind third parties -- binds them from interfering in its use and disposal.
>
> I think the case against IP from a natural rights perspective -- as given by libertarians like Kinsella -- is sound.

### Have a look at
http://triviallyso.blogspot.com/2010/01/of-beating-hearts-part-2.html
for some background of my current thinking on polycentric law. Now,
regarding the issue at hand: There is not much dependent on pure luck
in the evolution of legal systems. Why most systems forbid cutting off
your head against your wishes, except in some special circumstances,
is not a question of luck but an implicit recognition that this legal
standard has desirable consequences. The same should apply to IP: If
IP has a positive cost-benefit ratio in terms of satisfying long-term
desires of in-group members, then a rational and efficient law
discovery system will sooner or later produce IP rules. I reject the
notion of natural law, except in the weaker sense of certain rules
"naturally" emerging out of the give-and-take of social interactions
in a particular situation - and the specific content of this "natural"
law strongly depends on the specific desires, physical surroundings,
available technologies, etc.

Regarding your second paragraph: You don't need to bind third parties
by threatening them with physical ingress on their property to induce
them to obey some rules. Ostracism is frequently enough, as long as a
sufficient fraction of players is willing to ostracize (i.e. refuse to
deal with, talk to, trade or allow on their private property) and
punish non-ostracizers (if you forgive me a clumsy neologism).

To summarize: I believe that IP law is generally efficient (in the
sense of having a net positive effect on satisfying human desires
under most real-life circumstances - this is an empirical claim which
AFAIK is well-supported by a lot of evidence), and compatible with a
non-violent, consensual, polycentric society.

Rafal