[ExI] intellectual property again

JOSHUA JOB nanite1018 at gmail.com
Sat Mar 6 06:23:50 UTC 2010


On Mar 5, 2010, at 1:00 AM, Emlyn wrote:
> Well that's definitional, but can you cede this self control
> irrevocably (ie: without the ability to take it back against the
> wishes of the entity to whom you ceded it)?

Not sure, though on the face of it, I would say yes (provided there were legal structures in place to ensure you were not under duress at the time).

> btw, I think with regard to self-ownership (in a self-as-property
> sense) it is a stretch to somehow call it based in nature. It's a
> socially constructed view of person, for a start, and an arbitrary
> ideal chosen as a starting point (exactly as human rights are). I
> think to claim otherwise requires some pretty serious handwaving.

Well, see, I don't necessarily base everything in the idea of self-ownership, though I pretty much end up at that point anyway. I say that man is an animal that must use reason in order to produce the things it needs to survive. A requirement for his life is independent thought, and control of himself and his actions. Without that, he cannot survive (and as a result, anyone who prevents that, by initiating force, is violating the principle upon which their lives are based, and thus, they lose any claim to "rights" derived from what is necessary for man's survival, in principle). Obviously, this is, essentially, the principle of self-ownership. And from this, comes the fact that you own the creations of your mind (your ideas, as they are your creations) and obviously your body (your concrete productions like artwork or computer chips, etc.). That's my basis for IP, and rights in general actually.

> Much more common is that an employee is quite dependent apon a job.
> They might be an unskilled worker who will take no transferable skills
> to the job market. Or they might be indebted and thus be unable to
> tolerate even a short period without an income. Or they may be highly
> trained and experienced workers who have highly specialized skills,
> for which there is a very limited market (perhaps for example a rocket
> scientist!)
> 
> Such a person is in an unequal power relationship with an employer who
> believes they can replace the employee easily. So, although there is
> no force, it is very easy to imagine scenarios where such employees
> trade away benefits (holidays? overtime? health insurance? permanent
> employee status?) simply because their employer "requests" it of them.
> The request is perceived as an order with which they must comply,
> because of the power relationship. This person will understand that
> the change is not in their interest, that they are now worse off. They
> will feel forced to make the decision they make. That is power being
> exercised. [And another similar example after that, similar in form, though with roles reversed.]

Now, here is the key difference. At least in our society, you can always get a different job, even if it is something you are wont to do, for example, instead of being a rocket scientist, you could mop floors at a local barbershop, live in a small apartment with 6 other people, eat at soup kitchens, etc. Now, I am not saying that is the best of all worlds, but I am saying that your survival is almost certainly not an issue here. And if it ever got to be, usually that was in large part a result of your own bad decisions (and so not something I feel obligated to concern myself with, as it does not interfere with the principle I am trying to outline; they got what they chose).

So, what the real source of contention must be here is not that they are forcing your hand in the same way that a person who says "your money or your life" does, as that is no choice at all. But so long as you are still alive, and are not breaching anybody's rights (i.e. initiating force on anyone), then you still have options. And in such a case, what you are really discussing is a sharply tilted cost-benefit analysis, where, via the actions and attitudes of another person, the costs and benefits are heavily skewed in favor of your choosing on course of action over some other option. Force removes you from the realm of choice (as you are no longer in control of your actions, someone else is making you do one thing or another, as death is no choice at all, in any possible way, shape or form). In this case, you still have options, that do not include death, and no one is taking away your property, your life, or your personal sovereignty (by assaulting you, say).

By your argument then, having a set of options in which one is obviously the most beneficial choice (by a longshot) is immoral (I'm not sure if you would use that word, but since you are arguing that it can be a violation of rights, I am assuming it is an apt characterization). I don't see anything other than this in the situation at hand- power relations do not involve physical force, rather they involve the manipulation of costs and benefits so as to make a particular option far more attractive (or perhaps just less repulsive) than other options, and thereby "forcing" the hand of a rational person.

But isn't this a very odd idea of "force" or "coercion"? After all, we come across such lopsided decisions all the time in our lives- Should I go to college? Should I maintain my integrity rather than forfeiting it for some short-term gain? Should I ask her to marry me (ideally this fits in this category, haha)? Indeed, we are placed in such positions all the time in social situations, even with peers (suddenly stripping naked at the dinner table at your partners parent's house is virtually unthinkable, as it would cost so much and produce very little benefit). People control their own actions, and control their property, and as a result have influence over the world in which you live, thereby influencing your decisions. I don't see a qualitative difference between not stripping naked at the parent-in-law's house and not disobeying a request from your employer. Regardless, if you are a rational person, then you would only agree if the interaction is in your best interest (and if you are not rational, well, I don't feel the need to protect you from your mistake, that's how you learn). So long as you still have personal sovereignty, property rights, and all the rest, I don't see the basis for arguing that you have "no choice" or were "forced" when your decision was a result of your own cost-benefit analysis of the situation, and no actual physical force or threat of it was involved.

Such is my first go at trying to demonstrate that these power asymmetries are not essential, and that the essential part of the human landscape is the inviolacy of your own mind, body, and property, in regards to physical force.

> I think it should probably be possible to enter into such a contract
> (disingenuous as it may be), but it should not be possible to be bound
> to that agreement (exactly as is the case now in free societies - you
> cannot be bound by such a contract).
Then it wasn't a contract in the first place. Now, I'll admit that in such situations as a contract of slavery, it is going to be hard to demonstrate the person was not acting under duress, that is, that there was no force or threat of it involved. The decision is so crazy on the face of it that it seems almost certain that only someone under threat of force would enter into such a contract, and as a result, the contract is invalid.

> This is where we differ, and it is because of my contention that we
> exist in a network of uneven power relations. If you could sell
> yourself into slavery, very quickly many of the poorer people in the
> world would be slaves. Why? Because they are dependent in some way or
> another on some interaction with an entity far more powerful than them
> (employer? credit agency? loanshark? walmart?), who will merely have
> to say "Become my slave and I'll waive your debt" or "all employed
> positions are redundant, but we are taken on slaves, sign up here" or
> "become a slave and win this iphone!". It doesn't matter, again, if
> you say these people are somehow bad or foolish for taking up such
> "offers", the fact remains that it would happen, en-masse, and it
> would be due to the exercise of power, be it not directly violent, by
> the powerful over the weak.

Okay, now here is the problem I see with this: anyone who would enter into such an arrangement is surely undeserving of my or anyone's sympathies. Becoming a slave is worse than death, it is annihilation of your control over your body, but with you still aware inside it. Such a condition is intolerable, and entering into it so long as there was the chance to live a "free" man (even in jail) is something only someone who is insane, self-destructive, or profoundly irrational would do. In the first case the contract is void anyway, in the latter two, the person does not, in my opinion, deserve our sympathy. I take a similar view to someone who commits suicide (in a non-torture setting) - if you do that, you obviously weren't worth your mass in water, as you obviously didn't think yourself worth that much. Perhaps that is callous, but I don't see why I should care about someone if they don't even care about themselves.

> Now I don't say that all decisions are under duress. Actors of
> relatively similar power will have free relations, absent the
> influence of third parties. Duress, and just as importantly the
> foreseeable possibility of duress, comes into play where power is
> radically uneven. To maintain a free society, therefore, the project
> is to mitigate uneven power relationships. eg: the separation of
> powers in a democracy is designed to hamstring attempts to wield
> necessary government powers as general purpose power outside of its
> intended bounds.

Again, I think this depends on a faulty assumption, that power relations are somehow essential to life. What you are really discussing is everyday cost-benefit analyses, and I don't see how one could consistently apply your position, as it essentially bans all "obvious" decisions. If the decision is obvious and any other conclusion essentially inconceivable, then clearly the costs and benefits are too skewed, and your decision was not free, even for something as simply as not stripping at the dinner table.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com






More information about the extropy-chat mailing list