Dear Sourav, dear Armchair Economists,

   I've cut through the previous argument and went directly to the summary,
for everyone's benefit.

>: Sourav K. Mandal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Anyway, in summary:
> We have not resolved our dichotomy on the general concept of
> property, let alone IP.  You continue to assert the
> hoarding/exclusion principle, and I continue to assert
> value-addition/first-right.  If we continue our discussion, it
> should be on this particular philosophical disagreement.
I think you're mistaken here, both in your own position and in
your belief of what mine is.

You believe that the two arguments are contradictory one from the other,
that you have to choose one point of view, and that the other is wrong.
But that is not. They are complementary, with independent assumptions
and independent conclusions. And all different points of views on the
Universe are valid, even though different, because they look at the same

The Universe is One. A is A.
Ownership is Ownership, independently from Exclusion.
Exclusion is Exclusion, independently from Ownership.

If I earn something by my work, that thing is mine to use and abuse,
independently from its being exclusively mine or not.
If something is exclusive in its nature, it will be exclusive in fact,
whether owned by you, I, anyone else, or nobody.

If I make an apple, for me to eat or give or otherwise dispose of,
this ownership will be exclusive,
not by the nature of ownership, but by the nature of the apple;
as long as I keep it, no matter how hard you try,
you won't be able to earn it at the same time.
If I learn english, for me to speak or teach or otherwise make use of,
this ownership will be not exclusive,
not by the nature of ownership, but by the nature of the english language;
you may learn it too and make use of it, not only without harming me,
but even without my noticing it, thousands of miles away from me.

It is as wrong to pretend that ownership is ownership+exclusion, as you do,
as it would be to pretend that exclusion is ownership+exclusion, as I don't.

Finally, as for your accusations of Bastiat and I being "collectivists"
because we consider public good, you must also include in the lot people
like Hayek and Turgot, and Adam Smith, and all other political economists
who ever considered the Wealth of Nation and proved that liberty was the
best political way to improve it.
But once again, you are misled by a belief that points of view are exclusive.
Public good is as valid a point of view as natural rights, and leads to as
valid conclusions on the surrounding Universe. The Universe is One, A is A.
Of course, some people have abused the public good point of view,
but so have some people abused the natural rights point of view.
The essence of collectivism is not in its point of view, but in its reality;
it is centralized decision-making by a few for the everyone,
which deprives most people from the liberty to decide how to act,
and shields the chiefs from the responsibility of undergoing
the consequences of their decisions.

You admit that freedom of information makes for better software.
This is another point of view to the same Universe.
Freedom makes for better public welfare; because it doesn't infringe
natural rights, and thus allows optimal use of information by society.
Thus, the Economic Harmonies: the Universe is One and all the valid
points of views on it coincide exactly.

Yours freely,

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | ]
[  TUNES project for a Free Reflective Computing System  |  ]
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest
complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it
be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they
have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to
others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their
lives."         -- Tolstoy

Reply via email to