Defining Private Property

[GhostWriter16]

I read it, I just don't really agree with it. Any given musician, if people don't like his work well enough to listen to it, then they are in no way obligated to listen to it, and so are in no way compelled to pay for it. So you're example of what you think logically follows from what I said is false. You failed to understand my point. Just because someone holds a copyright does not mean that they will get any revenue from that product. If no one wants it, no one wants it. And the supplier has to try again.

But, if someone creates something that is popular, then why should they be stripped of the ability to prosper by doing so? If people choose to listen to it, but refuse to pay for it, then the artist has exactly as little income as the person who creates something no one chooses to listen to.

And we're all the poorer because of it.

This. People don't have to buy the guy's music. Just because some people will even if they can get it for free is besides the point, if you pirate it you're stealing potential income from him. Doesn't matter if some people will still pay, pirating is still bad and should be punishable.

 

[innonimatu]

This. People don't have to buy the guy's music. Just because some people will even if they can get it for free is besides the point, if you pirate it you're stealing potential income from him. Doesn't matter if some people will still pay, pirating is still bad and should be punishable.

Just as if you were another musician selling or offering music you could be "stealing potential income" from him. Doesn't mean that you will make that illegal! Actually, copyright lobbyists have been trying damn hard to make it impossible to offer music for free, exactly because of that "threat" - that was one of their motives to have copyright apply by default to every "new creation", instead of it having to be registered.
Your argument is just a variation of Cutlass' argument, think of the poor musicians/artists, who somehow should possess the unique (nearly unique, imaginary poverty soils some other areas also) right to be paid in perpetuity (it's what now, two lifetimes?) for the work they did once. Unlike everyone else working for a living.

Can you not see that legal monopolies enforcing the payment of fees to a particular corporation is a thing right out of the middle ages guilds? That the last remaining guilds are those hidden behind such legal monopolies today, foremost of which are the "artists"?

That said artists all create their works from bits and pieces of works of other people, and so on? That they are thus "free riders" on the works of previous generations, yet you want to let them change fees at will?

Finally, that copyright carried to its logical conclusion would mean that some day all human culture would be locked under some legal monopoly or other, making further creation impossible, for no one would be able to untangle the web of "ownership"?
Here, at least please read this short fiction story to get an idea of the absurdity that modern copyright is becoming, of the complete trainwreck in the making that it is. For all practical purposes it is already "eternal".

Nobody has come up with a way to tour effectively without that distributor helping to pick up the tab. You can make decent money performing live, but without the capital investment, you wouldnt be able to travel enough to get those gigs. Thats why there is a partnership.

Sorry, don't take me wrong, but I find that hard to believe. I can believe that they would make less money from it, but that's how things are in a market economy: you work for whatever the customers/patrons/employers are willing to pay.

Oh, and can someone define property in a way that encompasses both physical (old-fashioned) property and this new imaginary property? How does imaginary property fit in? I say that it is just a kind of feudal right, back from the time corporations of people were defined through their unique legal privileges.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Just as if you were another musician selling or offering music you could be "stealing potential income" from him. Doesn't mean that you will make that illegal! Actually, copyright lobbyists have been trying damn hard to make it impossible to offer music for free, exactly because of that "threat" - that was one of their motives to have copyright apply by default to every "new creation", instead of it having to be registered.
Your argument is just a variation of Cutlass' argument, think of the poor musicians/artists, who somehow should possess the unique (nearly unique, imaginary poverty soils some other areas also) right to be paid in perpetuity (it's what now, two lifetimes?) for the work they did once. Unlike everyone else working for a living.

Can you not see that legal monopolies enforcing the payment of fees to a particular corporation is a thing right out of the middle ages guilds? That the last remaining guilds are those hidden behind such legal monopolies today, foremost of which are the "artists"?

That said artists all create their works from bits and pieces of works of other people, and so on? That they are thus "free riders" on the works of previous generations, yet you want to let them change fees at will?

Finally, that copyright carried to its logical conclusion would mean that some day all human culture would be locked under some legal monopoly or other, making further creation impossible, for no one would be able to untangle the web of "ownership"?
Here, at least please read this short fiction story to get an idea of the absurdity that modern copyright is becoming, of the complete trainwreck in the making that it is. For all practical purposes it is already "eternal".

Patents for an invention is 17 years IIRC. I don't see why we couldn't limit music copyright to that long as well. Other people creating different music is a completely different issue, and I definitely think people should be able to offer free music if they wish. What I don't agree with is simply deciding "They have no right to make money off of this, people should be able to pirate it for free."

I mean, its not even like its an essential thing like food that's being deprived. Its MUSIC. MUSIC that somebody created. You can't POSSIBLY argue you're being cheated by having to pay their prices. Either you do, or you don't, and either way your life is more or less the same.

 

[timtofly]

Property is a persons "ability" that can be marketed (bought, sold, retained, given away). Land (at least in the US) is property that has been granted to an individual by legal means. It used to be tool for a person to persue their life, liberty, and happiness via government allowance. Now it is more than that. It is a tool to do a variety of things and even make a profit for corporate entities, or not.

Music including songs, talent, or any other marketable related item is not private. By that, I mean it is owned by a corporation. It is owned by the entity that gets it patented first. While it is true that doing tours is doable. It takes more than money in modern society. You need protection from outside interest. The reason that it is complicated is because it has lost personality and is corporated.

Guilds or not, every one tries to make a living as easily as possible. Those who survive the industry are the ones who make it harder for the average person to do so, whether it was a personal decision to do so or not.

 

[warpus]

This. People don't have to buy the guy's music. Just because some people will even if they can get it for free is besides the point, if you pirate it you're stealing potential income from him. Doesn't matter if some people will still pay, pirating is still bad and should be punishable.

When you buy a cd you are not buying the music, you are paying for a right to listen to it - just nitpicking but it makes a big difference

if you pirate it you're stealing potential income from him.

This is not an argument that piracy is moral or that I condone it (I don't), but what you just wrote is incorrect. Most piracy is not lost revenue.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't really understand the need to bring violence into the discussion.

Private property is a social contract, obviously.. I haven't gone through the rest of the thread, nor do I think that my thoughts on the matter should really be read or acknowledged by anyone (what do I know, etc.), but private property is pretty much what we make it. And what have we made it? On the surface the answer to that question seems fairly obvious; it's the details that we're going to argue about.. Right?

I agree entirely that private property is "what we make it", but I think that's precisely why violence is a necessary aspect of the discussion, because violence is fundamental to how we make private property. Private property is essentially a series of absolute claims, and claims are simply voiced, they are enforced: the state uses violence to coerce people into accepting a given set of property claims which it recognises as valid. Without the use of violence, people would have to pursue mutually agreeable solutions, which constitute the negation of private property. So to the extent that property is private, it is maintained by violence; the two are inextricable.

(Which isn't to say that simply abolishing the legal form of private property would abolish violence; it could merely mean the shift from institutional to spontaneous violence. It's not exactly as if the London riots were an exercise in communist togetherness.)

Any why is an institution that is nothing but violence (or coercion) wrong? I do not mean to imply violence or coercion are not (generally) wrong with this question. Rather, I mean to show that your position also requires some argument with which to support it; some argument that tells us why violence or coercion is wrong ceteris paribus and thereby identify why private property rights, if they require such acts, are objectionable. It is by your giving a substantive account of where the 'wrongness' resides in such acts that we can get (in my opinion) a real understanding of your position and thus give a valid assessment of your position towards private property (by the way, I am perfectly willing to give my own substantive account if you would like; it would be churlish to ask one of you and refuse my own).

This isn't at all unfair, but in this thread I haven't really been arguing that property is a bad thing, as such, but that it is a violent imposition that we have no self-evident moral obligation to accept; not that it is right to reject private property, but that it is not wrong. The former would certainly require a degree of elaboration- and I could certainly take a shot at it, if that was necessary- but so far it's the second which has been the thrust of my argument. (Admittedly, I've not been a paragon of precision in this thread, so I don't think it's an error of interpretation on you part to pursue the second point, but rather my fault for allowing the two to bleed into each other.) I don't feel morally obliged to accept any conclusions that cannot be demonstrated to me as thoroughly legitimate, and that includes to a given distribution of possession-rights, so I reserve the right to resist any attempt to impose such a distribution upon me, much as I would resist the imposition of an attempt of a person to extent their claim to possession over me when I considered it unjust- something which would, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume, be thoroughly non-controversial to most liberal property-advocates.

 

[Hygro]

Nobody has come up with a way to tour effectively without that distributor helping to pick up the tab. You can make decent money performing live, but without the capital investment, you wouldnt be able to travel enough to get those gigs. Thats why there is a partnership.

It's true having a label behind your tour is a big boost. But if you couldn't make money touring on your own budget, how are you going to make money and then profit a label? I can only understand this logic if you were such a big artist that going on tour was going to net tons of

in the book Tour:Smart ("And Break the Band") they design strategies that basically can significantly up your touring revenue, by the direction you go and how you can go to satellite cities, kick ass, and then announce that you have a bigger show in the bigger city in say 3 or 6 weeks or something they didn't know about, and then you end up getting way more exposure at the other city which multiplies your success etc.


And in this day and age with the division of labor weirdly disappearing in the music industry as profitability is down the toilet, a lot of musicians are finding the only way they can do all the steps is by using computers, which can lead to a number of different genres but makes touring often a LOT cheaper with a laptop and some midi controllers etc. You can do the whole thing in a car with good gas mileage or got flown to shows for the weekends.

@Ghostwriter, like inno said, you're making a variation on Cutlass's argument, which, like many others in this thread, I took a lot of time to respond to that. You might consider reading through and then considering your own additions or counterpoints.

 

[BasketCase]

that it's hard to even hammer together a serious criticism of it.

You need to hammer one together in order to have a case.

That human beings haven't been able to agree on how to distribute the land is simply historical fact. Aside from being evident in any history book, the simple existence of this thread is proof. The current private property system is the end result of that disagreement. If the purpose of the land is to provide for the well-being of people, then the land should go to whoever can get the most results out of said land. That's the way the current system works.

It's a lot better than having a shooting war to decide who gets a particular chunk of land, isn't it.....?

 

[Traitorfish]

You need to hammer one together in order to have a case.

That human beings haven't been able to agree on how to distribute the land is simply historical fact. Aside from being evident in any history book, the simple existence of this thread is proof. The current private property system is the end result of that disagreement. If the purpose of the land is to provide for the well-being of people, then the land should go to whoever can get the most results out of said land. That's the way the current system works.

It's a lot better than having a shooting war to decide who gets a particular chunk of land, isn't it.....?

That isn't true. It's just... Not. I honestly don't know how you could convince yourself that it is.

 

[downtown]

It's true having a label behind your tour is a big boost. But if you couldn't make money touring on your own budget, how are you going to make money and then profit a label? I can only understand this logic if you were such a big artist that going on tour was going to net tons of
etc.

My understanding is that the label usually knows it will take a loss on an initial tour. The first tour (or maybe first two) for a smaller band are additional avenues to increase exposure, which will lead to increased music downloads/CD sales/Money for the label. If they ahve to eat a 6,000 loss for a tour to make 20,000 later, they'll do it...but that's hard to eat on your own.

It's a lot better than it was 15 years ago, before digital distribution, but if you're not a digital musician, I don't think we're at the level where you completely ignore "the man" yet.

 

[ParkCungHee]

That isn't true. It's just... Not. I honestly don't know how you could convince yourself that it is.

And who says sympathy for the Stalinist model is dead?

 

[warpus]

I agree entirely that private property is "what we make it", but I think that's precisely why violence is a necessary aspect of the discussion, because violence is fundamental to how we make private property. Private property is essentially a series of absolute claims, and claims are simply voiced, they are enforced: the state uses violence to coerce people into accepting a given set of property claims which it recognises as valid. Without the use of violence, people would have to pursue mutually agreeable solutions, which constitute the negation of private property. So to the extent that property is private, it is maintained by violence; the two are inextricable.

So the only reason violence is a part of the discussion is because there is a threat of potential violence if one fails to respect society's definitions of private property?

Usually there isn't any violence when that happens either - you get arrested and pay a fine... or get jailed.

You seem to be including violence because there needs to be an ultimate arbitrator (the government). That one needs to exist is obvious, but the need to include violence? I don't see it.

 

[Traitorfish]

What would happen to a government if it did not use violence? Would anyone pay its fine, or stroll willing into its jails? The state may not be using violence at any given moment, but its ability to command is conditioned on their capacity for violence. Without violence, the state is nothing more than a voluntary mediator, and the state, as you'll find in theorists far less radical in their interpretations than Proudhon or Thoreau, is altogether more assertive an institution than that.

So if the state is conditioned on violence, and private property is conditioned on the state, it follows that private property is conditioned on violence. Without violence, there is no private property. The two are inextricable.

 

[warpus]

What would happen to a government if it did not use violence? Would anyone pay its fine, or stroll willing into its jails?

Most of the time it doesn't. People get arrested, they pay their fines, spend some time in jail, and get released. The only violence comes from policemen who every once in a while have to wrestle a suspect to the ground or something more extreme.

The government has a mandate from society at large to uphold laws - violence only comes into play if necessary. It doesn't hinge on violence per se.

 

[Traitorfish]

Most of the time it doesn't. People get arrested, they pay their fines, spend some time in jail, and get released. The only violence comes from policemen who every once in a while have to wrestle a suspect to the ground or something more extreme.

I'm fairly sure that if I went around mugging people, it wouldn't be necessary to physically harm them most of the time. Does that imply that my ability to mug people is not conditioned on my ability to do damage to them? Would I be as successful with a banana as with a gun? No, it would seem self-evident that, in this case, my ability to solicit obedience is conditioned on my ability to harm; obedience follows from coercion.

Furthermore, why are we defining violence only in terms of direct bodily harm? Is it not also a violent act to mug somebody, to threaten them and forcibly deprive them of their possessions, whether or not I leave them bleeding? I think that most people would say that it was, that the threat of physical harm is, fundamentally, as much a form of violence as physical harm itself.

This, I would argue, is true of the state: that the state enforces its commands through the threat of direct physical violence, and that this in itself constitutes a form of violence, psychological and indirectly physical.

The government has a mandate from society at large to uphold laws - violence only comes into play if necessary. It doesn't hinge on violence per se.

Is that something that can be demonstrated, or something that we simply assume? I was certainly never asked whether or not I wanted to be subject to offer such a mandate, and I don't suspect I'd get very far if I unilaterally withdrew it.

 

[timtofly]

Violence only happens when an entity refuses to support a violence free society. That has nothing to do with property. It is possible that if every one in society accepted violence as a means to keep and hold property, then a governement is not even needed.

It seems that violence is a necessary ingredient in your model. For a handful of people who are sadistic and enjoy violence does not make it a rule, but an exception, where the majority agrees that peace is the norm.

When it comes to property, people are hardly violently taking it away, nor violently being arrested for doing so. Most violence comes over goods like drugs, or the missuse of such. People being arrested for disturbing the peace, or attempting or succeding in taking someone else's life. Now there may be a percentage of people who swindle relatives out of their property, but I would hardly call that violence. That is called "bending" the legal system. There has been the occasional act of the state who go in an demolish someone's private property, because they have taunted the state into doing so, but that is/was the exception.

I am sure there are those "socialist" who would love to see the state turn against the peace people have agreed on and use that as an excuse to enforce the government to once again force violence as an arbitrary device, but then that would be a revolution and not the normal mode of the current state.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Would I be as successful with a banana as with a gun?

I know this is supposed to be the chamber, but I couldn't resist.

 

[Cutlass]

What would happen to a government if it did not use violence? Would anyone pay its fine, or stroll willing into its jails? The state may not be using violence at any given moment, but its ability to command is conditioned on their capacity for violence. Without violence, the state is nothing more than a voluntary mediator, and the state, as you'll find in theorists far less radical in their interpretations than Proudhon or Thoreau, is altogether more assertive an institution than that.

So if the state is conditioned on violence, and private property is conditioned on the state, it follows that private property is conditioned on violence. Without violence, there is no private property. The two are inextricable.

The point you're missing is that without the state, it's just voluntary mediation as well. And there's no reason to assume that that will not result in even greater violence than the state.

The dichotomy between state - no state is not violence v no violence, but rather degrees of violence. Having no violence is not one of the menu options.

 

[Traitorfish]

The point you're missing is that without the state, it's just voluntary mediation as well. And there's no reason to assume that that will not result in even greater violence than the state.

I don't believe that's an assumption I'm making.

The dichotomy between state - no state is not violence v no violence, but rather degrees of violence. Having no violence is not one of the menu options.

That seems over-simplistic. There's never a neat correlation with these things.

As I said to Lovett, my argument in this thread hasn't been that we should pursue any particular policy in regards to property- to be quite honest, I'm not at all that sure that normative "shoulds" enter into it- but that I don't see what moral obligation I have to respect private property-claims, and so can't really see any reason to regard private property as anything other than a violent imposition. That's not something anyone has really said anything to change my mind on; just the usual utilitarian defence of the state smashed into a natural rights deontology, which I honestly can bring myself to find very convincing.

 

[BasketCase]

That isn't true. It's just... Not.

"Just not true" doesn't cut it. There's a reason why. If an argument doesn't include the "why", then I'm not interested.

I honestly don't know how you could convince yourself that it is.

Because I'm not you. Because I (and everybody else) will generally think differently than you. Intelligent people will frequently reach different conclusions about the same things. You need to have this in mind going into a debate, whether in CFC or anywhere else.

What would happen to a government if it did not use violence?

We can already see that in any nation considered to be part of the "Free World". Governments in the Free World hardly ever use violence; most police officers in the U.S., for example, go their entire career without actually firing a gun anywhere except the pistol range. In the Free World, violence by the government is almost always a response to violence initiated by somebody else--such as some guy who got drunk and threw a punch at somebody over a girl. The police reaction is merely a response to violence initiated by somebody else.

Private property in the Free World is the result of a covenant between people who don't want to fight over how to distribute land. It's not the result of violence, it's an effort to avoid violence.