Yaron Answers: Should Government Finance Basic Research?

[timberskid]

Yaron is exactly right! Furthermore, I surmise research studies are skewed as the ones that get government funding are supporting government propoganda... like green energy. If you were a researcher and needed funding, what topics would you be researching?

[kevd]

Yes, I have checked out Mises, I have read Rothbard, I have watched many videos by Jeffrey Tucker and Stephan Kinsella on IP and I find them unconvincing mainly because they assert that IP slows innovation when the evidence suggests that it does not and that "ideas" cannot be owned..but they again forget that there is a critical difference between an idea and a work. On a side note, Mises has less to do with the actual Mises. It should be called the Rothbard Institute.

[kevd]

Specific arrangements of words, numbers, circuits, musical notes, imagery and so on. Yes, there ARE notes in reality because notes DESCRIBE the pitch, tone, speed and scale of the sounds created by the artist. It isn't a mere concept, it is a work. And I can think of land I do not own, it does not make me a trespasser, thinking of a song I did not write does not violate property rights, only when I take that song without the permission of the creator.

[kevd]

In fact we do differentiate between different types of theft. Partially on monetary value, partly on rarity of the item in question, whether or not the item is perishable and so on. Even so, all law is subject to interpretation. It is not as though a judge sits on a chair and arbitrarily decides cases on a whim. And Lucas did not steal ideas, he wrote a specific work. Ideas themselves are not IP, specific works are.

[PrettoProductions]

Basic research is a branch of science in which you can't make winning on a short range of time. Therefore, only a few people will invest in it. But in the long run we will all win in a large scale if the government give money to this kind of science, it's a big positive externality.

[Bttry]

Every argument presented for the necessity of government funding of research ignores the entire history of the telecommunications industry. The personal computer was entirely the result of startups functioning with virtually no government money.

[groam]

A lot of technology that was designed/created for military applications have been put into the private sector. So, I think there is a case for govt to finance certain types of research. By finance, I mean the govt should provide a financial award or contracts for businesses that can invent new military technology.

The govt does have a legitimate case to fund research for some things, military, space (competition with our competitors). But I agree, we shouldn't subsidize research on most things.

[kevd]

Notes are descriptions of physical things. But this is besides the point. A property line doesn't exist in reality, most times it is just lines on a map. All property is defined and owned by the process of abstract thought.

[kevd]

Most contracts are abstract and exist only in the heads of those involved. Even written contracts only have value if there is a mental grasp of the details written down. In other words, a contract is just ink on paper without a mind to harbor it. And yet, with IP, there IS a physical manifestation of the products that are patented, copyrighted and trademarked, in the form of expressed plans, songs, movies, logos and so on. IP is not granted to ideas ex nihilo.

[kevd]

IP is not strictly the same as a contract but they share many qualities, namely they are abstract in nature, but refer to real-world assets, actions, products and designs and are powered, so to speak, not by the paper they are written on, but by the minds that created them. Nothing about IP says that you cannot create your OWN patterns and designs, it simply limits the use of OTHER people's works, except where they voluntarily give it away.

[kevd]

No, a Song as a descriptive term is a concept, but a specific series of organized notes, words, numbers or images which is described as a Song are not mere ideas but is a specific WORK. The pre-existing, "public" utilities like notes, the alphabet, scales etc. are not "ownable" but if put to use in a specific and orginal way, the results can be. With any property law, there is a matter of practical application; can I own the air above my house to infinite height? Practically speaking, no.

[lightsbacon]

By that logic you should pay someone everytime you make fire, everytime you chop wood, everytime you do the most menial tasks, everything was "Invented" at some point, if we were to pay tribute for everything... well i just don't see how it would work. And the fact that only some things are using this IP-system today is hugely biased and makes for a unfair market (for instance a poor guy can't take IP for a idea, because he can't afford the huge cost of taking IP.

[kevd]

So what? Property in general leads to a lot of court cases owing to improperly marked territory, vague contracts, unforeseen divisions of estates etc. That's just the price we pay for having property. As to the other point, If you were the first to invent the light bulb, then you would have the patent and the point is moot, but given that someone else already invented it you don't have the right to their design just as I don't have the right to Star Wars or Abbey Road.

[kevd]

"Ideas" are not intellectual property, specific works are.

[kevd]

Being physical is not a prerequisite for ownership. One owns one's name, but a name isn't physical for example. But that is wholly irrelevant, as IP doesn't discourage competition, proven by the fact that windows ISN'T the only OS. Ford ISN'T the only car. Technological monopolies do not exist. Lastly, books, movies, music, engineering designs are not mere thoughts, they are specific works.

[lightsbacon]

Ok question: should IP be heritated? (If it's a legitimate form of property, it should be possibel to pass it down..thereby fire etc is still valid)

The truth is IP discourages competition, IP is rly bad for us consumers, what if windows was the only operative system? what if Ford was the only cars etc etc. I believe someone should own their work, but not their thoughts, if you want to own your thoughts you yourself should hide them very well.

[kevd]

But none of this matters because the intellectual property monopolies don't exist. Even if Edison to this day held the patent for every tungsten filament bulb, there would still be LEDs, Fluorescents, Neon, Candles, Oil Lamps, and Arc Lamps.

[lightsbacon]

But the work of explaining the idea of a lazer gun is just to distant for you to have seen it (or remember it)- The truth of the matter is the idea of IP is in direct contrast of freedom of labour&speech. Everything is inspired by somethings that allready excist, to say something is "stolen" and not "Inspired by" when its clearly not a carboncopy is a vastly subjective interpretation of the matter, and to construct clear guidance lines for judges in these circumstances is impossible.

[lightsbacon]

I don't know if you misread of misinterperated my previus comment, but i was saying stealing the universe, not the entire book, there's a big difference, the universe is just an idea, NOT any more a specific work then the idea of a lazer gun.

[kevd]

By that reasoning property lines, contracts, oral agreements and rights themselves do not exist either. But I refer you to my last statement; Ideas are not works. These are two different things. Even so, if George Lucas creates a movie, he owns that specific movie he made, he does not own the "idea" of all movies.