Markets (was Re: Hayek was right. Twice.)

[jamesd at echeque.com]

    --
James A. Donald:
> > Again, If you offered the average guy the deal "Would you like 
> > on demand access to all movies and television shows ever made, 
> > even if it meant fewer and lower budget movie releases in 
> > future?", I think most people would go for on demand access to 
> > everything.

 On 4 Jul 2002 at 10:40, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> That might well be. But being that you're tapping into something 
> largely produced under existing copyright law, I fail to see why 
> this is an argument against continuing the practice of copyright 
> in some form.

A moment ago you were arguing maximum utility (your public good 
argument)  Now you concede utility, and argue rights, but 
copyright, unlike real property, is merely a conventional right, 
created by the will and power of the state, not a natural right.

If that convention ceases to be convenient and useful, ceases to 
have utility, we should not continue it.

And if you are going to argue from long established conventional 
rights, copyright has been extended by twenty years every twenty 
years, so it is not a long established conventional right.

Returning to your public good argument.  As more and more stuff 
piles up, the production of new stuff becomes a less and less 
valuable public good.  At the same time, as with any "public 
good", congress (being in the pocket of state created interest 
groups) creates greater and greater incentives to produce more and 
more of this public good.

If an anarchic free market underproduces public goods, government 
subject to interest groups overproduces public goods, a problem 
that is particularly serious with such dubious public goods as 
"defense", cultural or racial purity, and so on and so forth. 

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     AuUb5hhEidar6RcqijVgtwYwp/KmvStrc0T7DzHr
     2RvexEhEvdWrbHJCBYyEdaMKK39UOJQJRBt9gjbKk