From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Fri Jun 14 2002 - 18:13:06 MDT
> (Lorrey)
> What I am saying is not the classic socialist labor theory of value.
>
> Furthermore, it is hardly discredited. The entire US frontier experience
> was produced by a labor theory of value...where a pioneer could only gain
> ownership of land which they had improved to some certain degree.
Again, how one /acquires/ a property right is a separate issue, and I
make no claim about that. Indeed, Coase's math shows it doesn't really
matter what the initial distribution is; as long as transaction costs
are minimal, property will end up where it is most efficient.
What I'm talking about is the /definition/ of property. What it /is/,
not how you might come by it. What it /is/ is the right to control use,
nothing more, nothing less. Labor has nothing to do with it.
> > Well, sort of--you own the /right/ to decide whether and when you will
> > work. Your work has no intrinsic value at all, unless someone else who
> > /desires/ your work is willing to pay you for it. Otherwise, all your
> > labor is just wasted energy. You have no entitlement to be compensated
> > for your labor; you have the right to choose not to labor unless you are
> > compensated, but in the absence of such an agreement made before the
> > labor is performed, any labor you might perform on your own volition you
> > are doing for free.
>
> Not quite. I cut and chop ten cord of firewood. Nobody asked me to, but
> there is a current market demand of $150 a cord for cut and chopped
> firewood. I offer my firewood for sale, on speculation, and sell for an
> average of $160 a cord because I'm so good at my work. My labor
> therefore has a value.
Only if someone actually will pay it; if there doesn't happen to be
anyone who wants to pay for your firewood, then all your work was wasted
effort. The "value" of chopped firewood is created by the desire of the
consumer, and didn't exist until the moment of his desire. Once that
value exists, you can then choose to exercise your labor in manufacturing
this valuable item to make a proift. But it didn't /become/ valuable
because you worked on it--it became valuable because someone wanted it,
and you chose to take advantage of that fact with your labor. What would
happen if a few hours after you finished chopping, while you were resting
on your $160 cord which you created from $40 worth of unchopped wood,
someone announces the invention of a new woodchopper that causes the market
value of chopped wood to plummet to $50? The amount of labor you
expended didn't change--it's just worth a lot less because its value to
consumers changed. Value is created by demand, not supply.
> I doubt very much that you would argue that after I sold the first cord,
> that that somehow entitles nine looters to come and take my other nine
> cords away for free.
Only a socialist would argue that; what I argue is that if you chose to do
your chopping out in public where people were watching, you can't
complain when one of the watchers decides to use your /idea/ of chopping
firwood, and decides to enter the market with his own axe and wood from
his own land.
> Now, take, for instance, the further idea that I buy or construct a
> robotic learning wood chopper. I then proceed to chop ten cord of wood
> while wearing a sensor body suit to record my movements to determine the
> perfect wood cutting technique to program the robot with. I then have my
> robot chopping wood all the day long at no cost to me, other than the
> minor opportunity cost of the raw resources of the trees which weren't
> good for much else but looking at or grinding into paper pulp.
>
> Just because the incremental cost of producing a cord of wood for me is
> so inconsequentially small, does this mean that others are entitled to
> steal my cut wood?
No, but if they see your robot (because you've freely chosen not to keep
it a secret), and decide to build one of their own, you shouldn't go
suing them for patent infringement on the idea. If you didn't want them
to get the idea, you could have invested some of your own money in
building a big warehouse and hiring security to ensure that it was kept
secret. But don't expect me (or the government) to bully people out of
the robot-cut firewood market just because you thought of it first.
> > > To use another's labor without recompense is slavery,...
> >
> > No, only /requiring/ someone to labor by force is slavery. If they
> > freely choose to work for your benefit, that's volunteerism.
>
> If they work under contract and you don't pay what you agreed to pay,
> that is also slavery. Then there is also peony.
This would only apply to patents and copyrights under a social contract
theory; that's certainly one way to look at it, but I'm not very fond
of such theories myself.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:47 MST