How Piracy Works Against an Unnatural Monopoly
What the market giveth, the state rises to taketh away.
One of the more striking features of this whole modern spectacle must surely be the stark contrast between the state and the free markets that exist stubbornly, gloriously, in spite of its best efforts. Wherever evidence presents itself, it appears to do so with the sole purpose of expressing this juxtaposition in ever-higher relief.
This is no mere coincidence, Fellow Reckoner. The two entities are day and night…white and black…truth and government statistic. To the extent that the former exists, the latter does not. One produces; the other consumes. One adds value and meaning to peoples’ lives; the other subtracts value and feeds on the self-worth of those it engulfs. One is dynamic, responsive, nimble and creative; the other is brittle, deaf, lethargic and breathtakingly inelegant in all its forms. One serves customers, the other serves sentences.
It might well be said that, while the free market bends over backwards to serve the needs and desires of individuals, the state merely bends individuals over backwards.
The latest battle between these diametrically opposed nemeses is today being played out in the theater of intellectual property rights. Thanks to shared, copied articles, you’ve no doubt read all about it here and elsewhere. (In addition to some excellent commentary in these very pages, we would further refer interested Reckoners to this piece, penned by Mr. Stephan Kinsella, a man many consider the libertarian expert on this most important subject).
To be sure, the IP skirmish is just one of many such political hot spots, but it may well be one of the most important.
Free individuals’ ability to copy and learn from each other (without denying anyone else a single atom of realized, tangible or even “ownable” property in the process) is an important — arguably vital — tool in our ongoing struggle against the oppression of the state. It is an advantage, in other words, of immeasurable importance and one we surrender at our peril.
To illustrate the point, here is an excerpt from an excellent article by Kevin Carson that appeared on the Center for a Stateless Society website earlier this week:
Because local nodes in self-organized networks are free to take action or innovate without waiting for permission from an administrative apparatus, and every other node in the network is similarly free to learn by example and adopt the innovations without permission, they fully exploit agility advantages of networked communications in ways that authoritarian hierarchies are unequipped to.
[And here is a link to the full article, which we are happy to share with you without permission from the author, in case you’re interested: Why the State Will Fail.]
By larding itself with bureaucracy, inefficiency and structural rigidity — all designed to serve the privileged, politically-connected looter class working the machine behind the curtain — the state positions itself at a considerable disadvantage with respect to the free markets — the self-organized networks — that it seeks to crush.
Happily, we don’t have to follow this path by subscribing to the state’s sinister web of dysphemisms and doublespeak. We can, instead, reject its definition of sharing and learning and emulating as “pirating,” and as something, therefore, to be outlawed. We can likewise reject the state’s logically-circular notion that ideas — non-scarce, un-ownable patterns of knowledge — ought to enjoy violence-backed protection against “aggression”…from a violence-based institution that exists only because of aggression.
Most private citizens would have the decency to feel embarrassed if they had to defend this warped sort of logic. The state, on the other hand, revels in its position…but only because it doesn’t have to defend it. It simply claims the right to enforce it. A big difference, you’ll surely agree.
But here, too, the state’s designs to undo all that humanity has come to enjoy as a result of said copying, emulating and learning from each other comes unstuck. How, exactly, does one grant — much less enforce — an unnatural monopoly on intangible, infinitely reproducible concepts? How does one erect a protective circle around things that have no physical properties?
The state’s strategic efforts (SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and the like) to crack down on the spread of ideas ultimately amount to little more than a woeful, modern day adaptation of the mystical dream snare. Fortunately for us, ideas (and dreams) cannot simply be “caught” in a net…just as they won’t be caught on the net. The brave individuals who daily resist this tyranny ingeniously find workarounds to the state’s feeble-minded aggressions. And bravo to them!
Continues Mr. Carson:
We saw this recently with the development of Firefox’s DeSopa circumvention utility before SOPA even came up for a vote, and Anonymous’s massive same-day DDOS attack in response to a federal takedown of MegaUpload that had been months in the planning. Last summer Tor developers released a workaround the very same day Iranian authorities thought they’d shut down the encrypted router network.
The second the state constructs a wall, 2…4…8…10,000 copies of the very idea it was built to contain emerge on the other side. They are like ornery little neutrinos, seemingly popping in and out of existence as if only to mock the government’s Neanderthalic, cinder block goals.
Fortunately for us, good ideas don’t need or seek protection, nor do they exist to serve any one master. They are non-scarce entities and, as such, are here to serve us all.
On that last note, if you would like to share, copy or “pirate” any article you see appear in The Daily Reckoning, we’re making it as easy as possible. You can:
As the author Paulo Coelho recently wrote in a fantastic blog post (which you are free to read here):
“Pirates of the world, unite and pirate everything I’ve ever written!”