Monthly Archives: March 2007

The Web As Collective Property

Property Rights, Socialism, The Contributors, Theory and Ideas

Last night, in a comment to Jason’s post on Venezuela & “collective property”, I suggested that the Pilgrims showed that collective property doesn’t work. As I was listening this morning to an EconTalk podcast, the discussion turned to the web, and how the web has grown into an enormous community, largely due to the people who wish to put out information, not a profit motive.

It occurred to me that such an idea may be used by socialists as a defense of collective property. After all, you see an enormous– largely free– medium, where the work of individuals has put together an enormous wealth of information. They may claim that something like Blogger or geocities is an example of how collective property (i.e. a free “printing press” for anyone to publish upon) has enabled an amazing increase in available information that we see throughout online society.

On its face, it sounds like a pretty reasonable claim. However, it fails to take into account the difference between “freely-provided and open to all” and “collective”. Take, for example, the Blogger service. It’s owned by Google, and as with most things that Google does, they provide the hosting forum for free to whoever wants to set up a blog, for example, setting up on something like a HostiServer. One of the advantages to a non-physical realm like the Internet is that there is a near-infinite amount of “space” to offer up. Google provides space to whoever wants it, and the act of using that space has made the internet a richer place. When it comes to web hosting though, there are a load of things that people can now do to help them with their blog. For example, some people can use vps servers if they prefer. However, it’s up to the individual on what they want to do. There are loads of different web hosting providers out there that people can use, each offer different things to the person, so you just want to find the right one for you though. This might mean you check out something like the best hosting canada but it’s up to you. Finding the right website hosting provider can seem overwhelming. There are so many different options out there that making a final decision can seem impossible. Consequently, doing as much research as you can by reading reviews on websites similar to makeawebsitehub.com is strongly recommended. Above all, reading reviews can help you to reach a consensus about which hosting provider would be best for your website.

That being said, all this does not mean that a blog is “collective property”. While Google offers Blogger blogs to anyone who wants one, that doesn’t make those blogs collectively owned or governed. The blogs are more of a “homesteading” situation than collective property. Someone makes a claim to a certain URL within the blogspot.com domain, sets up their blog, and thereafter they are the owner of that space.

Collective property doesn’t work because of the tragedy of the commons. As an example, let’s say that Google put into the terms of service that if you set up a blog within Blogger, you have to allow anyone to contribute posts to it. Thereafter, every blog on Blogger would truly be collective property. I predict that within a few months, Blogger would cease to exist. While a free blog on Blogger may not seem like “property”, it certainly feels like property to those who have one. The people who have those blogs talk about “my” blog or “our” blog (if it is a group blog like this one), not a blog belonging to “the community”.

A similar issue is currently occurring with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is truly a commons, where anyone has the ability to edit entries on any subject, without consideration to the credentials of those who make the edits. At the beginning, Wikipedia was fairly reliable. Over time, though, Wikipedia has proven to be a completely unreliable source of information. When you’re looking up information on a topic even remotely political, Wikipedia is a source that must be corroborated by multiple other sources before it should be trusted. The reason is that Wikipedia’s design as a commons ensures that the topics it covers may be more exhaustive than other encyclopedias, but it cannot claim any reasonable expectation of accuracy. Such a tendency to put out false information is almost expected on a topic of political significance, or anything controversial, but as Sean Lynch of Catallarchy pointed out, this is the case even on such non-controversial topics as the storage of hydrogen peroxide. The advantage of a commons like Wikipedia is that everyone can use it. The disadvantage of a commons like Wikipedia is that you can’t trust people to use it wisely.

The difference between a commons and private property is profound. Property is a very real, human idea. Whether that property is a house, a car, a stereo, or a blog, there is a human desire to control that which is “mine”. There is further a human desire to protect that property from the control of others. When that property cannot be defended, the property becomes worthless.

If tomorrow, the government told me that I had to open my house or my car to let anyone in the community use it as they pleased, I would expect that my house and car would rapidly deteriorate, because there would be no incentive for the people who use it to contribute to its upkeep. Likewise, if tomorrow the government declared that I had to open The Liberty Papers to anyone who wished to post to the front page, you can be sure that The Liberty Papers would deteriorate. The contributors who were first invited to this blog when Eric started it 18 months ago were chosen because they shared a common political outlook, and because Eric believed that they would add to a richer blog. Those who we invited (“we”, because while this blog may have one legal owner, we share decision-making amongst the group) after I took over for Eric were invited for the same reason. If we were forced to allow anyone to post here, it would cease to be The Liberty Papers, as the new contributors would not be “selected” in order to provide a libertarian message. It might become, based on some of our recent comments, the “We Love Hugo Chavez Papers”. At that point, you can be sure that pretty much all of the original contributors would stop caring and stop contributing. And you can be sure that we contributors wouldn’t be willing to put up money for hosting costs to espouse a political ideology on “our” blog that goes against our own beliefs.

Humans have amazing capacities and desire for creativity. Some may think that some of the pages on the web are designed for others, but I would say that this is not the case. For example, I regularly check out beeradvocate.com. This is a site devoted to all things beer. Now, some may suggest that it was created by the Alstrom brothers in order to give a beer-related web site to the world. I don’t agree. I think it was created by two brothers who love beer and wanted to build something. It wasn’t so much about giving something to beer drinkers worldwide, so much that it was about creating something they were interested in and could call their own. If, again, the government said that they must open the inner workings of their site to anyone who wanted to control it, I think they would be forced to throw up their hands and stop caring, because the work that they created out of love and interest for beer would cease to be what they wanted it to be.

The web has become the wonderful collection of information and communication because people have a desire to create and build, not a desire to donate. When you take away the ownership, the ability to control what you’ve built, you take away the incentive to build. This isn’t like building a home and selling it to someone, there’s not a lot of money to be earned by building the average blog or web site. Most people in this world build what they want to build because they love to do it. You take away a person’s ability to control their creation, and they will cease to build. Some would say that the world would be a better place if this were not the case, but those people are tilting at windmills. Human nature and private property rights are inextricably linked. When you try to break that link, bad things happen. And, like Venezuela under a “collective property” arrangement, we’d all be poorer if the Web was collective property.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

It’s Constitutional For The Government To Harass You

Constitution, Government Regulation, Individual Rights, Property Rights, Zoning and Land-Use

So you buy a property. The property is free and clear. Then some bureaucrat comes along and tells you that the government has an easement on your property, but there’s no written record of it. You tell them to go screw. So they start harassing you. Is this right?

This is the subject of a case now being mulled by the U.S. Supreme Court, Wilkie v. Robbins. As R.S. Radford and Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation explain in a Legal Times article, Harvey Frank Robbins is a Wyoming man who bought a ranch in 1993, “not knowing that the previous owner had agreed to give the Bureau of Land Management an easement over the land. BLM agents, however, had neglected to record the easement, so when the purchase went through, Robbins got the land free and clear.”

This clearly was the mistake of the government agents, yet they weren’t about to let Robbins off the hook when he did not accede to their request to reinstate the easement. The agents made threats against him. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke during oral arguments “of a pattern of harassing conduct that included trespasses on this man’s lodge and leaving the place in disarray, videotaping the guests, selective enforcement of the grazing laws, a whole pattern of things, even asking the Bureau of Indian Affairs to impound his cattle.”

Rather than punish government agents who have clearly abused their power, the federal government is asserting in the nation’s highest court the right of government representatives to act in this very manner.

In this case, the federal government claims that there is no constitutional right to physically exclude the government from your property, and even if there were such a right that it would offer no protection against harassment. This government argument, Radford and Sandefur explain in an amicus brief on behalf of Robbins, is “based on a disturbing and mistaken understanding of the relationship between the American people, their government and constitutional protections of private property rights. The framers of the Constitution accorded great weight to the importance of private property as a bulwark of personal sovereignty and autonomy, which not even the power of government could breach except in limited circumstances. . . . If the government were allowed to retaliate against citizens who exercise their right to exclude government agents from their land, the right itself would be extinguished.”

In a society that respected individual freedom, the agents who harassed Robbins would face prosecution. Instead, they are exonerated and the government itself arrogantly demands a right to harass individual citizens because — get this — the Constitution does not specifically forbid harassment by such officials.

They used to say that a man’s home is his castle. We’re increasingly moving towards a world where your home is simply somewhere the government allows you to live. You can pay your mortgage, you can pay your taxes, but if they want to evict you, you’d be well-advised to start packing.

We’ve built a government big enough to do all sorts of “wonderful” things for us. But this is something that Barry Goldwater warned against: “A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.”

This case is currently before the Supreme Court. To learn more, listen to today’s Cato Daily Podcast, where Timothy Sandefur (mentioned in the story) of the Pacific Legal Foundation explains why this behavior is “worse than Kelo.”

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

Virginia Governor Proposes Smoking Ban

The Nanny State

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine wants to make it illegal to smoke in restaurants in the Commonwealth of Virginia:

RICHMOND, March 26 — Smoking would be banned in Virginia restaurants under a proposal announced Monday by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D).

Kaine said he will ask lawmakers to enact the smoking ban when they return to Richmond next week for a day.

(…)

Kaine’s proposed amendment to anti-smoking legislation could have national implications. In other states, anti-smoking advocates have had more difficulty approving a smoking ban in restaurants than in workplaces and public places. By proposing a restaurant-only ban, the governor is likely to create additional pressure in other states to do the same, advocates said. Some will turn to alternative options that won’t stain your teeth, but as a whole, they believe it will make a difference.

The original bill, which Virginia law gives the Governor the right to propose amendments to which the Assembly then votes on, was not perfect but at least allowed restaurant owners the option of allowing smoking in their establishments:

The original bill, sponsored by House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith (R-Salem), would have allowed restaurants to permit smoking so long as they posted a sign near the entrance explicitly stating that smoking is allowed. What about the ones that didn’t allow smoking, would using a vaporizer such as a voopoo in the restaurant be considered the same?

Kaine’s comment on the original bill is almost nonsensical:

“I appreciate the patron’s intent with this legislation, but felt amendments were necessary,” Kaine said. “I remain opposed to a widespread, general ban on smoking in public. This bill, with my amendment, is narrowly targeted to prevent smoking in restaurants, which is an important step to protect the health of both patrons and employees.” We all know how bad smoking is for us, but some of us still decide to do it. If you are someone that has recently decided that this is not the best thing for you, switching to alternative methods such as vaping may help make this transition a lot easier. Also remember, if you are someone who vapes, don’t forget to replace your vape tanks, or the process of quitting won’t be effective.

Governor, you do realize that a widespread, general ban on smoking in restaurants is exactly what you’re proposing, don’t you ? However, with there being a vape manufacturer in most towns now, smoking is seeing a sharp decrease. So would the ban really be needed?

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

What Separation Of Church And State Really Means

Constitution, Religious Liberty

At USA Today, Notre Dame Law Professor Richard Garnett uses the current battle for religious freedom in China as an example of why separation of church and state is important, and how it has been misunderstood by people on both sides of the debate:

It is precisely by failing to respect the separation of church and state, and by trying to co-opt and domesticate what the government regards as a dangerous rival, that China is trampling on religious freedom. In a way, China and the Holy See are replaying one of the oldest and most fundamental religious-liberty scripts.

Today, many regard church-state separation as a reaction to church control of government. In fact, it was for a millennium the ambition of kings to expand their power, and keep down their rivals, by controlling the church and its affairs.

By resisting, the medieval church affirmed the foundational and still fundamental principle that the state and its power are limited.

And for that the world should be eternally grateful. It was in the efforts of the Catholic Church to assert its independence from the rulers of Europe that the ideas that formed the basis for the Enlightenment eventually sprung. More importantly, it was the fact that those efforts succeeded, and the Church became a powerful force in Europe outside of the state, that we can point to as the reason why despotism of the type that existed in Asia and Central America, which were dominated by state religions where the role of priest and poltician was intertwined, never really manifested itself in Europe.

In his conclusion, Garnett points out why separation of church and state is important for everyone:

The struggle for the church’s freedom in China reminds us that what the separation of church and state calls for is not a public conversation or social landscape from which God is absent or banished. The point of separation is not to prevent religious believers from addressing political questions or to block laws that reflect moral commitments. Instead, “separation” refers to an institutional arrangement, and a constitutional order, in which religious institutions are free and self-governing — neither above and controlling, or beneath and subordinate to, the state. This freedom limits the state and so safeguards the freedom of all — believers and non-believers alike.

Properly understood, the church and the state are neither enemies nor rivals, they are independent institutions, and the doctrine of separation allows both to exist in a way that is most beneficial for human liberty.

H/T: Brendan Loy

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

Kelo Comes To Washington

Constitution, Individual Rights, Property Rights

It seems the District of Columbia is on the verge of taking over a locksmith shop to make way for a massive new hotel:

District officials are proceeding with their plan to acquire a locksmith shop at the corner of Ninth and L streets NW to make way for a convention center hotel, according to D.C. officials and the owner of the shop. If you’re locked out and you are in need of a locksmith though then you might be interested in checking out this denver locksmith. For those living in Nevada in need of a range of professional services, look for locksmith Las Vegas near me.

Whit Conway, who leases the space for his Central Safe and Locksmith, said a District appraiser came to his store Wednesday. “It looks like they’re moving expeditiously,” he said.

Conway, who has been at the location since 1980, said he and the owners of the parcel of land received letters Nov. 30 notifying them of the District’s plans. The property is key to completing the acquisition of land needed to build a hotel with about 1,400 rooms at Massachusetts Avenue and Ninth Street NW.

(…)

Conway, who has eight years left on his lease, won a lawsuit in October requiring that his landlord buy out the lease if the property is sold. Two weeks later, he said, the District said that if it took the land through eminent domain, it could relieve the landlord of any obligation or payment for Conway’s lease.

A letter sent to Conway said the appraiser would determine fair market value. After that, the District will make an offer and negotiate with the landlord. If they can’t come to an agreement, the District will use eminent domain to acquire the land.

Of course they will, because it’s just so much easier.

Originally posted at Below The Beltway

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com
1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 40