Re: 'Waterhole' and land rents

<royls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message ...

Let's make it even plainer: suppose someone discovers that gypsy tears
can prevent AIDS. Do you really think the resulting increase in the
rent of gypsy tears should go to him, and not to the gypsies?

That person (who discovered the connection) would first make contracts
with
the gypsies and the AIDS patients: it would specify the cost to the
patients, the payments to the gypsies, and a secrecy agreement with
everyone.

Secrecy is not going to last, and then the rent will be out of the
bag. The contracts you are talking about are equivalent to the
initial sweet deal the waterhole discoverer can get for exclusive use
of the land before everyone else finds out about the water. That
knowledge advantage is what he earns by his discovery, and _nothing_
else. He certainly doesn't earn permanent exclusive ownership of what
Nature provided to all, and someone else would eventually (perhaps
even the next day) have discovered.

Your view rests entirely on the notion that knowledge will spread to the
masses. I'm sympathetic to this -- I like the free disemination of
knowledge -- but in this case there is no market mechanism to give this
result. On the contrary, everyone involved will actively keep their
knowledge a secret, since it earns them $$.

Or are you opposed to consenting contracts?

?? What is "consenting" about having your rights to use what Nature
provided extinguished by someone else with neither your consent nor
just compensation?

The gypsies consent to: sell their tears for big bucks while not telling
anyone about it. The AIDS patients consent to buy a cure for big bucks while
not telling anyone about it.

Dan in Philly


.

Loading