DISQUS

yanceyward · 3 months ago

The really interesting question to me is how many people reading this thought experiment would even have the insight to ask how the decider came to hold the flute. I willing to write that the answer is "very few".

LoganBoettcher · 3 months ago

Great insight, Yancey. I'd like to add on that the two children that did not make the flute would not have been able to argue over the claim of the flute had it not been for the child that actually made it bringing it into existence. It is obvious that they should defer to the creator of the flute its ultimate fate, because without the creator, the flutist would not have an opportunity to play and the poor child the opportunity to have a toy.

Furthermore, why would a flute maker who cannot play a flute (I assume this because the scenario is set up to make the first child the sole flutist in the group; if all the children could play the flute, the first child would have no special distinction in which to claim ownership over the other children) choose to keep the flute, let alone produce one, and have no plans to transfer it to someone who wants the flute? The child just puts in a lot of labor for the joy of being able to deny others the joy of playing with the flute? It's kind of puzzling to me.

sam · 3 months ago

Will, any thoughts on this from Boldrin and Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly:

"It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty."

You can get the free (consistant, that) edition at http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/ag....

Will Wilkinson · 3 months ago

Sam, I find Boldrin and Levine's argument very persuasive in many kinds of cases. Because not all kinds of intellectual property have precisely the same features, or are sensitive to the same kinds of incentives, I'm wary of overgeneralizing and saying that we should get rid of IP rights altogether. But I think it's pretty clear that our current system is unjust and counterproductive. Technological change is creating a change in the kind of institutional forms that work best. The current debate about IP is precisely how the evolution of property conventions takes place.

sam · 3 months ago

I've downloaded the book and will give it a close reading. I started to write something that struck me as insightful, when it occurred I was typing away on Linux machine...my "insight" dribbled away :)

Ryan_Lanham · 3 months ago

It is a callow response to the Sen riddle. The point is you are in the situation where you say you can do whatever you want. So, what is the *moral* answer? Is "do whatever you want" good political science these days. Heavens.

Will Wilkinson · 3 months ago

Did you read the post?

Greg · 3 months ago

The thought experiment might be useful, but how can it be extended to distributive justice generally, where there is no central distribution center?

Richard · 3 months ago

According to this article (which fills out the problem a little) the flute was taken from the girl:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/Sunday-...

But we still don't know where the girl got the materials to make it.

murali284 · 3 months ago

Will, the thing is whether considerations of need, desert etc should go into designing the rules of society. i.e. what kinds of considerations should go into deciding what the background rules will be?

Michael Drake · 3 months ago

Sen isn't "assuming away the relevance of property rights." What he's assuming is a background of stable property rights and conventions - from which reliably flow undesirable outcomes in certain classes of cases. What is the solution? Not to put words in Sen's mouth, but he at least appears to think that "MORE, AND MORE AWESOME, MARKET MECHANISMS!" is an incomplete approach. Of course we need to improve market mechanisms and clarify property rights. But the earthly performance of markets, like the neurological implementation of rationality, is bounded in its perfection. So as with our imperfect brains, we need to consider supplementing our imperfect markets with other methods of intelligent allocation. This in turn requires that we think as clearly as we can about, among other things, desert, need, and fairness.

Bob Murphy · 3 months ago

Great post, Will. I was about to shout, "Give it back to the girl who made it!!" when your own (superior) answer made me realize what I was leaving out. Nice.

John David Galt · 3 months ago

The Coase Theorem tells us that it doesn't matter which girl gets the flute, as long as one of them does (= has a clear property right) and she is allowed to sell it. Whichever one you give it to, the flute will wind up with the potential owner who values it most.

I'd still try to choose fairly, which in my view means the girl who made it gets it. But per Coase, it's more important to decide quickly (and finally) than fairly.

Micha Ghertner · 3 months ago

The Coase theorem only tells us that it doesn't matter how we assign initial property rights in a world without transaction costs. But we do not live in such a world. Coase's point was precisely that we do not live in the world of perfect competition and zero transaction costs, and therefore, initial property rights allocation may matter a great deal in cases where transaction costs are prohibitively high enough to prevent efficient rearrangement through trade.

Finality and speed of judicial decisions are important to Coase, no doubt, but I don't think he would be willing to throw fairness out the window either. That way leads to madness (and ugly smears of Coase by people who do not understand what Coase intended by his theorem).

Rimfax · 3 months ago

It reads like an economic trolley problem, and as such demands to be studiously dismissed.