Freeks

In responding to a comment, I brought up Taran's Constant - something I haven't really defined in writing until now. The general theory behind it is that there is an overwhelming amount of people who, no matter how good their intentions, want something for nothing. Robert Heinlen wrote in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress: TANSTAAFL. Expanded, it becomes There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

(If you want to know about the picture to the left, read Ownership.)

In a wonderful, happy-clappy¹ world things would all be free. If you wanted something, someone would give it to you or would not complain if you took it. Whatever you needed, whatever you wanted, it would be yours for the asking. Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in: Things have a limited supply, and as such there are people who fill the niche attempting to explain how things with a limited supply are dealt with by the descendants of those who used shellfish and stones as barter. These people are called 'economists', and are often made popular by taking very interesting and sometimes exotic positions on just about everything. Looking back at my life and knowing what I know now, I probably should have become an economist.

But I digress. We don't live in that happy-clappy world. We live, instead, in a world where some have more than others. It isn't a perfect system, and it has yet to be explained to me as a comprehensive system. In all, it seems like a rendition of the Hoover Dam held together by baling wire and used up gum from under economists desks. It probably used to be held partly together by cigarette filters, but those are not as cheap anymore. Ask an economist why.

Within this system, we have this thing called property. Where an individual, or a bunch of individuals parading around as a legal entity, can claim the rights to have something such that others may not have access to it. This is, for all intents and purposes, a reasonable system. If I have an economist and I give the economist to you, you have an economist and I do not. I have transferred property to you, and you are 'richer' by one economist. In a world with lots of economists, this gift would not be considered a big deal (and indeed, it would seem not to be these days) - but what if there are only 10 economists in the world? What if I raised my own economist, paid for his food and shelter, and kept him tethered to the internet to keep track of things for me so that I could speculate on Bazooka Joe Gum wrapper collecting? Maybe I wouldn't want to let my economist go so easily. Maybe the value of the economist to me would be too high.

So it is with other things. We won't delve into the mess of copyrights, patents and trademarks because they really are a mess - enough so that even Lawrence Lessig has decided to attack the root of the problem instead of trimming the weeds. Good for him.

In dealing with tangible property, Taran's Constant comes into effect. It also comes into effect when there is a skill or time involved - one could argue that these are also factors in 'intellectual property', but that's too much of a mess to discuss comfortably since law collides with common sense more often than not.

Taran's Constant states that if you have something, or have an ability, someone will try to get you to use it for their purposes at any given time, at a cost to you and will claim that they have a Right or that it is for their concept of the greater good.

People who prove Taran's Constant are people who I have named - this morning - Freeks. They believe not in freedom, but in the fact that one is freely dumb or 'freedumb'. There are, as a rarity, people who are not freeks.

There is an acid test for freeks. People who are not freeks will appreciate this entry. People who are freeks will get bent out of shape and claim that I am a bad person when I do not give them what they want.

Are you a freek?

¹ Hat tip to JM.