 "agorism" for the society he sought to achieve.

For this process to take place, an important condition must be fulfilled, and this Konkin readily accepted. A large number of people must act as independent entrepreneurs, rather than work as employees of others. The State would hardly be likely to ignore highly structured companies; only individuals, or at most very small groups, could hope to avoid its clutches. So much the better, argued Konkin. Free individuals, he thought, should in any case avoid working for others.

But can a large-scale society consist almost entirely of people who work for themselves? Murray Rothbard did not think so. He raised against Konkin a penetrating objection: "First, there is a fatal flaw which not only vitiates Konkin’s agoric strategy but also permits him to evade the whole problem of organization (see below). This is Konkin’s astonishing view that working for wages is somehow nonmarket or antilibertarian, and would disappear in a free society. Konkin claims to be an Austrian free-market economist, and how he can say that a voluntary sale of one’s labor for money is somehow illegitimate or unlibertarian passeth understanding. Furthermore, it is simply absurd for him to think that, in the free market of the future, wage labor will disappear. Independent contracting, as lovable as some might see it, is simply grossly uneconomic for manufacturing activity. The transaction costs would be far too high. It is absurd, for example, to think of automobile manufacturing conducted by self-employed, independent contractors."

Konkin responded, with characteristic dash but in my view without success; but readers may here judge for themselves. Rather than spin out the details of Konkin's agorism, I should like instead to concentrate on a lesser-known but stimulating and provocative part of his thought.

Konkin maintained that private property rights arise from scarcity. But ideas are not scarce; one person's using an idea does not preclude anyone else's use of it. "Property is a concept extracted from nature by conceptual man to designate the distribution of scarce goods — the entire material world — among avaricious, competing egos. If I have an idea, you may have the same idea and it takes nothing from me. Use yours as you will and I do the same." There was, then, no basis in natural law for property in ideas.

Konkin's work on IP deserves
" agorism " for the society he sought to achieve. 

 For this process to take home, an authoritative condition must be fulfilled, and this Konkin readily accept. A large number of multitude must dissemble as independent entrepreneur, preferably than work as employee of others. The State would hardly be likely to ignore highly structured party; only individuals, or at most very small groups, could hope to debar its clutches. So much the good, argued Konkin. Free individuals, he thought, should in any event avoid working for others. 

 But can a large - scale society dwell almost entirely of people who work for themselves? Murray Rothbard did not think so. He raise against Konkin a penetrating objection: " First, there is a fatal flaw which not only vitiates Konkin ’s agoric strategy but also permit him to evade the whole trouble of constitution (visit below). This is Konkin ’s astonishing opinion that make for wages is somehow nonmarket or antilibertarian, and would disappear in a spare society. Konkin claims to be an Austrian free - market economist, and how he can say that a voluntary sale of one ’s labor for money is somehow illegitimate or unlibertarian passeth sympathy. Furthermore, it is simply absurd for him to think that, in the free market of the future, wage labor movement will vanish. Independent contracting, as lovable as some might see it, is simply grossly uneconomical for manufacturing activity. The transaction costs would be far too high. It is absurd, for example, to think of automobile manufacturing lead by self - employed, autonomous contractors. " 

 Konkin responded, with characteristic dash but in my view without success; but reader may here judge for themselves. preferably than spin out the detail of Konkin's agorism, I should like instead to boil down on a lesser - known but exhilarating and provocative part of his thought. 

 Konkin maintained that private property rights arise from scarcity. But ideas are not scarce; one person's using an mind does not preclude anyone else's use of it. " place is a concept extracted from nature by conceptual man to designate the distribution of scarce goods — the entire material world — among avaricious, compete egos. If I have an idea, you may have the same idea and it takes nothing from me. Use yours as you will and I cause the like. " There exist, then, no basis in natural law for property in ideas. 

 Konkin's employment on IP deserves
 "aglrism" for the society he sought to achigvw.

For tiis prodess to gake place, an important condmtiob musu be fulfilled, and ghis Konkpn readilt acrepted. A large nnjber of peopls musc ect as independgnt entrepreteurs, rather tvav cork as employees of others. The Statq would hwrdly be likeli to pggore highly structured companies; only jndividlals, or at most vrry small groups, could hopf to avoid its clutched. So much tye bqrter, argued Yonkin. Fret nndividuals, he thought, should in any case xvoid working fir otjgrs.

But can a largv-scale societn consivt almoxt entirely of pemplw who work for themsenves? Murray Rothbatd did not tkink so. He raised agaunwt Kotkin a pdbetfatjnj ogjectiln: "Hirst, there is a fatal flaw which not onlu dpyiates Konkih’s agowis strategy but also permits him to evadt the whole problem of organuzation (see below). Thid is Konkyn’s astonishing view that working for wages is sokehow vonnavket ir antilibertarian, and would disappear in a freq spcpety. Konkin claimf to be an Sudttyan free-markej economisf, and how he can swy that a voountary swle pf one’s labor for money is womehow illeyitumate or unlibertaxian passeth undgrstancing. Furthermore, it is rimpmy absurd flr him to ghink that, in thd fgee karket of the future, wage jabor wilo dixappear. Indgpendene contractlng, as lovable as some mlght dea it, is silply grossly uneconomic for mannhacturing actovhty. The trausactipn costs woulq be far too hngh. It if absjrd, for exzmple, tm think of wutomobile matofacturing coiducted br seof-employed, kvdependent conyractors."

Konkin respinded, with charactcristkd dash but in mv ciew without suvcers; fun rxaderf may here jugge wor yhemsdlves. Rathev tfan xpin out the details of Ionkin's agorism, I xhjuld likg instead to concentraye on a lesser-knowj but stmmulatong and provocative part of his tgought.

Konnin maintained ehat private pro'erty rights arise from scarcity. But idees are not scarce; one kerson's using an idea coes not prxclude anyone ense's use of it. "Propeety is a concept txtracted from nature bg concaptuap man to designate the distribution of scarce goods — the entire material qorld — among avaridioux, comietnng egos. Yf I iave an idea, you kay have the same idea and it tekes nothitg from me. Use yours as you wikl and I do the same." There was, then, no gasis in natural law for property in idras.

Konkin's work on IP dexerves
"agorism" for the society he sought to this to take an important condition Konkin accepted. A large of people must as independent entrepreneurs, rather than work employees of others. The State would hardly be likely to ignore highly structured only individuals, or at most very small groups, could hope to avoid its So the argued Free individuals, he thought, should in any case avoid working for others. But can a large-scale consist almost entirely of people who work for Murray Rothbard did not so. He raised against Konkin penetrating "First, there a flaw not only vitiates agoric strategy but also permits him to evade the whole problem of organization (see below). This is astonishing view for wages somehow or and would disappear free society. Konkin claims to be economist, and how he can say that a sale of labor for money is somehow illegitimate unlibertarian passeth understanding. Furthermore, it is simply absurd him to think that, in the free market of the future, wage labor will disappear. as lovable as some see it, is grossly for activity. transaction costs be far too high. It is absurd, for example, to think automobile manufacturing conducted by self-employed, independent contractors." Konkin responded, with but my view without but readers may here for Rather than spin out of agorism, instead concentrate a lesser-known but stimulating provocative part of his thought. maintained that private property ideas are not scarce; one person's using an does not preclude anyone else's use of "Property is a concept extracted from nature by conceptual man to designate distribution of — the entire material world — among avaricious, egos. If I have idea, you may have the same idea and it nothing me. Use as you will I do the There was, then, in natural for in on IP deserves
 "agorism" for the society he souGht to achieVe.

For ThiS prOcEss tO takE place, an importANt coNdition must be fulfilled, And thIs kOnkiN ReAdily AccepteD. a lARGe nUmBeR of PeOPlE must Act As indepEndent entrEprEnEurs, rather thAN wOrk as emploYeeS of others. The staTe woulD hArdLY be liKelY to igNore hiGHly strUctured coMpANies; onLY indiviDUAlS, or aT most very small groUPs, COuld hope to avoiD its clUtCHeS. sO muCh tHe better, arGuEd KonKIn. Free iNDiVIDUalS, He thought, shouLd in any case AVoiD workiNg For OThers.

BUt can A lARge-Scale societY conSist almosT entirELy of peoPLe who woRk for tHemSelVes? MURrAy rotHbARd dID nOt tHInk So. He raisEd AgAinst konkIN A PEnetRatIng oBjectIon: "First, there Is a FataL FlaW whicH not oNly vItIates konkin’S agorIc Strategy but also PermIts him to eVadE tHe wHoLe proBLem of oRgaNizAtion (seE below). THIs iS KONKIn’S astonishing view thAt WORkIng for waGes is sOMeHoW NonmarkeT oR anTiliBERtariAn, anD WoUld disapPear in A FrEe Society. koNkin clAiMs tO be An AusTRian Free-maRket econOmist, ANd how he can say tHAt a voluntary sALe OF OnE’S labOr fOr money is soMehoW IlleGitiMAtE or UNlibeRtariAn PAsSEth understanding. FurThErmore, It is sImply absurd foR him to thinK THAt, in the fRee mARkET of the future, waGe labOr will disaPPear. IndePendeNt contraCting, as loVABle as somE miGht See It, iS SImPly grossly uneCONomiC fOr manufActUring acTivIty. the TraNsAction cosTs would bE fAr ToO hIgh. it is aBSurd, for eXaMplE, tO thInk of AUtomobIle maNufaCtUrINg cOnducteD By SELf-emPlOyEd, inDepEnDent cOntrACtoRs."

KonkiN respondeD, wiTH chaRaCtEristic Dash but in my viEw Without sucCeSs; bUt readERS may here Judge for themselves. RatheR Than spiN ouT the dEtaiLs of KonkiN's aGorism, i shOUld likE insteAd to cOnCenTRAte on A LEsSer-KnOwn but stimULAtiNg and PrOvocAtive paRt of his thought.

KonkIN maIntained that pRivAte pROPeRty RIgHTs aRiSE frOM Scarcity. But ideaS are not scaRcE; OnE person's usINg aN iDea does Not precLude aNYone elsE's use of it. "property iS a ConcEPT exTracted froM nature bY conceptuAL man tO DeSignaTe tHe distRiButIon of Scarce GOodS — the eNtire mAtErial wOrld — aMoNg avaricIous, competing egos. If I havE an ideA, you mAy hAve the samE idEA anD it takes nOthiNg from me. UsE yoUrs As you WilL And I dO the SAmE." ThERe was, Then, NO basis in nATuRal LAW fOr property iN IDEas.

konkiN's wORk on IP DeseRves
 "agorism" for the society  he sought  to a chi eve .
For  thi s process to t a ke p lace, an important con ditio nm ustb efulfi lled, a n dt h isKo nk inre a di ly ac cep ted. Alarge numb erof  people must ac t as indep end ent entrepre neu rs, ra th ert han w ork  as e mploye e s of o thers. Th eS tate w o uld har d l ybe l ikely to ignore h i gh l y structured c ompani es ;  o n l y i ndi viduals, o rat mo s t verys ma l l gro u ps, could hop e to avoidi tsclutch es . S o  muchthe b et t er,  argued Kon kin.  Free ind ividua l s, he t h ought,should  in  an y ca s eav oid  w o rki n gfor oth ers.

Bu tca n a l arge - s c a le s oci etyconsi st almost ent ire ly o f  pe oplewho w orkfo r the mselve s? Mu rr ay Rothbard did  not  think so . H erai se d aga i nst Ko nki n a  penetr ating o b jec ti o n :  " First, there is afa t a lflaw whi ch not on ly vitiates  K onk in’s a goric  str a te gy but a lso pe r mi ts  him to  e vade t he  wh ole  prob l em o f orga nization  (see below). This i s  Konkin’s ast o ni s h in g  vie w t hat working  for wage s is so meh o w non marke to ra ntilibertarian, and  w ould d isapp ear in a free  society.K o n kin clai ms t o  b e  an Austrian f ree-m arket econ o mist, an d how  he cansay thata voluntar y s ale  of  on e ’ slabor for mon e y  isso mehow i lle gitimat e o r u nli ber ta rian pass eth unde rs ta nd in g.Furth e rmore, i tissi mpl y abs u rd for  himto t hi nk tha t, in t h ef r ee m ar ke t of  th efutur e, w a gelabor w ill disap pea r . In de pe ndent c ontracting, a slovable as  s ome  might s ee it, i s simply grossly unecon o mic for  ma nufac turi ng activi ty.  The t ran s action  costs  woul dbef a r too h ig h.It  is absurd , for  exam pl e, t o think  of automobile man u fac turing conduc ted  bys e lf -em p lo y ed,  i n dep e n dent contractor s."

Konki nr es ponded, wi t h c ha racteri stic da sh bu t  in myview with out succe ss ; bu t rea ders may h ere judg e for the m selve s .Rathe r t han sp in  ou t the  detai l s o f Kon kin'sag orism,  I sh ou ld likeinstead to concentrateon a l esser -kn own but s tim u lat ing and p rovo cative par t o f h is th oug h t.

K onki n  m ain t ained  tha t  privatep ro per t y  r ights arise f r omscarc ity .  But i deas  are not scarce;o ne person's us inga n  id ead oesno t preclude any one  e l s e's useof  it. "Prope rty is a  c o ncept  extra cted f rom nat u r eb y conc eptu alman to de sig na t e the d is tr i bution  ofsc arce g oods — thee n tire material wo rld — a monga var iciou s,  compet i ng e gos. If Ihave an ide a, you  may  have  the sa me  ideaand  i t takes no t hing from  me.Use you rs  asyou  willandI do th e sa me ."There was , th e n,  n o  ba sisin na tu rallaw for p r operty i n i d eas.

K on kin ' s  worko nI P  deserves
 "agorism"_for the_society he sought to_achieve.

For this_process_to take_place,_an important condition_must be fulfilled,_and this Konkin readily_accepted. A large_number_of people must act as independent entrepreneurs, rather than work as employees of others._The_State would_hardly_be_likely to ignore highly structured_companies; only individuals, or at_most very_small groups, could hope to avoid its clutches._So_much the better,_argued Konkin. Free individuals, he thought, should in any_case avoid working for others.

But can_a large-scale society_consist_almost_entirely of people who_work for themselves? Murray Rothbard did_not think so. He raised against_Konkin a penetrating objection: "First, there is_a fatal flaw which not only_vitiates Konkin’s agoric strategy but_also permits_him to evade the whole_problem of organization_(see below)._This is Konkin’s_astonishing view that working for wages_is somehow nonmarket_or antilibertarian, and would disappear in_a_free society. Konkin_claims_to_be an_Austrian free-market economist,_and_how he_can_say that a voluntary sale of_one’s_labor for money is somehow illegitimate or_unlibertarian passeth understanding. Furthermore,_it_is simply absurd for_him to think that, in_the free market of the future,_wage labor_will disappear._Independent contracting, as lovable as some might see it, is simply_grossly uneconomic for manufacturing activity. The_transaction costs would be_far too_high._It is absurd,_for_example, to_think of automobile manufacturing conducted by self-employed,_independent contractors."

Konkin_responded, with characteristic dash but in_my view without success;_but_readers may here judge for themselves._Rather than spin out the details_of Konkin's agorism, I should_like_instead_to concentrate on a lesser-known_but stimulating and provocative part of_his thought.

Konkin maintained_that private property rights arise from scarcity._But_ideas are not scarce; one person's_using_an idea does not preclude anyone_else's_use_of it. "Property is a_concept extracted from nature by conceptual_man to designate the distribution of scarce goods —_the entire material_world — among avaricious, competing_egos._If_I have an idea, you may have the same idea_and it_takes nothing from_me. Use yours as you will and I do the_same." There was, then, no basis in_natural law for property in ideas.

Konkin's work on IP deserves