In what used to be called the ‘Middle Ages’ men of learning got together at various places in England (as they had done before in other lands) – Oxford, Cambridge and other towns (where universities were later suppressed by various means).
At first these scholars operated on a fairly informal basis (this was the tiny element of truth in the old lie about Oxford University being founded by Alfred the Great – Alfred visited the town, Alfred always had men of learning with him [indeed was one himself] such men had students, therefore…) and students paid them for their teaching.
Later such learned men operated from collages (the oldest in Cambridge being Peterhouse) and helped educate students (mainly for the church).
Over time students (or those who helped them) tended to pay the collage rather than individual learned men (although the old idea lasted in Scotland – where Adam Smith claimed it was the great advantage that Scottish higher education had over English) and the direct connection between students going to a master they revered became somewhat weaker.
In the 19th century the University (as an institution, backed by Acts of Parliament) started to rise in importance relative to the collages. And in the 20th century government began to play a much bigger role – first through funding individual students (rather than just setting up a collage with an endowment – as various Kings and other leading people had done) and then, rather later, by increasing regulation of what went on in the Universities (he who pays the piper calls the tune – as the academics forgot to their cost).
However, in both Oxford and Cambridge the idea (if not the reality) of the independent scholar – the man (these days ‘the person’) seeking truth and passing it on to students lived on.
This week one of the last reminders of the days when men of learning were independent (rather than just employees of the University) finally died.
For 800 years it has been assumed that it a person made a discovery it was their discovery – but now it has been decided that this is not quite so.
The specific matter is patents. Now I know that libertarians have different opinions about patents, but it is not my concern here to take any particular line on whether patents are justified or not – my concern is to point out how the status of individual scholars has changed.
Patents for scientific discoveries are now a matter for the University to have a ‘policy’ about.
Of course there will be all sorts of ‘safeguards’ for the scholars, 90% of the first 100, 000 pounds earned from a patent will go to them – and they will get other benefits. But the principle has been accepted – the discoveries of individual scholars are a matter for the ‘policy’ of the University.
This has been democratically decided by a vote of the university people – of course there would have been no vote if there had not been a revolt against the imposing of the policy by the administration of the University, but there has been vote.
The standard features of modern democracy applied. The people who have already made their discoveries (or know they never will discover anything) have outvoted the creative minority – and those academics who might have moral problems with the whole thing have been convinced by the normal propaganda assault in support of the powers-that-be (articles in the Times Higher Education Supplement, subtle attacks on researchers who “just want to get rich” and so on).
So the climate that produced various business enterprises in the Cambridge area will decline, and those people who stay at Cambridge will become more and more just employees of the University – rather than the independent scholars that such people once were.
Why should I care? After all I am no scholar – I can not even spell, and have no idea about grammar. And, in any case, it is natural scientists who are going to suffer – and my knowledge (such as it is) lies in the humanities and ‘social sciences’.
Well I would like to think that I am concerned about the freedom of people very different from myself. I am also sad to see another nail in the coffin of an old tradition (I am a conservative as well as a libertarian).
However, I suppose there is a selfish reason.
I suffered years ago from making the mistake (for which I have no one to blame but myself) of thinking in terms of an organisation rather than individual scholars.
I thought in terms of the ‘University of York’ forgetting that the Politics Department of the University of York contained no one I would wish to hear speak, or whose writings I valued.
The old view of learning – i.e. that one went to learn from people one revered, would have been a far better view for me to have to have followed, than the modern organization view that I (unthinkingly) held.
The ghost of that old view still lingered in Cambridge (lingered, I am told, more than it does in Oxford), it is weaker now.
Nulab have only the armed forces left to destroy then they will have more or less gutted and filleted society from top to bottom. Once this project is finished Blair’s legacy will be complete.
Then don’t act like one… Deleted.
For that argument: they appointed John “The People’s Flag is Bloody Red” Reid as Defence Secretary. Agin the point you made, socialists ALWAYS need a military for that particular last recourse … you know what I mean, as when the angry mobs are tearing at the doors and you need time to get Cherie and the kids into the helicopter in Horseguards …
I have to know – what is the general viewpoint of libertarians to patents? I am normally a libertarian, though I feel pragmatic about some aspects of libertarianism…
I wonder whether patents are an afront to sharing society’s knowledge freely, as I suspect; or whether the value of discovering or inventing something that is patentable is sufficient leverage to justify restricting people’s exploitation rights to discoveries for a certain period.
“Later such learned men operated from collages…”
“Over time students (or those who helped them) tended to pay the collage…”
“In the 19th century the University (as an institution, backed by Acts of Parliament) started to rise in importance relative to the collages…”
“…rather than just setting up a collage…”
These folks certainly had a very shallow and broad-brushed education, and I fear your analysis also lacks a certain depth.
And as you do not deign to say how his analysis is lacking, your comment is rather lacking.
Daver seems to be referring to spelling of “colleges”.
I find the biggest problem in the United Kingdom is not stupid policies or stupid people (although there to be frank are no shortage of either in the parliamentary Labour Party) but the lack of truth telling.
What is a university for? Is the current system working? Who benefits?
It is not simply the absence of discussion about universities; it is the absence of frankness about any issue you care to mention.
When did the establishment [and those who run State funded universities are very much part of the establishment] manage to silence all discussion of any issue other than how much more the taxpayer ought to give them?
When was the last time you heard serious reflection – on the BBC for example – on the purpose of schools and examinations and degrees or the adequacy teacher taining or Further Education colleges?
When was the last time anyone asked if the average GP is value for money? Who has not laughed at the dream world of medical dramas about uniformly conscientious and knowledgeable doctors?
Since when has there was any examination of what happens to the money which British taxpayers give to European politicians or Civil Servants or the Arts establishment?
Since when have you heard a discussion on the BBC about care of the elderly or immigration or law and order that has not been dancing in the shallows – cliché ridden ego hugging steam of consciousness word heaps based upon a complete absence of engagement with any reality which Guardian readers might find uncomfortable?
Since when has critical reflection upon the Leftist establishment become a thought crime? We need a revolutionary shift of power in this country from the producer to the user.
It should of course read…
‘…the adequacy of teacher training or Further Education colleges…’.
‘Since when has there been any examination…’
Chris Goodman;
But Chris that would mean a free market.
For would-be students (of say philosophy) the better choice is to check out books from the local library (or order for a small fee from the British Library) and (and this makes all the difference) actually read them. Especially books by philosophers and not only books on philosophy.
The advantages of this choice to learning the subject over university study are (a) an enormous cash advantage; (b) the abscence of inevtiable University-related distractions; (c) actual familiarity with the subject and thus, arguably, a greater appreciation of it.
The time I spent actually reading Hume’s Treatise on Human Nature may have been quite a distraction from my University commitments, and perhaps the gist of it can be ‘summed up’ in a very short space, but it was absolutely riveting to read the language it is written in – the eloquence, clarity and length is simply orders of magnitude removed from a two-hour university lecture or a 5000 word essay I might have written.
I hate the all-too-common idea which equates the concept of ‘study’ with universities, colleges, exams, certificates and considerable expense. Private study using nothing but books is still possible – perhaps it is even the most serious form of study there is.
I think there ought to be a new ‘Glorious Revolution’ i.e. a re-assertion of traditional English liberties – and yes Bernie that DOES include free markets.
I am not a Libertarian however because I do not believe that a free society can or ought to be value neutral about standards of excellence i.e. freedom is not an end in itself.
The Left rejects the existence of objective values [such as truth] because they do not like the idea of being answerable to anything other than themselves i.e. a Leftist craves absolute power. What Lenin [that great paradigm of Leftism] meant by ‘Education, Education, and Education’ has nothing to do with expanding knowledge.
When they facilitate understanding and discovery universities are good, when they facilitate self-serving dogmatism and obfuscation they are bad – historically the record of universities is patchy. Familiarity with really fine books is by far the best education – but some of these would never get written if there were no universities.
Gavin,
“what is the general viewpoint of libertarians to patents?”
Pretty straight forwards I think. Libertarians agree on the need for a clear and enforced system of law, and a legislative framework in which business can flourish. Patent protection encourages innovation on behalf of inventors and encourages investment on behalf of entrepreneurs. A win/win scenario, and the subsequent patent expiry ensures low prices and competition after a period of time.
Chris,
“I am not a Libertarian however because I do not believe that a free society can or ought to be value neutral about standards of excellence”
Sometimes I think of myself as a libertarian, and sometimes not, but I’ve never considered a belief that society ought to be value free as a prerequisite to libertarianism.
‘Society’ is never value free because society is an emergent property of large numbers of interactions, it is not an institution. Society is a series of value judgements that we also call ‘social norms’.
I think you have a rosy view of patents. In my field (software) patents discourage innovation. Once a field has enough patents in it, it becomes almost pointless to research if you do not hold a significant percentage of those patents.
The problem is that any new research is likely to infringe on some of the existing patents. This means you run the risk of being sued. Your best protection is to hold enough patents of your own, that any of the people who might sue you realise that you might also sue them for infringement later on.
This leads to rampant defensive patenting – patenting things you have no intention of ever making or building. Once a large company has enough patents in a field, it basically agrees with other large companies, that they will all grant each other free, eternal licenses to the patented ideas.
In this way, a small group of large companies effectively block any small or new companies in a field, whilst still allowing themselves a relatively free hand.
This is possible in large part because:
1. Patents are expensive to acquire. A small company with a really great new idea can patent it, but that’s not useful. What you need is a portfolio of hundreds (literally) of patents that cover any ideas that your rivals might have.
2. People don’t patent innovative ideas. They patent anything and everything. Most patents are complete junk, but they have commercial value because of the next point.
3. Patents only count if you have the cash to sue over them. I can register a ridiculuous patent, and then sue you for infringing. You would have to spend hundreds of thousands defending yourself, and you could not claim any damages from me once you’d one. It would almost certainly be cheaper and better to license the patent from me, even though we both knew it was a phony patent.
J,
Your critique of the patent system is understandable, but to say that patents are in principle not against the tenets of libertarianism is not the same as saying that we have the perfect patent system.
Like all human constructs, the patent system and the legal framework surrounding it has grown up piecemeal over the years. Some of the people involved in this process will have been working to construct an honest and fair system with clear objectives of what the system should deliver for society. Others, I suspect the vast majority, will have been working to promote their own self interests, ideologies, or simply working without a clue as to what the system is for.
For example, you rightly complain about, “rampant defensive patenting” Well why not introduce a new law, use it or lose it. As a general rule we have to expect big business to do what it can to corrupt the system. We also should expect our law makers and courts to stop them. There’s little hope of this I’ll agree, but that’s how it should be.
Gavin Ayling: typically the split is between small-government and no-government libertarians. The former usually approve of patents, the latter see them as just one more government-imposed market distortion, based on mistaken economics that sees payment as reward to the seller rather than persuasion by the buyer. Certainly, only a zero-patents approach is fully consistent with libertarian non-aggression, since patents reach out and suppress actions by uninvolved third parties.
As you can probably tell, I personally oppose patents.
Julian,
A no-government libertarian sounds chilling. How does such a philosophy differ fron anarchism, and how could it possibly work in practice.
John East: depends which variant of anarchism you mean. It is anarchism, literally, “no rulers”, but is quite opposite to the decentralized communism that often goes by that name.
A short summary of no-government libertarianism is: that it’s the social system which recognises private property and inalienable self-ownership, and grants nobody the right to initiate force against either. Given those constraints, it is still possible to have a working society, and there’s a lot of theory and historical research concerning how it could/should be done.
For more details, look on Wikipedia under Anarchocapitalism.
mike:
(b) the abscence of inevtiable University-related distractions;
Those “distractions” are what most people go to Universities for. That and the degree.
But you can go to a University and still read books. No contradiction here. And, sometimes, if you are lucky, you can meet at the University a Wise Old Master, and have a unique experience in you life.
Lamentably it didn’t happen to me, but I suppose it is still possible.
From the I-should-know-better department:
The credibility of this mini-history of British universities would be a little greater if the important word ‘college’ were spelled correctly. Just sayin’ ….
Not ‘value free’ but ‘value neutral’ i.e. the belief that freedom trumps values because in a free society nobody ought to impose their values upon anybody else.
A free society is desirable not because freedom is an end in itself but because it gives communities – and to a lesser extent individuals – the freedom to pursue transcendent values.
To put it into jargon terms – a free society is not simply a spontaneous order – it is constrained by value commitments that transcend individual preferences. A value neutral defence of a free society is vulnerable to the criticism that it is no better than any other sort of arrangement – for example one in which the State becomes the source of value.
A community does not just simply emerge, it is orientated by value commitments – the lowest value commitment being does it make me money?
But values – such as truth and justice – not only transcend the individual they also transcend the State – just because a politician says that something is true or just does not make it true or just.
As that penetrating thinker David Cameron 😉 put it the other day ‘There is such a thing as community it is just not the same thing as the State’ – a complex thought succinctly expressed.
This is very abstract however, in practice we agree whole heartedly on the importance of free markets.
Being against free markets is like being against laws of physics.
More freedom. Yes! It is just that free markets are a necessary but insufficient condition of being a civilised society.
I think that we ought to try to perpetuate one Leftist thought crime a day.
Thought crime of the day – except in times of war a tax rate above 20% is immoral i.e. it is nothing more than abuse of power by politicians motivated by hubris and greed.
I think Daver meant that my spelling was lacking – rather than my analysis. But I will try and remember to type college (my spelling ability comes and goes – one day I will type a certain word correctly and the next day I will type the same word incorrectly).
If Daver had bothered to read the posting to the end he (or she) would have seen the words “I can not even spell”.
Sometimes I will even get numbers wrong – for example I will try and type (or write) 41 and find I have typed 14. I also often leave words out of sentences (the words are in my mind, but not on the page).
Oddly enough, I can normally spot other people’s mistakes.
Still to return to the matter of debate.
Sadly my analysis has been proved correct.
Only yesterday the “Daily Telegraph” reported a “proposal” that the colleges of Oxford be stripped of the power of deciding which student they admit (the University would decide instread).
Cambridge (the article stated) would follow Oxford in this move away from the last remnants of the old spirit.
The old idea of independent scholars gathering in a place to research, debate, and to teach is dying. Academics will simply be employees of a, government controlled, university.
Both Oxford and Cambridge are on their way to becomming second class universities.
I was careful to express no opinion about patents – a subject about which libertarians often argue.
My subject was the decline of independence of academics (“Dons” as they call such folk in Oxford and Cambridge).
The validity (or otherwise) of the idea of patents is a separate debate.
I found it hilarious (while “in the grip of the grape” to a slight extent, I must admit) that a discussion about academia consistently used the word “collage” instead of “college”. Since a “collage” is a grouping of pictures pasted on a flat surface, my obsevation that your analysis “lacked depth” was intended to be more humorous than critical. You had to be there (here) I guess. No harm intended.
I think the pedantic pricks who would rather point out spelling mistakes than make a useful contribution are just that… pedantic pricks.
I’ll own up to being a pedantic twit any day of the week, but prick?
I really there’s no shame in being a poor speller in English, lots of folks including some very intelligent people are. That’s why god made spell-check (which wouldn’t have caught that particular mistake) and proof readers (who would have).
Also, this particular mistake sort of … undermines claims to expertise concerning the subject of universities. It’s a little as if I professed to be an expert on Australian affairs and started talking about various beeches where ethnic violence have taken place (again and again).
But that’s a lil bit funny.
Now I understand the comment about “lacked depth” – good point.
As for spell checks (or just checking what I write without a spellcheck – after all I can spot other people’s spelling mistakes).
As far as I know (my ignorance of computers is near total) there is no spell check on this system.
Of course being a middle aged man trying to use a computer room whilst there are youngsters behind me (clearly in a rush) is not great either.
However, that is enough excuses.
If my bad production skills detracted from what I was trying to say I apologize.