Free Market supporters opposing Patent protection

[Rhea]

This thread wasn't about libertarians.

It was about imaginary free market purists.

You mean free market purists don't exist for realz? They always have some selfish corner contrary to their stated ideology that they want to gate off for themselves? Hypocrisy is assumed?

 

[dismal]

This thread wasn't about libertarians.

It was about imaginary free market purists.

Does a free market purist support property protection from the government in your mind?

I don't know any free market purists. I don't know of any free market purists.

- - - Updated - - -

This thread wasn't about libertarians.

It was about imaginary free market purists.

You mean free market purists don't exist for realz? They always have some selfish corner contrary to their stated ideology that they want to gate off for themselves? Hypocrisy is assumed?

I am not aware of any. Are you? Link?

 

[Rhea]

You mean free market purists don't exist for realz? They always have some selfish corner contrary to their stated ideology that they want to gate off for themselves? Hypocrisy is assumed?

I am not aware of any. Are you? Link?

I don't have a link. I'm the one asking here.

 

[SimpleDon]

Free Market supporters opposing Patent protection
Are there any? There should be zillions, right? or at least all of them?

I mean, if Big Government™ and Regulation™ are bad, how can patents be good? Isn't competition better? Free Market without artificial government intervention and all that?

The Austrian/Libertarians and the anarchist capitalists are pretty much split in half on this subject. It is pretty much their "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" discussion. When you are discussing a wholesale fantasy there is a lot of latitude available in it to argue about the details.

They are pretty much caught between a rock and a hard place. My daughter-in-law is an IP attorney. She estimates that about 40% of the laws and regulations of the federal government are concerned with intangible property, patents, copyrights and trademarks. Piled on top of this, commercial court is the last bastion of equity law in the US, that is, common law, essentially judges deciding what is fair. This because laws and regulations can't keep up with all of the possible permutations of commercial contract law.

So it is an obvious target for Austrian/Libertarians and anarchist capitalist anti-government regulation crusade. However, they also are very big on property rights. The idealism conflicts.

The real question for them is what is property, is the idea of intangible property even valid? It like so much of the economy is an artifice constructed out of whole cloth by the hated state.

The question is decided for the Austrian economists and especially the academics in the various college research centers by the fact that the people who support them with money and who rescued them from well deserved obscurity are corporations. The very same corporations that own the bulk of the estimated 5 trillion dollars in intangible property in the US.

 

[SimpleDon]

Of course, your not so radical, conservative free market fundamentalists are not so bound to an impractical ideology and fully support corporate friendly, government enforced, intangible property rights.

 

[dismal]

I am not aware of any. Are you? Link?

I don't have a link. I'm the one asking here.

So, as far as you, I or apparently anyone else here is aware this thing doesn't exist. Why are we talking about it?

 

[Rhea]

Because if one looks at the ideology of "government is bad, make it small, we will take care of ourselves" the embrace of government patent protection seems discordant.

From what you seem to be contributing here, I take it that you think, "government is bad except when I benefit and that part I support and there is no discord in that; next?" which is fine, your answer is admitted to the record. Other people may have other opinions and I am interested in them. Next?

 

[dismal]

Because if one looks at the ideology of "government is bad, make it small, we will take care of ourselves" the embrace of government patent protection seems discordant.

From what you seem to be contributing here, I take it that you think, "government is bad except when I benefit and that part I support and there is no discord in that; next?" which is fine, your answer is admitted to the record. Other people may have other opinions and I am interested in them. Next?

Maybe you are mistaken in what you think other people believe and why.

If you could present a link to someone who believes these things we can have a discussion about whether what they believe is discordant.

I think it is generally true of everyone that they want the government to do only those things they think the government should do.

 

[skepticalbip]

Because if one looks at the ideology of "government is bad, make it small, we will take care of ourselves" the embrace of government patent protection seems discordant.

From what you seem to be contributing here, I take it that you think, "government is bad except when I benefit and that part I support and there is no discord in that; next?" which is fine, your answer is admitted to the record. Other people may have other opinions and I am interested in them. Next?

That seems to be approaching a strawman argument.

I haven’t seen any reasonable argument from government minimalists that would say such a thing. The position is generally that too expansive a government can only restrict individuals. That government is needed but only should regulate where it is for the benefit for all society.

The biggest difference I see between those who believe that government is the answer to any perceived problem and those who believe in minimal government is their different beliefs about humanity and in government.

The “Big government” advocates see humanity as corrupt and in need of control. They see government as that control and have faith that politicians are knowledgeable, fair, caring, and compassionate.

The minimalists see humanity as being capable of working out minor differences without undue governmental regulation They see excessive government as a path to power and influence for politicians to use to benefit themselves and their friends and their interests.

I suppose the argument boils down to how one views humans, government, and what is "needed" regulation.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Watch it skepticalbip, you're being too reasonable.

 

[Rhea]

Well I started this thread because I had a question about something I thought was "free market" and I wanted to learn more about it. I appreciate the feedback. It appears that I was completely off-base and that free market people do NOT pursue a completely free market, only a partially free market. And they do not oppose all government intervention in business, only some of it.

Thank you for the clarification. Looks like hypocrisy to me, but I appreciate being helped to understand that it's a real thing.

 

[Duke Leto]

Sadly, in general most people go for beliefs that benefit them, or that they believe benefit them, and put together a pretty silly hash of philosophical rationalizations to justify them.

 

[Duke Leto]

The biggest difference I see between those who believe that government is the answer to any perceived problem and those who believe in minimal government is their different beliefs about humanity and in government.

The “Big government” advocates see humanity as corrupt and in need of control. They see government as that control and have faith that politicians are knowledgeable, fair, caring, and compassionate.

The minimalists see humanity as being capable of working out minor differences without undue governmental regulation They see excessive government as a path to power and influence for politicians to use to benefit themselves and their friends and their interests.

I suppose the argument boils down to how one views humans, government, and what is "needed" regulation.

Not to be too contrarian, bip, but I don't think that's a sound generalization on the views of humanity and

There are definitely "Big Government" types who see individual humans as non-corrupt, who are abused by people who have been corrupted by naturally occurring concentrations of power, who then use that power to act as "local bullies". The Big Government is then the democratic collective will of all the abused who gang up on the bullies. See for example Noah Smith's "Liberty of Local Bullies" essay on American Libertarianism. (Cue post of angry self-identifying Libertarian demanding no one ever define the term contrary to his definition and accusing anyone who does so of slandering true libertarians like him in 3, 2, 1...)

Likewise, there are some anti-government folks who see all of humanity as base and the pre-emptive annihilation of any level of government above the local level as the only way to ensure human happiness. Joe Sobran was such a one.

You can rationalize your way to most political ideologies from the starting point of Rousseauian optimism about human virtue or Schopenhauerian pessimism. It's a matter of ignoring arguments you don't like in favor of ones you do.

 

[SimpleDon]

Because if one looks at the ideology of "government is bad, make it small, we will take care of ourselves" the embrace of government patent protection seems discordant.

From what you seem to be contributing here, I take it that you think, "government is bad except when I benefit and that part I support and there is no discord in that; next?" which is fine, your answer is admitted to the record. Other people may have other opinions and I am interested in them. Next?

That seems to be approaching a strawman argument.

I haven’t seen any reasonable argument from government minimalists that would say such a thing. The position is generally that too expansive a government can only restrict individuals. That government is needed but only should regulate where it is for the benefit for all society.

The biggest difference I see between those who believe that government is the answer to any perceived problem and those who believe in minimal government is their different beliefs about humanity and in government.

The “Big government” advocates see humanity as corrupt and in need of control. They see government as that control and have faith that politicians are knowledgeable, fair, caring, and compassionate.

The minimalists see humanity as being capable of working out minor differences without undue governmental regulation They see excessive government as a path to power and influence for politicians to use to benefit themselves and their friends and their interests.

I suppose the argument boils down to how one views humans, government, and what is "needed" regulation.

It is depressingly common for complaints of a strawman argument to be answered with another strawman, but two at one time must mean that you are going for the record! Congratulations.

By the way, where do you come down on the issue? Do you believe that the idea of intangible property is "needed regulation" or something that humanity can work out without government regulation? I see a lot of detached, support of apple pie and motherhood sermonizing here without you putting any of yourself out here.

 

[SimpleDon]

It is pretty obvious that this is a subject that our resident band free market enthusiasts aren't too enthusiastic about discussing. Obviously they haven't completely worked out their utopia yet. Give them another few decades.

 

[Rhea]

The “Big government” advocates see humanity as corrupt and in need of control. They see government as that control and have faith that politicians are knowledgeable, fair, caring, and compassionate.

The minimalists see humanity as being capable of working out minor differences without undue governmental regulation They see excessive government as a path to power and influence for politicians to use to benefit themselves and their friends and their interests.

I suppose the argument boils down to how one views humans, government, and what is "needed" regulation.

So things like pollution control, workplace safety and monopolies are "minor differences" and should not have government protection and things like patents are "major" differences that need government control?

This is not a straw-man, this is my hearing of what cries against government are being made. Clean Air Act, Unions, conglomerate restrictions - all bad I usually hear.

And so far, not a single person here nor any that any of us have ever heard of against patents? (aside from the "little guys" who actually are against very long term and restrictive patents.)

 

[arkirk]

It is pretty obvious that this is a subject that our resident band free market enthusiasts aren't too enthusiastic about discussing. Obviously they haven't completely worked out their utopia yet. Give them another few decades.

That is exactly what they want...a few more decades...and everything will be fine...for them.

 

[skepticalbip]

The “Big government” advocates see humanity as corrupt and in need of control. They see government as that control and have faith that politicians are knowledgeable, fair, caring, and compassionate.

The minimalists see humanity as being capable of working out minor differences without undue governmental regulation They see excessive government as a path to power and influence for politicians to use to benefit themselves and their friends and their interests.

I suppose the argument boils down to how one views humans, government, and what is "needed" regulation.

So things like pollution control, workplace safety and monopolies are "minor differences" and should not have government protection and things like patents are "major" differences that need government control?

This is not a straw-man, this is my hearing of what cries against government are being made. Clean Air Act, Unions, conglomerate restrictions - all bad I usually hear.

And so far, not a single person here nor any that any of us have ever heard of against patents? (aside from the "little guys" who actually are against very long term and restrictive patents.)

I have to wonder why you clipped this from my post.

I haven’t seen any reasonable argument from government minimalists that would say such a thing. The position is generally that too expansive a government can only restrict individuals. That government is needed but only should regulate where it is for the benefit for all society.

 

[Rhea]

I have to wonder why you clipped this from my post.

I haven’t seen any reasonable argument from government minimalists that would say such a thing. The position is generally that too expansive a government can only restrict individuals. That government is needed but only should regulate where it is for the benefit for all society.

Oh, because the benefit for all society part I felt was rather obvious about pollution controls, workplace safety and anti-mega-conglomeration laws. And not so obvious for patents.

It did not occur to me that you were going to argue that patent protection (as we see it now) is a benefit for all society. Are you actually arguing that?

 

[skepticalbip]

I have to wonder why you clipped this from my post.

Oh, because the benefit for all society part I felt was rather obvious about pollution controls, workplace safety and anti-mega-conglomeration laws. And not so obvious for patents.

It did not occur to me that you were going to argue that patent protection (as we see it now) is a benefit for all society. Are you actually arguing that?

You are arguing against what you assume I believe.

Environmental protection against industrial pollution is good however the way the law is written it is entirely too all encompassing. It is being interpreted in some areas as not allowing home owners to burn logs in their fireplace. The arguments you point out against it are industrialists arguing for self interest not necessarily for smaller government. They just as vehemently argue for expansive government when they argue for laws that benefit their industry.

Patent and copyright protection is good when applied to the result of independent work that provides society with a new or better product. Why would anyone spend years developing a new concept in engine design if it was copied by industry with no compensation for his time? It is over-reaching when applied to patenting a specific gene sequence that was just observed and not the result of independent ideas. The first case is good for all society as it encourages people to improve on or develop things that benefit society. The second case limits use of new understandings of a nature that was already there.