• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Free Market supporters opposing Patent protection

Well, I'm sure it's nice for you to know these straw man people you have imagined who take this position you have imagined are hypocrites.

You should certainly feel smug and superior to these people who don't seem to exist.

You are saying that there isn't anyone who believes that patents and other intellectual properties shouldn't exist? That they are an excess of government?

Why would Rhea have to construct a strawman when we have the libertarians to mock? And they are free market enthusiasts, wouldn't you agree? Try this link comparing the views of four of the foundation theorists of the modern corporate sponsored libertarianism. Rothbard, Spooner, Tucker and Rand. Rothbard and Tucker seem to oppose intellectual property rights.

Admittedly they don't exist, they are dead. But they do have adherents in the libertarian movement.
You apparently didn't read your link. Rothbard essentially argued that the same protection could be had through contract. He wasn't saying that the protection wasn't necessary for a "free" market.

As for Rand:
From your link:
Still another forceful exhibit in the case in favor of intellectual property rights comes from Ayn Rand, always a lightning rod and, like Spooner, an outspoken champion of copyright and patent protections. Indeed, Rand tracks Spooner quite closely in her conception of the proper basis for private property, which she argues is “a man’s right to the product of his mind.” “What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge,” Rand argues, “is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values.” Without such laws, true competition is compromised insofar as the first in time inventor, the “winner of the race,” is not protected—the “the potential” is mistaken for the “the actual.” In service of her defense of patents and copyrights, Rand draws a distinction between a “scientific or philosophical discovery” and an invention, the latter representing “only … the practical application of knowledge.” Intellectual property is only legitimate, in Rand’s view, because it protects creators in their fabrication of concrete things that did not previously exist in nature.

The others were anarchists as was pointed out in your link, not libertarians.
 
The others were anarchists as was pointed out in your link, not libertarians.

I would be quite surprised to find an anarchist in favor of government protection for patents.

Just sayin.

Anarchist. Wow. Somebody's superego is really schizoid to even be considering laws on his one man island.
 
You are saying that there isn't anyone who believes that patents and other intellectual properties shouldn't exist? That they are an excess of government?

Why would Rhea have to construct a strawman when we have the libertarians to mock? And they are free market enthusiasts, wouldn't you agree? Try this link comparing the views of four of the foundation theorists of the modern corporate sponsored libertarianism. Rothbard, Spooner, Tucker and Rand. Rothbard and Tucker seem to oppose intellectual property rights.

Admittedly they don't exist, they are dead. But they do have adherents in the libertarian movement.
You apparently didn't read your link. Rothbard essentially argued that the same protection could be had through contract. He wasn't saying that the protection wasn't necessary for a "free" market.

I did read the link. I have read quite a bit of Rothbard's work actually. The thread is about government granted patents, which Rothbard seems to oppose. Yes, he believes that private contracts can protect intellectual property. But he goes on to say that parties outside of the contracts should be bound by the contract.

In The Ethics of Liberty (published first in 1982), Rothbard applies this contract rationale not only to copyrights, but also to patents, urging that the inventor of a mousetrap, for example, may successfully prohibit others from selling an identical mousetrap to the extent that the inventor retains a piece of “the property right in each mousetrap.” Rothbard contended that, as a practical matter, libertarian principles must entail the ability to limit purchasers’ rights regarding a work or invention, and thus to similarly limit all others’ rights—even when these others are not parties to the original contract. “[N]o one,” Rothbard argued, “can acquire a greater property title in something that has already been given away or sold.” According to this account, then, if the original purchaser’s rights had been limited by his agreement with the inventor, then so too would be those of every latecomer.

This is confusing because except for the phrase "libertarian principles" he doesn't explain how parties that don't sign a contract can be held bound to the terms of the contract, except through an authority superior to all parties, a government say.

But the point of my post wasn't to debate the fine points of the fantasy. I was trying to answer dismal's complaint that no one had supplied a link showing that there was a question in the "free market" cult over the question of whether the government should provide legal protection for intellectual property. I tried to do this by providing link to a libertarian who believes these four people do demonstrate that there is a difference of opinion between the base philosophy of the libertarians.

As for Rand:
From your link:
Still another forceful exhibit in the case in favor of intellectual property rights comes from Ayn Rand, always a lightning rod and, like Spooner, an outspoken champion of copyright and patent protections. ...

Yes, I know that Rand and Spooner supported government enforced patents. What you are missing is the whole point of the article, that there is disagreement on this point in the libertarian fantasy that has been there from the beginning between Tucker and Spooner and that there are still disagreements such as between Rothbard and Rand.

The others were anarchists as was pointed out in your link, not libertarians.

What do think that the base philosophy of the libertarian movement is? Tucker and Spooner were individualistic anarchists, the 19th century libertarians. If you don't believe this take it up with the libertarian author of the article, D'Amato. He is the one who is using the anarchists to demonstrate that there is a difference of opinion on this point. I am only using the article to show that there is a disagreement.
 
Found an old thread on it.

Interestingly, the same people are giving the same answer. I wonder if this time the answer might sink in.

I am sorry to be so dense. Tell me again, is there disagreement among libertarians whether the government should be enforcing intellectual property rights?

It seems to be a simple question.
 
The others were anarchists as was pointed out in your link, not libertarians.

I would be quite surprised to find an anarchist in favor of government protection for patents.

Just sayin.

Then you believe that D'Amato is wrong to claim that Tucker and Spooner are part of the basic philosophy of libertarianism? Who do you think are? Are Rand and Rothbard?
 
I would be quite surprised to find an anarchist in favor of government protection for patents.

Just sayin.

Anarchist. Wow. Somebody's superego is really schizoid to even be considering laws on his one man island.

Have you stopped to consider that the word "anarchist" might have had a slightly different meaning in the 19th century? I am pretty sure that Spooner is considered as D'Amato has used him, as one of foundations of the modern libertarian movement. Here is his Wikipedia Influenced section,

Spooner's influence extends to the wide range of topics he addressed during his lifetime. He is remembered today primarily for his abolitionist activities and for his challenge to the Post Office monopoly, which had a lasting influence of significantly reducing postal rates.[33] Spooner's writings contributed to the development of both left-libertarian and right-libertarian political theory in the United States, and were often reprinted in early libertarian journals such as the Rampart Journal[34] and Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought.[35] His writings were also a major influence on Austrian School economist Murray Rothbard and libertarian law professor and legal theorist Randy Barnett.

In January 2004, Laissez Faire Books established the Lysander Spooner Award for advancing the literature of liberty. The honor is awarded monthly to the most important contributions to the literature of liberty, followed by an annual award to the author of the top book on liberty for the year. The annual "Spooner" earns $1,500 cash for the winning author.[36]

In 2010, LAVA created the Lysander Spooner (Book of the Year) Award, which has been awarded annually since 2011.[37] The LAVA Awards are held annually to honor excellence in books relating to the principles of liberty, with the Lysander Spooner Award being the grand prize award.

Spooner's The Unconstitutionality of Slavery was cited in the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down the federal district's ban on handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, quotes Spooner as saying the right to bear arms was necessary for those who wanted to take a stand against slavery.[38] It was also cited by Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago the following year.[39]

Spooner is cited several times in the science fiction of Robert A. Heinlein.
I assume you can find the entry by yourself.

I am curious, do you find it so strange that a political philosophy that basically states that government is not needed has its roots in anarchism?
 
I would be quite surprised to find an anarchist in favor of government protection for patents.

Just sayin.

yeah, that was kinda weird

Actually Tucker described himself as an individualistic anarchist and socialist. Austrian economics is considered to be an extension of traditional liberal thinking as is Locke.You have to understand the historical context and meaning of the words. They meant different things at different times, not what we use them for today.
 
Found an old thread on it.

Interestingly, the same people are giving the same answer. I wonder if this time the answer might sink in.

I am sorry to be so dense. Tell me again, is there disagreement among libertarians whether the government should be enforcing intellectual property rights?

It seems to be a simple question.

Yes. As I said before in this thread, and as I said in that thread, libertarians are divided on the issue of intellectual property. Some are pro- and some are anti-.

Here's some light reading that I referenced in the other thread.

The Objectivist view - pro Intellectual Property

The Misean View - anti Intellectual Property

You'll have to search "intellectual property" since these jokers no longer let me link to the search results.
 
Back
Top Bottom