[761] in libertarians
Intellectual property
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paddington Bear)
Sat Feb 25 06:22:02 1995
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 95 5:20:19 CST
From: Paddington Bear <deanjens@midway.uchicago.edu>
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU
Kevin:
>So if you believe that intellectual property is an attempt "to thwart
>competition," how would eliminating it increase competition? Many products
>require great expenditures to invent, but relatively little to copy. Why
Which is the standard reason-based argument for all property rights; if there
are no propery rights, there is no incentive to create property.
> Why does an investment in development translate into a
>guarantee of utility? And a monopoly at that. You're making a SOCIAL
I'm not sure I understand the statement (first sentence), but my first
response is that it doesn't; once again, the entrepreneur is only rewarded
for taking chances that do create utility. If we negate property rights (of
any kind), we remove even the possibility that the investment will benefit the
developer. With property rights, the development can be exchanged to the
extent of its utility for benefits that will sometimes outweigh developing
costs.
>argument, that the greater good is best served by a grant of monopoly
>from the government (and I thought Libertarians didn't like those ...)
Here you seem to be dismissing the use of reason as inferior to the use of
moral arguments (i.e. it is wrong to steal), unless I have completely missed
the point, which is possible. The fabulous thing about libertarianism is that
it is superior on both counts. I presume that you believe, Seth, in property
rights of some kind beyond "I own that on which I can force others to
relinquish claim"; I feel exactly the same way toward intelectual property.
> Is it a *right*, or simply advocated as a system to encourage a
>particular form of development (for the overall good of society?!)? The
Stating more explicitly what I read into the above.
Intelectual property is different from most property in that information can
be copied; patents expire and the developer keeps the information but no
longer has control over it. For this reason I think that patents *should*
eventually expire, that with anything you produce it becomes less and less
identifiable as yours over time. (For tangible property, however, where
only one person can own it, there is no conceivable reason that property
owned by someone should be randomly reassigned.) I think that patents can
deal with intelectual property, and that the problem is with the overgeneral
patents; I do not believe that patents inherently lend themselves to
overgeneralization, or that there is any inherent problem with patents.
-Dean Jens
