4 ms·
What rubbish. Capitalism requires one (or a government) to enforce property rights. The more one can declare as valid property (e.g IP) the better it is for the
by ue_ 10y ago
What rubbish. Capitalism requires one (or a government) to enforce property rights. The more one can declare as valid property (e.g IP) the better it is for the holder of that property. These motivations for more property do not simply evaporate when the government stops granting monopolies over works.
I'm as against copyright as anyone, but to say the push for it does not arise out of the conditions created by capitalism is false. Besides, in "free market" capitalism, there is still exploitation of the workers and disregard for the environment so long as that disregard does not hamper profits. The fact that there would be no copyright is hardly motivating in these circumstances.
- vedranm 10y agoSome libertarians do not accept the so-called "intellectual property" as a valid form of property, e.g. Kinsella [1, 2]. It's a debatable topic. [1] https://fee.org/resources/intellectual-property-versus-real-property/ https://fee.org/resources/intellectual-property-versus-real-... [2] https://fee.org/articles/how-intellectual-property-hampers-the-free-market/ https://fee.org/articles/how-intellectual-property-hampers-t...
- ue_ 10y agoPrecisely, but my point is that it would be good for any capitalist to consider as many objects as property as possible, for the purpose of claiming rights on that property. The fact that it's not actually property (which I agree with) is irrelevant. If the government were to agree on this point, great. But capitalists don't just throw up their arms and go home. Capitalism has no regard for philosophies such as libertarianism. It crushes everything or finds a way.