4 ms·

IP is a case of the government forbidding you from using the matter and energy you own in certain ways. I never understand libertarians who love government-gran

IP is a case of the government forbidding you from using the matter and energy you own in certain ways. I never understand libertarians who love government-granted IP rights.

mikeyouse 13y ago
Are there really people who feel like the government shouldn't enforce property rights? Aren't those just called anarchists?
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  See my sibling post for more on my own opinion on the matter, but that all hinges on whether or not you consider IP property rights. Is the exclusive right to use an idea an inherent, basic human right, like freedom-of-religion or freedom-of-speech? Or is it a government granted monopoly?
  - notahacker 13y ago
    All property is a government granted monopoly in the present system, although much of it would be accepted through social convention or defensible by private force in the absence of government. Copyright/patents would probably be defensible for the sufficiently powerful too...
    - TallGuyShort 13y ago
      Of course, the libertarian perspective is that the government's ability to grant those monopolies is granted by the people to whom that property belongs. The rights don't come from the government, the rights are just there. The government sees to it they are not infringed upon.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > See my sibling post for more on my own opinion on the matter, but that all hinges on whether or not you consider IP property rights. Is the exclusive right to use an idea an inherent, basic human right, like freedom-of-religion or freedom-of-speech? Or is it a government granted monopoly? All property rights are government-granted monopolies (including rights to real property and tangible personal property), whether or not they are also inherent, basic human rights.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  You mean on real property or on gov't invented property created through government "interference" and "regulation" over free markets? I don't see how having gov't create a right around "patents" (non-tangible "property") is any different than any other gov't regulation that libertarians rail against. (Taxes? Those are just GP "government property".)
  - mikeyouse 13y ago
    So there is no such thing as intellectual property? If Pfizer spends $10B over two decades to develop a drug, JohnDoe Co. can recreate it on day-1 in the market and compete against Pfizer without penalty? Do people really want to live in that world?
    - darkarmani 13y ago
      There is no such thing as IP until created by what people in other instances would call "gov't interference." I understand the trade-offs involved and I'm not actually arguing for no IP, but more about the fact that it is held sacred, but any time the gov't does anything else that is "bad."
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > You mean on real property or on gov't invented property created through government "interference" and "regulation" over free markets? By "real property" are you referring to government-created exclusive rights over land (which is what the term actually means), or are you referring to government-created exclusive rights over tangible portable assets (which is "tangible personal property" rather than "real property", but frequently mistakenly referred to as "real property" by the kind of people that criticize "imaginary property"), and, in either case, how are these government-created exclusive rights different meaningfully different than government "interference" and "regulation" over "free markets"?
    - darkarmani 13y ago
      I meant both. Land, improvements on the land, and any affixed items and also the opposite of fake. I don't think those gov't created rights are any different than any other gov't regulation, which is why i put it in scare quotes. People worship those property rights created and enforced by the gov't, but call the same amount of "interference" in other areas as regulation.
TallGuyShort 13y ago
As a bit of a libertarian myself, I think I have two points to add. First, IP doesn't (I think) and shouldn't ever stop you from doing whatever you want for yourself. I can infringe all the patents I want if I'm using my matter and energy to make stuff myself. When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. Which brings me to my second and harder-to-explain point. I'm still thinking through this myself so healthy debate is welcomed :) Libertarians generally believe the government should exist enough to protect individual rights. They're okay with the government getting involved to stop one person from destroying another person's life or property. Although I'm all for innovation, I think there's a certain amount of lameness when people immediately steal another person's ideas just to compete directly against them. In such cases, I think a certain amount of IP is inherent and the government merely protects rights that already exist. I certainly agree with you that once patents can be sold multiple times and non-practicing entities can sue, this idea goes right out the window and I would completely agree with you. Even when I think it's just lame to take another's original idea and use it against them, I admit that lame != illegal, which is why I think it's a hard line to draw, and I'm not entirely convinced of my own opinion here - I'm just saying I think the increased transparency would be a definite improvement.
- marshray 13y ago
  > When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. You call yourself a 'libertarian'?
  - danielweber 13y ago
    No true Libertarian would believe X.
  - TallGuyShort 13y ago
    I described myself as "a bit of a Libertarian" because I generally agree with all major points on their platform - not because I change my opinion to match their platform. I also didn't say the government "should" step in - I said the government "does" step in - because currently they do not prevent you from using ideas in patents for personal use.
tzs 13y ago
> I never understand libertarians who love government-granted IP rights. Under some very influential libertarian theories of property (e.g., John Locke's), IP rights arise as natural rights the same way that rights in real estate or personal property arise, and so should be protected by government to the same extent as any other natural property right.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > IP rights arise as natural rights the same way that rights in real estate or personal property arise, and so should be protected by government to the same extent as any other natural property right. That's ridiculous. Real estate and personal property has natural scarcity, but for "IP" the gov't is enforcing scarcity to make it profitable. A fair comparison would be someone discovering an ocean and then "owning" all oceans around the world. IP rights would arise as natural rights if you never shared your idea with anyone else.
  - tzs 13y ago
    Why do you think scarcity should have anything to do with the vesting of property rights in something? Under most libertarian theories of property rights that I'm familiar with, property rights vest when something is made useful. For instance, property rights in unowned land vest when someone puts the land to productive use. If you have a farm, and you have such a bountiful harvest that you end up producing so much food that you can't possibly use it or sell it all before it rots, under your theory of property would that excess food no longer be your property, because food is no longer a scarce resource for you?
    - darkarmani 13y ago
      > If you have a farm, and you have such a bountiful harvest that you end up producing so much food that you can't possibly use it or sell it all before it rots, under your theory of property would that excess food no longer be your property, because food is no longer a scarce resource for you? Only if according to the same logic it can be said the excess food is no longer your property because it is no longer useful as it is rotting. Why would anyone need your food if there is no scarcity? They could go claim some "unowned" food somewhere else. Just like they could "clone" your ideas without depriving you of your idea. Property rights wouldn't be a very big issue without the scarcity.

IP is a case of the government forbidding you from using the matter and energy you own in certain ways. I never understand libertarians who love government-granted IP rights.

mikeyouse 13y ago

Are there really people who feel like the government shouldn't enforce property rights? Aren't those just called anarchists?

TallGuyShort 13y ago
See my sibling post for more on my own opinion on the matter, but that all hinges on whether or not you consider IP property rights. Is the exclusive right to use an idea an inherent, basic human right, like freedom-of-religion or freedom-of-speech? Or is it a government granted monopoly?
- notahacker 13y ago
  All property is a government granted monopoly in the present system, although much of it would be accepted through social convention or defensible by private force in the absence of government. Copyright/patents would probably be defensible for the sufficiently powerful too...
  - TallGuyShort 13y ago
    Of course, the libertarian perspective is that the government's ability to grant those monopolies is granted by the people to whom that property belongs. The rights don't come from the government, the rights are just there. The government sees to it they are not infringed upon.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > See my sibling post for more on my own opinion on the matter, but that all hinges on whether or not you consider IP property rights. Is the exclusive right to use an idea an inherent, basic human right, like freedom-of-religion or freedom-of-speech? Or is it a government granted monopoly? All property rights are government-granted monopolies (including rights to real property and tangible personal property), whether or not they are also inherent, basic human rights.
darkarmani 13y ago
You mean on real property or on gov't invented property created through government "interference" and "regulation" over free markets? I don't see how having gov't create a right around "patents" (non-tangible "property") is any different than any other gov't regulation that libertarians rail against. (Taxes? Those are just GP "government property".)
- mikeyouse 13y ago
  So there is no such thing as intellectual property? If Pfizer spends $10B over two decades to develop a drug, JohnDoe Co. can recreate it on day-1 in the market and compete against Pfizer without penalty? Do people really want to live in that world?
  - darkarmani 13y ago
    There is no such thing as IP until created by what people in other instances would call "gov't interference." I understand the trade-offs involved and I'm not actually arguing for no IP, but more about the fact that it is held sacred, but any time the gov't does anything else that is "bad."
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > You mean on real property or on gov't invented property created through government "interference" and "regulation" over free markets? By "real property" are you referring to government-created exclusive rights over land (which is what the term actually means), or are you referring to government-created exclusive rights over tangible portable assets (which is "tangible personal property" rather than "real property", but frequently mistakenly referred to as "real property" by the kind of people that criticize "imaginary property"), and, in either case, how are these government-created exclusive rights different meaningfully different than government "interference" and "regulation" over "free markets"?
  - darkarmani 13y ago
    I meant both. Land, improvements on the land, and any affixed items and also the opposite of fake. I don't think those gov't created rights are any different than any other gov't regulation, which is why i put it in scare quotes. People worship those property rights created and enforced by the gov't, but call the same amount of "interference" in other areas as regulation.

TallGuyShort 13y ago

As a bit of a libertarian myself, I think I have two points to add. First, IP doesn't (I think) and shouldn't ever stop you from doing whatever you want for yourself. I can infringe all the patents I want if I'm using my matter and energy to make stuff myself. When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. Which brings me to my second and harder-to-explain point. I'm still thinking through this myself so healthy debate is welcomed :) Libertarians generally believe the government should exist enough to protect individual rights. They're okay with the government getting involved to stop one person from destroying another person's life or property. Although I'm all for innovation, I think there's a certain amount of lameness when people immediately steal another person's ideas just to compete directly against them. In such cases, I think a certain amount of IP is inherent and the government merely protects rights that already exist. I certainly agree with you that once patents can be sold multiple times and non-practicing entities can sue, this idea goes right out the window and I would completely agree with you. Even when I think it's just lame to take another's original idea and use it against them, I admit that lame != illegal, which is why I think it's a hard line to draw, and I'm not entirely convinced of my own opinion here - I'm just saying I think the increased transparency would be a definite improvement.

marshray 13y ago
> When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. You call yourself a 'libertarian'?
- danielweber 13y ago
  No true Libertarian would believe X.
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  I described myself as "a bit of a Libertarian" because I generally agree with all major points on their platform - not because I change my opinion to match their platform. I also didn't say the government "should" step in - I said the government "does" step in - because currently they do not prevent you from using ideas in patents for personal use.

tzs 13y ago

> I never understand libertarians who love government-granted IP rights. Under some very influential libertarian theories of property (e.g., John Locke's), IP rights arise as natural rights the same way that rights in real estate or personal property arise, and so should be protected by government to the same extent as any other natural property right.

darkarmani 13y ago
> IP rights arise as natural rights the same way that rights in real estate or personal property arise, and so should be protected by government to the same extent as any other natural property right. That's ridiculous. Real estate and personal property has natural scarcity, but for "IP" the gov't is enforcing scarcity to make it profitable. A fair comparison would be someone discovering an ocean and then "owning" all oceans around the world. IP rights would arise as natural rights if you never shared your idea with anyone else.
- tzs 13y ago
  Why do you think scarcity should have anything to do with the vesting of property rights in something? Under most libertarian theories of property rights that I'm familiar with, property rights vest when something is made useful. For instance, property rights in unowned land vest when someone puts the land to productive use. If you have a farm, and you have such a bountiful harvest that you end up producing so much food that you can't possibly use it or sell it all before it rots, under your theory of property would that excess food no longer be your property, because food is no longer a scarce resource for you?
  - darkarmani 13y ago
    > If you have a farm, and you have such a bountiful harvest that you end up producing so much food that you can't possibly use it or sell it all before it rots, under your theory of property would that excess food no longer be your property, because food is no longer a scarce resource for you? Only if according to the same logic it can be said the excess food is no longer your property because it is no longer useful as it is rotting. Why would anyone need your food if there is no scarcity? They could go claim some "unowned" food somewhere else. Just like they could "clone" your ideas without depriving you of your idea. Property rights wouldn't be a very big issue without the scarcity.