3 ms·
As I understand it, Austrian economists tend to define property with respect to scarce goods; because intellectual property is not a scarce good, they (and, in
by splat 17y ago
As I understand it, Austrian economists tend to define property with respect to scarce goods; because intellectual property is not a scarce good, they (and, in particular, those at the Mises Institute) argue that an individual cannot legitimately own it as "property." Instead, they view "intellectual property" as something of an oxymoron. More properly, it is a government enforced monopoly on particular ideas -- not property at all.
For much more about Austrian views on intellectual property, take a look at Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella.
- dantheman 17y agoYou are 100% correct. The fact that it's called intellectual property is a misnomer, it's a temporary government granted monopoly. One common confusion is that Trademarks are often called intellectual property where they are more realistically anti-fraud devices. Though I believe that a trademark can only then be enforced by the defrauded party (the person buying the knockoff good) the person being knocked off has no recourse, unless they purchase the knockoff.
- codexon 17y agoWouldn't intellectual property be scarce if there was no incentive to make it known to the public such as Coca Cola's secret recipe?