Libertarianism & Intellectual property

[Comrade #138672]

Since libertarians love the free market and especially don't like laws stealing the freedom from the market. Doesn't that imply the laws protecting "intellectual property" and patents would not be able to exist? These laws interfere with the free market, destroying a part of the potential competition that could be providing cheaper alternatives.

Libertarians seem so fond of their possessions. They don't like it when they're being "stolen" from, including the government. The few libertarians that I've spoken with think of intellectual property as if it's real property that can be stolen. How are they going to protect their (intellectual) property without the law?

So to me it seems they're contradicting themselves, but I may be looking at it the "wrong" way.

[eric922]

Let me give you some advice. Don't think too hard about right-wing libertarianism. It doesn't make any sense and you'll just give yourself a headache. For example. their stance on corporations is another contradiction. If they don't want government interference in the market then they should naturally oppose corporations which are created by the government, and yet they strongly support them.

[The Idler]

This is actually very divisive in the libertarian movement and a very good question. It strikes at the heart of their facade of freedom, when in fact they are defending property. Stephen Kinsella actually opposes intellectual property that is published being protected for this reason but many libertarians defend protection of intellectual property that is published.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

If they don't want government interference in the market then they should naturally oppose corporations which are created by the government, and yet they strongly support them.

I'm no defender of right-wing libertarianism, but I thought they did oppose corporations?

[Raúl Duke]

Foremost, libertarians are "for property."

Sometimes they term property as if it's an abstract right, one which stealing/vandalizing/etc is considered some sort of "morally wrong" action.

In the end, we all know that you need a body of laws and armed men (institutionalized violence), something that the state provides, for the construct of property to stick in reality. Whether or not "an-caps" realize this or not instead of their fantasy abstraction of "property as inalienable human right," they still propose forms of institutionalized violence to make sure the concept of property is still enforced in human society.

However, concerning intellectual property, I've seen libertarians argue with one another over this stuff...some not wanting intellectual property protections while others yes using who knows what, perhaps non-sense abstract (maybe even treating the issue as an ethical one :rolleyes: ), reasons and arguments.

[eric922]

I'm no defender of right-wing libertarianism, but I thought they did oppose corporations?
Maybe they are divided then, but most I've talked to support them.

[Comrade #138672]

Foremost, libertarians are "for property."

Sometimes they term property as if it's an abstract right, one which stealing/vandalizing/etc is considered some sort of "morally wrong" action.

In the end, we all know that you need a body of laws and armed men (institutionalized violence), something that the state provides, for the construct of property to stick in reality. Whether or not "an-caps" realize this or not instead of their fantasy abstraction of "property as inalienable human right," they still propose forms of institutionalized violence to make sure the concept of property is still enforced in human society.

However, concerning intellectual property, I've seen libertarians argue with one another over this stuff...some not wanting intellectual property protections while others yes using who knows what, perhaps non-sense abstract (maybe even treating the issue as an ethical one :rolleyes: ), reasons and arguments.That gives me an idea. I have a question about linguistics. I don't know much about linguistics, so correct me if I'm wrong.

"Property" and its usage seem more typical for American English than other branches of the English language. Isn't it a little coincidental that, from the perspective that people are being brainwashed by the concept of property, property is a homonym meaning either possession or feature. In Dutch, my primary language, there's no such homonym. Could it be that Americans, partly because of this homonym, unconsciously identify themselves with their possessions as if they were inherent features of themselves? In other words, property is a property of Americans.

What's the use of knowing this, if it's true? Perhaps it's possible to diminish the importance of property by avoiding its usage as if it were politically incorrect to do so; to slow down the propagation of the meme. If enough people avoid its usage, it will (roughly) disappear from the language, including its meanings and connotations. This may contribute to improved political thinking.

[Kotze]

First of all, I find the term Intellectual Property very fuzzy and will take it to refer only to patents in the following :P

I don't think you got a representative sample of libertarians, and there are indeed those in favour and those against, with arguments you also hear elsewhere.

The pro-patent person says something like this: Suppose you make a brilliant invention, people eagerly copy it and wouldn't you want to be compensated for your brain-work.

The anti-patent person says: Suppose you come up with an idea, but somebody else had the same idea earlier (or a similar one (or a not very similar one according to you but your opinion doesn't count), and so the government prevents you from doing something with it unless you pay a fee set by the idea-owning monopolist.

I recall Rand being in favour of patents and Mises being somewhat on the fence (he noted that temporary monopolies are an incentive for innovation, but that patents are not the only way to have this since emulation itself takes time). I also vaguely recall an essay by Fritz Machlup about how arbitrary the patent system is and reasons against it, though in the end he didn't call for an immediate abolishment or anything.

My experience has been that especially the younger libertarians tend to be against.

[x-punk]

I think many ancaps and libertarians are against intellectual property because it involves state interference which prohibits the the sharing or duplication (that which the state defines as stealing) of these ideas.

Stealing, in the traditional sense, involves taking something from someone so they no longer have access and use of it and you now do. Stealing of intellectual property involves duplication of the idea but with no loss of utility to the original owner / creator.

The problem with this view is that IMO the state is required to define all private property rights and what constitutes stealing. The libs and ancaps put forward fairly weak arguments about how certain things can be owned and others cant usually just to suit their own interests. Thus for people who subscribe to these theories its really a matter of personal opinion what they can and cant own whether it be ideas, corporations, land and natural resources etc