Intellectual property, like biopolitics, is not a simple left-right issue. There are arguments for and against patents on human genes, and patents in general, from both progressives and libertarians. Stephan Kinsella, for instance, is a libertarian critic of intellectual property.
...
Complete entry
Posted by
Stephan Kinsella on 08/26 at 04:34 PM
Mr. Hughes,
Thanks for posting my piece, and for your succinct introduction.
FYI, I’ve been active in libertarian theory for almost two decades now. In my view the anti-IP position is dominant among principled libertarians and is growing rapidly, especially among the young. The primary holdouts are: (a) Randians and Galambosians, who have an utterly bizarre, extreme, and quasi-utilitarian approach despite their protestations; and (b) utilitarians who are not very principled, and who take an ad hoc approach to everything.
But the great bulk of libertarians are sold on the anti-IP case by virtue of moral and normative arguments such as those I present in my Against Intellectual Property. But it seems to me the only coherent, principled stance on IP comes from the libertarian side, since it is necessary to have defensible, clear view of property rights and its justification first.
Progressives’ approach to IP is less princilped and less coherent. Some of it is motivated by andi-industrial/anti-capitalist animus: these people agree, with the libertarian IP advocates, that IP is part of capitalism and property rights, and for this reason oppose it. Libertarian IP advocates support IP because they think it is part of property rights.
Posted by
jhughes on 08/27 at 09:07 AM
Well Stephan, you can count me as an opponent of IP overreach, and human gene patents, who comes to my position from utilitarian ethics and socialist political economy. However I am not a utilitarian to the degree that I think that, regardless of social utility, natural facts like genetic sequences should be patentable unless they are truly novel, useful intellectual creations. That principle seems essential on logical and utilitarian grounds.
But I appreciate your cogent and fascinating parsing of why consistent libertarians, or at least “anarcho-Austrians,” should be skeptical of patents and copyrights. Since I don’t agree with your Lockeian deontological assumptions I am less radical, simply wanting to press back against the socially harmful effects of corporate power, while protecting the very narrow socially beneficial uses of IP. In that trench we appear to be shooting in the same direction at the same enemies.
Posted by
Stephan Kinsella on 08/27 at 09:12 AM
I think you left out a “not” before “be” in your second sentence…?
Posted by
Randall Mayes on 08/28 at 05:55 PM
Stephan, I am not familiar with you or your work at all.
I believe we have different psychological perspectives on approaching patenting DNA. I feel connected to the history that has led to the current biotechnology infrastructure. Also, I feel connected to the type of libertarianism advocated by CEI and Cato embracing limited government which is practiced ubiquitously in the US at the municipal, state and federal levels. Since no government entity in the US, that I am aware of anyway, practices the von Mises ideal of political economy, ther must be a disconnect with what is going on and possibly some feeling of alienation.
I do not think that Tom Palmer is an idealogue. Upon reading about his background, I discovered he has affiliations with the Institute for Humane Studies. This would explain his conservative and moral objections to patenting DNA. Obviously, Cato respects his individuality on this issue which contrasts their official position and that is what their brand of libertarianism is all about. In contrast, I would imagine that a Mises scholar would have to quote Rothbard, Mises , or Hayek to give an official position which is my interpretation of an ideologue.
Main Entry: ideo·logue
Variant(s): also idea·logue
Function: noun
Etymology: French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie
Date: 1815
1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
A number of psycholigists refer to the ability to form a sense of self as the final stage of cognitive develoment. Unfortunately, not everyone reaches this stage. I have the highest respect for IHS since Leornard Liggio taught me classical liberalism and I consider him my favorite teacher of all. No one has influenced my politics as much as he has.
Here is an article titled “The FTC’s Suit Against Intel Is an Attempt to Steal Intellectual Property” by: Robert S. Getman on Ayn Rand’s official website regarding monopoly caused by IP. Rand actually feels there is a moral obligation to protect our intellectal capital.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5275
But, actually my quote is referring to David Koepsell’s confusion with how libertarians justify a temporary monopoly. My discussions with other pragmatic liberatian scholars informed me of the heirarchy of core values.
Posted by
Stephan Kinsella on 08/28 at 10:04 PM
Dear Mr. Mayes,
Strain as I might, I am confess that unable to discern even a hint of coherent argument in your no doubt higher level take on things. No doubt this is my own limitation due to being a “von Mises ideologue.” As best I can tell, you feel “connected” to something or another, and that settles it for you. How nice for you. Us lowly “von Mises ideologues” can only strive in vain to reach such lofty heights.
Posted by
cc on 09/06 at 07:32 AM
Is the OP here criticizing all intellectual property or just excessive intellectual property?
Without IP, branding in general would become somewhat worthless if you could start a firm or sell a product with the exact same name and appearance as an existing one.
I can’t really see anyone investing a lot in game development if piracy becomes legal - the day after release prices would drop to the cost of a blank DVD.
Posted by
David Koepsell on 09/06 at 09:42 AM
cc:
A case study in non-IP profit making with software is Id software, whose Doom engine generated many millions for it despite being released into the public domain. Why did people program and continue to improve Linux without IP protection? Open Source licensing is contract law, not a govt-sponsored monopoly, and seems to work for quite a number of software products that are well-trusted, widely-distributed, and moreover, real good products making money too.
best,
David
IEET Blog