Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

But IP are I think a natural extension of property rights, if we assume you have the right to own the fruits of what you produce. Of course the arts are so, we can say, irrelevant to sustain any of our basic rights (like the one to live) that we can assume is just a leisure activity. Yet it is not one for the artist, for whom is as important as making things for thw manufacturer or planning buildigs for the architect. What I would assume is that said rights should start and end with the person. If the person dies, so do his rights, unless he transfers them while still alive to his heirs or whoever he wants. Of course this second person wouldn't be able to the same because if not it could be done ad nauseaum till eternity. Once the original benefitiary dies, the work is in the "public domain" or the formula can be used by anyone. That will though have great implications for corporations that rely on their trademarks and secret formulas to survive (famous drink here). Though in the end even this will get solved by itself: anyone could copy this formula but someone will be the best using it, and the original owner will still be able to beat the competition with a better product or by adapting and innovating.

But then the entire thing of actual physical property righs and inheritance would create an incongruence here. Damn is this difficult, trying to make everything make sense.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: It depends. Ayn Rand was a strong supporter of IP rights. Rothbard supported a much more limited notion of what falls under IP. Some completely reject any notion of IP. I don't have a clearly defined opinion. Somethings are clearly not like the house scenario that you mentioned. That will of course generate an unnatural scarcity. Things with the arts get a bit more complicated. Without IP the arts as we know it wouldn't exist. However, that isnt necessarily a problem. Most arguments that say it is seem to assume that the creation of music should be a something that is doable as a means to sustain one's self.  Of course that's not even quite accurate as the way the industry has been changing, with free downloads and donation based profit, no IP laws are required at all.

When you say do-able for an individual's own satisfaction I would probably agree but the whole thing about the arts is that the scarcity arrives from there being a very limited amount of producers the hobbyist will agree to purchase from.
If that were not the case we'd all be doing it? You are certainly right that the entertainment industry and our means of sourcing art is changing rapidly, but what I think will remain is the unchanging fact that more people are willing to pay to see David Beckham do his day job than they would mine (finance officer - yawn)


Edited by ExittheLemming - January 16 2011 at 15:16

It depends. Ayn Rand was a strong supporter of IP rights. Rothbard supported a much more limited notion of what falls under IP. Some completely reject any notion of IP.

T, I didn't know you were a vegetarian.

Time for my biggest philosophical problem with libertarianism but one which probably is rather minor as it's, let's say, not human related. Animal rights. Under a strict libertarian society could we really make whatever we want with other forms of life which, in my view (and this will never change since it's onw of the few ideas that have a stronghold on my belief system since childhood) have the same right as us humans to life. I was very concerned until I found this article. I fully agree with it.

probably

thanks


Edited by timothy leary - January 16 2011 at 14:07

So you agree then that the land could potentially be put to much better use? Thank you.

timothy leary wrote: The main benefit is the protection of fragile eco systems which allow the bird to maintain their flyways.

The main benefit is the protection of fragile eco systems which allow the bird to maintain their flyways.