This is a question that has plagued Libertarians for some time. Separating followers of Ayn Rand from those of Murray Rothbard is no small task, but IP arguments are just irritating and divisive enough to do exactly that.
Most intellectual property laws were enacted near the beginning of the 20th Century. Obviously inventions and the arts flourished before this time, so protective laws are not necessary for their innovation or creation.
However, a world entirely devoid of intellectual property laws could admiss people duplicating books, music, and fine arts creations and passing them off as their own. Surely it would seem odd if a stranger brought a copy of Canterbury Tales to a publishing house, and legally passed it off as his own.
Although most of us would consider this an extreme case, that is exactly Rothbard's argument against IP laws. He claims that government's involvement necessitates arbitrary judgments in application saying, "By what standard do you judge that research expenditures are 'too much,' 'too little,' or just about enough?" By what standard do you judge that research expenditures are 'too much,' 'too little,' or just about enough?"
On the other hand, products made in imitation of successful models could potentially corrupt the reputation of the original, an offense that could be considered fraud and, as such, indisputably denounced by libertarians.
This subject remains perplexing to me, and I would love to hear any additional arguments via the comments thread.
I am 100% for IP laws within reason. Like Rand, I see no justice in a society where one's creation could be immitated, corrupted, etc. with no legal recourse.
ReplyDeleteI find the subject very, very hard to place my thumb on. At times I see that IP is very true, but in some regards, taken to a horrible extreme. I guess that I ultimately feel as though IP is property, nonetheless, and thus must be protected by the government. for it is our government's role to protect our lives, liberties, and property.
ReplyDelete