Against Monopoly

defending the right to innovate

Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.

Creation as a source of rights?

I've noted many times that one fallacious line of reasoning in support of intellectual property is the idea that creation is an independent source of rights. In libertarian circles, I have begun to refer to this as "libertarian creationism." I critique this notion, inherent in a recent paper by libertarian philosopher Tibor Machan, in the comments here.

[Posted at 04/04/2008 11:27 AM by Stephan Kinsella on Is IP Property comments(6)]

Comments

Well, creation giving rise to private possession and consequently private property is a pretty fundamental natural right. You weave a basket or figure out how better to make fire and these things are fundamentally the creator's material and intellectual property. Nothing fallacious about that whatsoever.

The fallacy comes in thinking that a creator retains some aspect of ownership over material or intellectual property even after they've parted with it or reproduced it. There is no continuation of ownership, even partially, only the inviolate truth of creation, e.g. "Spode made me".

To think that a human creator operates as some supernatural deity and continues to deserve a controlling interest in how their creations are utilised, reproduced, or exchanged, AFTER they have clearly left the possession of their creator, is not at all a libertarian notion.

[Comment at 04/05/2008 07:03 AM by Crosbie Fitch]

Should read "parted with it or its reproductions."

[Comment at 04/05/2008 07:55 AM by Crosbie Fitch]

If indeed the discoverer of an idea has a property right in that idea, what is to stop him from selling only on the condition that the buyer does not enter into competition with him? Going from copyright and patents to absolute intellectual property rights does not seem to be much of an improvement.

[Comment at 04/06/2008 05:20 PM by Kid]

Kid, whilst people should be free to make bargains with each other (contract) they should not be able to contract away their inalienable rights to liberty, truth, privacy, and life. Thus no-one can contract to avoid competition. They may accept payment for not competing, but they may not surrender their right to compete.

[Comment at 04/07/2008 08:40 AM by Crosbie Fitch]

If Alice can accept payment for not to competing with me, I could simply charge that payment back to her in the price of the original sale.

Absolute intellectual property rights make it easier to maintain intellectual monopoly.

[Comment at 04/11/2008 10:02 AM by Kid]

You mean I'm not allowed to make the non-compete contract a condition of the sale? That is easily resolved. I charge a zillion dollars for my idea, and as a special bargain, I offer to pay a zillion dollars minus my price to anybody that has bought my idea if they agree not to compete with me.

[Comment at 04/11/2008 10:10 AM by Kid]