Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist - Page 11 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
WildTchoupitoulas
LSU Fan
Member since Jan 2010
14584 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

Odds he's trolling?

If he's on this board?

100%.






Back to top
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


NaturalBeam:

quote:


No wonder I struck a nerve earlier



No nerve at all. I have been an outspoken libertarian for a long time and believe me I regularly encounter yahoos like the denizens of this forum.

Rex:
quote:


And yet you're getting positively destroyed in this thread.


No, you oaf. Not one of you morons has yet mounted even the semblance of a coherent argument for IP.

NaturalBeam:
quote:


I guess maybe I deserved some of it - I called the OP author's ideas stupid and asinine. Never realized that author was in the thread.


yathink?

Y.A. Tittle:
quote:


THREE degrees from LSU. Shit's rich.


Actually I never rely on such things or authority etc. It was in response to ignorant comments suggesting otherwise that I responded.


NaturalBeam:

quote:


He leads off with that pretty quickly. Like I said, I've got 3 from LSU as well but I never play that card. I love LSU and all, but it ain't exactly Harvard.



Yes. AS the quality of ignorance in this thread from you jokers shows. (Not that a-hole socialists at Harvard are any better. but you are all just socialists of one stripe or another.)
I didn't "lead off" with anything. This is nonsense. But I bet your "3 degrees" are in some nonsense field. Feminist studies?

Rex:

quote:


He STILL hasn't answered the objection.... SO BLOODY WHAT if "intellectual property" is not technically identical to tangible property?


the purpose of property rights is to address the problem of scarcity that arises due to the nature of some things in reality. For things that are nonscarce then... there is no need for property rules. How can you now see this.

In any case if you are going around with your billybob swagger advocating for laws, the burden is on you to justify it. Period. Unless you don't care to, in which case you are just revealing yourself to be the brute you seem to want to revel in being.

quote:


We have no logical need to call it "intellectual property" at all... call it "moofa" if it makes him feel any better.


nobody cares about the name. the point is: patent and copyrgiht law are unjustified. All your yammering is to distract from the fact that you have yet to mount a case that shows such laws are justified.






Back to top
Rex
LSU Fan
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
54278 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

the purpose of property rights is to address the problem of scarcity that arises due to the nature of some things in reality.

So fricking what? Patent and copyright laws are NOT INTENDED to be technically identical to tangible property rights, so your observation is totally irrelevant... and downright dumb, especially from a patent attorney.
quote:

the point is: patent and copyrgiht law are unjustified.

So you say. So you can't demonstrate. Pardon me if I continue laughing.



eta: And, oh, by the way... PLEASE don't go around bragging to people that you have three degrees from LSU.



This post was edited on 3/22 at 3:42 pm


Back to top
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Rex:

quote:


Patent and copyright laws are NOT INTENDED to be technically identical to tangible property rights, so your observation is totally irrelevant... and downright dumb, especially from a patent attorney.


People like you who revel in your ignorance are one reason I left Louisiana. Jesus. This is pathetic. You obviously don't care anything about truth and coherence.


quote:



" the point is: patent and copyrgiht law are unjustified. "


So you say. So you can't demonstrate. Pardon me if I continue laughing.



The burden is on you justify them. Until you do, they are unjustified. I mean just literally: no one has justified these laws. Where is the justification?







Back to top
Scrowe
New Orleans Saints Fan
Louisiana
Member since Mar 2010
1362 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

the purpose of property rights is to address the problem of scarcity that arises due to the nature of some things in reality. For things that are nonscarce then... there is no need for property rules. How can you now see this.


If it is one person's idea, invention or creative masterpiece is it not scarce? I guess a single occurance of something is not scarce...






Back to top
NaturalBeam
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
13067 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

We have no logical need to call it "intellectual property" at all... call it "moofa" if it makes him feel any better.



nobody cares about the name. the point is: patent and copyrgiht law are unjustified. All your yammering is to distract from the fact that you have yet to mount a case that shows such laws are justified.
WTF?

You only responded to the 1st sentence of his paragraph (which mounted the case you're seeking.

Here's a hint: Just b/c you ignore arguments doesn't mean they aren't being made.






Back to top
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


NaturalBeam:

quote:

WTF?

You only responded to the 1st sentence of his paragraph (which mounted the case you're seeking.

Here's a hint: Just b/c you ignore arguments doesn't mean they aren't being made.


The fact that you think you guys have mounted any real arguments is a sad testament to the state of modern education. You are nothing.






Back to top
WildTchoupitoulas
LSU Fan
Member since Jan 2010
14584 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

You are nothing.



"One of us, one of us..."







Back to top
NaturalBeam
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
13067 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

The fact that you think you guys have mounted any real arguments is a sad testament to the state of modern education. You are nothing.
So b/c you can't answer something, it's b/c it's too dumb. Got it.

This is an impressive troll job, I'll give you credit there.






Back to top
Scrowe
New Orleans Saints Fan
Louisiana
Member since Mar 2010
1362 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

The burden is on you justify them. Until you do, they are unjustified. I mean just literally: no one has justified these laws. Where is the justification?


Yes, because when someone does say something it's put under the big pharmaceutical propoganda umbrella or the "this is all theory and philosophy, how dare you bring the real world into this".

quote:

The fact that you think you guys have mounted any real arguments is a sad testament to the state of modern education.


Yes because you're the only one here who's in his mid 40's. News flash you went through the same educational system.

quote:

You are nothing.


Apparently enough in your eyes to take time out of your busy stay at home dad schedule.

You take a lot of your "my wife makes more than me" along with many other shortcomings out on the interwebs. Hope the insults help you feel better.

For the record, just because you and a few of your lawyer buddies come up with an idea doesn't mean it works in the business realm. See how well lawyers are doing in DC with helping the business realm...






Back to top
NaturalBeam
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
13067 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


I took patent law while at LSU. Interesting course. It definitely was not filled with nutjobs like this cat, fortunately.





Back to top
Doc Fenton
LSU Fan
Member since Feb 2007
50726 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

As for A, the evidence manifestly points against IP. Look at the studies. I have linked many of them in various links here and in the original article.


This is annoying. The original interview article literally has over 100 links in it. It would be more helpful to discussion if you could make a more focused argument rather than engaging in rapid-fire bullet point responses firing off to outside studies that you don't feel the need to discuss.

The link to the article from Der Spiegel attributing 19th century German industrial progress to the unenforceability of its copyright laws is clever, but not very persuasive, nor comprehensive.

You poke fun at me for being "in the grip of scientism and naive empiricism/utilitarianism" when I wrote that the economic effects of IP law are impossible to model because they are so complex, but you say the exact same thing in your 2007 article, " What Are the Costs of the Patent System?"

quote:

...

Yet even if we assume the utilitarian framework for judging the merits of having a patent system–and ignore the economic and moral problems with utilitarianism–it’s obvious that the cost of the patent system is not trivial.

...

What else. There are lots of other costs, but they are too hard to measure, or even estimate with any certainty, along the lines of what is seen–and not seen. We can never know the value of some innovations that would have been produced if the threat of patents had not dissuaded the potential innovator from entering the field. It’s got to be in the billions.

...


Okay. That's correct. So why can't the same argument be made for the benefits?

Also, you linked to a very brief article from BusinessWire.com as an example of "empirical studies." In actuality, it's nothing more than some computer simulation model ("an online simulation game of the patent system, PatentSim") that a law professor from Kansas asked an informatics professor from UC-Irvine to create. If this is an example of the "many" studies to which you've given links, then we've got problems.

Going beyond the interview from the original post in this thread, I see from reviewing the first 6 pages of this thread that you did give the following reference: "Of course--many examples in history. See ch. 9 of Against Intellectual Monopoly by Boldrin and Levine. Open your mind. www.againstmonopoly.org."

In Chapter 9 (pp. 241-269 from LINK), Boldrin & Levine make a historical case against patent law contributing to a healthy pharmaceutical industry, specifically with references to Switzerland and Italy. Indeed, the point of Chapter 9 is summarized as follows:
quote:

You may wonder why we are offering all these details about specific countries, patenting of chemical processes, and pharmaceutical products. For a very simple reason: if patents were a necessary requirement for pharmaceutical innovation as claimed by their supporters, the large historical and cross country variations in the patent protection of medical products should have had a dramatic impact on national pharmaceutical sales. (247)


But this is not logical, #1, because sales volume =/= innovation or technological progress, and #2, because the pharmaceutical industry during the entire period being discussed was multinational. So weak domestic patent protection in a small market like Switzerland should have little effect on the ability of a corporation based in Switzerland to compete in other European markets, such as those in Germany and France.

Big corporations that innovate either have the means to block competition in order to reap profits, or they don't. In the 19th century, German & Swiss firms did, for a variety of reasons. From the book...
quote:

To this initial advantage was added the opportunity to patent products in the U.K. and the U.S., allowing the German chemical companies to erect insurmountable barriers to entry in the chemical market. Do not get us wrong here; we are not claiming the German companies did not use patents in building up their worldwide dominance. They did, and there is no doubt whatsoever that the chemical industry worldwide was an assemblage of more or less loosely held together cartels until the late 1930s, cartels in which the German big chemical companies played a major leading and coordinating role. (248-49)


The authors get into a little bit of trouble when discussing the case of India...
quote:

The growth and vitality of the Indian industry is similar to that of the pre-1978 industry in Italy. In fact much more so, as the sheer size of the national market has turned Indian generic drug producers into big players in the global pharmaceutical industry. (252)

Are they really going to argue that a large generic pharmaceutical industry in India is a sign of vital competition and progress?

Their overall chapter conclusion makes more sense:
quote:

The pharmaceutical malaise has many ingredients – the FDA system of regulation, the entire idea that some drugs should be available by prescription only, the broader problem of health insurance, and who pays for drugs. To argue that the system could be fixed by eliminating patents on pharmaceutical would be foolish. It would be foolish also to think that it would make sense to abolish patents on pharmaceuticals without also reforming the infrastructure – such as the way clinical trials are paid for and made available – at the same time. (268)



So even the authors you cite who provide a historical case that patent protection has done more harm than good, still accept the facts (1) that patents do provide some economic benefits, and (2) that other reforms should be made first before any attempt to abolish them.

...



This post was edited on 3/24 at 12:34 pm


Back to top
Doc Fenton
LSU Fan
Member since Feb 2007
50726 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


...

Despite all your taunts about "question begging," "hand-waving empirical assertions," "propaganda," and not "being serious," it seems to me as if you are the one who isn't serious.

Serious people don't say things like the following: "IN fact all the studies point the other way, yet you guys jsut ignore them."

See " Intellectual Property Rights in the New Economy," by Keith Maskus.

See also the WIPO - UNU Joint Research Project from 2007 on the economic impact of IP systems in six Asian countries.

See also " The Economic Value of Intellectual Property," by Robert J. Shapiro & Kevin A. Hassett.

See also " Does Intellectual Property Protection Spur Technological Change?" by Sunil Kanwar & Robert Evenson.

See also, " Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study," by Edwin Mansfield.

etc., etc., etc.

quote:

It's almost like you are not even serious. You just want to utter a propagandistic truism and be done with it, so that patent and copyright remain in place despite the carping of people who are thinking about it more seriously.


Look in the mirror, bro.

It almost seems like your real motivation for all this over-the-top rhetoric can be found here:

quote:

I was always interested in science, truth, goodness and fairness. I have always been strongly individualistic and merit-oriented. This is probably because I was adopted and thus have always tended to cavalierly dismiss the importance of "blood ties" and any inherited or "unearned" group characteristics. This made me an ideal candidate to be enthralled by Ayn Rand's master-of-universe "I don't need anything from you or owe you anything" themes.

Another factor is my strong sense of outrage at injustice, which probably developed as a result of my hatred of bullies and bullying. I was frequently attacked by them as a kid because I was small for my age, bookish and a smartass. Not a good combination.

A librarian at my high school (Catholic High School in Baton Rouge, Louisiana) one day recommended Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead to me. (I believe this was in 1982, when I was a junior in high school — the same year Rand died.) "Read this. You'll like it," she told me. I devoured it. Rand's ruthless logic of justice appealed to me.


This is like a mirror image, Bizarro World version of a former poster named SpidermanTUba...



But dueling citations and references to authorities or motivations get us nowhere. So if you're asking what my own basic argument is in a nutshell, I'll give it to you.

1. There is a high correlation between nations that respect and enforce IP rights, and the degree of technological innovation that occurs in those nations. This is obvious. The only reasonable counter-argument to the existence of IP is that historical correlation does not equal causation.

2. The political, economic, and legal structures in which technological R&D occurs is so complex that it is virtually impossible to disentangle all the specific forms of direct causation from various individual IP laws. Therefore, the best non-historical arguments in favor of IP will necessarily be rather general and theoretical.

3. The general argument for allowing innovators to temporarily restrict their competition is simple. All that is necessary is to demonstrate that a cost-benefit trade off does in fact occur (as any decent law & econ scholar will tell you) for big corporations or other institutions that turn innovation into a continual capital-intensive process, and that an optimal balance can be struck at some point where the positive net balance to society is at its greatest.

Any argument against this would have to show either (A) that the net balance is always negative (which is simply implausible--see (4) below), or (B) that moral arguments trump economic growth, thus conceding the whole economic argument to begin with. Note that one could argue that the current IP system does more harm than good, and it still would not mean that all IP is bad. Note also that one could argue that public R&D is better than private, and yet that would really just be another form of IP protection, except that the restrictions to private competition would benefit a public/government corporation rather than a private one.

4. When I wrote in (3) about "big corporations or other institutions that turn innovation into a continual capital-intensive process," these do in fact exist, and they do accomplish things that could not be done in the absence of IP protection. Whether we're talking about the university departments that developed electronic computers with the help of government funding, or Bell Laboratories, or IBM, or the Manhattan Project--none of these organizations would have accomplished their technological projects without either government funding or government-provided protection against competitors.

If you are against patent, copyright, and trademark protection, then that only leaves you with fraud and trade secret protection. But this is not enough. Indeed, a major public policy motivation for the preservation of patent law is to incentivize the publishing of private technological trade secrets so that all might share in them after a set period of time, and to avoid the cloak-and-dagger inefficiencies, litigation, and burdensome employment contract restrictions that result from a trade-secret-only paradigm.

It's a beautiful thing to have collaborative open-source innovation occur, but the reality is that for a capitalist system to function properly, entrepreneurs and innovators must be given incentives to make capital intensive investments into risky, long-term projects. When information can be leaked and copied without legal recourse, those incentives are blunted, and moreover, a wasteful amount of resources are spent on building walls of secrecy around industrial knowledge. That's not good for anyone.



This post was edited on 3/24 at 12:49 pm


Back to top


Back to top




//