Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
My question was aimed at Nod, since from memory he opposes taxation on ethical grounds, not practical ones.
The point is that "right" Libertarians (to me) seem to say that they oppose taxation/welfare systems on moral/ethical gorunds - that it is wrong to curb freedom and so even if taxation did lead to economic benefits it should still be opposed. But with patents all ethical grounds (to me at least) seem to be dropped and we're back to pragmatism. I'm interested in the (apparent) contradiction.
|
I think the contradiction exists only if you don't believe in intellectual property. If you believe in IP then of course the state should protect your rights to your IP (just as the state should protect your rights to your physical property). If you don't believe in IP, then yeah, patents and copyrights would be just arbitrary state-backed coercion.
Quote:
|
If there is some sort of ethical defence of patents then I honestly don't see what difference the cost of invention makes. If I invent a cure for cancer in my garage somehow (costing me practically nothing) are we saying that I "deserve" no legal protection because I incurred no costs?
|
Agreed. The cost of producing IP is irrelevant.
__________________
The Ottawa Citizen and Southam News wish to apologize for our apology to Mark Steyn, published Oct. 22. In correcting the incorrect statements about Mr. Steyn published Oct. 15, we incorrectly published the incorrect correction. We accept and regret that our original regrets were unacceptable and we apologize to Mr. Steyn for any distress caused by our previous apology.