I was interviewed yesterday by Mark Edge, as part of his “Edgington Post Interview Series,” for his Free Talk Live radio show, about my Mises Daily article, “Reducing the Cost of IP Law.” The interview is lasts about 35 minutes, and starts at 2:02:36 in the Jan. 20, 2010 show (MP3). Edge conducted an excellent interview–very informed and interesting. And, like many others, he’s come around to the anti-IP position.
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/11509/kinsella-free-talk-live-interview-on-reducing-ip-costs/
Kinsella Free Talk Live Interview on Reducing IP Costs
Previous post: Rothbard on Economic Theory
Next post: Hanke and Hayek vs Bernanke on the Real Estate Bubble
{ 9 comments }
Yes, a very good interview.
Mark is the “minarchist” of the two radio hosts.
Another good interview Stephan, but I have a criticism. I think you try to cram too much into these interviews at times. Instead of trying to handle every possible objection, maybe focus more on the principles behind opposing monopoly, and how IP is monopoly.
Yes Stephan,
I agree with the fellow above. You should concentrate on explaining how private property is just monopoly and we should oppose monopoly based on principles.
In true, hair-splitting Kinsella fashion, we should recognize that it is not monopoly itself that is bad, but monopoly that is based upon the initiation of force. One justly has a monopoly on property that one has justly acquired, that is, through homesteading, voluntary trade or gifting. Unjust monopoly is when one has control over property through the initiation of force.
We must recognize, however that a “monopoly on ideas” is absurd, since ideas are not property. If a man has the right to the product of his mind, that does not give him the right to restrict the product of other people’s minds.
Next up in Kinsella-talk: why “discrimination” is only bad under certain circumstances…
Clem: I am not sure I follow your monopoly nuances.
As for discrimination–of course discrimination is not bad; it means “to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately.” Nothing wrong with that.
But you may also find this article of interest:Supreme Confusion, Or, A Libertarian Defense of Affirmative Action.
Forgive me for being somewhat facetious, but I think a lot of people seem to simply misunderstand the distinctions you’re making. Like discrimination, monopoly in itself isn’t bad. It’s just that the term has been largely used to apply only to monopolies under certain circumstances, and it’s those certain circumstances that are bad.
Clem: “I think a lot of people seem to simply misunderstand the distinctions you’re making.”
Of course. People lack the ability to read or comprehend narrow points. But as Johnson said, “Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.”
“Like discrimination, monopoly in itself isn’t bad.”
Well as Rothbard defines it–a state-granted monopoly–it is.
How dare you provoke the Objectivists with your anti-IP arguments?!?!?!
Kinsella doesn’t know what objectivism is.
Quoting his doublespeak on the ‘Recant’ thread:
the most consistent Objectivists become anarchists (indeed Galt’s Gulch is anarchist). And likewise, a really consistent adherent to these principles would have to oppose not only the state, but legislation and all artificial rights such as IP.
Whereas, Ayn Rand said of the tribal nihilism that would be anarchism:
Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.
The Virtue of Selfishness “The Nature of Government,†The Virtue of Selfishness
Ayn Rand also said of IP:
Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind.
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “Patents and Copyrights,†Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
Be honest Kinsella:
You promote anarchy, the opposite of liberty.
Via your anti-IP thieving stance, you advocate nothing short of slavery of the individual to bloodied altar of the common good of the many.
The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Man’s Rights,†The Virtue of Selfishness.
Or, restate the last sentence:
‘The [author] who produces while [file sharers ] dispose of his product, is a slave.’
By equating anarchism to objectivism you basely represent the latter in a fraudulent manner. You advocate slavery and theft, not liberty and property rights.
And to do all this under the noble name of Mises is appalling, and it tarnishes some of the great scholars who do work on this site.
Comments on this entry are closed.