But the “state” he opposes here does not even fit the definition offered by Hoppe in his reference.

Sure it does. Ask Hans. He agrees with me.

Fundamentally, one must wonder who, how and why the initial “grants” of such a power would occur?

I should have said it seizes the monopoly, not that it is granted it. In fact I’ll fix that. thanks.

None of this matters to Kinsella, because the desired premise is “first comes monopoly power”, with such ludicrous equivocation that it matters not at all whether this power arises from self-government free-will, or military coup.

you may have heard of us, Wildberry–we are called “libertarians.” We hate the state. Unlike state-lovers like you.

Next, the state

…uses this position to grant monopolies, such as patent and copyright, to favored recipients.

Is Kinsella speaking of “Letters of Marque” as if they are contemporaneous and equivalent to modern or even historical U.S. copyright and patent laws? That is dramatic imagery and rhetoric, but has little if any resemblance to reality.

No, dude, patent and copyright. They are, you know, granted, you know, by the state, you know, to favored recipients.

If laws can be passed to extend the term of copyrights, laws can also be passed to shorten them, or abolish copyright entirely.

Yes, and someone is rotting in jail for smoking marijuana, the state could have abolished drug laws. I’m sure that hypothetical alternative universe idea comforts the guys kidnapped by your state.

These recipients are thus able to charge monopoly prices..

Does he mean monopoly market prices, for which there is some disagreement among his favorite scholars as to whether they can even exist

Rothbard and Hoppe are correct that there is no objective definition of a monopoly price on the market. ONly when the state imposes one. You konw, by granting patent or copyright monopolies.

The very reason that the system of copyrights and patents is broken can largely be explained by these conditions of bought-and-paid-for legislative bias. One need not be an anarchist to be opposed to these investment in political means to destroy the public right to the original and legitimate ends that IP laws are designed to achieve.

No, but it sure helps!

He begins with the assertion that:

“First the state is granted a monopoly in dispensing justice.2”

But the “state” he opposes here does not even fit the definition offered by Hoppe in his reference. I’m sure he means to rely on the idea that all “states” involve a monopoly on “ultimate decision-making” especially those issues involving the state itself. But this completely ignores and negates any distinctions concerning personal or subject matter jurisdiction, or a form of “state” that at least in theory is designed to have judicial and constitutional oversight authority over legislative and executive acts enacted by legally elected representatives.

Fundamentally, one must wonder who, how and why the initial “grants” of such a power would occur?

None of this matters to Kinsella, because the desired premise is “first comes monopoly power”, with such ludicrous equivocation that it matters not at all whether this power arises from self-government free-will, or military coup.

Taxation, the second element of Hoppe’s definition is likewise ambiguous to the point of being meaningless. Is the imposition of a tax by royal decree and enforced by an occupying military force equivalent to a constitutionally legal tax as means for attaining publically chosen ends?

Next, the state

…uses this position to grant monopolies, such as patent and copyright, to favored recipients.

Is Kinsella speaking of “Letters of Marque” as if they are contemporaneous and equivalent to modern or even historical U.S. copyright and patent laws? That is dramatic imagery and rhetoric, but has little if any resemblance to reality.

If laws can be passed to extend the term of copyrights, laws can also be passed to shorten them, or abolish copyright entirely. And just who are these powerbrokers who have the means to do these things? As far as I know, we do not fall under the jurisdiction of a King or other Great Dictator, and as far as I know there has not been a military coup in the U.S. I think he must mean citizens “grant” power to its government by legal and constitutional means.

It would be at least somewhat accurate to say that the (U.S.) government grants limited monopoly rights to authors and inventors of subject matter falling under the jurisdiction of constitutionally and legally enacted legislation.

Next Kinsella says:

These recipients are thus able to charge monopoly prices..

Does he mean monopoly market prices, for which there is some disagreement among his favorite scholars as to whether they can even exist, or private property monopoly, which is a feature of any and all private property, in which the owner has the right by virtue of his right to exclusive use, to act from his monopoly of that use? Mises warns against equivocating on these two connotations of monopoly, for in one use Kinsella is clearly wrong (no one owns “all books” for example) but in the other use, he is certainly right.

Finally, he describes mercantilism, or neo-mercantilism (encompassing collusion between business and government beyond trade tariffs) which is mostly true. The very reason that the system of copyrights and patents is broken can largely be explained by these conditions of bought-and-paid-for legislative bias. One need not be an anarchist to be opposed to these investment in political means to destroy the public right to the original and legitimate ends that IP laws are designed to achieve.

And so the cycle continues.

Yes it does. The cycle to which I am referring is that of distorting the issues of IP for the purpose of furthering an agenda that holds that the “state”, an ultimate equivocation in itself, must be abolished in the name of freedom and liberty, which naturally includes freedom from IP. The primary objective here is the elimination of the state, and eliminating IP is just one so-called benefit of that objective.

This entire position has been effectively reduced to a protest slogan: “Hate the State. We have IP because we have the State. Hate IP.”

What is surprising is the spectacle of some libertarians bending over backward to try to justify this…”

Exactly.