[lbo-talk] Intellectual property rights, free trade, and free markets

[// ravi]

On Aug 8, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ken: "I have often been been puzzled by the fact that most defenders
>> of capitalism and free markets are also firm defenders of
>> Intellectual Property rights. These rights ensure that companies and
>> authors have monopolies and run counter to the spread of ideas and
>> competition among companies in free markets. The whole idea is to
>> prevent competition.”
> 
> [WS:] Do not expect logical consistency from the defenders of
> privilege.  "Free market" is sugar coating for medieval domination.
> It is absolute freedom and protections for haves and competition and
> market discipline for have-nots, stupid.  Intellectual property rights
> are good because they protect the former from the encroachments by the
> latter.  By the same logic - social welfare is bad and against free
> market, but bank bailouts and corporate subsidies are good and
> perfectly compatible with free market.
> 
> Pointing logical contradictions in what these people say is a waste of
> time.  A better way is to chop off the heads that hold these ideas -
> as good old revolutionaries did.  All crowned heads deserve a
> guillotine.
> 

Woj, I am not sure I agree with the above. AFAIK, for Adam Smith and Enlightenment liberals the free market and capitalism were a means to an end that included general welfare and common good. They were convinced from their “understanding” of “human nature” that a free market was the way to get there, but they also called for explicit attention to moral goals/outcomes. Modern conservatives/libertarians, from what I can tell, proceed rather from a goal of purely individual rights point of view. The goal is the preservation of an individual’s rights, which is to say, his ability to just about do anything as long as it does not directly and demonstrably harm another individual. Free market and capitalism as a means, to them, are expressions of this goal and make sense only insofar as they preserve/enhance individual liberties and prevent expropriation of his/her effort. The way I see it, for a Smithian or old-school capitalist or free-marketeer IP rights are problematic because they make the market inefficient. They face this and other paradoxes and invent ad hoc fixes (e.g: trust busting) rather than examine their assumptions. For the modern conservative/libertarian, OTOH, the goal of the free market is not about the “spread of ideas” or “competition”, but the safeguarding of individual rights in the marketplace. The market remains “free” as long as it does not trample the rights of the individual to participate in his own terms (including the choice of non-participation). There is no conflict since general welfare is *not* a goal (that’s under the purview of religion and charity).

At least that’s how I see it,

	—ravi