Adam Gessaman replies to my thoughts on Intellectual "Property" with regards to Aaron Swartz and Nick Bradbury.#

Another not-so-hypothetical example: Drug companies invest millions in R&D so they can develop new chemical compounds to stave off the effects of AIDS. They invest labor and extract property — but to what extent? Currently, they receive patents which guarantee their monopolistic control over the particular compound for a rather lengthy duration (in terms of lives lost for lack of the drug). Do I think that they deserve the right to exercise their labor to create an 'overplus' and thereby make a profit? Yes. Definitely. The question, however, is whether it is in societies best interest to grant them a monopoly in the form of a patent.

[...]

Jay, I really don't disagree with you that monopolies inhibit "Efficiency of the market, the Liberty of potential competitors, the Bottom-Line of the company, and the Utility of the consumer". I simply point out that there is a difference between a property created through intellectual labor which takes a specific and 'tangible' form (bits on the hard drive), and the intangible Intellectual Property, the power of which patents serve to expand beyond reason.

We disagree here. The difference between the bits and the idea is merely a matter of where you draw the line of granting monopolistic privilege. And, in fact, in the United States they draw both lines depending how you want to go about it--the only reason that three-paned aggregators are not patented is because no one patented one, not because they can not have been patented.

I don't think that any patents should be allowed. I find it to be inarguable that they do not decrease competition and thus innovation. Competition is good for consumers. Innovation is good for producers (new opportunities for money) and consumers (new things available.) So patents retard both sides.

(And copyrights are just a more specific patent that lasts longer and has no appreciable difference in how it is argued against.)

This comment by Adam strikes me as strange:

I think you are right to define Right as the maximizing of Liberty, but I'm not so sold on the Efficiency argument. I would rather that society pursue the Common Good.

What is the "Common Good"? If the Common Good is goodness for all, then it seems to me that the best way to pursue the Common Good is to allow every person to pursue their own Good in the freest possible way and not be allowed to deplete another's Good by coercion (i.e. They may not take the Life, Liberty, or Property of another.) That way people can only increase their Good, and never decrease another's, and because people are interested in their Good (we have defined it in this way,) they WILL increase their Good. So, now because everyone is working for their Good, the "Common Good" goes up.

Suppose you disagree with that, that suggest to me that you think there is something more important than an individual's life and Good: the Good of others. Who gets to decide to decide who's life is worthless than the group's life? In the Libertarian mindset, the individual is put first because any other way of thinking leads to Murder, Slavery, and Theft.

Now, to tie this back to monopolies, monopolies (de jure) impede my pursuit of Liberty. Why? A de jure monopoly (copyright or patent) is a promise by the government to point a gun at anyone who tries to compete with the monopolist. If you try and sell a three-paned aggregator, we will threaten you with force until you stop. If you try and sell a medicine like Company A's, we will threaten you with force until you stop.

This is not to say that companies must be forced to reveal their source code or explain their drugs, although in these two cases those are important qualities that lead to a product's adoption, just that they may not restrict my Liberty.

The Liberty of everyone is the real Common Good, because with out it nothing else matters.