Episode 384 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and nominating new Supreme Court justices in an election year; Biden and presidential debates; origins of political party colors red and blue; meeting Harry Browne; The Law That Never Was by Bill Benson and the 16th Amendment (income taxation); Cracking the Code by Peter Hendrickson; Irwin Schiff and income taxation fraudulence by the US Federal Government; the difference between libertarians and modern conservatives / modern liberals; government interference in market relationships; nonvoting and culpability for bad politicians; private censorship and when it becomes aggressive; historical capitalism verse free markets; intellectual property disagreements; and more.
This episode features a talk by libertarian theorist and patent attorney Stephan Kinsella from 2011. Kinsella looks at the effects of patents and copyrights on economic development.
Episode 327 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: attacking social media censorship on intellectual property protection grounds; repeating the state’s demands is it’s own form of bootlicking; forcing your children to offer an insincere apology is teaching them to lie; do we live in a free county of public discourse is dominated by politics?; and more.
The Marine Corps isn’t a private commercial entity. Nor should its symbols — which date back to 1868 in current form, to 1775 in various forms, and ultimately to the British marines the US based its service’s composition and mission on — be treated as the Marine Corps’ commercial property.
This episode features a lecture by economics professor Daniel J. D’Amico from 2011 on intellectual property law. He discusses several arguments for and against government enforcement of intellectual property, including trademarks, patents, and copyrights. He explores both moral arguments (deontological) and cost benefit arguments (consequential), dedicating most of his time to consequential arguments. He finds that, in general, intellectual property is difficult to enforce and is inherently an anti-rival good. As a result, he finds no compelling case for government established intellectual property law.
The United States has a “first-to-file” patent system, which means the first person or company to file for a patent on a novel invention gets the monopoly protection. This is obviously a violation of so-called intellectual property rights.
I heard the claim recently that to use an idea that originated with someone else is to commit a trespass. This begs the question and assumes what proponents of strong intellectual property rights are trying to prove.
Editor’s Break 121 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: the difficulty in implementing democracy in a culture not ready for it; why saying “stealing intellectual property” is a misleading euphemism; why your government is not so different than Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia; the importance of speaking your truth, right or wrong; the government and market forces pushing social media and other companies to deplatform controversial users; and more.
The private property convention is meant to reduce conflict over naturally scarce resources. When something is made artificially scarce by government fiat, say when ideas are monopolizable (copyright and patent), it is as if a wrench is thrown into the works of a machine.
Here is further proof that believers in so-called “intellectual property” are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole: an owner of an idea may continue using his idea without ever becoming aware that it has been “stolen”. Try that with a wallet, or a car, or a laptop.