You don’t have to actually think that legislating and raising the minimum wage will help low-skilled workers earn more money. That’s not the point. The point is to display your correct political religion.
I had a little back and forth in the comment section on one of my recent podcast episodes with my friend Alex Knight (ARK3). I thought I’d reproduce it here in all it’s glory.
This episode features a lecture by libertarian theorist and patent attorney Stephan Kinsella from 2017. This talk sets out the framework for how to view property rights in general and then finally turns to intellectual property. The main talk lasted for about the first 30 minutes; the final hour is questions and answers.
Episode 384 welcomes back Alex R. Knight III to chat with Skyler 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.