What do libertarians think about parents?

[-]

NiftyMoth723@reddit

Patent protection is one of the few things a government has to do if they want to be legitimate

[-]

joyloveroot@reddit (OP)

I am curious — what is your rationale for making this claim? :)

[-]

I invent something, and I would like to make money off the design. somebody steals the design. I sue them. why? I patented it. If patents were public, nobody would invent anything. or rather, they would never share the design at all. imagine if the printing press never went anywhere because the inventor didn't want immediate competition. Therefore a country that does not enforce patent protection will have difficulty advancing. It's as important as building roads

[-]

joyloveroot@reddit (OP)

It could go the opposite of the way you are claiming as well. For example, it’s well known that many mega companies (eg apple, Google) spend a majority of their profits on legal battles mostly regarding patent claims.

If this money was instead re-invested into R&D, innovation might exponentially rise.

Not to mention, if everyone knew that they absolutely could not patent anything, then no one would even try hiding their inventions like the printing press example you gave.

Instead, eventually everyone would find different incentives. Instead of inventing things with a primary motivation to make money — instead people would invent stuff simply to increase their own thriving as well as the collective thriving of the whole society.

People might act more in resonance with the collective well being of the whole and innovation, collaboration, peace, etc… would increase multiple fold.

[-]

NiftyMoth723@reddit

If we were insectoids, sure. But we're apes. we get jealous, greedy, we do regrettable things. We're a race of pachinko marbles bouncing on life's variables, and more often than not, we prefer to put on our own oxygen mask before others. What you said about investing profits on R&D? that's true. they already do that, by spending money to protect their assets, they can make more money, and more value for the economy. We tax the most off profits, so companies are encouraged to pay their employees, buy new machines, etc

[-]

joyloveroot@reddit (OP)

We’re not apes. We’re humans.

[-]

NiftyMoth723@reddit

We are the only ape that has hubris strong enough to claim we are not animals.

[-]

joyloveroot@reddit (OP)

Can you show me any evidence of the other apes claiming they are apes? Or not claiming they are not apes?

[-]

NiftyMoth723@reddit

ambiguity and false cause

[-]

joyloveroot@reddit (OP)

What does “ambiguity and false cause” mean in this context?

[-]

NiftyMoth723@reddit

those were the fallacies you just used. You took advantage of the admittedly ambiguous statement I provided. You're assuming that apes would speak, and claim whether or not they are, in fact, apes. the statement itself does not assume apes can speak, it instead addresses the fact that humans can, in fact, speak, and do, in fact, oftentimes think ourselves fundamentally different or better than any other animal

[-]

joyloveroot@reddit (OP)

Basically I am trying to ask you to prove your claim. I understand the implications behind my question. But the implications behind your assertions are just as problematic, if not more…

[-]

NiftyMoth723@reddit

you're assuming that my anecdote is real, actual proof. and by demanding proof from an anecdote, you're making this argument circular.
Also, problematic is not the word you're looking for

[-]

joyloveroot@reddit (OP)

If your anecdote is not real, then what is real about what you’ve been saying this whole thread?

[-]

NiftyMoth723@reddit

Is that a serious question?
You went on raving about how people are inherently good and how patents shouldn't exist so that people can use other people's inventions, then I responded to that thinly veiled socialist sentiment by stating that we are apes, not ants, and we seldom do anything for the greater good. I then went on to use an anecdote to describe how humans are no different from other apes. You then started picking apart the anecdote as if there was anything concrete being asserted, even though the purpose of an anecdote is to use a simpler phrase to describe a more complex concept or situation.
Here's something concrete- You appear to me as someone who does not understand economics beyond the basics, and in my opinion, your reading comprehension needs work

[-]

LibertarianBrit10118@reddit

When they're younger be a bit more strict, but as they get older, I.e becoming a teen, just give them privacy and be a bit more relaxed.

[-]

airassault_tanker@reddit

I was really hoping he/she was going to go into an anti parent rant

[-]

easterracing@reddit

lol right? Though with no parents, there would be no societal problems to solve, because there would be no society, because there would be no humans.

Seems like an effective strategy TBH.

[-]

airassault_tanker@reddit

All children being raised by the state seems like a libertarian ideal /s

[-]

easterracing@reddit

You missed the point entirely. Without parents, who creates the children?

[-]

airassault_tanker@reddit

The state birth labs and artificial insemination.

[-]

rspeed@reddit

Mine kinda suck.

[-]

denzien@reddit

I read the title and thought this was another GenX post. Then I saw the sub, read the description and said, "how the hell did I misread the title?" Then I re-read the title.

I understand and appreciate the stated purpose of the patent system. I think there are abuses of it, especially in medicine and software. A company I worked for was sued by a patent troll because we used some really common piece of software or library in our software. I can't really remember the details. So, we patented the concept of our software, on which I was named. It's really a glorified eventing and workflow system, but was novel in the field. But we had to do it to protect ourselves.

[-]

DickCheesePlatterPus@reddit

I think patents should have a limited expiration date so as to promote a free market and competition, but allow the innovator a head start.

[-]

right-5@reddit

I'm not really a libertarian, but I would think protecting intellectual rights,such as patents and copyrights would fall under private property rights.

[-]

obsquire@reddit

Ayn Rand and the Objectivists support patents and copyright. Increasing numbers of other libertarians do not. It seems to require a police state to truly protect this; very invasive. One iterpretation is that patents and copyright are "non-consensual negative easements" on everyone else's property: my patent restricts what you can do with your tangible stuff, even though you infringed no one else's tangible stuff.

I think that there might be weaker copyright and patent protection under (consensual) contracts, like EULAs.

[-]

Ya_Boi_Konzon@reddit

💯

[-]

nojab4mecommie@reddit

Agree with whats been said in this thread especially about Intellectual property stifling innovation. Breaking this down in a purely philosophical viewpoint. You have a right to have your own thoughts, you also have a right to freely speak those thoughts. You have a right to create from your thoughts whatever you want as well as sell your creation. Once you have spoken your thoughts to someone else it is no longer just your thoughts. Once you have created something with you're thoughts and sold said creation it is no longer your property but someone elses. They are free to recreate, expand, build it of higher quality, lower qaulity etc. I've never been a fan of intellectual property laws and patents

[-]

mmmhiitsme@reddit

Private property is non fungible, like the tokens. Ideas are so fungible, two completely identical ones can exist at the same time. IP should be protected by speed and secrecy. Patents inhibit innovation.

[-]

Ya_Boi_Konzon@reddit

💯

[-]

LibertarianLawyer@reddit

Read Stephan Kinsella's Against Intellectual Property for the best short work on this topic.

[-]

dallassoxfan@reddit

Patents protect people from harming others.

A person spends a fortune in time and money to come up with something new and great. Someone else copying that person is harm.

They can go too far, but to me this is no different than laws against theft. That’s why it is called intellectual property

Oh, and like I say on every libertarian reply, libertarian doesn’t equal anarchy.

[-]

ricochet48@reddit

You wrote paRents in the title by the way which really confused me at first haha.

[-]

AlmightyStrongPerson@reddit

Same, I was very confused for a moment there.

[-]

AlienDelarge@reddit

I came in expecting the ramblings of a cranky teenager.

[-]

AKLmfreak@reddit

Same

[-]

willthesane@reddit

I support patents, I think copyright shouldn't last as long, but I support disney having rights to lion King for some length of time.

[-]

BobRossmissingvictim@reddit

Thou shall not ground! Article 5 section 3-amendment 198

[-]

BitsyVirtualArt@reddit

It was true then and it's true now!

[-]

Phantasmidine@reddit

It's so easy to forget he was a cringe 80s rapper before slapping MF'ers on live TV.

[-]

Unlikelytosucceed207@reddit

Fuck, beat me to it!

[-]

Phantasmidine@reddit

Parents totally violate the non-aggression principle with all their rules and grounding and being lame.

[-]

scumbagstaceysEx@reddit

This is hard because the real issue with patents is that they’ve gone completely out of control. Patents are great for allowing people to profit from genuine inventions. Thus increasing innovation. Patents gave us the incandescent light bulb, the combine harvester, the transistor radio. However nowadays we are issuing patents for the most mundane of shit. Like a few lines of computer code that 100,000 unrelated people already came up with on their own and have been using for years but then some jackass decided to get a patent on it. I think the problem isn’t patents per se, it’s what we are issuing patents for.

[-]

0verkast@reddit

Parents have no right to infringe upon my liberty with their naptime rules.

[-]

Domi-Gator@reddit

But i want my nap time!

[-]

pharmdad711@reddit

Parents are proxy for children’s rights.

Yes parents do eff stuff up, but not as bad as government!

[-]

JohnnyCharles@reddit

I don’t think the state should have a say over parents, but they should GET THE HELL OUT OF MY ROOM MOM

[-]

MajesticKnight28@reddit

Parents don't have the right to infringe on my freedom to have choccy milk

[-]

Ya_Boi_Konzon@reddit

Patents are just government grants of monopoly. They have no place in a free market.

[-]

Historical-Doubt2121@reddit

Personally I take the same route we take with any other civil case. Did someone do something irrispomsible or with malicious intent that caused damages?

Let's take fiction books as an example. Creating and selling t-shirt of a book you like doesn't seem insane and doesn't cause damages. Printing newly written books and cutting out the author so you could sell for cheaper does both, as does writting a book with the same tittle and universe as your favourite author without making it clear the book was fanfiction right on the cover. But selling clearly labelled fanfiction, actually distinct but in the same world and using the same characters as an existing book? That's not irrisponsible at all.

If you're not irresponsible and causing damages, the state should not put you in jail or fine you.

This is fairly easy for media, and can even help save lost media by distributing it easily when the IP owmers do not adequetly provide in that respect. Inventions and medicine is a bit more tricky. I would say, just scalping tech the moment it gets to market is bad and should be stopped, but, for instance, releasing the same tech while giving a generous percentage (let's even say 50%) of all wholesale value to the holder of the ip, is way more reasonable. This would still encourage companies to spend in R&D, but companies couldn't mark up medicine by 600% or something just because they have a government protected IP. Ofbrand medication and tech would come to market fairly quickly, but that would still benifit the holder of the IP. Admitedly, there would still have to be some government rules on what is responsible practice, what percentage to send the owner of the IP if you're selling their inventions, etc., and it wouldn't be as simple as media, but it would, I think, lessen some of the semi-tyranical rules now imposed on things like medicine.

[-]

zilifrom@reddit

I think that it is better for a parent to infringe on a youth’s life than a government.

[-]

BoringGuy0108@reddit

Libertarians generally are staunch supporters of private property rights. To the extent that enforcing private property is one of the few roles of the government. This would logically extend to intellectual property.

However, I don’t know that there is a consensus among libertarians about how long a patent should last. Libertarians are generally pro innovation, and patents encourage innovation, but can (not always) make future innovations harder.

Good question. Except for the typo of course.

[-]

Financial-Truth-7575@reddit

A vast number of libertarians dont believe ip is property... trade secrets and ndas for employees are often supported... but not patents and quite a few would even say if you can take the same thing and market it better or at all you should be able to... but what about r&d some one pays for... thats where an nda and trade secrets come in.

[-]

krankheit1981@reddit

I liked my parents. Good people, didn’t realize how good until I was an adult. Don’t know what that has to do with being a libertarian

[-]

Rod_MLCP@reddit

patents are absolutely anti libertarian, since it's just an state enforced monopoly over ideas and concepts

with intelectual property you can make an argument that you may sell a service/product with the agreement of the costumer not comercilizing the product

at the end of the day intelectual property is unethical, since the concept of property is about solving the problem of scarcity, you can only call something property if it is scarce. ideas are not scarce, you can't own an idea

[-]

New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more? Be sure to check out the sub Frequently Asked Questions and the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.