Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Rand Paul Gets One Right

And it seems he is clear and not ambiguous about it.

9 comments:

  1. And now he busts out the libertarian Judas to back up his statist ideas. Ha, Wenzel is such a @#*!.

    ReplyDelete
  2. no he even fouls this one up because he isn't talking about contractual ip protection, He means the usual state inflicted nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree. But, not protection from the State.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The phrase '...ought to be protection for...' implies he wants a central authority enforcing rules.

    I thought we were supposed to implement intellectual property using contracts that could be enforced privately somehow.

    You missed the authority forest for the intellectual property trees on this one, Mr. Wenzel.

    ReplyDelete
  5. First of all, I wouldn't classify IP as a right. Rights are inalienable and therefore irrevocable, which would mean IP"rights" would last for eternity. IP should be more accurately classified as protection. IP laws are relatively new with respect to human history. The original term for copyrights were 14+14 years and it was 14 years for patents. Today it's 75 years after the death for copyrights and 20 years for patents. Also, copyrights cover things that were never originally intended to be covered, like architecture.

    Rather than complaining about anti IPers, why not give everyone you view concerning what you consider to be reasonable periods of IP protection and what should be protected. For example, should Mickey Mouse ever enter into the public domain or should Disney claim IP protection for eternity?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have a feeling he means protectionism, not legal protection of contracts. As in, "No Apple, I will not take away your monopoly power to perpetually trap Samsung in court. Please make the check out to my campaign, thanks."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Further proof that Rand Paul is no libertarian. He is getting deeper and deeper into the statist mire with each passing day.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I still don't understand how people think you can protect property more justly by using privately purchased jack-booted thugs instead of publicly-funded ones. It is a serious question and I hear a lot of Libertarians make the claim that a system of privatized law enforcement would be better but I have never heard a credible explanation as to why.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a supreme court decision that says the police are not required to enforce specific restraining orders. The police are for the general protection of society. Now consider what it would be like if you hired a service to protect you. Don't you see the different incentives? Public cops get paid whether they protect you or not. Public investigators get paid whether they solve the murder or not. The private firm will not have a customer long if they are unsuccessful in their services.

      Delete