Per Bylund is correct in the first half. However he is communist in his proposed solution as he wants to abolish intellectual property rights.
The problem is governments and central planning. The solution is #Bitcoin and separsting money from the State.
Every artist, writer or composer own their work and this is recognized by a self-corrective market as intellectual property rights. We just don't want property rights regulated by central authorities.
"The very existence of patents — and copyrights and trademarks, too — is contrary to a free market. They all use the state to create artificial scarcities of nonscarce goods and employ coercion in a way that is contrary to property rights and the freedom of contract.
Thus, property rights must have objective, discernible borders, and must be allocated in accordance with the first occupier homesteading rule. Moreover, property rights can apply only to scarce resources. The problem with IP rights is that the ideal objects protected by IP rights are not scarce; and, further, that such property rights are not, and cannot be, allocated in accordance with the first occupier homesteading rule."
He's deluded.
Property rights means that we own the fruits of our labor. As a result, we own what we create. That's the free market perspective.
The problem is the reliance upon governments to enforce property rights. That leads to surveillance, which is not acceptable.
Governments therefore are the problem, not property rights or ownership of the fruits of one's labor.
Another problem is DNA patents.
We shouldn't be able to patent the DNA of other people or organisms.
"The purpose of property rights is the prevention of physical conflict. An essential characteristic of property is exclusivity, meaning that the use of an object by one person prevents it from being used by another.
Intellectual property and physical property cannot exist side-by-side as logically independent legal constructions. Anything that gives control over physical things necessarily limits others' control of those things, and therefore acts exactly like a physical property right. If you have an intellectual property right to your monograph, you may prevent me from copying it, thereby limiting the physical property right I have in my ink, pen, and paper."
Stephen Kinsella is mistaken as usual. If I create an artwork, that artwork does not hinder him from creating his own artwork.
The problem is if someone copyrights something that is so simple that others may reproduce it by mistake. He is using that absurd case in order to dismantle property rights.
I've debated Stephen Kinsella before and he believes that you voluntarily hand over money to a thief that wants to steal your money. I counter-argued that you might *involuntarily* hand over money, due to the threat of force. There can be no voluntarism when force or threat is involved. He had no capacity to argue for his point and resorted to sophistry instead.
