Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search


The Circle Bastiat

Funding creativity and innovation (without patents or copyright)

How could new ideas receive economic support in a world without intellectual property laws?

By Stephan KinsellaGuest blogger / December 8, 2010

The LunaTik, a watchband engineered from space-age materials to house an iPod nano, was designed by Scott Wilson of Minimal, a firm that designs products for Nike, Motorola, and Samsung, among others. Wilson wanted to manufacture his design, so reached out to kickstarter.com for initial funding. His appeal for $15,000 has so far netted almost $700,000.

Photo released by Minimal (mnml.com)

Enlarge

The case against IP is not hard to make; patent and copyright (say) are artificial state-granted monopoly privileges that undercut and invade property rights. But the consequentialist and utilitarian mindset is so entrenched that even people who see the ethical problems with IP law sometimes demand that the IP opponent explain how innovation would be funded in an IP-free world. As I noted in The Creator-Endorsed Mark as an Alternative to Copyright:

Skip to next paragraph

Recent posts

I’m reminded of John Hasnas’s comments in his brilliant, classic article The Myth of the Rule of Law:”

What would a free market in legal services be like?

I am always tempted to give the honest and accurate response to this challenge, which is that to ask the question is to miss the point. … It is possible to describe what a free market in shoes would be like because we have one. But such a description is merely an observation of the current state of a functioning market, not a projection of how human beings would organize themselves to supply a currently non-marketed good. To demand that an advocate of free market law (or Socrates of Monosizea, for that matter) describe in advance how markets would supply legal services (or shoes) is to issue an impossible challenge.

With the advent of state IP legislation, the state has interrupted and preempted whatever other customs, business arrangements, contractual regimes and practices, and so on, that would no doubt have arisen in its absence. So it’s natural for those new to the anti-IP idea to be a bit nervous about replacing the current flawed IP system with … a vacuum. It’s natural for them to wonder, well what would occur in its absence? As I noted, the reason we are not sure is the state has snuffed them out. This is similar to the FCC which preempted and monopolized the field of property rights in airwaves just as they were starting to develop in the common law; now people are used to the idea of the state regulating and parceling out airwave or spectrum rights and might imagine there would be chaos if the FCC were abolished (for more on this see David Kelley & Roger Donway‘s 1985 monograph Laissez Parler: Freedom in the Electronic Media, as discussed in my post Why Airwaves (Electromagnetic Spectra) Are (Arguably) Property).

So, because people are bound to ask the inevitable: we IP opponents try to come up with some predictions and solutions and answers. Thus, in the end we must agree with Hasnas:

Although I am tempted to give this response, I never do. This is because, although true, it never persuades. Instead, it is usually interpreted as an appeal for blind faith in the free market, and the failure to provide a specific explanation as to how such a market would provide legal services is interpreted as proof that it cannot. Therefore, despite the self-defeating nature of the attempt, I usually do try to suggest how a free market in law might work.