Intellectual Protectionism amelioration committee


is a nonpartisan group dedicated to preserving individual freedom through balanced intellectual property policy.

I signed their statement of principles and strongly encourage you to do the same.

However, the following mantra, excerpted from principle #1, grates:

Creators of ideas and inventions have the right to be compensated for their work

IPJustice has a nearly identical principle, #2 on their list:

Creators deserve to be compensated.

This “principle” feels to me like a nutty mix of buying into protectionist propaganda and labor theory of value* sentiments. It would be perhaps be better to say that creators should have the right to restrict access to their creations. Given a monopoly in their work, creators or their assignees may be able to extract more payment from potenential users than they could without monopoly privileges, but they certainly don’t have a right to be compensated merely for creating. If that were the case we’d have huge[r] inefficiencies from overproduction of intangible goods.

Back to IPac, they seem to be taking the sensible strategy of backing three candidates from each of the two U.S. establishment parties. I suspect Brad Carson is the only candidate in any sort of race (the other five should all easily win). I looked at Carson’s congressional web page and wondered why IPac is supporting four Republicans and two Democrats. Turns out Carson is actually a Democrat — from Oklahoma, where apparently Democrats are anti-gay marriage and pro-gun (top two stories on aforementioned site). An explanation.

* I can’t find a single excellent page on the LTV. Most are either hopelessly mired in Marx-derived argumentation, which as far as I can tell removes the most trenchant LTV criticisms by rendering the LTV meaningless (tautological) as an economic concept, trailing off into Marxian “class” analysis (the current Wikipedia page, linked above, tends toward this — I’ll shirk my responsibility to fix it for now) or are flippant dismissals of LTV that usually ignore the Marxian evasions (maybe justified) , criticizing Ricardo’s earlier LTV and often misattributing it to Marx (a page tending in that direction).

4 Responses

  1. This post hits home in that I’m from Oklahoma and am able to witness Carson’s Senate race first-hand. Your analysis is right-on with the “The Margarita Model For Two-Party Systems” link. The problem you have is that Oklahoma is an extremely conservative state, even those who claim they are Democrats are usually more conservative than they are liberal (there are some exceptions in the SouthEastern part of the state, but for the most part its true)….so, if a Democrat wants to even think about getting elected, it usually means that he or she has to have some of the Democratic party’s principles compromised in order to even have a chance. The values of the Democratic party’s national platform simply won’t win votes here…so it has to be diluted. Sad, but true. That’s why Democratic Presidential candidates hardly ever see Oklahoma as a “winnable” state….but we have a Democratic Governor and congress men and women who have been elected. There is a schism that takes place between national and local politics. In regards to iPac, while I support the priciples the organization stands for, I doubt their endorsement for Carson truely means much for the state of Oklahoma in the end simply because of the way politics work here. Good though-provoking commentary.

  2. Russ Nelson says:

    Yes, the Wikipedia LTV page is very tedious. It should start off with “Any theory of value that doesn’t take time into account is nonsense.” and head off from there.

    I didn’t know that Ricardo initially created the LTV. I thought he was smarter than that. Oh well, everyone has their weaknesses. Since Marx also pushed the LTV, I don’t see a strong reason to modify my LTV page.

  3. […] Intellectual Protectionism amelioration committee criticizes a literal rather than intended reading of a statement. The essence of boring argumentation. […]

  4. […] is an old theme: examples from 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2012. 2009 and 2010 are absent, but the reason for my light […]

Leave a Reply