I know this is a gun forum

[Mrs. Hoppes]

But this is too important.

This movie is an hour and a half, but well worth the watch. I am not done watching it yet since my children keep bugging me. But it seems way too important to not watch it or share it. I will say this, though. I am beyond furious.

Hulu - The Future Of Food - Watch the full feature film now.

 

[Fletch]

I watched the whole thing. There's some good points in there, but there's also some things that were missed, downplayed, or ignored. I think some of the conclusions they came to were a bit off, and the sad female narrator voice really got on my nerves, but overall it was a pretty decent film.

I am already in opposition to farm subsidies as I am to all subsidies. We need to burn that house to the ground. I also don't agree with patent and copyright law -- the one thing I've "invented" that was worthy of patent, I decided to release into the wild instead, and it was one of the best decisions I've ever made.

Regardless of that, the patenting of "life" is an incredibly stupid move on the government's part, and I fully agree that we should be worried about the potential dangers highlighted by Michael Crichton's cautionary tale, [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Next-Michael-Crichton/dp/B0017TZKRG"]Next[/ame]. I highly recommend reading it.

However, I think one of the film's major flaws is that it did not seriously address the issue of property rights. I figure this is because the producers are of an obviously leftward bent, and as such are likely hostile to the idea that property rights should be the foundation for law in our society. The only nod given to property rights was the farmer early on who talked about introducing cattle farming into a crop farming area, and the cattle farmer's responsibility to keep the cattle out of the crops.

The same principle applies with regard to GMO crops -- the finding that GMO organisms have wound up in a non-GMO field is not an indication of patent infringement. Rather, it is an indication that the GMO producer owes reparations and restitution to the non-GMO farmer for polluting his crops. Had the Canadian and American governments been protectors of property rights as they should be, Monsanto would have been stopped cold at the first incursion. Unfortunately, one cannot expect the biggest destroyers of property rights to give any serious effort to their defense.

I'm not sure where I stand on the labeling issue, because I believe that the proper solution to the whole ball of wax lies in property rights, and that if those rules were followed stringently, labeling might cease to be an issue. Organic farmers should certainly be allowed to promote their produce as "non-GMO" and so forth, to distinguish themselves in the marketplace, so long as they don't make libelous allegations about the alternative products.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Fletch,

Could you elaborate further on your positions on patent law and copyright law? I am curious as to how they merge with your ideas of real property (real estate) and personal property (cars, etc.).

Thanks,

 

[Fletch]

My major problem is the implicit assumption that only one person in the world can have an idea, and that there is no such thing as convergence. If two people simultaneously and independently invent a car engine that runs on water, the only thing that matters is who gets to the patent office first. I'd rather see a system where both inventors run with their designs, and see who makes a better, more cost-effective final product, as decided by the marketplace. It is in only in that way that society as a whole is best served.

Copyright and patent law is one area where libertarians can't even agree amongst themselves, so it's not exactly a settled principle. I'm simply more inclined to let the chips fall where they may, and I believe the consuming public is being robbed of products and services that we would otherwise have available were it not for this concept that someone can own an idea. I'm in favor of creative competition -- of constantly attempting to improve and distinguish one's products, rather than simply resting on the strength of a government document that says "I'm done".

I understand the counter-arguments in favor of copyrights and patents, and to a certain extent I can almost agree with them. But I still find myself thinking that ownership should be restricted to tangible goods rather than ideas.

Here's a couple of decent articles on the subject:

Creation Myths: Does innovation require intellectual property rights?

Disney's War Against the Counterculture

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Good points and understandable points. Just to clarify a few things. Copyright infringement has a defense of independent creation. If you and I both paint a painting that looks exactly right out of pure chance, we can't sue each other for infringement. The problem is that independent creation is very hard to prove in a suit.

Patent law, on the other hand is much more nuanced. In your above example, patent law works here in the US on a first to invent principle, not first to file (like the rest of the world). Also, there is no defense of independent creation. Patent law is supposed to work where person A invents the water engine and patents it. Person B reads the patent and figures out a non-obvious improvement to the water engine and patents the improvement. A cannot build the engine with the improvement and B cannot build the base engine. Because they both have negative monopolies, the system is designed to encourage cross-licensing which happens all the time.

Several changes have been introduced which would give inventor's rights to both parties in your example and the first to invent would have the patent. The rights to B would be to make and use the patented invention, but no right to license the patent. He's the only one that can practice the invention besides the inventor and whoever else the inventor allows. As it stands now, the change has only been proposed in academia.

The major problem of not having strong patent law is unjust enrichment due to copying a product. If company A spends $1,000,000 to invent a better mouse trap and company B copies it for nothing. Company A gets put out business for investing in improving the technology. That doesn't seem right. I would imagine the reasons that most Libertarians disagree on Intellectual Property law is that it is based on the fundamental concept of Utilitarian thinking (do whatever benefits the most people) as opposed to natural law/rights thinking which much of the rest of the US Constitution is based on.

The two philosophies Utilitarian and Natural Rights often clash, like in Intellectual Property law. Utilitarian view points were incorporated to soften the result of IP law under a total natural right viewpoint which would treat your IP just like your house or car (its yours to do with as you please essentially). With Utilitarian based IP, the limited monopoly is granted in return for deeding the idea to the public after your limited monopoly is over.

I think the idea of inventor's rights merged with our current system would go a long way toward helping mesh the two philosophies because it would essentially give an independent creation defense. Its a good concept, and I'd like to see some additional writing on its pro's and con's.

 

[Fletch]

Your points are all well-taken, and have given me some further things to think about. In the grand scheme of things, copyright and patent issues are pretty low on my list of priorities, but I do appreciate the opportunity to expand my understanding.