I’ve noted before that the utilitarian argument for IP–that patents, say, are needed to encourage innovation–has no logical stopping point. A patent monopoly allows the holder to charge a higher price, thus allowing some projects to be undertaken that could not be, otherwise–so goes the reasoning. But what if the monopoly profit is not enough? Surely there are still further innovations that won’t be invested in, because even with the monopoly price of patents, it’s not worth it. Therefore, we ought to cut to the chase and just have a government board award tax-subsidized “innovation bonuses” to what it deems are “worthy” innovations.

Now, I’ve used this as an argument from absurdity before, to show that there is something wrong with utilitarian arguments for patents. It looks like some similar arguments from lefties are not so tongue-in-cheek:
“Fortunately, there is a simple alternative route to providing seniors with affordable drugs—make them cheap. The arithmetic here is quite simple. Drugs are actually quite cheap to produce in most cases. The only reason drugs are expensive is that the government grants companies patent monopolies, which allow them to charge whatever they want, without the threat of competition. In the absence of patent monopolies, drug prices would fall by 70 to 80 percent on average, and in some cases considerably more.

“Of course, the drug industry rightly points out that patents give them the money and incentive to research new drugs. This is true, but there is a very simple answer—have the government pay for the research directly instead of by granting patent monopolies.”

This, of course, illustrates my point that IP rights amount to redistribution of property rights. At least the leftists are being explicit and consistent about it, unlike nominally “pro-property” advocates of IP.

The Best of Stephan Kinsella