Jeffrey Tucker: Commerce is entirely possible, and it does take place in the absence of the State using IP.

“So here is the problem.

People somehow identify intellectual property with commerce. If you are going to sell something, you’ve got to use the State to restrict it’s… (you have to) obtain a monopoly or else it’s not a marketable commodity. It’s as if copyright and patent makes something commercially viable. And this is a GIGANTIC Error! Commerce is entirely possible, and it does take place in the absence of the State using IP.


Now let me be clear on something here. IP doesn’t just mean that you are keeping your content proprietary or that you are introducing artificial scarcity. If I invented an App, and I wanted to deliver it to you for a fee, it’s really irrelevant to the marketing of that app whether or not it is copyrighted or not. I mean the point is, I’ve got a good, you’re buying the good. That’s the beginning and the end of the story.

What IP does, is that it doesn’t commodify that good I’ve sold you (or that service really), what it does is that it restricts the rights of everyone else in the world from making anything similar, even if they have never experienced your app. So the important thing to recognize is that it is coercion against third parties.

So I say this because it is not possible within a market arrangement to reinvent copyright or reinvent patent. Whatever kind of arrangement that are voluntary and mutual on the market cannot involve coercing against someone else’s property. So in a market economy there cannot be or would not be anything like intellectual property because it is necessarily a coercive institution they do not come about as a result of contract.” (13:50)
Speaking on Liberty : Jeffrey Tucker