

Witness the Freest Economy: the Internet - setori88
http://mises.org/story/3766

======
davidw
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=885138>

~~~
miked
_If you start posting those, others will start posting Krugman or whoever on
the left. Both will attract people not interested in hacker news._

As I post this, the number 3 article on HN is a Krugman piece which has
nothing at all to do with software, so it looks like those will get posted
anyway. Not only that, but Krugman is, as usual, late to the game. The dollars
been getting hammered for a long time and he finally notices.

This artice, however, at least uses the interwebs as an interesting example of
a free market.

~~~
davidw
I flagged that one too.

> This artice, however, at least uses the interwebs as an interesting example
> of a free market.

And doesn't mention that the hated, loathed government was the one that
actually created it.

They also don't mention some of the more problematic businesses on the
internet such as as spyware, botnets, DOS extortion and so on.

But when it all comes down to it, just like Krugman's columns, they're pushing
a political point of view, which is why I don't think either one belongs here.

~~~
da01
The gov't had to fund the early beginnings of the Internet because it took so
much out of the economy to fund Moon/Space/Spy satellite programs against an
enemy that could barely produce a decent TV set. They even took a small army
of scientists and engineers out of the economy.

This does not even include the telecom regulations preventing competition and
innovation during the 50s through 80s. MCI prospered and gave AT&T competition
after some regulations were dropped.

When the Gov't takes so much, it's no wonder why scientists/engineers needed
it as sugar daddy back then: That's where all the money was.

> spyware, botnets, DOS extortion and so on

We have a market to develop countermeasures: YCombinator and its copycats. The
last place you would want protection is from the same gov't that still has
problems running the post office and Amtrak.

> the hated, loathed government was the one that actually created it.

The Gov't also used private firms and pre-existing innovations from the market
to develop a lot of the programs. Mises.org has published articles about NASA
and related programs using pre-existing technologies from the market. The
growth of the Internet and Web also came when the Gov't de-regulated large
portions of it.

> they're pushing a political point of view

True. Their political POV is: get politicians out of lives, businesses, and
private property.

------
codexon
I found it interesting that Austrian economics supports strong government
protection of physical property while here the author is arguing against
government intervention in intellectual property.

~~~
splat
As I understand it, Austrian economists tend to define property with respect
to scarce goods; because intellectual property is not a scarce good, they
(and, in particular, those at the Mises Institute) argue that an individual
cannot legitimately own it as "property." Instead, they view "intellectual
property" as something of an oxymoron. More properly, it is a government
enforced monopoly on particular ideas -- not property at all.

For much more about Austrian views on intellectual property, take a look at
Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella.

~~~
dantheman
You are 100% correct. The fact that it's called intellectual property is a
misnomer, it's a temporary government granted monopoly.

One common confusion is that Trademarks are often called intellectual property
where they are more realistically anti-fraud devices. Though I believe that a
trademark can only then be enforced by the defrauded party (the person buying
the knockoff good) the person being knocked off has no recourse, unless they
purchase the knockoff.

