In a libertarian society, the government is highly discouraged from interfering with the free market, if it is even capable of doing so. In this case, where does that leave Intellectual Property?

If IP is considered part of the NAP, how do they plan to enforce it without creating artificial monopolies?

Do libertarians agree that ideas are a property that can be owned, and if so, how would they change IP?

  • Possible duplicate of Is Libertarianism in favor of intellectual property rights?
    – user9389
    Nov 1 '17 at 20:33
  • 5
    libertarians doent even agree on what it means to be a libertarian Nov 1 '17 at 20:48
  • Suggest you edit to focus on the policies of a particular party in one particular country, otherwise its too broad
    – James K
    Nov 2 '17 at 12:19
  • I'm not familiar with the "NAP" acronym, if someone can help me out. Nov 2 '17 at 17:18
  • 1
    Non-Aggression Principle is the libertarian term, and I don't know that it is the same as a non-aggression policy in foreign policy. It's an ethical stance rather than a policy choice. And it applies to things like taxes. Tax collection is aggression under NAP.
    – Brythan
    Nov 2 '17 at 20:04

TL;DR: No unified viewpoint exists among libertarians.

  • Many are against IP.
  • Some are on the fence
  • Some support it (notably, Ayn Rand supported patents)
  • Some offer market based approach such as IP insurance (e.g. Tannehill)

Wikipedia answer covers some of the notable viewpoints (I know that we frown upon link only answers but I don't see a way of meaningfully doing anything short of copy/pasting entire Wiki article).


  • 2
    "The insurance company would guarantee to stop the unauthorized commercial use of the invention and to fully compensate the inventor for any losses so incurred." Is Tannehill proposing that the insurance company protects the property (by force, essentially)?
    – PyRulez
    Nov 2 '17 at 0:44
  • 1
    @PyRulez - good question! I was confused about that part myself to be honest.
    – user4012
    Nov 2 '17 at 2:05
  • @PyRulez In the absence of government, the nature of intellectual property would ultimately be dictated by social norms. If enough individuals see a benefit to copyrights, patents and trademarks then they will voluntarily consent to them and IP insurance would be economically feasible. If not, then creation and invention will shift to focus on incremental improvement and being first to market with the foreknowledge that any invention can be quickly reverse engineered and improved upon. Jan 22 '18 at 16:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .