The argument that is purported by those who constantly say government has no role is flawed.

Stating that a patent or any other property is a government granted monopoly is not an argument.

All property rights, including real property are at present a government granted monopoly. If you believe in property rights, in any way, you cannot use the argument about government granted monopolies. To do so is to support the argument that all property should be abolished. This is the attack that has moved from the typical Marxist open attack on property to the more insidious so-called anarcho capitalist one.

Saying, property rights are a government monopoly is not an argument about whether they are right or wrong. The issue is very simple, is property a right.

If you believe property is a right, then the fact that it is granted by government or not is irrelevant. That is an enforcement mechanism. It is not how property came about. It's like the last line of the bitcoin White Paper. Creation of rules and enforcement to separate things. Governments may enforce property rights but they are not the creator of them.

So please, when you see something saying it's a government granted monopoly, start with so what?

Honestly, the question is not one of where the rights came from but whether rights exist. So very simply, do not fall for the logical fallacy of a non sequitur. These people are putting you off supporting property rights by saying there's a government involved and all governments are bad. That is a separate argument. Leave the red herrings at home.

CSW
Oct 18, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1571395144446800?thread_ts=1571395144.446800&cid=C5131HKFX