It is not protectionism, like the violence instigated by the US is not
terrorism. Protectionism (terrorism) is what the other guy does.
Jim Devine wrote:
>
> Michael wrote:
> >It may be that intellectual property laws may be the most effective form
> >of protectionism devised so far.
>
> except that it's not the kind of thing that's called "protectionism." It
> protects individual corporations or other property-holders, not the
> domestic markets of countries. It's an extension of "normal" property
> rights like patents, copyrights, trade marks, etc. The owners of
> "intellectual property" can easily take their property and move to another
> country.
>
> max writes:>Michael Lind (The Next American Nation) makes the point that
> patents, IP, and professional licensure (i.e.,
> tenure!) are the upper-class ("white overclass") variant of
> protectionism.Consistent free-traders should be willing to do away
> with those barriers to trade as well. How do laissez faire econ profs
> justify tenure?<
>
> professional licensure is definitely a form of protectionism as the word is
> usually used.
>
> BTW, I used to have a colleague who wanted to reject tenure on the basis on
> laissez-faire principles. The college said: either take tenure or leave. He
> stayed, eventually ending up in the administration.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
