Does Intellectual Property Imply Draconian Enforcement
Fallacy: The result or logical conclusion of intellectual property is the enactment of draconian enforcement measures.
- In order to enforce and prevent music piracy, massive privacy invasions and internet snooping must occur. Therefore, support for I.P. leads to tyrannical invasions of privacy.
Politicians often exploit issues for their own ends, often citing something "everyone" likes or dislikes as a justification for increasing and legitimizing government power. Many Anarchists and Libertarians are well aware of the tactic of "package deals." This tactic involves starting with something most persons dislike (i.e. terrorism) or prefer (the well-being of poor persons and children) and packaging one's support or opposition with another partially related concept.
- Consider "The Patriot Act," a draconian government mandate which gained support under the guise of patriotism, safety, and anti-terrorism. If one opposes "terrorism" (violent destructive acts), one does not necessarily support the draconian enforcement measures "legitimized" by the patriot act.
- One can look at legislation designed to enable government intrusion and spying, under the guise of anti-bullying. Opposition to bullying does not imply one must, or should also support these draconian enforcement measures. Similarly, opposition to draconian enforcement measures does not imply one must also be apathetic to bullying.
Repackaging Intellectual Property
The prospect of vast government intrusion or draconian measures of highly repulsive and frightening to most anarchist and libertarians. As such, the advent of various draconian mandates under the guise of I.P. has been used as justification for abolishing recognition of intellectual property, under the guise of an anti-draconian (libertarian) platform.
This repackaging of Intellectual Property with draconian enforcement, or repackaging of libertarianism with opposition of I.P. falls under the prior mentioned "package deals" tactic.
- Some X imply Y. X therefore Y.
- Some red objects are flowers, and some flowers are red object. However it does not logically follow that a red object is a flower, or a flower is a red object.
- Some methods for enforcing I.P. are draconian. If one supports I.P. enforcement, one also supports draconian enforcement measures.
- Some methods for enforcing anti-child-porn are draconian. If one supports enforcement against child porn, one also supports draconian enforcement measures.
I have yet to see anyone trace the "logic" of intellectual property to draconian enforcement, beyond a vague references which resemble the slippery slope fallacy or continuum fallacy.