Anita Acavalos has a fascinating post on The Cobden Centre’s site:

This inquiry into the San Francisco Happy Meal Ban, from Daily Show reporter Aasif Mandvi, is brilliant:

http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:369678

Opponents of the state monopoly privilege grants that the state and supporters propagandistically call “intellectual property” use a variety of alternative terms, in attempt to better describe these “rights” without implying they are valid, as the word “property” seeks to do.

In 83 years, all but 20 of Time’s Persons of the Year have been political, military, or international leaders. But the world is changing, and people like Zuckerberg are creating that change. While politicians stand in the way of progress, entrepreneurs like Zuckerberg make it.

[The Independent Review, (1998)]

Economists have been grousing a good deal lately about the deteriorating quality of basic economic statistics — official data on prices, incomes, employment, productivity, and poverty, among other things — and about the lack of government funding to remedy the problem. On its face, the complaint seems reasonable and practical.

Intellectual property is inherently disruptive to the market mechanism, as the latter is understood by Austrian economics, and is thus prejudicial to human welfare. To understand why, one must first understand the social function of entrepreneurship in the market economy. Entrepreneurs arrange and deploy the factors of production in order to better satisfy consumers in the future than they otherwise would be. To spare words, let us term an entrepreneur’s way of arranging and deploying factor’s of production his “entrepreneurial recipe or plan”.