Os neoconservadores não querem que sejamos proprietários daquilo que é mais nosso: dos nossos corpos, da nossa vida, da nossa intimidades - através da ilegalização do aborto, da eutanásia, do casamento gay. Os neoliberais querem que sejamos proprietários daquilo que sempre foi de todos: folclore, ideias, frases feitas. Se ambos ganham, teremos a autoridade mais perversa e a censura mais arbitrária.
Os conservadores sempre procuraram inscrever na lei protecção para as instituições sociais tradicionais fundamentais, em deterimento de estilos de vida alternativos. É através do construtivismo, da vontade de criar uma nova sociedade, livre de fundamentos sociais arcaicos (família, valores, ideias, princípios, tradição), que surgem os verdadeiros neoconservadores— aqueles que procuram cristalizar legalmente uma realidade que nunca existiu— o habitat para o Homem Novo, ser livre das amarras que constrangem o pleno gozo da natureza humana. A este tipo de "neo"conservadorismo chama-se socialismo.
A propósito de propriedade intelectual, seguem-se citações de um "velho"liberal e de "neo"liberal, mais uma vez provando a desonestidade intelectual dos "neosocialistas" de serviço.
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
Murray R. Rothbard, Man, Economy and the State:
The patent is incompatible with the free market precisely to the extent that it goes beyond the copyright. The man who has not bought a machine and who arrives at the same invention independently, will, on the free market, be perfectly able to use and sell his invention. Patents prevent a man from using his invention even though all the property is his and he has not stolen the invention, either explicitly or implicitly, from the first inventor. Patents, therefore, are grants of exclusive monopoly privilege by the State and are invasive of property rights on the market.
On the free market, there would therefore be no such thing as patents. There would, however, be copyright for any inventor or creator who made use of it, and this copyright would be perpetual, not limited to a certain number of years. Obviously, to be fully the property of an individual, a good has to be permanently and perpetually the property of the man and his heirs and assigns. If the State decrees that a man’s property ceases at a certain date, this means that the State is the real owner and that it simply grants the man use of the property for a certain period of time.