So, I read the “Creative Genius” section, and it seems that Mises does not recognize intellectual property. I would’ve thought he would recognize it yet discourage government regulation of it.
Mises writes (p. 139): “The activities of the prodigious men cannot be fully subsumed under the praxeological concept of labor. They are not labor because they are for the genius not means, but ends in themselves. […] The achievements of the creative inventor […] cannot be classified praxeologically as the products of labor. They are not the outcome of the employment of labor which could have been devoted to the production of other ammentities for the ‘production’ of a masterpiece of philosophy, art, or leturature.”
I would’ve thought the process of seeking truths would be the means and the truths sought the end product. Why does Mises contrast the “production of other [non-intellectual] ammentities” with the “achievements of the creative inventor”?
Thanks