Most neoliberals resolved the IP question conservatively through consequentialist reasoning

Evidence

The choice of most neoliberals, especially within the Law and Economics tradition, has been to take a “consequentialist” rather than an “axiomatic” position, working from a pragmatic evaluation of outcomes rather than inflexible first principles. Led by Posner, these economists use both modeling and historical observation to advocate policy based on the conclusion that well-designed patent rights incentivize innovation. This is also the stance taken by latter-day ordoliberals, including the former director of the Kiel Institute, Horst Siebert, and in the pages of Ordo journal, founded by the IP-skeptical Walter Eucken. — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 192

Categorization

• XREF: The consequentialist-vs-axiomatic split is a definitional axis for separating neoliberal schools; maps onto the reader’s goal of distinguishing internal varieties (Posnerian Law and Economics vs Austrian skepticism). — connects to: Neoliberal support for IP rights was contingent on competitive-order goals, not reflexive. — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 166; IP enclosure proceeded without consulting neoliberal knowledge-economy theorists. — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 200
• DEFINE: Defines the consequentialist-axiomatic distinction that separates the dominant pro-IP neoliberal position from the skeptical libertarian strand.