Intellectual Property rights

[CCTelander]

you're mistaken. i'm showing YOUR fallacies. and i'm not an anarcho-capitalist. on the other hand, i don't have much hope for you. maybe i'll have when you stop playing psychologist.

Oh, this is getting good! LOL

 

[low preference guy]

And where do material goods come from?

from the big bang, i suppose.

 

[Xenophage]

from the big bang, i suppose.

The computer you're using didn't come from the big bang. The molecules did, I suppose.

 

[Xenophage]

you're mistaken. i'm showing YOUR fallacies. and i'm not an anarcho-capitalist. on the other hand, i don't have much hope for you. maybe i'll have when you stop playing psychologist (and failing miserably).

I'm not playing psychologist, but we're both playing philosopher. There's nothing wrong with that.

If you're not an anarcho-capitalist, then your argument about using the government to retaliate against criminals makes little sense. Do you think there's a need for a criminal justice system?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Property does not have to be scarce for it to be property. Rocks are not scarce, but I can own a rock.

Is the rock you claim ownership over scarce?

...

 

[Xenophage]

...

I think I said, "rocks are not scarce," so your question is just confusing.

So, you think that because it is unique among all rocks, that it is now considered scarce? With that logic, everything in the Universe possesses infinite scarcity. Is there anything that is not 'scarce'?

 

[Mustang]

The thread has doubled in size since I last posted in it, and yet all I see are the same exact points in favor of IP still being tossed around while all of the counterpoints explained by myself and many others against IP continue to be ignored. There's absolutely nothing gained by this thread since there's no attempt to hold a discussion by the pro-IP side, and hopefully others will see this as well and let this topic die out.

 

[Xenophage]

There are many things that are not scarce, like the Earth's atmosphere, for example. But you could bottle some air and own it. Now, the bottled air is scarce, because there is a finite amount of bottled air in the world, but what about the air itself? You can still own it, but it's entirely replaceable and not scarce in the least.

Relating this to IP, there is nothing more scarce in the entire cosmos than an original idea. If scarcity is some measure of whether or not you can own something...

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I think I said, "rocks are not scarce," so your question is just confusing.

So, you think that because it is unique among all rocks, that it is now considered scarce? With that logic, everything in the Universe possesses infinite scarcity. Is there anything that is not 'scarce'?

ding ding ding.

There is infinite scarcity in the universe, which is why we have property rights to reduce conflict in regards to the use-rights of that material.

Property = the right to use that particular scarce material.

Air is economically abundant to humans, but if you bring an air tank into space, it's now economically scarce to humans and property should delineate who has use rights to the air.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Relating this to IP, there is nothing more scarce in the entire cosmos than an original idea. If scarcity is some measure of whether or not you can own something...

Ideas can be replicated without loss to the original. It is not scarce.

Patterns are not scarce.

 

[Xenophage]

The thread has doubled in size since I last posted in it, and yet all I see are the same exact points in favor of IP still being tossed around while all of the counterpoints explained by myself and many others against IP continue to be ignored. There's absolutely nothing gained by this thread since there's no attempt to hold a discussion by the pro-IP side, and hopefully others will see this as well and let this topic die out.

Mustang, the fundamental disagreements are:

What is property?
Why do we have property?

We do not agree on the answers, and these are essential questions.

 

[Xenophage]

Ideas can be replicated without loss to the original. It is not scarce.

Patterns are not scarce.

And scarcity is not necessary for ownership.

To extend your logic:
- Patterns cannot be property
---------------------------------
You are a pattern of matter and energy.
You cannot be property
---------------------------------
You cannot own yourself.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

No I cannot own "human body".

I can own my body of scarce material. It is a material instance of the concept "human body".

 

[Xenophage]

ding ding ding.

There is infinite scarcity in the universe, which is why we have property rights to reduce conflict in regards to the use-rights of that material.

Property = the right to use that particular scarce material.

Air is economically abundant to humans, but if you bring an air tank into space, it's now economically scarce to humans and property should delineate who has use rights to the air.

Scarcity is dependent on the environment, obviously. But if everything is always scarce all the time, then the entire concept of scarcity is null and useless. In other words: If there is no way to distinguish between what is and what is not scarce, then why even talk about it?

 

[CCTelander]

Mustang, the fundamental disagreements are:

What is property?
Why do we have property?

We do not agree on the answers, and these are essential questions.

Would you agree that one proper definition of "property" would be: Something which the owner has the absolute right to decide the disposition of?

 

[Xenophage]

No I cannot own "human body".

I can own my body of scarce material. It is a material instance of the concept "human body".

Your specific body is what I refer to. Not 'human body.' Your specific body is a pattern in the Universe. In fact, everything is just patterns. Patterns of matter and energy.

 

[Xenophage]

Would you agree that one proper definition of "property" would be: Something which the owner has the absolute right to decide the disposition of?

I'd say that's an incomplete definition and begs the question, "What does someone have the absolute right to decide the disposition of?"

 

[noneedtoaggress]

You're conflating material scarcity in the universe with a good being economically scarce to humans.

If a good is not economically scarce to humans they likely won't delineate property in it because they don't have to.

Of course, as you said I could homestead some air into a bottle.

I don't think anyone would buy it though cause they could get some very similar air by breathing in.

 

[CCTelander]

I'd say that's an incomplete definition and begs the question, "What does someone have the absolute right to decide the disposition of?"

I'll concede that it may well be an incomplete definition. Will you agree that it is a truism, that the owner of any property does, in fact, have an absolute right to decide the disposition of that property?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Your specific body is what I refer to. Not 'human body.' Your specific body is a pattern in the Universe. In fact, everything is just patterns. Patterns of matter and energy.

Great. I own the [pattern of matter and energy] that I control. If the universe wants to clone me, I don't own my clone.