I remember one RMS lecture that made me think. He pointed out that the so-called "intellectual property" doesn't really exist. What exists are certain laws, such as patents, copyright, trademarks and so on. Each of these recognizes the benefit to society of temporary restriction of freedom of others to use the ideas that were invented/transmitted by others.
> Each of these recognizes the benefit to society of temporary restriction of freedom of others to use the ideas that were invented/transmitted by others.
I'd say that in the context of intellectual property the correct word would be 'postulates' not 'recognizes'.
Benefit to society is hard to proove or measure. It's implied. What's very easy to measure is a benefit to minority of rich people at the expense of the society.
You can just drop "intellectual" and there will be no fundamental change to the argument, it's only the name of the laws defining "property" that change.
No, you can't. Property exists. You can replace the word intellectual with "personal," "private," "public," etc. But removing it does not work. Property is not a legal fiction. Who the property belongs to is.
Yes, but the association of that laptop with yourself as an owner is an abstract idea. Many mammals do not have such ideas of ownership as an exclusive right, though many will defend territory, mates, and offspring.
It can not be understated how foundational exclusive property rights are to modern society and technological advancement. Since at least the Magna Carta it’s considered a human right. The US Declaration of Independence almost enumerated property as an inalienable right in place of the pursuit of happiness.
How could I have forgotten: the idea of personal property is also essential to Jewish law, predating the Magna Carta by another 2,000 years. That’s at least 3,000 years of at least a portion of humans placing value on private property.
I updated my earlier comment to point out much earlier property laws. As best I can tell, copyright laws are around 500 years old, and about 230 in America. They were always written to give the creator a limited monopoly, unlike property, which is in perpetuity. Personal property is typically not considered to have the wide public value or cultural impact that ideas have.
There’s definitely a deep philosophical discussion to be had here about what value governments provide in return for your tax dollars on property that in reality they allow you to do certain things with, insofar as any human can claim to own any piece of this planet. In the end, it usually boils down to paying for them to defend it from invaders and anyone trying to take it from you, so think about the tax like a protection fee that entitles you to call up guys with guns to make whoever is trying to break that government’s rules about what you can and cannot do with that property you pay tax on stop. Consider US military strength (perceived and actual, as far as we can even measure that) vs rest of world, same with property values and wages in the US vs other places.
> Consider US military strength (perceived and actual, as far as we can even measure that) vs rest of world, same with property values and wages in the US vs other places.
While I agree with your comment, I think the last part is only partly true. The military strength of a country doesn't necessarily correlate with the property values and prices - it is enough to compare, say, Switzerland or the Netherlands with Russia or China. Rather, it is an intricate next of various factors that constantly change.
I’d highly recommend reading the 1840 banger * What Is Property? or, An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government* by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon of Property is theft! fame.
