4 ms·

That's a bit of an arbitrary distinction. Without the government monopoly on violence, what's to stop me from knocking your door down and forcing you to perform

That's a bit of an arbitrary distinction. Without the government monopoly on violence, what's to stop me from knocking your door down and forcing you to perform free labor for me? Do you think ownership is part of the natural universe, something that can be read off of molecules and determined with a microscope? Every exchange, be it of goods, services or ideas, relies on a regulated marketplace.

sageikosa 11y ago
I think the correct response to that is "you and what army"?
humanrebar 11y ago
We're veering into the we worn paths of rights theory. But I'll point out that theft of precious matter is universally condemned in modern societies. And telling someone else's jokes is rarely criminal. I believe there is a natural distinction between matter and information. It's obvious in physics and I'm not sure why we feel the need to muddy the water with our legal code.
- stdbrouw 11y ago
  Rather hand-wavy, don't you think?
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    Not at all. A piece of matter has a unique identity. You can arrange other matter to resemble it, but you can't copy it, strictly speaking. In contrast, information can be copied and move to new media fairly simply. If Grandpa's pocket watch were destroyed, you could buy another pocket watch of the same model and vintage, but it really wouldn't be Grandpa's pocket watch. This is one source of friction when estates are settled. In contrast, you could copy all the digital photos of Grandpa and hand them out on USB sticks like party favors.
    - stdbrouw 11y ago
      And this proves your point that information should not be owned how? You're making various factual statements about what is easy, what is hard, what societies tend to condemn and tend not to condemn, but nowhere in there is a line of reasoning that actually supports your original claim.
      - humanrebar 11y ago
        Theft where someone is deprived of something unique (Grandpa's pocket watch) is fundamentally different than 'theft' where the original thing (a fact) is unharmed. When people 'steal' beer recipes or jokes, they erode exclusivity. They don't deprive someone of particular molecules. That means, with some exceptions, to the extent that someone is harmed in information 'theft', it's that their business model was affected (I can't make as much money on Mickey Mouse cartoons!). It seems like a contradiction to me to call it 'capitalism' when government protects particular business models. That's why I said I prefer to think of IP laws as 'corporatism'. Sorry if I under-explained things.

sageikosa 11y ago

I think the correct response to that is "you and what army"?

humanrebar 11y ago

We're veering into the we worn paths of rights theory. But I'll point out that theft of precious matter is universally condemned in modern societies. And telling someone else's jokes is rarely criminal. I believe there is a natural distinction between matter and information. It's obvious in physics and I'm not sure why we feel the need to muddy the water with our legal code.

stdbrouw 11y ago
Rather hand-wavy, don't you think?
- humanrebar 11y ago
  Not at all. A piece of matter has a unique identity. You can arrange other matter to resemble it, but you can't copy it, strictly speaking. In contrast, information can be copied and move to new media fairly simply. If Grandpa's pocket watch were destroyed, you could buy another pocket watch of the same model and vintage, but it really wouldn't be Grandpa's pocket watch. This is one source of friction when estates are settled. In contrast, you could copy all the digital photos of Grandpa and hand them out on USB sticks like party favors.
  - stdbrouw 11y ago
    And this proves your point that information should not be owned how? You're making various factual statements about what is easy, what is hard, what societies tend to condemn and tend not to condemn, but nowhere in there is a line of reasoning that actually supports your original claim.
    - humanrebar 11y ago
      Theft where someone is deprived of something unique (Grandpa's pocket watch) is fundamentally different than 'theft' where the original thing (a fact) is unharmed. When people 'steal' beer recipes or jokes, they erode exclusivity. They don't deprive someone of particular molecules. That means, with some exceptions, to the extent that someone is harmed in information 'theft', it's that their business model was affected (I can't make as much money on Mickey Mouse cartoons!). It seems like a contradiction to me to call it 'capitalism' when government protects particular business models. That's why I said I prefer to think of IP laws as 'corporatism'. Sorry if I under-explained things.