4 ms·

This is a different argument for property than the one I was referencing. (I'm not arguing it's wrong, just that it's different.) The argument I'm talking abou

by geofft 8y ago

This is a different argument for property than the one I was referencing. (I'm not arguing it's wrong, just that it's different.) The argument I'm talking about is that the right to private property is the right to ownership/control. If I have X, and I am deprived of it / it is taken from me, it is unjust. The argument you are referencing is that the right to private property is the right to exchange it at a certain value, and a negative impact on its market value is unjust. I can see some cases where this is true (e.g., buying a name-brand purse and finding it's an equally functional counterfeit), some where it's debatable (e.g., buying a house in a quiet neighborhood that gets loud), and some where it's not (e.g., buying a large quantity of a psychoactive substance that isn't controlled and then having it become controlled). So it seems like a weaker argument to me. I think you can still defend it by saying that the not-unjust cases are because there's a greater good / more important right being protected. But I also think you can just hold to the other definition of the right to private property. In kindergartener terms: if I bring candy to school and my teacher takes it from me and eats it, that's wrong, that's stealing. If I bring candy to school with the intent to give it to other kids to boost my popularity, and the teacher tells me I can't do that and have to keep the candy in my bag, that doesn't seem like stealing. I agree that compensating inventors is important. I disagree that treating inventions as property is the only way to do it.

tw04 8y ago
>Iagree that compensating inventors is important. I disagree that treating inventions as property is the only way to do it. So what is this magical means of Samsung being compensated for their multi-billion dollar investment that China stole that you don't think is a big deal? As for your analogy, it's patently false that anyone involved wants the candy shared. It's been stolen.
- geofft 8y ago
  > So what is this magical means of Samsung being compensated for their multi-billion dollar investment that China stole that you don't think is a big deal? My claim in this thread is that not treating ideas as private property is a defensible and reasonable position to take. When you say that Samsung needs to be "compensated," you make it clear that you're not treating ideas as private property, either. The market value of property is the amount of benefit/enjoyment it provides someone else, not the amount of effort that went into making it. If I spend two hours making a cake, and you spend 30 minutes making a cake, and people want to pay both of us $10 for it, there is no violation of my property rights that I'm not compensated for spending 4x as long. You might casually say that my cake is "a steal," but the cake is definitely not being stolen from me. If you were arguing about property rights, you would be asking about why Samsung isn't getting paid the fair market value of their ideas, not about why they aren't recouping the investment they put into creating them. (And I've even suggested elsewhere in this thread that compulsory licenses are a way to do this.) But if you're interested in Samsung recouping their investment, well, we can discuss that but it's absolutely not property rights that are helping them do that today. If we want to discuss that, I'd simultaneously ask how to compensate people for multi-billion dollar investments that don't yield marketable products but are still good for humanity to have done the research. > As for your analogy, it's patently false that anyone involved wants the candy shared. It's been stolen. Not sure I follow. Samsung wants to trade phones for money. Samsung does want the phones shared: that's the entire basis of the argument The kid wants to trade candy for reputation. If you prevent Samsung from selling as many phones, no phones are being stolen. (Actually it turns out I didn't even need the analogy here.) If you prevent the kid from giving candy to classmates, no candy is being stolen. Why do you think the candy is being stolen?

by geofft 8y ago

tw04 8y ago

>Iagree that compensating inventors is important. I disagree that treating inventions as property is the only way to do it. So what is this magical means of Samsung being compensated for their multi-billion dollar investment that China stole that you don't think is a big deal? As for your analogy, it's patently false that anyone involved wants the candy shared. It's been stolen.

geofft 8y ago
> So what is this magical means of Samsung being compensated for their multi-billion dollar investment that China stole that you don't think is a big deal? My claim in this thread is that not treating ideas as private property is a defensible and reasonable position to take. When you say that Samsung needs to be "compensated," you make it clear that you're not treating ideas as private property, either. The market value of property is the amount of benefit/enjoyment it provides someone else, not the amount of effort that went into making it. If I spend two hours making a cake, and you spend 30 minutes making a cake, and people want to pay both of us $10 for it, there is no violation of my property rights that I'm not compensated for spending 4x as long. You might casually say that my cake is "a steal," but the cake is definitely not being stolen from me. If you were arguing about property rights, you would be asking about why Samsung isn't getting paid the fair market value of their ideas, not about why they aren't recouping the investment they put into creating them. (And I've even suggested elsewhere in this thread that compulsory licenses are a way to do this.) But if you're interested in Samsung recouping their investment, well, we can discuss that but it's absolutely not property rights that are helping them do that today. If we want to discuss that, I'd simultaneously ask how to compensate people for multi-billion dollar investments that don't yield marketable products but are still good for humanity to have done the research. > As for your analogy, it's patently false that anyone involved wants the candy shared. It's been stolen. Not sure I follow. Samsung wants to trade phones for money. Samsung does want the phones shared: that's the entire basis of the argument The kid wants to trade candy for reputation. If you prevent Samsung from selling as many phones, no phones are being stolen. (Actually it turns out I didn't even need the analogy here.) If you prevent the kid from giving candy to classmates, no candy is being stolen. Why do you think the candy is being stolen?