5 ms·

Does the same reasoning also imply that the government should get all physical property 100 years after its creation? If not, what makes that case different?

black_puppydog 7y ago
The same that makes copyright violation different from theft: you can "take away" information from the owner and still have them keep it.
tordanik 7y ago
The ability to create infinite copies for essentially zero cost changes the utility calculus significantly. If we're talking about physical property like, say, a single-family home, the only question is which family is allowed to live in it. If the physical world worked like copyrighted creations, we'd be able to give every family on earth a copy of that home to live in, for free. And while that would still have downsides for the heirs of the builder (with infinite supply, they could no longer rent out their own copies of the home for a profit), the total utility gained by humanity would easily justify that step.
abdullahkhalids 7y ago
In various countries there are inheritance and estate taxes that ensure that part of a dead person's property is acquired by society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_tax And many people believe that such taxes should be raised.
adrianN 7y ago
Leasing land in 30 year increments or so instead of selling it would be pretty smart. Then the government can just not renew leases if it needs land for, say, infrastructure.
CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
Perhaps? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice (While I think the right of commons should have a higher institutional standing as a legal entity, I’m not convinced it should be conflated with the government. I would probably like to see constitutional writings limiting what rights a government would have as a custodian of the commons)

black_puppydog 7y ago

The same that makes copyright violation different from theft: you can "take away" information from the owner and still have them keep it.

tordanik 7y ago

The ability to create infinite copies for essentially zero cost changes the utility calculus significantly. If we're talking about physical property like, say, a single-family home, the only question is which family is allowed to live in it. If the physical world worked like copyrighted creations, we'd be able to give every family on earth a copy of that home to live in, for free. And while that would still have downsides for the heirs of the builder (with infinite supply, they could no longer rent out their own copies of the home for a profit), the total utility gained by humanity would easily justify that step.

abdullahkhalids 7y ago

In various countries there are inheritance and estate taxes that ensure that part of a dead person's property is acquired by society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_tax And many people believe that such taxes should be raised.

adrianN 7y ago

Leasing land in 30 year increments or so instead of selling it would be pretty smart. Then the government can just not renew leases if it needs land for, say, infrastructure.

CuriousSkeptic 7y ago

Perhaps? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice (While I think the right of commons should have a higher institutional standing as a legal entity, I’m not convinced it should be conflated with the government. I would probably like to see constitutional writings limiting what rights a government would have as a custodian of the commons)