5 ms·

Did Cory Doctorow's explanation address valuing intellectual property via Harberger taxes?

kstrauser 5y ago
It didn't. The short version is that we don't currently have a wealth tax, with only a few specific kinds of things being taxable. I offered that maybe we could add IP to that list of things, and he said that this was the main gist of Piketty's plan and it had met with huge resistance, and that if we're going down that route we should probably start with stocks and bonds, etc.
- mixmastamyk 5y ago
  I'd like to see a copyright that was free for a reasonable amount of time, say 30 years then a fee starts at $10,000 on year+1 and doubles every year after.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  Because a tax on IP is a tax on someone thoughts. What right do you or anyone else have to take a cut of someone's mind?
  - kstrauser 5y ago
    What right does that person have to ask the government to defend their thoughts, which are provably thinkable by others, too?
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      If people had thought of it before, they would have filed first or proven they invented it first. In addition, people already pay filing fees for their patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Why should they have to pay more protection money to defend it?
      - mcguire 5y ago
        That would be one of the differences between "someone's thoughts" and IP.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    It is absolutely not a tax on thoughts. It is a tax on a specifix ability to assert legal control over other people's thoughts.
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      That's what the filing fees are for. In addition, it's possible to have intellectual property without requiring government influence on someone's thoughts. Case in point, trade secrets.
      - shkkmo 5y ago
        > That's what the filing fees are for. What is? > In addition, it's possible to have intellectual property without requiring government influence on someone's thoughts. Case in point, trade secrets. Nobody is proposing that keeping stuff in your head is going to be illegal or taxed. What would be taxed is puting stuff out in the world and then telling people what they are allowed to do with it. That is only possible by using threats of force or the implied threats of force embodied bybour legal system.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > In addition, it's possible to have intellectual property without requiring government influence on someone's thoughts. Case in point, trade secrets. Also, all other actual IP.
  - blendergeek 5y ago
    No, it is a tax on a government granted monopoly on concepts that the grantee may or may not have come up with.
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      Not all IP requires government enforcement.
      - kstrauser 5y ago
        I'm having a hard time thinking of any form of IP that doesn't require government enforcement. Can you give an example?
        Dracophoenix 5y ago
        Trade secrets.
        mcguire 5y ago
        That was the approach prior to the invention of intellectual property. It has problems.
        goodpoint 5y ago
        That's not IP, by definition.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Because a tax on IP is a tax on someone thoughts No, like any other property tax, its a user fee for the government service of excluding others from whatever exclusive rights are granted under law for the class of property at issue. IP doesn't limit or license thought, and a tax on IP doesn't tax thought. If you want the government to protect against other people making certain applications of similar thoughts to the ones you’ve had, then you want IP protection, and that protection is what a tax on IP applies to.
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      IP, whether enforced by the government or by private contract, is not a user fee. It's an incentive. To quote the Constitution, IP exists "[T]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings" How else does such a person learn to discover or create without his thoughts? Taxing IP is taxing the discoveries and the works of a person. Ergo taxing IP is taxing one's thoughts.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > IP, whether enforced by the government or by private contract, is not a user fee. “private contracts” aren't an enforcement mechanism, they are a basis for government enforcement. That aside, no, IP (and property generally) isn't a user fee, its the privilege of excluding others from some conduct relating to the subject of the property right. A tax on property is a user fee on the service of providing and enforcing that privilege.
      - goodpoint 5y ago
        > Taxing IP is taxing the discoveries and the works of a person False. "IP" is the right to exclude other people from using such work.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    There are very stringent differences between IP and "someone's thoughts".

It didn't. The short version is that we don't currently have a wealth tax, with only a few specific kinds of things being taxable. I offered that maybe we could add IP to that list of things, and he said that this was the main gist of Piketty's plan and it had met with huge resistance, and that if we're going down that route we should probably start with stocks and bonds, etc.

mixmastamyk 5y ago
I'd like to see a copyright that was free for a reasonable amount of time, say 30 years then a fee starts at $10,000 on year+1 and doubles every year after.
Dracophoenix 5y ago
Because a tax on IP is a tax on someone thoughts. What right do you or anyone else have to take a cut of someone's mind?
- kstrauser 5y ago
  What right does that person have to ask the government to defend their thoughts, which are provably thinkable by others, too?
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    If people had thought of it before, they would have filed first or proven they invented it first. In addition, people already pay filing fees for their patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Why should they have to pay more protection money to defend it?
    - mcguire 5y ago
      That would be one of the differences between "someone's thoughts" and IP.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  It is absolutely not a tax on thoughts. It is a tax on a specifix ability to assert legal control over other people's thoughts.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    That's what the filing fees are for. In addition, it's possible to have intellectual property without requiring government influence on someone's thoughts. Case in point, trade secrets.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      > That's what the filing fees are for. What is? > In addition, it's possible to have intellectual property without requiring government influence on someone's thoughts. Case in point, trade secrets. Nobody is proposing that keeping stuff in your head is going to be illegal or taxed. What would be taxed is puting stuff out in the world and then telling people what they are allowed to do with it. That is only possible by using threats of force or the implied threats of force embodied bybour legal system.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > In addition, it's possible to have intellectual property without requiring government influence on someone's thoughts. Case in point, trade secrets. Also, all other actual IP.
- blendergeek 5y ago
  No, it is a tax on a government granted monopoly on concepts that the grantee may or may not have come up with.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    Not all IP requires government enforcement.
    - kstrauser 5y ago
      I'm having a hard time thinking of any form of IP that doesn't require government enforcement. Can you give an example?
      - Dracophoenix 5y ago
        Trade secrets.
        mcguire 5y ago
        That was the approach prior to the invention of intellectual property. It has problems.
        goodpoint 5y ago
        That's not IP, by definition.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Because a tax on IP is a tax on someone thoughts No, like any other property tax, its a user fee for the government service of excluding others from whatever exclusive rights are granted under law for the class of property at issue. IP doesn't limit or license thought, and a tax on IP doesn't tax thought. If you want the government to protect against other people making certain applications of similar thoughts to the ones you’ve had, then you want IP protection, and that protection is what a tax on IP applies to.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    IP, whether enforced by the government or by private contract, is not a user fee. It's an incentive. To quote the Constitution, IP exists "[T]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings" How else does such a person learn to discover or create without his thoughts? Taxing IP is taxing the discoveries and the works of a person. Ergo taxing IP is taxing one's thoughts.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > IP, whether enforced by the government or by private contract, is not a user fee. “private contracts” aren't an enforcement mechanism, they are a basis for government enforcement. That aside, no, IP (and property generally) isn't a user fee, its the privilege of excluding others from some conduct relating to the subject of the property right. A tax on property is a user fee on the service of providing and enforcing that privilege.
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      > Taxing IP is taxing the discoveries and the works of a person False. "IP" is the right to exclude other people from using such work.
- mcguire 5y ago
  There are very stringent differences between IP and "someone's thoughts".