4 ms·

>Human rights cannot be rights for someone else to build or do something for you, because it inherently causes a restriction or obligation to someone else What

>Human rights cannot be rights for someone else to build or do something for you, because it inherently causes a restriction or obligation to someone else What are intellectual property rights?

hellojesus 5y ago
Isn't it exactly the safeguarding of private property since IP is by definition, property?
- perl4ever 5y ago
  Well, definitions are what you make them. If, as you say, IP is property and if property rights are human rights, then it follows that human (and property) rights can take away property rights, compel people to do things, or force them to do other things than they would like. I think this contradicts the grandparent's claims about what rights are, and they rub me the wrong way, because I think there's a creed that gets repeated by libertarians who use it to forestall thought. We all agree that slavery is not acceptable; therefore defining a concept as property does not make it legitimate. Given a known counterexample, the possibility that any form of property is illegitimate or ill-defined must exist. I refuse to commit to any definitions, instead I'm demanding uncertainty. Here is an interesting Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage
  - hellojesus 5y ago
    > If, as you say, IP is property and if property rights are human rights, then it follows that human (and property) rights can take away property rights, compel people to do things, or force them to do other things than they would like. People are only compelled or forced to do other things than they would like in that they are being disallowed from using someone else's property. This is in stark contrast to forcing someone to do something they don't want to do. Negative vs. positive rights. Slavey is only unacceptable because the slave is a third party to the transaction who is unwilling to voluntarily enter it. That is much different than disallowing someone the use of something that does not belong to them. You cannot force someone not to work a job because you don't want them to. It's the same thing. If you were to force them not to work a job you don't want them to, you would be violating their rights by impeding on their right to engage in voluntary transactions. Illegitimate and ill-defined property exists. It is first and foremost job of the government to be the arbitrator of legal contract such the ambiguity around Illegitimate and ill-defined property is removed. Debt bondage is a classic form of slavery. Thankfully it's not generally legal since the obligation is not properly defined legally. If it were, then there would be recourse for breaking the contract, and a process of insolvency which would remediate the debt. In fact, the outlawing of voluntary transactions is what breeds the possibility for these types of markets as the debt payoff is typically accomplished through sex trafficking or drug related activities. This is done so the victim has a disincentive from contacting state enforcement agents as they would have to implicate themselves in a crime to do so.

>Human rights cannot be rights for someone else to build or do something for you, because it inherently causes a restriction or obligation to someone else What are intellectual property rights?

hellojesus 5y ago

Isn't it exactly the safeguarding of private property since IP is by definition, property?

perl4ever 5y ago
Well, definitions are what you make them. If, as you say, IP is property and if property rights are human rights, then it follows that human (and property) rights can take away property rights, compel people to do things, or force them to do other things than they would like. I think this contradicts the grandparent's claims about what rights are, and they rub me the wrong way, because I think there's a creed that gets repeated by libertarians who use it to forestall thought. We all agree that slavery is not acceptable; therefore defining a concept as property does not make it legitimate. Given a known counterexample, the possibility that any form of property is illegitimate or ill-defined must exist. I refuse to commit to any definitions, instead I'm demanding uncertainty. Here is an interesting Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage
- hellojesus 5y ago
  > If, as you say, IP is property and if property rights are human rights, then it follows that human (and property) rights can take away property rights, compel people to do things, or force them to do other things than they would like. People are only compelled or forced to do other things than they would like in that they are being disallowed from using someone else's property. This is in stark contrast to forcing someone to do something they don't want to do. Negative vs. positive rights. Slavey is only unacceptable because the slave is a third party to the transaction who is unwilling to voluntarily enter it. That is much different than disallowing someone the use of something that does not belong to them. You cannot force someone not to work a job because you don't want them to. It's the same thing. If you were to force them not to work a job you don't want them to, you would be violating their rights by impeding on their right to engage in voluntary transactions. Illegitimate and ill-defined property exists. It is first and foremost job of the government to be the arbitrator of legal contract such the ambiguity around Illegitimate and ill-defined property is removed. Debt bondage is a classic form of slavery. Thankfully it's not generally legal since the obligation is not properly defined legally. If it were, then there would be recourse for breaking the contract, and a process of insolvency which would remediate the debt. In fact, the outlawing of voluntary transactions is what breeds the possibility for these types of markets as the debt payoff is typically accomplished through sex trafficking or drug related activities. This is done so the victim has a disincentive from contacting state enforcement agents as they would have to implicate themselves in a crime to do so.