4 ms·

As Marx wrote, from your link, " 'theft' as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property." And this is true for tangible property, tho

by dodedo 15y ago

As Marx wrote, from your link, " 'theft' as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property." And this is true for tangible property, though importantly not true for intangible, intellectual constructs. The term "Intellectual Property" is a misnomer. It would be better named "Intellectual Control" as it does not in any way protect the inventor's natural right to use the fruits of their invention. Rather, it exists only to deprive others of a similar ability. Patents derive their value not from the nature and value of invention, but from the controls and limits placed on the intellectual freedoms of others. We do not know how to share physical objects, so assignment of use is natural and necessary. This is not true of intellectual constructs.

duairc 15y ago
> The term "Intellectual Property" is a misnomer. No, I get that. Even if you're a capitalist, the concept of intellectual property doesn't make sense. > As Marx wrote, from your link, " 'theft' as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property." Obviously the phrase "property is theft" is circular, but in the context it was originally said it makes a bit more sense. > We do not know how to share physical objects, so assignment of use is natural and necessary. This is not true of intellectual constructs. "Property" isn't just assigning the use of a particular object to a particular entity, it's also giving to that entity the right to prevent others from using that object (by violence, ultimately). This is arguably okay for "personal property", but what that quote is really referring to is "private property": land, factories, "the means of production". What characterises "private property" is that the entity which has the right to prevent others from using the "property" (the owner of the land or boss of the factory) is not the entity which actually uses the "property" (the workers in the factory or the people who actually work on the farms, or mine the mines, or whatever). This is the sense in which property is theft. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_versus_private_property http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_vers...
- dodedo 15y ago
  Ah, I understand. I had assumed some level of sarcasm in your post -- my mistake. I agree with you.

by dodedo 15y ago

duairc 15y ago

> The term "Intellectual Property" is a misnomer. No, I get that. Even if you're a capitalist, the concept of intellectual property doesn't make sense. > As Marx wrote, from your link, " 'theft' as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property." Obviously the phrase "property is theft" is circular, but in the context it was originally said it makes a bit more sense. > We do not know how to share physical objects, so assignment of use is natural and necessary. This is not true of intellectual constructs. "Property" isn't just assigning the use of a particular object to a particular entity, it's also giving to that entity the right to prevent others from using that object (by violence, ultimately). This is arguably okay for "personal property", but what that quote is really referring to is "private property": land, factories, "the means of production". What characterises "private property" is that the entity which has the right to prevent others from using the "property" (the owner of the land or boss of the factory) is not the entity which actually uses the "property" (the workers in the factory or the people who actually work on the farms, or mine the mines, or whatever). This is the sense in which property is theft. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_versus_private_property http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_vers...

dodedo 15y ago
Ah, I understand. I had assumed some level of sarcasm in your post -- my mistake. I agree with you.