7 ms·

In discourse big capital has done well to erase the distinction between personal and private property. Big capital has been fighting to strengthen private prop

In discourse big capital has done well to erase the distinction between personal and private property. Big capital has been fighting to strengthen private property and eroding personal property. - ¿Drawing a schematic of a thing you own for repair? - ¿Creating a spare part to repair a thing you own? Those infringe on companies private property so you must have no rights over your personal property. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Personal_property#/Personal_versus_private_property https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Personal_property#/Personal_vers...

pitaj 4y ago
I would say that intellectual property is not part of private property. There's also no easy distinction made between private and personal property, and any attempt to define one is nonsensical. There are endless examples where something is both personal and private property, or rapidly switched between the two. Yet another aspect of Marxist theory that fails to hold up to even the lightest scrutiny.
- LocalH 4y ago
  Intellectual property is a misnomer. The word “property” contains some very physical connotations that ideas and media are not bound by. Unfortunately, too many powerful people have a vested interest in continuing to use the word “property” in conjunction with non-physical items.
  - sacrosancty 4y ago
    I think that's a bit of cultural bias there. Imagine a society without personal property, like some small tribe. Wouldn't they see our property rights as artificial? Maybe their "true" property would be something we don't even recognize like their honor or wife or other things they don't want to share with each other. I have a wheelbarrow in my yard that I'm not using. Why can't anyone else use it? There's no natural reason why they couldn't. It's just there, they can take it and wheel dirt around in it. I might no even know it's happening, but my property rights say they're not allowed to. I think the main feature of property is to disallow others from using it in a way that restricts your own use. For IP, others selling copies would restrict your ability to sell copies as they undercut you. I wonder how you feel about medical information being free to copy? That's not property either, is it? Are you happy with no moral rights for subjects of photographs and no rights to privacy of medical information? Should patients "own" their medical records or should hospitals be free to use them however they like?
    - ISO-morphism 4y ago
      > I think the main feature of property is to disallow others from using it in a way that restricts your own use. For IP, others selling copies would restrict your ability to sell copies as they undercut you. The main difference between the wheelbarrow and IP lies in the copies. If someone else uses my wheelbarrow I can't use it while they're using it, or they may damage it. If someone copies an mp3 of a song I performed, I still have my mp3. We had a working economic model based on physical property and we've been crippling the wonderful ability to infinitely create zero-cost copies of digital artifacts in order to fit our existing model. It's not horrendous that we've done this, and I'd optimistically view it as a step on the road to something yet unrealized. > medical data That deals with privacy, which is a different can of worms.
      - alexvoda 4y ago
        Since medical data was mentioned, lets just bring in the topic of copyrighted/patented genes. It is already a topic discussed in the agricultural space. Just imagine a future where we will have cures for some incurable diseases, but as a consequence of IP laws, the pharma company now controls your reproductive rights because you are making copies of their IP.
    - jimmygrapes 4y ago
      You contract out the use of the wheelbarrow so that you are aware it is not accessible.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Physical objects break down with use. That’s the natural impetus for personal property to be a thing. Ideas however don’t fail with use which is why no legal system has the concept of actually owning an idea rather than say getting a patent for a few years etc. Intellectual property doesn’t exist, it’s all just privileges handed out at the whims of the the state the same way only Dentists can practice dentistry.
      - Hasu 4y ago
        I'm still not seeing the distinction on a fundamental ontological level. Physical property rights are also just privileges handed out at the whim of the state. There are plenty of examples of ideas that are less useful when they're common knowledge: Coke's secret formula, novel strategies, the passphrase to my private key, Apple's plans for the next iPhone, the list goes on. There are valid reasons to want to keep information secret or retain ownership over certain information patterns that you have mined or generated at great cost to yourself, the same as if you bought or built a physical object at similar cost to yourself. Just because the end product is information instead of a thing, why should you not have rights?
  - pitaj 4y ago
    Yes, that was exactly what I meant. Intellectual property is not property, and is therefore not private property.
  - tremon 4y ago
    I think that's just an unfortunate consequence of overloading in the English language (and others, btw). One of the meanings of the word "property" is just "ownership" and has nothing to do with the physicality of the items under discussion. In Dutch, it's called intellectueel eigendom which translates as ownership, not property. When the Dutch "eigendom" refers to physical items, it's usually used in the plural (e.g. mijn eigendommen == my belongings).
- kurikuri 4y ago
  What about this is ‘Marxist?’
  - pitaj 4y ago
    The parent comment linked to "personal vs private property" on the page. The section specifically cites "socialist, Marxist, and most anarchist philosophies".

pitaj 4y ago

I would say that intellectual property is not part of private property. There's also no easy distinction made between private and personal property, and any attempt to define one is nonsensical. There are endless examples where something is both personal and private property, or rapidly switched between the two. Yet another aspect of Marxist theory that fails to hold up to even the lightest scrutiny.

LocalH 4y ago
Intellectual property is a misnomer. The word “property” contains some very physical connotations that ideas and media are not bound by. Unfortunately, too many powerful people have a vested interest in continuing to use the word “property” in conjunction with non-physical items.
- sacrosancty 4y ago
  I think that's a bit of cultural bias there. Imagine a society without personal property, like some small tribe. Wouldn't they see our property rights as artificial? Maybe their "true" property would be something we don't even recognize like their honor or wife or other things they don't want to share with each other. I have a wheelbarrow in my yard that I'm not using. Why can't anyone else use it? There's no natural reason why they couldn't. It's just there, they can take it and wheel dirt around in it. I might no even know it's happening, but my property rights say they're not allowed to. I think the main feature of property is to disallow others from using it in a way that restricts your own use. For IP, others selling copies would restrict your ability to sell copies as they undercut you. I wonder how you feel about medical information being free to copy? That's not property either, is it? Are you happy with no moral rights for subjects of photographs and no rights to privacy of medical information? Should patients "own" their medical records or should hospitals be free to use them however they like?
  - ISO-morphism 4y ago
    > I think the main feature of property is to disallow others from using it in a way that restricts your own use. For IP, others selling copies would restrict your ability to sell copies as they undercut you. The main difference between the wheelbarrow and IP lies in the copies. If someone else uses my wheelbarrow I can't use it while they're using it, or they may damage it. If someone copies an mp3 of a song I performed, I still have my mp3. We had a working economic model based on physical property and we've been crippling the wonderful ability to infinitely create zero-cost copies of digital artifacts in order to fit our existing model. It's not horrendous that we've done this, and I'd optimistically view it as a step on the road to something yet unrealized. > medical data That deals with privacy, which is a different can of worms.
    - alexvoda 4y ago
      Since medical data was mentioned, lets just bring in the topic of copyrighted/patented genes. It is already a topic discussed in the agricultural space. Just imagine a future where we will have cures for some incurable diseases, but as a consequence of IP laws, the pharma company now controls your reproductive rights because you are making copies of their IP.
  - jimmygrapes 4y ago
    You contract out the use of the wheelbarrow so that you are aware it is not accessible.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Physical objects break down with use. That’s the natural impetus for personal property to be a thing. Ideas however don’t fail with use which is why no legal system has the concept of actually owning an idea rather than say getting a patent for a few years etc. Intellectual property doesn’t exist, it’s all just privileges handed out at the whims of the the state the same way only Dentists can practice dentistry.
    - Hasu 4y ago
      I'm still not seeing the distinction on a fundamental ontological level. Physical property rights are also just privileges handed out at the whim of the state. There are plenty of examples of ideas that are less useful when they're common knowledge: Coke's secret formula, novel strategies, the passphrase to my private key, Apple's plans for the next iPhone, the list goes on. There are valid reasons to want to keep information secret or retain ownership over certain information patterns that you have mined or generated at great cost to yourself, the same as if you bought or built a physical object at similar cost to yourself. Just because the end product is information instead of a thing, why should you not have rights?
- pitaj 4y ago
  Yes, that was exactly what I meant. Intellectual property is not property, and is therefore not private property.
- tremon 4y ago
  I think that's just an unfortunate consequence of overloading in the English language (and others, btw). One of the meanings of the word "property" is just "ownership" and has nothing to do with the physicality of the items under discussion. In Dutch, it's called intellectueel eigendom which translates as ownership, not property. When the Dutch "eigendom" refers to physical items, it's usually used in the plural (e.g. mijn eigendommen == my belongings).
kurikuri 4y ago
What about this is ‘Marxist?’
- pitaj 4y ago
  The parent comment linked to "personal vs private property" on the page. The section specifically cites "socialist, Marxist, and most anarchist philosophies".