3 ms·

I don’t see how you can’t consider this to be the case for all forms of property. Enclosure of the commons was certainly for private benefit. There are numerou

I don’t see how you can’t consider this to be the case for all forms of property. Enclosure of the commons was certainly for private benefit. There are numerous aspects of physical property ownership that we just take for granted that are not at all straightforward. You seem to be using a “is it for the benefit of society” test to determine whether something is an intrinsic feature of capitalism. I’d posit that is not how the system is structured nor is it how it is intended to be structured. That’s not regulatory capture, that is inherent to what it is. You can’t just take out the parts you don’t like and treat them as a separate entity.

pdonis 4y ago
> all forms of property The problem is that you are assuming that "intellectual property" is property. You cannot assume that. > Enclosure of the commons was certainly for private benefit. Enclosure of parts of the commons that are rivalrous--only one person can use that part at a time--was, yes. But as I have already said, "intellectual property" is non-rivalrous, so this argument does not apply to it. > There are numerous aspects of physical property ownership that we just take for granted that are not at all straightforward This is quite true; it's why we have a complex system of private property common law for physical property, and some kinds (such as real estate) have even more complexity in the law attached to them. But "intellectual property" is not physical property, and you can't just assume that all of the law that has been developed for physical property is automatically applicable to "intellectual property" as well. > You seem to be using a “is it for the benefit of society” test to determine whether something is an intrinsic feature of capitalism. I am doing no such thing. Indeed, the feature of capitalism I have been describing, namely regulatory capture, is not for the benefit of society; it is a net loss to society. But it is a benefit to the capitalists who buy the regulations they want. That's why they buy them. > That’s not regulatory capture, that is inherent to what it is. In the sense that regulatory capture is a common end state of capitalism (where "capitalism", as I have said elsewhere in this discussion, is not the same thing as "free markets", although capitalists would love for people to think it is), yes, it is "inherent" to capitalism. That still doesn't mean it's a net benefit to society. It isn't.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The problem is that you are assuming that "intellectual property" is property. Intellectual property is property. Whether or not it should be is a different question, but it factually is property.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    You can assert that as fact, but I don't think it's actually established as fact.
  - vkou 4y ago
    > Intellectual property is property. Why? Is there some natural law that gives me ownership to the meaning of the words I say? That bars you from repeating that meaning in those words?
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      Property is a creation of human law, and intellectual propety is a subcategory of it; natural law is a label for subjectve preferences used to give them the illusion of objectivity as a rationalization for human law, not a provable thing that exists. You are literally inverting the facts (actual law that exists) and subjective preferences that are not facts (“natural law”).
    - comte7092 4y ago
      Apply the same test to any other form of property. What natural law gives you the right to own land?
      - vkou 4y ago
        What natural law indeed? There isn't one. It's an arbitrary social construct. The argument that IP is property is built on a circle of quicksand. In the case of land, at least, exclusivity of use can be an argument one could make (Only one person can physically use any one plot of it for any one particular purpose, and gosh, maybe it's in the social interest to have some set of rules for ajudicating disputes between two people who want to use it for different purposes, and one of many solutions to that question is private land ownership), but that's not even an argument that has any applicability in the IP space. What's most interesting is that the IP commons can be freely plundered, at no cost, to build IP that is owned by someone. If we're going to treat IP as property, why does the creation of new IP not require a tax, levy, or dividend to be paid to the collective owners of the IP commons? All ideas are, after all, derivative.

pdonis 4y ago

> all forms of property The problem is that you are assuming that "intellectual property" is property. You cannot assume that. > Enclosure of the commons was certainly for private benefit. Enclosure of parts of the commons that are rivalrous--only one person can use that part at a time--was, yes. But as I have already said, "intellectual property" is non-rivalrous, so this argument does not apply to it. > There are numerous aspects of physical property ownership that we just take for granted that are not at all straightforward This is quite true; it's why we have a complex system of private property common law for physical property, and some kinds (such as real estate) have even more complexity in the law attached to them. But "intellectual property" is not physical property, and you can't just assume that all of the law that has been developed for physical property is automatically applicable to "intellectual property" as well. > You seem to be using a “is it for the benefit of society” test to determine whether something is an intrinsic feature of capitalism. I am doing no such thing. Indeed, the feature of capitalism I have been describing, namely regulatory capture, is not for the benefit of society; it is a net loss to society. But it is a benefit to the capitalists who buy the regulations they want. That's why they buy them. > That’s not regulatory capture, that is inherent to what it is. In the sense that regulatory capture is a common end state of capitalism (where "capitalism", as I have said elsewhere in this discussion, is not the same thing as "free markets", although capitalists would love for people to think it is), yes, it is "inherent" to capitalism. That still doesn't mean it's a net benefit to society. It isn't.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> The problem is that you are assuming that "intellectual property" is property. Intellectual property is property. Whether or not it should be is a different question, but it factually is property.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  You can assert that as fact, but I don't think it's actually established as fact.
- vkou 4y ago
  > Intellectual property is property. Why? Is there some natural law that gives me ownership to the meaning of the words I say? That bars you from repeating that meaning in those words?
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    Property is a creation of human law, and intellectual propety is a subcategory of it; natural law is a label for subjectve preferences used to give them the illusion of objectivity as a rationalization for human law, not a provable thing that exists. You are literally inverting the facts (actual law that exists) and subjective preferences that are not facts (“natural law”).
  - comte7092 4y ago
    Apply the same test to any other form of property. What natural law gives you the right to own land?
    - vkou 4y ago
      What natural law indeed? There isn't one. It's an arbitrary social construct. The argument that IP is property is built on a circle of quicksand. In the case of land, at least, exclusivity of use can be an argument one could make (Only one person can physically use any one plot of it for any one particular purpose, and gosh, maybe it's in the social interest to have some set of rules for ajudicating disputes between two people who want to use it for different purposes, and one of many solutions to that question is private land ownership), but that's not even an argument that has any applicability in the IP space. What's most interesting is that the IP commons can be freely plundered, at no cost, to build IP that is owned by someone. If we're going to treat IP as property, why does the creation of new IP not require a tax, levy, or dividend to be paid to the collective owners of the IP commons? All ideas are, after all, derivative.