5 ms·

Apply the same logic to any kind of asset. Why should real estate, ownership of land, or any other material posession be inherited through generations? Why not

Apply the same logic to any kind of asset. Why should real estate, ownership of land, or any other material posession be inherited through generations? Why not let it revert to the public domain upon the death of the owner?

truckerbill 4y ago
This actually would solve a lot of problems also. Rent-seeking isn't very productive compared to what removing it enables.
citizenkeen 4y ago
IP exists to encourage the creation of ideas that are easy to copy. Land is neither created nor easy to copy.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >Land is neither created Speaking very pedantically, it can be.
- remram 4y ago
  While this is true, I don't understand how it supports or detracts the parent comment.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Because land is actually real, physical, naturally finite. It's actual property in the simplest most intuitive sense. Intellectual property is just the whole world pretending it can't produce an unbounded number of copies at negligible costs. If we had planetary scale Star Trek replicators there'd be no need to have physical property either.
- katbyte 4y ago
  land is also usually taxed. Squatting on it, at least the most desired/valuable kind, has a cost.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    Good point.
  - xref 4y ago
    Hey at first blush I’m really liking the idea of taxing copyrights and patents, just like land. If you want to maintain them over the duration allowed you pay yearly tax, just like property. Wether it is valuable or not, wether you monetize it or not, the tax is the tax. You want the ongoing protections the legal system affords your copyright? Pay the tax. to avoid payment you can sell or renounce the copyright/patent. For random “copyrighted” content like say my blog scrawlings, it would by default be under a CC attribution license unless I paid copyright tax on the content. Ie: default open not default closed. Curious if any country does this?
    - untangle 4y ago
      > taxing copyrights and patents It's an interesting point. I believe (chatGPT4 agrees) that taxes on IP occur via licensing deals, on transactions, and/or through registration fees. But not through anything resembling a RP wealth tax. There are probably some corner cases though.
- bazoom42 4y ago
  This is a good argument for making real estate ownership temporary and non-inheritable. For a finite resource like land, ownership is literally depriving the land from everybody else. Ownership of creative works you create yourself does not deprive anybody else of anything, so is less problematic.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    No, it's not a good argument for that. Hell yes my ownership of my house deprives others of access to it. Obviously. That's by design and absolutely how things are supposed to be. And you'd have to be a literal communist to believe otherwise. People cannot have my house because I'm living in it, and my family will get my house in the future when I die because they will also be living in it. Because land is real property. Unlike the made up BS that is intellectual property which is just like trying to own numbers.
__MatrixMan__ 4y ago
We should absolutely do that. If you want the public to respect your claim over an overly large piece of private property. Being your rich uncle's favorite nephew shouldn't suffice. You should have to do something that benefits the public in order for the public to grant you that right. And if you want the property to land in your nephew's hands, they too should have to contribute.
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  > You should have to do something that benefits the public in order for the public to grant you that right In our corner of the world we call that "taxes". What proportion of property comes from "Being your rich uncle's favorite nephew" Where do you propose we stop? Do we reevaluate your assets every day and expropriate them if some bureaucrat deems you are not "contributing" to society. Who makes that determination? Why stop at property? If humans are deemed not beneficial maybe the state can take over your body and donate your organs? Think that is hyperbolic? Nope. CCP started with property and is now doing forced organ harvesting. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests-organs-detainees-tribunal-concludes-n1018646 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests...
  - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
    The problem with continual taxation like that is that the kind of entities that collect taxes become less trustworthy over time. So maybe the expenditure starts out as beneficial to the people, but over time it fails to corruption. So then you get this situation where everybody knows that the taxes are doing more harm than good, and somebody really ought to do something about it, but nobody wants a discontinuity of government because their property is justified via taxation by the old corrupt one.
- ericd 4y ago
  Setting one’s kids up well is one of the primary motivators to work an outsized amount.
  - 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
andsoitis 4y ago
Asset owners aren’t always human, they’re very often companies. How would you deal with that?
- pixl97 4y ago
  HOO. Human ownership only.
  - andsoitis 4y ago
    if humans can't pool their resources via companies, then I don't see how we would have factories, banks, car manufacturers, home builders, computer companies, etc.
tenebrisalietum 4y ago
The Constituion says Congress has this power in order to promote the progress of "Science and useful Arts." If it doesn't fulfill this purpose then there's no entitlement of the power.
- wang_li 4y ago
  The fact that people want to copy things tells us that it’s fulfilling its purpose.
  - yencabulator 4y ago
    In the context of this subthread, you're talking about copying land..? I would download a car.
yencabulator 4y ago
Clearly the logical conclusion of this argument is that the concept of number zero and The Pythagorean theorem are both still currently patented, you pay a monthly fee to license the wristwatch patent and are thinking of switching to a sundial to save money, you have to pay separate royalties for using the Latin alphabet and Arabic numerals, and you cannot be on television because your famous great-great-grandpa sold his likeness rights to a company and you look too similar.

truckerbill 4y ago

This actually would solve a lot of problems also. Rent-seeking isn't very productive compared to what removing it enables.

citizenkeen 4y ago

IP exists to encourage the creation of ideas that are easy to copy. Land is neither created nor easy to copy.

Dalewyn 4y ago
>Land is neither created Speaking very pedantically, it can be.
remram 4y ago
While this is true, I don't understand how it supports or detracts the parent comment.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

Because land is actually real, physical, naturally finite. It's actual property in the simplest most intuitive sense. Intellectual property is just the whole world pretending it can't produce an unbounded number of copies at negligible costs. If we had planetary scale Star Trek replicators there'd be no need to have physical property either.

katbyte 4y ago
land is also usually taxed. Squatting on it, at least the most desired/valuable kind, has a cost.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Good point.
- xref 4y ago
  Hey at first blush I’m really liking the idea of taxing copyrights and patents, just like land. If you want to maintain them over the duration allowed you pay yearly tax, just like property. Wether it is valuable or not, wether you monetize it or not, the tax is the tax. You want the ongoing protections the legal system affords your copyright? Pay the tax. to avoid payment you can sell or renounce the copyright/patent. For random “copyrighted” content like say my blog scrawlings, it would by default be under a CC attribution license unless I paid copyright tax on the content. Ie: default open not default closed. Curious if any country does this?
  - untangle 4y ago
    > taxing copyrights and patents It's an interesting point. I believe (chatGPT4 agrees) that taxes on IP occur via licensing deals, on transactions, and/or through registration fees. But not through anything resembling a RP wealth tax. There are probably some corner cases though.
bazoom42 4y ago
This is a good argument for making real estate ownership temporary and non-inheritable. For a finite resource like land, ownership is literally depriving the land from everybody else. Ownership of creative works you create yourself does not deprive anybody else of anything, so is less problematic.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  No, it's not a good argument for that. Hell yes my ownership of my house deprives others of access to it. Obviously. That's by design and absolutely how things are supposed to be. And you'd have to be a literal communist to believe otherwise. People cannot have my house because I'm living in it, and my family will get my house in the future when I die because they will also be living in it. Because land is real property. Unlike the made up BS that is intellectual property which is just like trying to own numbers.

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago

We should absolutely do that. If you want the public to respect your claim over an overly large piece of private property. Being your rich uncle's favorite nephew shouldn't suffice. You should have to do something that benefits the public in order for the public to grant you that right. And if you want the property to land in your nephew's hands, they too should have to contribute.

cscurmudgeon 4y ago
> You should have to do something that benefits the public in order for the public to grant you that right In our corner of the world we call that "taxes". What proportion of property comes from "Being your rich uncle's favorite nephew" Where do you propose we stop? Do we reevaluate your assets every day and expropriate them if some bureaucrat deems you are not "contributing" to society. Who makes that determination? Why stop at property? If humans are deemed not beneficial maybe the state can take over your body and donate your organs? Think that is hyperbolic? Nope. CCP started with property and is now doing forced organ harvesting. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests-organs-detainees-tribunal-concludes-n1018646 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests...
- __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
  The problem with continual taxation like that is that the kind of entities that collect taxes become less trustworthy over time. So maybe the expenditure starts out as beneficial to the people, but over time it fails to corruption. So then you get this situation where everybody knows that the taxes are doing more harm than good, and somebody really ought to do something about it, but nobody wants a discontinuity of government because their property is justified via taxation by the old corrupt one.
ericd 4y ago
Setting one’s kids up well is one of the primary motivators to work an outsized amount.
- 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

andsoitis 4y ago

Asset owners aren’t always human, they’re very often companies. How would you deal with that?

pixl97 4y ago
HOO. Human ownership only.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  if humans can't pool their resources via companies, then I don't see how we would have factories, banks, car manufacturers, home builders, computer companies, etc.

tenebrisalietum 4y ago

The Constituion says Congress has this power in order to promote the progress of "Science and useful Arts." If it doesn't fulfill this purpose then there's no entitlement of the power.

wang_li 4y ago
The fact that people want to copy things tells us that it’s fulfilling its purpose.
- yencabulator 4y ago
  In the context of this subthread, you're talking about copying land..? I would download a car.

yencabulator 4y ago

Clearly the logical conclusion of this argument is that the concept of number zero and The Pythagorean theorem are both still currently patented, you pay a monthly fee to license the wristwatch patent and are thinking of switching to a sundial to save money, you have to pay separate royalties for using the Latin alphabet and Arabic numerals, and you cannot be on television because your famous great-great-grandpa sold his likeness rights to a company and you look too similar.