3 ms·

"IP permissions, i.e., copyrights, are not natural rights, they are instead government "grants" of protection" There's no such thing as a natural right, period

"IP permissions, i.e., copyrights, are not natural rights, they are instead government "grants" of protection" There's no such thing as a natural right, period. They're all imaginary creations of humans.

toyg 3y ago
Nobody cares about what pmoriarty1 thinks of a word when the legal and political worlds have well-established meanings for those words; meanings that indicate the parent poster is correct in stating IP rights are not "natural" in genesis. There is a recent movement trying to redefine them as such, led by moneyed interests that would obviously stand to profit from such arguments; but legal history is very clear: IP was never conceived on the grounds of being "natural" or "innate" in any way, but as a device to sustain certain economic sectors. IP is no more natural than subsidies for carmakers are natural.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  Yes natural rights are those the constitution recognizes as coming from a Creator and those shall not be infringed. Copyright and patent are not among those. The Constitution provides that congress can grant "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" "Limited times" could be defined by congress to "expire" under whatever circumstances they choose.
  - None4U 3y ago
    I thought we were talking about the European Union
bscphil 3y ago
The difference is one of justification: we accord "natural" rights to human beings on the basis of the belief that every person is valuable and deserves certain protections and opportunities (e.g. a right to life, a right to education). Non-natural rights are instead determined on the basis of the belief that they provide an on-net benefit to the general welfare, even if not every person needs them or benefits from them.

3 ms·

"IP permissions, i.e., copyrights, are not natural rights, they are instead government "grants" of protection" There's no such thing as a natural right, period

by pmoriarty 3y ago

toyg 3y ago
Nobody cares about what pmoriarty1 thinks of a word when the legal and political worlds have well-established meanings for those words; meanings that indicate the parent poster is correct in stating IP rights are not "natural" in genesis. There is a recent movement trying to redefine them as such, led by moneyed interests that would obviously stand to profit from such arguments; but legal history is very clear: IP was never conceived on the grounds of being "natural" or "innate" in any way, but as a device to sustain certain economic sectors. IP is no more natural than subsidies for carmakers are natural.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  Yes natural rights are those the constitution recognizes as coming from a Creator and those shall not be infringed. Copyright and patent are not among those. The Constitution provides that congress can grant "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" "Limited times" could be defined by congress to "expire" under whatever circumstances they choose.
  - None4U 3y ago
    I thought we were talking about the European Union
bscphil 3y ago
The difference is one of justification: we accord "natural" rights to human beings on the basis of the belief that every person is valuable and deserves certain protections and opportunities (e.g. a right to life, a right to education). Non-natural rights are instead determined on the basis of the belief that they provide an on-net benefit to the general welfare, even if not every person needs them or benefits from them.