5 ms·

I think PG is actually arguing something closer to the opposite of this - instead of property being a natural concept with a single, universal, and unchanging d

by ender7 15y ago

I think PG is actually arguing something closer to the opposite of this - instead of property being a natural concept with a single, universal, and unchanging definition, it is something a bit more ephemeral. A smell is valuable property on the moon, but not on the Earth. A song was valuable property twenty years ago, but twenty years in the future...who knows? How this definition changes has a lot to do with technology, society, and human nature. That last one gets pretty close to 'natural law', but there's a lot more going on there as well.

Duff 15y ago
That's the idea of natural law. The concept of "owning" something in nature that is not scarce is not a natural concept. The notion that property has value is pretty much a universal concept.
astine 15y ago
Agreed. It's pretty clear that PG is actually advocating a pragmatic approach to moral reasoning. Natural Law, as I understand it, advocates a moral order which is evident from the natural order and which exists before any human understanding of right and wrong. If our understanding of property changes with the circumstances of our society, then the right of property doesn't emanate from the natural order but from the human order. Interestingly, there have been a number of attempts to reduce property rights to first principles. Modern Libertarians often consider property rights to be the first principle, but older classical liberal philosophers such a Locke believed that property was an offshoot of labor. That is, man has a right to product of his own labor and only by labor and continuous use can he claim to properly own something. I think this approach has some merit as it neatly gives voice to one of the reasons we feel that some forms of theft is justified and others are not.
- philwelch 15y ago
  Most libertarian exegeses on property rights take a vaguely Lockean tack. Of course, a Lockean tack may justify intellectual property as the fruits of intellectual labor.
  - Gormo 15y ago
    But there are two opposite concepts of morality that people apply to property relations: in one view, the moral 'negative' is attached to depriving a person of what he has justly earned or created; in the other view, the moral 'negative' is attached to obtaining the benefit of what you have not yourself earned or created. I'd argue that most libertarians would adhere to the first view, which roots the moral principle in a manifest social context - i.e. the the harm one does to others - as opposed to the latter view, which roots the moral principle in a more solipsistic context - which I assume the be the psychic or spiritual harm one does to oneself. (This is expressed in consequentialist terms, of course, but I'd expect there to be an equivalent deontological dichotomy). It's probably valid to describe the former as a Lockean view, but I don't see how it could justify the extension of property rights to non-rival and intangible goods, such as ideas, since it's literally impossible to deprive anyone of them in the first place.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      You have to examine what it means to deprive one of property though; certainly, depriving one of their property's commercial value is a deprivation. Certainly if I seize your house and rent it back to you, such that you're paying the same for rent as you would for your mortgage, but you lose any equity in your house or the ability to sell it to someone else or pass it on to your children, I've meaningfully deprived you of property. Likewise, if you write a book, the value of that book to you is at least partially commercial, not merely in your ability to possess a copy of it.
      - hxa7241 15y ago
        But in the case of copyright, that extra commercial value depends on us already accepting some copyright-like notion. One can only expect to command a copyright-level price for a copy if other people obey a copyright-like law to not make other copies. But that is just going in circles. One cannot justify something based on itself.
        philwelch 15y ago
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
shingen 15y ago
Scarcity (smells on the moon) or lack thereof doesn't alter the principle of value, it varies the scale of value.
- tomp 15y ago
  But it does alter the principle of price. Air is one of the most valuable things on the planet (you would live only 3 or so minutes without it), but it's free, because it's not scarce.
Gormo 15y ago
But I think you can take a 'natural law' perspective to make a reasonable case for distinguishing copyrights/patents/trademarks from the traditional notion of property. I attempted that argument in an old HN thread[1], based on the distinction between conventions that arise 'naturally' from an emergent social context, such as traditional physical property, and those that require top-down design in the form of legislative action. I think one could regard physical property as belonging to the former category and IP as belonging to the second. [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2284636 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2284636

by ender7 15y ago

Duff 15y ago

That's the idea of natural law. The concept of "owning" something in nature that is not scarce is not a natural concept. The notion that property has value is pretty much a universal concept.

astine 15y ago

Agreed. It's pretty clear that PG is actually advocating a pragmatic approach to moral reasoning. Natural Law, as I understand it, advocates a moral order which is evident from the natural order and which exists before any human understanding of right and wrong. If our understanding of property changes with the circumstances of our society, then the right of property doesn't emanate from the natural order but from the human order. Interestingly, there have been a number of attempts to reduce property rights to first principles. Modern Libertarians often consider property rights to be the first principle, but older classical liberal philosophers such a Locke believed that property was an offshoot of labor. That is, man has a right to product of his own labor and only by labor and continuous use can he claim to properly own something. I think this approach has some merit as it neatly gives voice to one of the reasons we feel that some forms of theft is justified and others are not.

philwelch 15y ago
Most libertarian exegeses on property rights take a vaguely Lockean tack. Of course, a Lockean tack may justify intellectual property as the fruits of intellectual labor.
- Gormo 15y ago
  But there are two opposite concepts of morality that people apply to property relations: in one view, the moral 'negative' is attached to depriving a person of what he has justly earned or created; in the other view, the moral 'negative' is attached to obtaining the benefit of what you have not yourself earned or created. I'd argue that most libertarians would adhere to the first view, which roots the moral principle in a manifest social context - i.e. the the harm one does to others - as opposed to the latter view, which roots the moral principle in a more solipsistic context - which I assume the be the psychic or spiritual harm one does to oneself. (This is expressed in consequentialist terms, of course, but I'd expect there to be an equivalent deontological dichotomy). It's probably valid to describe the former as a Lockean view, but I don't see how it could justify the extension of property rights to non-rival and intangible goods, such as ideas, since it's literally impossible to deprive anyone of them in the first place.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    You have to examine what it means to deprive one of property though; certainly, depriving one of their property's commercial value is a deprivation. Certainly if I seize your house and rent it back to you, such that you're paying the same for rent as you would for your mortgage, but you lose any equity in your house or the ability to sell it to someone else or pass it on to your children, I've meaningfully deprived you of property. Likewise, if you write a book, the value of that book to you is at least partially commercial, not merely in your ability to possess a copy of it.
    - hxa7241 15y ago
      But in the case of copyright, that extra commercial value depends on us already accepting some copyright-like notion. One can only expect to command a copyright-level price for a copy if other people obey a copyright-like law to not make other copies. But that is just going in circles. One cannot justify something based on itself.
      - philwelch 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

shingen 15y ago

Scarcity (smells on the moon) or lack thereof doesn't alter the principle of value, it varies the scale of value.

tomp 15y ago
But it does alter the principle of price. Air is one of the most valuable things on the planet (you would live only 3 or so minutes without it), but it's free, because it's not scarce.

Gormo 15y ago

But I think you can take a 'natural law' perspective to make a reasonable case for distinguishing copyrights/patents/trademarks from the traditional notion of property. I attempted that argument in an old HN thread[1], based on the distinction between conventions that arise 'naturally' from an emergent social context, such as traditional physical property, and those that require top-down design in the form of legislative action. I think one could regard physical property as belonging to the former category and IP as belonging to the second. [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2284636 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2284636