3 ms·

While appealing to me as an entrepreneur, if I step back, I don't see how this law could work. Patent Law is the regulation of intellectual property, as such, t

While appealing to me as an entrepreneur, if I step back, I don't see how this law could work. Patent Law is the regulation of intellectual property, as such, the way property is regulated, informs the way intellectual property should be regulated. Would it be possible to pass a law that says you can't own a patch of land unless you develop it sufficiently for some public utility? You can't own it unless you build a house on it, or an office? What about all the rough land, that isn't close to a development yet, but is anticipated to be? If someone can tell me how a law like this has been shown to work, perhaps even in a limited case like densely populated zones, then I might be persuaded.

hervature 3y ago
> Would it be possible to pass a law that says you can't own a patch of land unless you develop it sufficiently for some public utility? This is exactly how mineral rights work. The federal law says you need to do $100 worth of development on every claim every year to maintain it [1]. This is not something new. [1] - https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-43/subtitle-B/chapter-II/subchapter-C/part-3836/subpart-A/section-3836.11 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-43/subtitle-B/chapter-II/...
- riazrizvi 3y ago
  Ah okay, thanks. This is what I was looking for.
shortsunblack 3y ago
Intellectual property is not property. It's a misnomer. Property is inherently scarce and exclusive. IP is not exclusive. If I have an idea, and you have an idea, and we share those ideas -- we both have two ideas. What IP is, is an economic rent, a protectionist measure to a class of individuals. It's a tax on the productive economy and it reduces competition and thus inflates prices. It is enforced by the monopoly of violence that the state holds. The burden of proof for justifying this violence for this end is on the proponents, not the opponents. >You can't own it unless you build a house on it, or an office? What about all the rough land, that isn't close to a development yet, but is anticipated to be? If someone can tell me how a law like this has been shown to work, perhaps even in a limited case like densely populated zones, then I might be persuaded. And as for this, we already have this. It's called a land value tax. A tax that discourages unproductive land use.

hervature 3y ago

> Would it be possible to pass a law that says you can't own a patch of land unless you develop it sufficiently for some public utility? This is exactly how mineral rights work. The federal law says you need to do $100 worth of development on every claim every year to maintain it [1]. This is not something new. [1] - https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-43/subtitle-B/chapter-II/subchapter-C/part-3836/subpart-A/section-3836.11 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-43/subtitle-B/chapter-II/...

riazrizvi 3y ago
Ah okay, thanks. This is what I was looking for.

shortsunblack 3y ago

Intellectual property is not property. It's a misnomer. Property is inherently scarce and exclusive. IP is not exclusive. If I have an idea, and you have an idea, and we share those ideas -- we both have two ideas. What IP is, is an economic rent, a protectionist measure to a class of individuals. It's a tax on the productive economy and it reduces competition and thus inflates prices. It is enforced by the monopoly of violence that the state holds. The burden of proof for justifying this violence for this end is on the proponents, not the opponents. >You can't own it unless you build a house on it, or an office? What about all the rough land, that isn't close to a development yet, but is anticipated to be? If someone can tell me how a law like this has been shown to work, perhaps even in a limited case like densely populated zones, then I might be persuaded. And as for this, we already have this. It's called a land value tax. A tax that discourages unproductive land use.