6 ms·

Pay them from general taxation to dig holes and fill them in again with spoons? If you can only succeed because you're government is holding back others at the

Pay them from general taxation to dig holes and fill them in again with spoons? If you can only succeed because you're government is holding back others at the barrel of a gun do you really deserve to?

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Business in physical property/goods also requires the government to hold others back with a barrel of a gun.
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  One of the key differences being that physical theft deprives the rightful owner of the property. It's not an analogous crime.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Of course I agree that there are some differences, but they are the same with respect to the sated role of government. Physical theft deprives the owner of physical property (where this right is respected by law. IP theft deprives the owner of intellectual property ( where this right is respected by law). People can and do make arguments against both IP and physical property, but the role of government the the same in both cases.
    - hug 2y ago
      Unlike physical property, "intellectual property" doesn't exist by itself. The thing that exists, the product that it is that you ostensibly "own" that is protected by the government is the copyright, a soft of reified extension of ownership, which only has any value inasmuch as the government protects it. In other words, intellectual property is only worth what the government says it is. It doesn't just hold the gun, in this case, it contrived the whole scenario in which a gun was necessary, and the presence of the gun is the only thing that prevents the "intellectual property" from spreading naturally, as information is wont to do. You can argue whether the creation of this market is for the greater good, but the fact is that it's not in any way the same kind of market as evolves around physical goods, and is not regulated or enforced in the same kind of way.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I don't think it is any different for physical property. What is a pound of gold worth when you are defenseless and someone else has armed men willing to kill you. Might makes right and owns all property is the default. Every situation that deviates from this is imposed by governments. A market around physical goods is no different.
        laserlight 2y ago
        Why did you choose gold as an example? How about a sword? Claiming that physical and intellectual property are the same is reductionistic at best. The fact that both properties are protected by power doesn't mean that they are the same. Physical property is not copyable. Intellectual property is.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Im not saying they are the same, and stated as much above. I am saying their relation to the government is the same. Government maintains both, and creates a market for them by doing so. No government> no private property> no goods for sale. I dont see how copyable is relevant at all.
        laserlight 2y ago
        > Im not saying they are the same, and stated as much above. > I am saying their relation to the government is the same. Then I don't have anything to object. But I suspect that the above points were clear in your comments. I don't think anybody here would object to the idea that physical property law and IP law have the same legal standing. What people object to are the principles of the IP law. EDIT: Following up with more analysis of the parent's comments... Indeed the following was clearly stated [0]: > Of course I agree that there are some differences, but they are the same with respect to the sated role of government. The following example to clarify the above statement muddies the water, though: > Physical theft deprives the owner of physical property (where this right is respected by law. IP theft deprives the owner of intellectual property ( where this right is respected by law). Physical property theft deprives the owner absolutely. Whether IP “theft” deprives owner of anything is questionable, even in the legal sense. Regardless, government is “right” to pursue enforcing both laws, because they are laws after all. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40911265 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40911265
    - kragen 2y ago
      as hug correctly points out, you have accidentally made a circular argument; without the regulatory regime, the thing that 'ip theft' deprives the owner of doesn't exist in the first place so the role of government is quite different in the two cases: it creates 'intellectual property', in the sense of 'what the owner is deprived of by so-called ip theft', while physical property exists in its own right if we instead consider 'intellectual property' in the sense of 'literature, knowledge, or designs,' which the owner is not deprived of by 'ip theft', the role of the government becomes precisely opposite to its role with respect to physical property taking a car as a paradigmatic example of physical property, private ownership rights (whether protected by the state, by moral suasion, by mob violence, or by any other means) protect your car from being stolen so that you can use it; without any security of ownership, people would just get in the nearest car and drive off. you could never be sure a car would be available for you to use, and this would eliminate any private incentive to build cars or to repair or maintain them, resulting in rapid material impoverishment; soon you would have no cars except perhaps for taxpayer-funded public transit. so private ownership rights serve to enable access to cars and similar material goods literature, knowledge, and designs do not need to be repaired and maintained, especially now that we can use bittorrent instead of linotypes to reproduce them, and if someone else gets in my novel and drives off with it, why, i can still read it as easily as before. the involvement of the state in this case only serves to endanger access to literature, knowledge, and designs—precisely the opposite of the case with physical property ultimately, intellectual property is completely incompatible with the security of physical property: the trade-secret code of your car's ecu deprives you of some degree of security in your use of that car people do sometimes argue that an analogous situation obtains with respect to literature, knowledge, and designs: intellectual enclosure through so-called 'intellectual property law' enables creators to require payment from consumers, creating an incentive to write literature, discover knowledge, and create designs. perhaps there is some truth to this, but that is not the only incentive, and evidently it is not a necessary one, given that academic authors (who discover most fundamental knowledge) generally do not receive royalties, and free software reliably leads the software industry in innovation, having almost entirely displaced proprietary software as the basis of the world information infrastructure over the last 30 years
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
freejazz 2y ago
I hope you don't mind when I come and take your computer.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Business in physical property/goods also requires the government to hold others back with a barrel of a gun.

AlotOfReading 2y ago
One of the key differences being that physical theft deprives the rightful owner of the property. It's not an analogous crime.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Of course I agree that there are some differences, but they are the same with respect to the sated role of government. Physical theft deprives the owner of physical property (where this right is respected by law. IP theft deprives the owner of intellectual property ( where this right is respected by law). People can and do make arguments against both IP and physical property, but the role of government the the same in both cases.
  - hug 2y ago
    Unlike physical property, "intellectual property" doesn't exist by itself. The thing that exists, the product that it is that you ostensibly "own" that is protected by the government is the copyright, a soft of reified extension of ownership, which only has any value inasmuch as the government protects it. In other words, intellectual property is only worth what the government says it is. It doesn't just hold the gun, in this case, it contrived the whole scenario in which a gun was necessary, and the presence of the gun is the only thing that prevents the "intellectual property" from spreading naturally, as information is wont to do. You can argue whether the creation of this market is for the greater good, but the fact is that it's not in any way the same kind of market as evolves around physical goods, and is not regulated or enforced in the same kind of way.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I don't think it is any different for physical property. What is a pound of gold worth when you are defenseless and someone else has armed men willing to kill you. Might makes right and owns all property is the default. Every situation that deviates from this is imposed by governments. A market around physical goods is no different.
      - laserlight 2y ago
        Why did you choose gold as an example? How about a sword? Claiming that physical and intellectual property are the same is reductionistic at best. The fact that both properties are protected by power doesn't mean that they are the same. Physical property is not copyable. Intellectual property is.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Im not saying they are the same, and stated as much above. I am saying their relation to the government is the same. Government maintains both, and creates a market for them by doing so. No government> no private property> no goods for sale. I dont see how copyable is relevant at all.
        laserlight 2y ago
        > Im not saying they are the same, and stated as much above. > I am saying their relation to the government is the same. Then I don't have anything to object. But I suspect that the above points were clear in your comments. I don't think anybody here would object to the idea that physical property law and IP law have the same legal standing. What people object to are the principles of the IP law. EDIT: Following up with more analysis of the parent's comments... Indeed the following was clearly stated [0]: > Of course I agree that there are some differences, but they are the same with respect to the sated role of government. The following example to clarify the above statement muddies the water, though: > Physical theft deprives the owner of physical property (where this right is respected by law. IP theft deprives the owner of intellectual property ( where this right is respected by law). Physical property theft deprives the owner absolutely. Whether IP “theft” deprives owner of anything is questionable, even in the legal sense. Regardless, government is “right” to pursue enforcing both laws, because they are laws after all. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40911265 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40911265
  - kragen 2y ago
    as hug correctly points out, you have accidentally made a circular argument; without the regulatory regime, the thing that 'ip theft' deprives the owner of doesn't exist in the first place so the role of government is quite different in the two cases: it creates 'intellectual property', in the sense of 'what the owner is deprived of by so-called ip theft', while physical property exists in its own right if we instead consider 'intellectual property' in the sense of 'literature, knowledge, or designs,' which the owner is not deprived of by 'ip theft', the role of the government becomes precisely opposite to its role with respect to physical property taking a car as a paradigmatic example of physical property, private ownership rights (whether protected by the state, by moral suasion, by mob violence, or by any other means) protect your car from being stolen so that you can use it; without any security of ownership, people would just get in the nearest car and drive off. you could never be sure a car would be available for you to use, and this would eliminate any private incentive to build cars or to repair or maintain them, resulting in rapid material impoverishment; soon you would have no cars except perhaps for taxpayer-funded public transit. so private ownership rights serve to enable access to cars and similar material goods literature, knowledge, and designs do not need to be repaired and maintained, especially now that we can use bittorrent instead of linotypes to reproduce them, and if someone else gets in my novel and drives off with it, why, i can still read it as easily as before. the involvement of the state in this case only serves to endanger access to literature, knowledge, and designs—precisely the opposite of the case with physical property ultimately, intellectual property is completely incompatible with the security of physical property: the trade-secret code of your car's ecu deprives you of some degree of security in your use of that car people do sometimes argue that an analogous situation obtains with respect to literature, knowledge, and designs: intellectual enclosure through so-called 'intellectual property law' enables creators to require payment from consumers, creating an incentive to write literature, discover knowledge, and create designs. perhaps there is some truth to this, but that is not the only incentive, and evidently it is not a necessary one, given that academic authors (who discover most fundamental knowledge) generally do not receive royalties, and free software reliably leads the software industry in innovation, having almost entirely displaced proprietary software as the basis of the world information infrastructure over the last 30 years
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago

freejazz 2y ago

I hope you don't mind when I come and take your computer.