5 ms·

> Property is at best a social construct that is possibly supported by instinctual behavior. That very much falls within the "IP is not real" category. Taking

> Property is at best a social construct that is possibly supported by instinctual behavior. That very much falls within the "IP is not real" category. Taking a utilitarian approach here is exactly what the sam altman / effective altruist crowd is doing (or claiming, at least). Believe it or not, but there are different philosophies. The US Constitution, for example, is written under the framework that all rights are innate, and the government merely endorses, not grants, those which are described. This framework creates a moral basis to rights, such that things like property are not merely social constructs but moral goods. To violate them is itself an immoral act.

underlipton 13d ago
Who decides what's a right? By what criteria?
qarl 13d ago
> That very much falls within the "IP is not real" category. AH. Given that framing, then I suppose anything that varies from "these axioms are perfect there can be no others" must fall into the "not real" category. But isn't there some debate about the moral axioms themselves? A space that is much more complex than "yes/no"? EDIT: I always wonder, when I get two downvotes in the same moment, if someone is cheating. It happens so often. EDIT2: And now! 3 upvotes in the same moment. I daresay someone is confessing.
- yndoendo 13d ago
  Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy. Most people want a clean environment while the current US administration is pulling back environmental regulations to allow for more pollutants. The current US Supreme Court has taken gifts from those that have invested interest in the outcome of their judgements. Social axioms are mutable while mathematical axioms are immutable. Human trafficking is bad. How many of the wealthy that partook of Epstein's trafficking have been prosecuted? This shows that human trafficking being bad is mutable based on wealth and power.
  - qarl 13d ago
    > Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy. Well... no. I'd say that most of the social constructs I'm thinking of predate wealth. Most likely shaped by evolutionary pressures. > mathematical axioms are immutable I invite you to Google "the axiom of choice" to see a lively debate.
    - zdragnar 13d ago
      So long as there have been people, there have been those who had more than others, be it material goods or power, which gains more material goods, which begets power. I'm not really sure there it's true that any society predates wealth, ergo no social construct predates wealth.
      - qarl 13d ago
        Right. I'm thinking of social behaviors that predate humans.
        zdragnar 13d ago
        Territory and hunting grounds are a form of wealth, in that it is a form of control over shelter and natural resources like food and water. Money is a social construct for trading value, but is not itself a prerequisite for the accumulation of value (wealth).
        qarl 13d ago
        I think you missed my point. Let me try again: > ergo no social construct predates wealth. What about the social construct of parenting?
        zdragnar 13d ago
        Easily argued to be a natural, biological instinct, and not a social construct.
- paimapi 13d ago
  no, I think people are just annoyed that you're trying to have an irrelevant and kinda cheesy 'is epistemology really real - think about it bro' conversation I'm also a fan of nuance and non-black&white thinking but that is quite literally not how the rule of law generally works
  - qarl 13d ago
    No - I'm specifically calling out that the total changes abruptly. As if someone were using multiple accounts.
    - paimapi 13d ago
      that's cool - I downvoted you because I was annoyed and I am an independent entity. hope that helps :)
      - qarl 13d ago
        Of course! My only suggestion is - if you're using multiple accounts to do it - that would be naughty.
        paimapi 13d ago
        that seems very anti-social and immature, like throwing a tantrum. you get a singular downvote from me for one comment but I do like how reasonable you're being about all of it :)
nostrademons 13d ago
Your wording is pretty revealing: > This framework creates a moral basis to rights The Constitution (and the thinkers that it was based off of) creates a moral basis to rights. At the time the Constitution was written, this was a pretty radical idea. The most prevalent moral framework at the time was the divine right of kings, the idea that the king was ordained by God to rule and anyone who questioned that right was speaking heresy.
- zdragnar 13d ago
  My wording was actually wrong, as the constitution recognizes a divine source for the rights, it doesn't create the moral basis. Perhaps 'establishes as the formal basis' would have been more appropriate. You're right that it was a relatively radical idea at the time, but not without precedent. The Dutch, Venice and Genoa were republics, the Swiss Confederation was a union of cantons and territories, for example, not to mention the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy, John Locke, Montesquieu, and the assorted Greek and early Roman city states.
  - markhahn 13d ago
    although the US Constitution does make reference to deities, the copyright section does not. its formalization is entirely pragmatic, utilitarian.
    - zdragnar 13d ago
      All of the powers granted to the government are through the constitution, and copyright is a form of property right... hence the phrase "intellectual property".
- embedding-shape 13d ago
  [dead]
nz 13d ago
Funny how, when Aaron Swartz did the exact same thing (in a much narrower and more focused way), he was driven to suicide by the US government, but when Sam and Dario do it, people argue about whether (or not) "IP is real". Note that society is more about justice than it is about philosophy or logic. Whether you believe that IP makes logical sense or not, is not terribly relevant through the lens of justice. To allow the Altmans and Amodeis of the world to escape the kinds of consequences that Swartz could not (despite having purer intentions than either -- despite being a genuine utilitarian, instead of an aspiring oligarch _pretending_ to be one), would be the height of injustice. It would be a grotesque and cruel insult to all the people who remember Swartz, and share his values and optimism about the internet and computers.
- zdragnar 13d ago
  The funny thing about having a divine source for rights is also recognizing that humans are fallible and thus inevitably going to be unable to live up to that standard. This argument is the basis for people who want government to have limited powers- the less power it has, the less it can abuse it. There's a flip side to this as well- President Lincoln famously suspended habeus corpus unilaterally in violation of the Constitution, outright ignoring a Supreme Court ruling in the process. It became moot when Congress retroactively approved the suspension and allowed it to continue for the remainder of the civil war. Lincoln remains celebrated, despite what could rightfully be argued as blatantly unconstitutional power grabs.
  - pixl97 13d ago
    reality > rights The use of the term divine at the time was more of an aftereffect of most people having some kind of belief in god and using that as a casus belli to redistribute power. The actual causal reasons seem more technological and more of England spreading themselves too thin. Lincoln went on to further prove there is no divine power enforcing these rights, it's the distribution of power and information that defines the rights you have. The Constitution is simply a piece of paper, not an agent. We see this happening again in our modern world. Technology has allowed us to concentrate information like never before. If you believe knowledge (hence processing of information) is power then we've created new power structures that must change society. Now, we can say things like "well, you can't concentrate information" but the other party can simply disagree and say it's my divine right to. You're at an impasse unless you plan on taking up a path to violence (any and every legal action is implied violence).
tzs 13d ago
You are assuming that social constructs are not real.
- qarl 13d ago
  Not at all.
LordDragonfang 13d ago
"A social construct" and "not real" are not the same thing. Money, laws, countries, gender, even civilization itself are all social constructs. More importantly, all forms of ownership are social constructs, and that doesn't provide any information as to whether we should respect them or not.
- joquarky 13d ago
  Perhaps you need to look up what "real" actually means. Inches aren't real. Laws aren't real. Language isn't even real. Have you ever tripped over a line of longitude? People live such abstract lives now that they're losing track of what is concrete.
  - LordDragonfang 13d ago
    > Perhaps you need to look up what "real" actually means. On the contrary; I think. Nearly every definition disagrees with the claims you're making. It's not a mere synonym of "concrete" or antonym of "abstract". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/real https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/real And regardless, the usage here was clearly in the context of GP's (false) dichotomy between "real" or "false concept", so obviously the definition you're trying to prescribe doesn't apply.

underlipton 13d ago

Who decides what's a right? By what criteria?

qarl 13d ago

> That very much falls within the "IP is not real" category. AH. Given that framing, then I suppose anything that varies from "these axioms are perfect there can be no others" must fall into the "not real" category. But isn't there some debate about the moral axioms themselves? A space that is much more complex than "yes/no"? EDIT: I always wonder, when I get two downvotes in the same moment, if someone is cheating. It happens so often. EDIT2: And now! 3 upvotes in the same moment. I daresay someone is confessing.

yndoendo 13d ago
Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy. Most people want a clean environment while the current US administration is pulling back environmental regulations to allow for more pollutants. The current US Supreme Court has taken gifts from those that have invested interest in the outcome of their judgements. Social axioms are mutable while mathematical axioms are immutable. Human trafficking is bad. How many of the wealthy that partook of Epstein's trafficking have been prosecuted? This shows that human trafficking being bad is mutable based on wealth and power.
- qarl 13d ago
  > Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy. Well... no. I'd say that most of the social constructs I'm thinking of predate wealth. Most likely shaped by evolutionary pressures. > mathematical axioms are immutable I invite you to Google "the axiom of choice" to see a lively debate.
  - zdragnar 13d ago
    So long as there have been people, there have been those who had more than others, be it material goods or power, which gains more material goods, which begets power. I'm not really sure there it's true that any society predates wealth, ergo no social construct predates wealth.
    - qarl 13d ago
      Right. I'm thinking of social behaviors that predate humans.
      - zdragnar 13d ago
        Territory and hunting grounds are a form of wealth, in that it is a form of control over shelter and natural resources like food and water. Money is a social construct for trading value, but is not itself a prerequisite for the accumulation of value (wealth).
        qarl 13d ago
        I think you missed my point. Let me try again: > ergo no social construct predates wealth. What about the social construct of parenting?
        zdragnar 13d ago
        Easily argued to be a natural, biological instinct, and not a social construct.
paimapi 13d ago
no, I think people are just annoyed that you're trying to have an irrelevant and kinda cheesy 'is epistemology really real - think about it bro' conversation I'm also a fan of nuance and non-black&white thinking but that is quite literally not how the rule of law generally works
- qarl 13d ago
  No - I'm specifically calling out that the total changes abruptly. As if someone were using multiple accounts.
  - paimapi 13d ago
    that's cool - I downvoted you because I was annoyed and I am an independent entity. hope that helps :)
    - qarl 13d ago
      Of course! My only suggestion is - if you're using multiple accounts to do it - that would be naughty.
      - paimapi 13d ago
        that seems very anti-social and immature, like throwing a tantrum. you get a singular downvote from me for one comment but I do like how reasonable you're being about all of it :)

nostrademons 13d ago

Your wording is pretty revealing: > This framework creates a moral basis to rights The Constitution (and the thinkers that it was based off of) creates a moral basis to rights. At the time the Constitution was written, this was a pretty radical idea. The most prevalent moral framework at the time was the divine right of kings, the idea that the king was ordained by God to rule and anyone who questioned that right was speaking heresy.

zdragnar 13d ago
My wording was actually wrong, as the constitution recognizes a divine source for the rights, it doesn't create the moral basis. Perhaps 'establishes as the formal basis' would have been more appropriate. You're right that it was a relatively radical idea at the time, but not without precedent. The Dutch, Venice and Genoa were republics, the Swiss Confederation was a union of cantons and territories, for example, not to mention the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy, John Locke, Montesquieu, and the assorted Greek and early Roman city states.
- markhahn 13d ago
  although the US Constitution does make reference to deities, the copyright section does not. its formalization is entirely pragmatic, utilitarian.
  - zdragnar 13d ago
    All of the powers granted to the government are through the constitution, and copyright is a form of property right... hence the phrase "intellectual property".
embedding-shape 13d ago
[dead]

nz 13d ago

Funny how, when Aaron Swartz did the exact same thing (in a much narrower and more focused way), he was driven to suicide by the US government, but when Sam and Dario do it, people argue about whether (or not) "IP is real". Note that society is more about justice than it is about philosophy or logic. Whether you believe that IP makes logical sense or not, is not terribly relevant through the lens of justice. To allow the Altmans and Amodeis of the world to escape the kinds of consequences that Swartz could not (despite having purer intentions than either -- despite being a genuine utilitarian, instead of an aspiring oligarch _pretending_ to be one), would be the height of injustice. It would be a grotesque and cruel insult to all the people who remember Swartz, and share his values and optimism about the internet and computers.

zdragnar 13d ago
The funny thing about having a divine source for rights is also recognizing that humans are fallible and thus inevitably going to be unable to live up to that standard. This argument is the basis for people who want government to have limited powers- the less power it has, the less it can abuse it. There's a flip side to this as well- President Lincoln famously suspended habeus corpus unilaterally in violation of the Constitution, outright ignoring a Supreme Court ruling in the process. It became moot when Congress retroactively approved the suspension and allowed it to continue for the remainder of the civil war. Lincoln remains celebrated, despite what could rightfully be argued as blatantly unconstitutional power grabs.
- pixl97 13d ago
  reality > rights The use of the term divine at the time was more of an aftereffect of most people having some kind of belief in god and using that as a casus belli to redistribute power. The actual causal reasons seem more technological and more of England spreading themselves too thin. Lincoln went on to further prove there is no divine power enforcing these rights, it's the distribution of power and information that defines the rights you have. The Constitution is simply a piece of paper, not an agent. We see this happening again in our modern world. Technology has allowed us to concentrate information like never before. If you believe knowledge (hence processing of information) is power then we've created new power structures that must change society. Now, we can say things like "well, you can't concentrate information" but the other party can simply disagree and say it's my divine right to. You're at an impasse unless you plan on taking up a path to violence (any and every legal action is implied violence).

tzs 13d ago

You are assuming that social constructs are not real.

qarl 13d ago
Not at all.

LordDragonfang 13d ago

"A social construct" and "not real" are not the same thing. Money, laws, countries, gender, even civilization itself are all social constructs. More importantly, all forms of ownership are social constructs, and that doesn't provide any information as to whether we should respect them or not.

joquarky 13d ago
Perhaps you need to look up what "real" actually means. Inches aren't real. Laws aren't real. Language isn't even real. Have you ever tripped over a line of longitude? People live such abstract lives now that they're losing track of what is concrete.
- LordDragonfang 13d ago
  > Perhaps you need to look up what "real" actually means. On the contrary; I think. Nearly every definition disagrees with the claims you're making. It's not a mere synonym of "concrete" or antonym of "abstract". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/real https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/real And regardless, the usage here was clearly in the context of GP's (false) dichotomy between "real" or "false concept", so obviously the definition you're trying to prescribe doesn't apply.