2 ms·

> IP rights arise as natural rights the same way that rights in real estate or personal property arise, and so should be protected by government to the same ext

> IP rights arise as natural rights the same way that rights in real estate or personal property arise, and so should be protected by government to the same extent as any other natural property right. That's ridiculous. Real estate and personal property has natural scarcity, but for "IP" the gov't is enforcing scarcity to make it profitable. A fair comparison would be someone discovering an ocean and then "owning" all oceans around the world. IP rights would arise as natural rights if you never shared your idea with anyone else.

tzs 13y ago
Why do you think scarcity should have anything to do with the vesting of property rights in something? Under most libertarian theories of property rights that I'm familiar with, property rights vest when something is made useful. For instance, property rights in unowned land vest when someone puts the land to productive use. If you have a farm, and you have such a bountiful harvest that you end up producing so much food that you can't possibly use it or sell it all before it rots, under your theory of property would that excess food no longer be your property, because food is no longer a scarce resource for you?
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > If you have a farm, and you have such a bountiful harvest that you end up producing so much food that you can't possibly use it or sell it all before it rots, under your theory of property would that excess food no longer be your property, because food is no longer a scarce resource for you? Only if according to the same logic it can be said the excess food is no longer your property because it is no longer useful as it is rotting. Why would anyone need your food if there is no scarcity? They could go claim some "unowned" food somewhere else. Just like they could "clone" your ideas without depriving you of your idea. Property rights wouldn't be a very big issue without the scarcity.

tzs 13y ago

Why do you think scarcity should have anything to do with the vesting of property rights in something? Under most libertarian theories of property rights that I'm familiar with, property rights vest when something is made useful. For instance, property rights in unowned land vest when someone puts the land to productive use. If you have a farm, and you have such a bountiful harvest that you end up producing so much food that you can't possibly use it or sell it all before it rots, under your theory of property would that excess food no longer be your property, because food is no longer a scarce resource for you?

darkarmani 13y ago
> If you have a farm, and you have such a bountiful harvest that you end up producing so much food that you can't possibly use it or sell it all before it rots, under your theory of property would that excess food no longer be your property, because food is no longer a scarce resource for you? Only if according to the same logic it can be said the excess food is no longer your property because it is no longer useful as it is rotting. Why would anyone need your food if there is no scarcity? They could go claim some "unowned" food somewhere else. Just like they could "clone" your ideas without depriving you of your idea. Property rights wouldn't be a very big issue without the scarcity.