5 ms·

There's a difference between legal rights and natural / human rights. The latter are ideals, the former are what are brought into existence by the application

There's a difference between legal rights and natural / human rights. The latter are ideals, the former are what are brought into existence by the application of force. Intellectual property corresponds (somewhat poorly) to the natural right of being allowed to profit from your ideas.

humanrebar 13y ago
I disagree with your definitions. Rights, though abstract, are real. This is why atrocities outside the reach of law (murder in international water, war crimes, genocide) are clearly wrong. Laws are nothing but codified decisions from government. Sometimes they define the specifics of how natural rights are balanced against each other. However, laws sometimes violate rights, such as the now-repealed Jim Crow laws in the American South. Furthermore, the term "legal rights" can also be a misnomer for government-guaranteed privileges such as the "right" to government-provided benefits or (in my opinion) intellectual property "rights".
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  The difference legal and natural rights corresponds to the difference between laws and morals. That's all I mean. Natural rights are real things in as much as morals are real things.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    Let me recap, because discussions become convoluted in forum format. First ataggart makes the point that elevating patent and copyright privileges to the level of natural rights is wrong and implies (through Orwell) that confusing intellectual property rights and physical property rights leads to foolish thinking. Then, you make the argument that it doesn't matter because, "Every legal concept is entirely the government's creation, including both physical and intellectual property...." Then a bunch of people, myself included, disagree with that point by referencing Hobbes and Locke and providing examples of how ownership exists outside of government influence. Now, I agree that "Natural rights are real things in as much as morals are real things." And since we are not amoral, we can presume that natural rights exist. Remember, the original point is that labels matter here. Mislabeling things as "rights" causes people to both overvalue grants from their governments and (more importantly) to devalue natural rights as being decreed by government (which means they can be abolished or altered by the same powers). When your "rights" are derived from government and they are taken away, you're on the losing side. When rights are inalienable and they are violated, you are being persecuted. All that is to say, "intellectual property rights" is a dumb term.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      The difference between legal rights and natural rights is that legal rights are guaranteed by force. As soon as you guarantee a natural right by force it becomes a legal right: you make the law.
      - humanrebar 13y ago
        You just reiterated your previous statement without addressing my point. According to you, it is morally OK for government to decide what is a right and what isn't. In that case, is there anything morally wrong with government deciding to nationalize all retirement savings?
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        It is always legally OK for a government to decide what is right and what isn't. It may or may not be morally OK with an individual member of the society, depending on the particular law. I like some laws, I don't like other laws. I believe a healthy government provides legal guarantees about rights to its citizens in accordance with their morals, on average, and so I am morally OK with such a government. Governments are a natural extension of parents. Goodness or badness is not an all-or-nothing proposition; nobody has perfect parents, but most people accept that in general, having parents that make and enforce the rules is a good thing. It is quite possible to have terrible parents though, in which case escape might be a good idea. I just don't understand why anarcho-capitalist libertarianism is so great. The international situation today is a capitalist anarchy among nations, and the US abuses its immense power to call most of the shots. How would it be any different at the level of individuals?
betterunix 13y ago
There is no natural right to profit from your ideas. Your ability to even try to profit from your ideas is substantially dependent on external factors in your life -- your position in society, your ancestry, the availability of capital and your ability to acquire it, etc. Do not confuse the right to think with the right to profit from your ideas. You do have a natural right to think about whatever you want, as well as a natural right to communicate your thoughts to others.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  I believe that creative expression should be valued by society, i.e. I believe that people have a natural / human right to rewarded for this kind of work. But sure, I don't believe in absolute natural rights, much as I don't believe in absolute morals. Put more simply, I believe that authorship is a natural right, just like ownership. You might ask, why should the idea be mine just because I got to first? And I would answer, why should the tree be yours just because you got to it first?
  - distant-uncle 13y ago
    It seems to me that when you say that people have a natural right to profit, you actually mean a "right to exclude". I think that's a whole nuther kettle of fish. For one, the two are in contradiction. Suppose you believe that you have the right to exclude, presumably you also believe that all other humans have the same right, owing to its status as a natural right. By believing that you can exclude, and therefore profit by way of eliminating competition, you acknowledge that the competition can exclude you as well. It boils down to whether or not by "profit", one implies complete domination of a resource. I tend to think that many parties can profit, without the necessity to exclude by brute force. This is also the key difference between patents and copyrights. The former demands total domination of a resource, while the latter does not. > And I would answer, why should the tree be yours just because you got to it first? It's a good point, but there is a difference. It is possible for two parties to arrive at the same intellectual destination without being aware of one another. The same cannot be said for two parties arriving at the same tree, at the same time, but one not being aware of the existence of the other. I suppose you can construct an argument in which both parties lack all physical sense of awareness. :)

humanrebar 13y ago

I disagree with your definitions. Rights, though abstract, are real. This is why atrocities outside the reach of law (murder in international water, war crimes, genocide) are clearly wrong. Laws are nothing but codified decisions from government. Sometimes they define the specifics of how natural rights are balanced against each other. However, laws sometimes violate rights, such as the now-repealed Jim Crow laws in the American South. Furthermore, the term "legal rights" can also be a misnomer for government-guaranteed privileges such as the "right" to government-provided benefits or (in my opinion) intellectual property "rights".

foobarbazqux 13y ago
The difference legal and natural rights corresponds to the difference between laws and morals. That's all I mean. Natural rights are real things in as much as morals are real things.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  Let me recap, because discussions become convoluted in forum format. First ataggart makes the point that elevating patent and copyright privileges to the level of natural rights is wrong and implies (through Orwell) that confusing intellectual property rights and physical property rights leads to foolish thinking. Then, you make the argument that it doesn't matter because, "Every legal concept is entirely the government's creation, including both physical and intellectual property...." Then a bunch of people, myself included, disagree with that point by referencing Hobbes and Locke and providing examples of how ownership exists outside of government influence. Now, I agree that "Natural rights are real things in as much as morals are real things." And since we are not amoral, we can presume that natural rights exist. Remember, the original point is that labels matter here. Mislabeling things as "rights" causes people to both overvalue grants from their governments and (more importantly) to devalue natural rights as being decreed by government (which means they can be abolished or altered by the same powers). When your "rights" are derived from government and they are taken away, you're on the losing side. When rights are inalienable and they are violated, you are being persecuted. All that is to say, "intellectual property rights" is a dumb term.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    The difference between legal rights and natural rights is that legal rights are guaranteed by force. As soon as you guarantee a natural right by force it becomes a legal right: you make the law.
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      You just reiterated your previous statement without addressing my point. According to you, it is morally OK for government to decide what is a right and what isn't. In that case, is there anything morally wrong with government deciding to nationalize all retirement savings?
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        It is always legally OK for a government to decide what is right and what isn't. It may or may not be morally OK with an individual member of the society, depending on the particular law. I like some laws, I don't like other laws. I believe a healthy government provides legal guarantees about rights to its citizens in accordance with their morals, on average, and so I am morally OK with such a government. Governments are a natural extension of parents. Goodness or badness is not an all-or-nothing proposition; nobody has perfect parents, but most people accept that in general, having parents that make and enforce the rules is a good thing. It is quite possible to have terrible parents though, in which case escape might be a good idea. I just don't understand why anarcho-capitalist libertarianism is so great. The international situation today is a capitalist anarchy among nations, and the US abuses its immense power to call most of the shots. How would it be any different at the level of individuals?

betterunix 13y ago

There is no natural right to profit from your ideas. Your ability to even try to profit from your ideas is substantially dependent on external factors in your life -- your position in society, your ancestry, the availability of capital and your ability to acquire it, etc. Do not confuse the right to think with the right to profit from your ideas. You do have a natural right to think about whatever you want, as well as a natural right to communicate your thoughts to others.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
I believe that creative expression should be valued by society, i.e. I believe that people have a natural / human right to rewarded for this kind of work. But sure, I don't believe in absolute natural rights, much as I don't believe in absolute morals. Put more simply, I believe that authorship is a natural right, just like ownership. You might ask, why should the idea be mine just because I got to first? And I would answer, why should the tree be yours just because you got to it first?
- distant-uncle 13y ago
  It seems to me that when you say that people have a natural right to profit, you actually mean a "right to exclude". I think that's a whole nuther kettle of fish. For one, the two are in contradiction. Suppose you believe that you have the right to exclude, presumably you also believe that all other humans have the same right, owing to its status as a natural right. By believing that you can exclude, and therefore profit by way of eliminating competition, you acknowledge that the competition can exclude you as well. It boils down to whether or not by "profit", one implies complete domination of a resource. I tend to think that many parties can profit, without the necessity to exclude by brute force. This is also the key difference between patents and copyrights. The former demands total domination of a resource, while the latter does not. > And I would answer, why should the tree be yours just because you got to it first? It's a good point, but there is a difference. It is possible for two parties to arrive at the same intellectual destination without being aware of one another. The same cannot be said for two parties arriving at the same tree, at the same time, but one not being aware of the existence of the other. I suppose you can construct an argument in which both parties lack all physical sense of awareness. :)