3 ms·

I'm uncomfortable with this essay because the author seems to be buying into the general idea that there is some bundle of Natural Property Rights that all huma

by sethg 17y ago

I'm uncomfortable with this essay because the author seems to be buying into the general idea that there is some bundle of Natural Property Rights that all humans are entitled to, and the job of a lawmaker is simply to align the statutes as closely as possible with those rights. The main difference between her and the pro-copyright lobbyists is that she excludes intellectual property from the bundle and they want to include it.

praptak 17y ago
"[...] the author seems to be buying into the general idea that there is some bundle of Natural Property Rights that all humans are entitled to [...]" It is impossible to express opinions about law without (at least implicitly) assuming some basis for discerning between good and bad law. Whatever you assume will either look like Natural Rights or Unfounded Personal Opinion.
- sethg 17y ago
  You can argue that a law achieves a good end (on utilitarian grounds, for example) without arguing that it ratifies any particular Natural Rights.
- alan-crowe 17y ago
  For commercial law there is the obvious test of whether the law leads to prosperity. Can we have a utopia in which our favourite artists, well funded by copyright royalties, are free of the tyranny of the day-job and may create full time, unfettered by copyrights on existings works that they wish to improve, rework, remix, play-off and a dapt? Probably not, but the problem we face is clear enough: construct a system of commercial law around the trade-offs that lead to artist abundance. There is an Economics and Law movement, partly inspired by Coase's Theorem, http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/The_Swedes.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/The_Swedes.html, that has high hopes of economic efficiency as a basis for discerning between good and bad law.

3 ms·

I'm uncomfortable with this essay because the author seems to be buying into the general idea that there is some bundle of Natural Property Rights that all huma

by sethg 17y ago

praptak 17y ago
"[...] the author seems to be buying into the general idea that there is some bundle of Natural Property Rights that all humans are entitled to [...]" It is impossible to express opinions about law without (at least implicitly) assuming some basis for discerning between good and bad law. Whatever you assume will either look like Natural Rights or Unfounded Personal Opinion.
- sethg 17y ago
  You can argue that a law achieves a good end (on utilitarian grounds, for example) without arguing that it ratifies any particular Natural Rights.
- alan-crowe 17y ago
  For commercial law there is the obvious test of whether the law leads to prosperity. Can we have a utopia in which our favourite artists, well funded by copyright royalties, are free of the tyranny of the day-job and may create full time, unfettered by copyrights on existings works that they wish to improve, rework, remix, play-off and a dapt? Probably not, but the problem we face is clear enough: construct a system of commercial law around the trade-offs that lead to artist abundance. There is an Economics and Law movement, partly inspired by Coase's Theorem, http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/The_Swedes.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/The_Swedes.html, that has high hopes of economic efficiency as a basis for discerning between good and bad law.