There are two different kinds of Intellectual Property: discoveries and expressions. Discoveries are things like chemical formulas or plumbing blueprints. Expressions are unique manifestations of a specific complex of sentiments in an individual. Discoveries remain to be found and expressions are extensions of the individual.
There is a distinction between these two types of IP. I think the distinction is important enough that expressions are owned by their creators. No two people could simultaneously produce the same expression, but two people could simultaneously conceive of the same discovery.
I don’t know how this kind of thing might be organized such that the distinction was legally protected in a stateless legal system. Do any of you acknowledge this or have an opinion on it?
Thus the expression is an extension of one’s use of time. Similarly to how labor is an extension of one’s time and the fruits of labor become property, the fruits of expression are also property, they would not exist without the creators input.
Contrast this with a chemical formula. The formula is not an extension of anyone’s person, it is simply something that exists today or might exist in the future. It is of a strictly nonpersonal character. The chemical formula is a fact that might be discovered by anyone, or by two people simultaneously.
The expression is unique and as such can only be presented authentically by the creator. It would be impossible for two different people to simultaneously produce the same expression.
Intellectual property and property rights cannot coexist together. You have to pick one or the other. Personally, I’ll take property rights in scarce resources. Why try to make scarce that which is abundant?
You didn’t really address my post. IP and PR cannot coexist side by side. You wnt to use the justifiable right in one’s own body, a property right, to justify making property out of something that necessarily violates physical property rights, like the one in your body. It makes no sense to do that. And it also makes, or tries to make, ideas scarce, when they are not and should not be.
Funny, I find IP immoral. Not only immoral, but insane. It only makes sense just because we were all taught it’s a legitimate property. However, I somewhat believe in “intellectual ethics”, so to speak, for example, don’t print books (and then sell) by other people if they didn’t gave you a permission to do that. That’s all I support. Ethics, not law, which is always violating property rights.