Couldn’t I then boil any non-direct exchange down to an exercise in vanity? Why do you need to profit off another man’s labor when all you did was hold the product for a period of time? A could have just sold it to B himself, or he could not have, and the market goes on. Why demand recognition for that?
say that you don’t differentiate between attribution for the genesis of some idea/pattern/concept on the one hand
I am saying I don’t see how that “attribution for the genesis of some idea” is not property, yes.
i don’t understand what you are talking about. an indirect exchange is an exercise in the exchange of real rival goods.
Why do you need to profit off another man’s labor when all you did was hold the product for a period of time?
whoever does? can you give an example of someone profiting from the labour of others by merely holding a product for some time?
A shop owner who has the goods delivered to him. The only work he puts in is the upkeep of the store, and in your view, should only get donations for it, as he is just the holder of an idea (there’s plenty of land around the store for people to do the exact same trading, he just had the idea of “hey do it all here, it will make it easier”)
It is far easier to delliver all your goods to one store, as opposed to each individual household.
the fact that the attribution for the production of some physical rival good does not itself need to be property for the system of private property in rival goods to work should be a clue as to its irrelevance. we only need the facts that this person built a statue from the clay that he owned, and that person made a guitar from the wood that he owned. we don’t need to ‘own’ those facts for the property system to work.
A shop owner who purchases the goods if he does not make them himself. comes to be their owner, and he tries to sell them in turn. He will make a profit or a loss. ‘labour’ may be necessary in his venture, but the the value he gains (if he makes the profits he hopes to make) is simply the spread between his sales revenues and his costs of business. To believe this is to believe in Subjective Value Theory otherwise is to believe in the Classical Labour Theory of Value.
How can you be so bold as to say that? Regardless of what happens in the theoretical world, in the real world people value their idea, and property disputes arise all the time based off of this. To say “the property system works without it.” is false.
Isn’t this why we’re having this debate in the first place?
in the real world people value their idea
what do you mean? that they demonstrate a preference for their ideas over things that are not their ideas? where do you see this revealed in an action?
property disputes arise all the time based off of this.
do they ? does person a deprive another of the idea in his head and leave him without it? and does this need to be settled by a system of law?
If noone ever disputed who came up with anything first, if they simply didn’t think that fact was interesting or important and so kept silent over it., and went about their business. what would remain of your belief in IP ?
To believe this is to believe in Subjective Value Theory otherwise is to believe in the Classical Labour Theory of Value
Is there not room for purple in your world of black and white?
As I have admitted, I in no way consider myself an expert, nor even an ameteur. I think your SVT description is correct, but it doesn’t explain how that spread is given value in the first place. Why if I buy 30 apples for 1s a piece (30s), my cost of transporting them to town X is 9s (39s), my cost of protection is 5s (44s), and to set up shop in the market is 1s (45s) do I feel I have the right to charge, say, 3s to 5s per apple (90s to 150s) depending on what people are willing to pay?
If noone ever disputed who owned anything first, if they simply didn’t think that fact was interesting or important and so kept silent over it., and went about their business. what would remain of your belief in property rights?
the truth is you have a right to charge any amount you like from negative infinity to positive infinity. thats what it means to own a real rival good
feelings have nothing to do with your rights (though i don’t object to you having them)
The idea is this, you want to learn about the biology of the human heart, and thats all you want to know. you go to class and say’ teacher; i will pay you X dollars to relate to me knowledge on the topic of the human heart. leave out any superflous details about who it was that did the experiments and came to the insights, just tell me about how the experiments were conducted, what the results were and what was found out.
if the world was full of people like this, there would still be private property rights (the teacher owns the class room and gets paid in money) the student works a job and owns money to pay him), and so a market economy. their could be peace and prosperity (what property rights are all about). certainly such a system does not ‘require’ proper attribution of the history of the genesis of ideas to work in its way. so your idea that intellectual property rights stems from the necessity of having property over attributions seems hollow.
The idea is this, you want to learn about the biology of the human heart, and thats all you want to know. you go to class and say’ teacher relate to me knowledge on the topic of the human heart. leave out any superflous details about who it was that did the experiments and came to the insights, just tell me about how the experiments were conducted, what the results were and what was found out.
if the world was full of people like this, there would not be private property rights (the teacher lives in the classroom and imparts knowledge freely) the student works a job but has free time to visit the teacher), and no market economy. their could be peace and properity (what communism is all about). certainly such a system does not ‘require’ proper ownership of goods to work in its way. so your idea that property rights stems from the necessity of having ownership over goods seems hollow.
So you’re saying what we are really arguing here is natural or demanded rights?
ToolbarSourceSaveNew PagePreviewTemplatesCutCopyPastePaste as plain textPaste from WordPrintCheck SpellingSpell Check As You TypeUndoRedoFindReplaceSelect AllRemove FormatFormCheckboxRadio ButtonText FieldTextareaSelection FieldButtonImage ButtonHidden FieldBoldItalicUnderlineStrike ThroughSubscriptSuperscriptInsert/Remove Numbered ListInsert/Remove Bulleted ListDecrease IndentIncrease IndentBlock QuoteCreate Div ContainerLeft JustifyCenter JustifyRight JustifyBlock JustifyLinkUnlinkAnchorImageFlashTableInsert Horizontal LineSmileyInsert Special CharacterInsert Page Break for PrintingStylesStylesFormatFormatFontFontSizeSizeText ColorBackground ColorMaximizeShow BlocksAbout CKEditor ▲ |
|---|
I’m saying that IP is pernicious precisely where it stops concerning itself with purely mental concepts and starts to put strictures on what people who own real rival goods can and cannot do with them based only on the fact that certain people claim rights to whatever property exists in the real world that is understood as being in the class of objects that instantiates the idea that they claim is original and private to them.
have whatever ideas you have. pay other people to perform for you in ways that lead you to aquiring yet more ideas (if you want to). do not pretend that by thinking of things you can boss people around with their real property. if you want to be the ‘boss’ of particular real rival goods, transform rival goods that you already own into those goods, or trade rival goods that you own for those goods. do not claim a right over them by an act of thoughtpower.
I’m saying that IP is pernicious precisely where it stops concerning itself with purely mental concepts and starts to put strictures on what people who own real rival goods can and cannot do with them based only on the fact that certain people claim rights to whatever property exists in the real world that is understood as being in the class of objects that instantiates the idea that they claim is original and private to them.
I’m sure you can put that in a non run-on sentence. Are you saying value in itself is not a subjective manifestation? That is what it seems.
have whatever goods you have. ask other people to perform for you in ways that lead you to aquiring yet more goods (if you want to). do not pretend that by owning things you can boss people around.
All value is subjective. Are you saying it is morally wrong for a man to be a vagrant?
im saying IP is not merely about word playing, about ‘thinking’ that such and such person ‘was the person that was the genius that first thought of X’.
im saying that rather IP is a way to gain control over the real rival goods of other people, based on various rhetorical tricks, not least, LTV theories of value.
lord no, however did you make that connection? I’m saying nothing more controversial than if one ‘covets’ ownership of a good instantiating some idea, then the legitimate ways to come to own that (to bring it about) are through transformation or trade, not through specious appeals relating to the hagiography of thoughts (unless you are relying on your appeals to invoke a charitable response) certainly not if your specious appeals are intended to motivate men with guns to deliver other peoples goods to you to settle your imagined debt.
How can you transform a song into a rival good?
im not sure what you are asking me. are you saying that you would like to own some rival good that will allow you the service of hearing a song?
So, artists should not promote themselves in clubs/bars/halls, or at all using their music, until they have secured a distribution contract?
And garage bands become underground bunker bands so noone can spy on them creating their music. A strawman, I know. But as a poster above said, just following it to its conclusion.
So, artists should not promote themselves in clubs/bars/halls, or at all using their music, until they have secured a distribution contract?
what sense of the word should are you using? they can do what they want that is not a violation of property rights over real rival goods.