IP -- partial ownership of object/rent of information?

[John_James]

@FlyingAxe

You misunderstand. Neither I nor my friend are saying that such a society is sustainable or at least sustainable for a long period. It will necessarilly revert to a lot of small communes that will operate on a primitive level of small barter economies.

But this argument against this system is utilitarian. Isn’t it?

No, the argument is that your assertion is wrong. A policy of everyone can take anything they want would not lead to less conflict, but would in fact lead to more. And how anyone could suggest otherwise is just baffling.

Another question that I want to ask, returning back to my partial ownership model:

In the model of information as being bound within the object (i.e., rejecting the model that information is an independently existing ideal entity, but accepting that information is merely a property of a physical object, just like shape is), can we not say that this particular instance of this information is scarce, because the physical object that holds it is scarce?

For instance, star shape “in general” is not scarce; hence, arguably it cannot be owned. But individual star-shaped cookie cutter is scarce. What, then, is the status of that specific cookie cutter’s shape? Is that specific instance of star shape not scarce? (Proof being that it can be used by only one person at a time and only on one piece of dough at a time.)

That doesn’t make any sense.

In that case, one could argue that the specific instance of the shape can be owned. One could go back to my model where the original cookie cutter manufacturer says: “I am selling you the metal of the cookie cutter, but not the shape – the shape still belongs to me, and I am merely leasing it to you. The conditions of the lease are such that you may only use the shape to cut cookies, but not to cut paper shapes.” (Or whatever.)

…which again, I thought I proved wasn’t sound.

@FlyingAxe

I am not trying to justify property use or IP non-existence for myself. I am trying to explain that for the wide audience who may hold different beliefs. If the reason is natural, it has to be logically deduced, not dictated from above.

Again, if you’re looking for logical deduction, please see the resources on “argumentation ethics” (in particular “Law and Economics” 2009).

Incidentally, I heard someone give the following religious-utilitarian reason:

[T]he whole concept of recognizing property to begin with is utilitarian in nature - “G-d’s is the earth, and all therein” [which means, everything belongs to G-d] - but we, as a society, agree to allow people to take control of G-d’s property, and restrict the access of others to it, so that there will be an incentive to produce. Isn’t that utilitarian?

What is “G-d’s”?