Good Behavior w/o Police

[J’raxis 270145]

Patent and copyright is a type of property protection.

Except it's not property to begin with.

Maybe not real property, but it is property.

No, it's not property at all. This was a concept invented in the 1960s by people who would benefit from such a conflation. All three of the "intellectual property" items—copyright, patent, and trademark—are just legal fictions created by the government. The first two are examples of social engineering schemes: Grant an author/inventor a time-limited, government-protected monopoly on his work, in turn for his releasing the work to the public. The third is a sort of consumer-protection law.

[J’raxis 270146]

No, it's not property at all.

I concure! 

[John Edward Mercier]

1960s?

From the US Constitution Article One Section Eight...

'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;'

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
(Edit to add link)

[Kat Kanning]

Twin jeremies agreeing with each other 

[John Edward Mercier]

Imagine if they took opposing points of view...

[reteo]

Constitutional or otherwise, since it consists of nothing but concepts and ideas, "Intellectual Property" is not real; it is the belief that one can own an idea, regardless of the head containing it, or the hands enacting its purpose... in essence, you own a specific thought and action in every person's head and hands.  If you cannot see the absurdity in this concept, then there is little I can do to disabuse you of this illusion.

[Pat McCotter]

Biogenetic companies have patented genes. Better hope you don't have those genes in your strand of DNA.

[David]

As a legal concept, copy writes are a few hundred years old, in this country due to the constitution, but even older in europe.  they were used in europe as a means to control printing houses.  copy writes are profitable for priters, so a loss of it became a weapon for the monarchy. 

[J’raxis 270145]

Neither copyrights, patents, nor trademarks were ever considered "property" until the people who hold such items, and would benefit from such a definition, began to push it into the public consciousness. Their only similarities are that both C/P/T rights and true property rights confer upon the holder an exclusive privilege of use. I can keep you from using my back yard as your own; I can keep you from using my book/invention/logo as your own. And it's argument from this similarity that has allowed "IP" holders to conflate C/P/T with real property.

To elaborate on what I said earlier:—

Copyright is a form of social engineering. The idea was that publishers wouldn't publish without a guarantee that someone else wouldn't snap up their work and publish it cheaper, so the government invented this legal fiction that restricts copy rights to the original publisher. It's more of an entitlement than a right, and if one wants to call it a "right," it's a positive right alongside other such government-granted rights as the "right to education" or the "right to health care," since it cannot exist without proactive government intervention.

Patents are the same sort of social engineering, but for inventions: Without it, inventors used to rely on secrecy to protect their inventions from being copied by competitors. This presents a problem, since if the inventor dies, or his business collapses, the invention may very well be lost. So, the government came up with a scheme to grant a time-limited monopoly to inventors in order to promote the public disclosure of their inventions. It's also a legal fiction, an entitlement, and a positive right that cannot exist without proactive government intervention.

Trademark is a form of consumer-protection law: It was created to prevent shady companies from trying to sell poor-quality products by imitating the appearance of their more reputable competitors (and tarnishing the reputation of their competitors in the process). It's also a legal fiction, an entitlement, and a positive right that cannot exist without proactive government intervention.

[John Edward Mercier]

Actually government didn't construct anything. Individuals and masses of individuals develop constructs.
The 'idea' of private real property is a social construct. It does not exist everywhere, nor is it inherent to nature.

[MaineShark]

Actually government didn't construct anything. Individuals and masses of individuals develop constructs.
The 'idea' of private real property is a social construct. It does not exist everywhere, nor is it inherent to nature.

Okay, Prodhoun...

There is no such thing as intellectual property.  Can anyone steal an idea?  Someone can steal your lawn chair, thereby depriving you of the use of it.  That deprivation of use is the definition of theft.

If, on the other hand, you come up with an idea (let's say, a method of irrigation), no one can steal that from you, short of erasing your memory.  Even if someone else uses the same idea, you still have it.  You can still irrigate your fields by that method, if you like.  The fact that someone else may also do so, does not deprive you of the use of your idea.

Joe

[J’raxis 270145]

Actually government didn't construct anything. Individuals and masses of individuals develop constructs.
The 'idea' of private real property is a social construct. It does not exist everywhere, nor is it inherent to nature.

Okay, Prodhoun...

I think Mercier was trying to set up a bit of a straw man there.

It is actually true that there've been a lot of societies in which there was no concept of private real property. Sedentary/agrarian societies usually developed such concepts, whereas nomadic societies didn't. But that says nothing about whether or not concepts such as possession, ownership, and theft, are universal: I would think that even in nomadic societies, even where there are no fixed pieces of land for anyone to claim, the concept of possession—of personal items, such as one's clothing, tent, cooking wares, &c.—still exist, and that if one person were to forcibly take another's kettle from him, it would be interpreted as an act of aggression.

And to answer the next possible counterpoint—that there've even been societies in which movable property has been held in common—there is still the concept of ownership and theft: If an outside actor were to come along and take those held-in-common items from their owners, would those owners not still interpret that as an act of aggression? If a single member of such a society were to try to take all for himself some of the commonly-owned items, would everyone else not still interpret that as an act of aggression? Thus, concepts of ownership and theft can still exist in communal societies.

There is no such thing as intellectual property.  Can anyone steal an idea?  Someone can steal your lawn chair, thereby depriving you of the use of it.  That deprivation of use is the definition of theft.

But this is what's important: In the case of physical property, the act of theft is a genuine deprivation, whereas in the cause of so-called intellectual property, no deprivation actually took place. No nonconsensual transfer of possession, and thus no theft.

[J’raxis 270145]

Health insurance? No smoking—or our premiums will go up. No eating unhealthy foods—or our premiums will go up. No risky lifestyle—or our premiums will go up. Our doctors' recommendations on diet and exercise become orders—or our premiums will go up.

So... if you practice more risky behavior, you run the risk of spending more on healthcare.  This applies even if you are paying in cash.  I don't see the problem.

If you practice risky behavior, there's only a chance your "costs" will increase—if and only if such risky behavior does in fact result in negative consequences. But with the way insurance is structured, if you're purchasing insurance (required to do so or otherwise), and engaging in risky behavior, your costs will certainly increase.

But that's really not the point I was trying to make earlier. My assertion is that insurance is evil because I consider any attempts to control others to be evil, and insurance is a way of doing so—using (and often engineering) circumstances to do so, instead of the force of law or somesuch.

It's their money, so it's only reasonable they get to make rules for us to follow, right? And of course, it's voluntary—we weren't forced to buy insurance. Oh, but... "you have to have it." Just in case. Because the potential costs for not having it when we need it are so high.* And so on.

As opposed to a government where you have to have it because you are forced to pay, whether or not you use it.  Seems reasonable to me.

And therein lies the contention, I believe: You see this as a good solution because it's an improvement over the status quo. I agree with that, that it's an improvement, and it might be, strategically speaking, something to aim for in the short or medium term. But it's not a good solution for a truly free society.

In addition, the interest of insurance providers are to provide the best services without losing money.

Actually, the general philosophy of for-profit business is to provide the least amount of services for the highest cost the market will bear. This philosophy isn't intrinsically bad, but it becomes so when applied to certain fields such as medicine, or other things people need.

And don't think the insurance companies aren't gleefully gaming the system in order to ensure those costs are so high.

They're gleefully gaming the system now.  It's called lobbying.  And the difference is that lobbying can prevent competition from forming to take their business away.

Indeed. Again, the system you propose is an improvement over the current régime, but not ideal.

... who said anything about a score?  I actually oppose the use of an external score; the system I'm designing would not include any way of sending internal scoring information to third parties, this would be a privacy issue, and would quickly encourage clients to move to other providers.  The insurance agency would pay damages, and adjust the premiums accordingly.

The "score" thing was just me projecting one way in which your system would evolve based on how the system has currently evolved.

Once the State is gone, any private entity that tries to engineer dependence, or place itself in a position where people believe that they "have to have it" needs to be resisted. Dependency is evil. Insurance is evil. Relying on someone else to provide us with defense, or "cover our ass" when we need it, is short-sighted, foolish, and a recipe for our own enslavement. Now, purveyors of such product certainly have a right to exist in a free market, but they ought be treated with the same suspicion and contempt that a loan shark or drug dealer receives. They should not be encouraged.

Emphasis mine.

This is one idea.  This is not the only one.  I am providing an alternative to government, which, by the way, is the very name of this forum.  This is not the only one, and I'm sure others can come up with better ones.

Indeed. No need to get defensive about it. I was merely trying to point out its weaknesses and explain how it needs to be improved.

Because, once everyone is dependent on them... it's only a very short journey until they become the new State and us their new subjects.

And the odds of everyone becoming dependent on one of a possible number of different systems?

I would actually say pretty good. In the real world today there are actually a few alternatives to doing business with the insurance cartels, in many jurisdictions, but people aren't aware of them. Many states allow you to post a bond with the state instead of buying auto insurance. Why don't too many people employ this method? The insurance companies are big enough and powerful enough to make sure that virtually no one is aware of it.

[John Edward Mercier]

Actually government didn't construct anything. Individuals and masses of individuals develop constructs.
The 'idea' of private real property is a social construct. It does not exist everywhere, nor is it inherent to nature.

Okay, Prodhoun...

I think Mercier was trying to set up a bit of a straw man there.

It is actually true that there've been a lot of societies in which there was no concept of private real property. Sedentary/agrarian societies usually developed such concepts, whereas nomadic societies didn't. But that says nothing about whether or not concepts such as possession, ownership, and theft, are universal: I would think that even in nomadic societies, even where there are no fixed pieces of land for anyone to claim, the concept of possession—of personal items, such as one's clothing, tent, cooking wares, &c.—still exist, and that if one person were to forcibly take another's kettle from him, it would be interpreted as an act of aggression.

And to answer the next possible counterpoint—that there've even been societies in which movable property has been held in common—there is still the concept of ownership and theft: If an outside actor were to come along and take those held-in-common items from their owners, would those owners not still interpret that as an act of aggression? If a single member of such a society were to try to take all for himself some of the commonly-owned items, would everyone else not still interpret that as an act of aggression? Thus, concepts of ownership and theft can still exist in communal societies.

There is no such thing as intellectual property.  Can anyone steal an idea?  Someone can steal your lawn chair, thereby depriving you of the use of it.  That deprivation of use is the definition of theft.

But this is what's important: In the case of physical property, the act of theft is a genuine deprivation, whereas in the cause of so-called intellectual property, no deprivation actually took place. No nonconsensual transfer of possession, and thus no theft.

Again that personal property is a 'social construct'. Early hominids may not have had such a construct... in this case the strong would take what they wished. And the weak would accept that they avoided a beating or even death.
Our society developed the concept (social construct) of personal property and theft.

Take a cannibalistic society for instance. They have no 'social construct' of the right to life.

But my main point was that they did not come about in the 1960s.

[J’raxis 270145]

Actually government didn't construct anything. Individuals and masses of individuals develop constructs.
The 'idea' of private real property is a social construct. It does not exist everywhere, nor is it inherent to nature.

Okay, Prodhoun...

I think Mercier was trying to set up a bit of a straw man there.

It is actually true that there've been a lot of societies in which there was no concept of private real property. Sedentary/agrarian societies usually developed such concepts, whereas nomadic societies didn't. But that says nothing about whether or not concepts such as possession, ownership, and theft, are universal: I would think that even in nomadic societies, even where there are no fixed pieces of land for anyone to claim, the concept of possession—of personal items, such as one's clothing, tent, cooking wares, &c.—still exist, and that if one person were to forcibly take another's kettle from him, it would be interpreted as an act of aggression.

And to answer the next possible counterpoint—that there've even been societies in which movable property has been held in common—there is still the concept of ownership and theft: If an outside actor were to come along and take those held-in-common items from their owners, would those owners not still interpret that as an act of aggression? If a single member of such a society were to try to take all for himself some of the commonly-owned items, would everyone else not still interpret that as an act of aggression? Thus, concepts of ownership and theft can still exist in communal societies.

There is no such thing as intellectual property.  Can anyone steal an idea?  Someone can steal your lawn chair, thereby depriving you of the use of it.  That deprivation of use is the definition of theft.

But this is what's important: In the case of physical property, the act of theft is a genuine deprivation, whereas in the cause of so-called intellectual property, no deprivation actually took place. No nonconsensual transfer of possession, and thus no theft.

Again that personal property is a 'social construct'. Early hominids may not have had such a construct... in this case the strong would take what they wished. And the weak would accept that they avoided a beating or even death.
Our society developed the concept (social construct) of personal property and theft.

Take a cannibalistic society for instance. They have no 'social construct' of the right to life.

But my main point was that they did not come about in the 1960s.

In the situations you're describing, clearly there was a concept of theft—the people having their possessions stolen didn't give them up willingly, they gave them up because they didn't want "a beating or even death." Rules against theft may not have existed, but certainly the victim of such theft would have felt victimized by it, considered it wrong to himself, and if he were powerful enough, would have resisted.

I wouldn't call that a social construct—what we're discussing is basically just dancing around the zero-aggression principle, or the "do unto others..." philosophy. And that's what I think all this boils down to. The concept of aggression is universal (protections against it certainly aren't, but the concept is).

Back to the original comment: In a society where people don't try to claim possession of the land ("real property"), the taking or moving across such land would not be considered a theft, not be considered aggression—hence, real property is a social construct, and relative to the culture in which it "exists."