Post 3400942 by beebs@queer.party
(DIR) More posts by beebs@queer.party
(DIR) Post #3298456 by beebs@queer.party
2019-01-22T22:05:19Z
1 likes, 3 repeats
property is a way to handle distribution of scarce goods. When you hear someone talking about the capitalist fiction of intellectual "property", about ideas that can be infinitely copied where scarcity is literally impossible, you've found someone who doesn't understand property at all. "Intellectual property" is attempting to seal off an infinite lake so you can sell bottled water.
(DIR) Post #3298725 by dtluna@leftlibertarian.club
2019-01-23T19:27:51.279478Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@beebs "intellectual property" is a statespeak term
(DIR) Post #3358436 by beebs@queer.party
2019-01-23T21:30:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@byllgrim there does not exist a viable means of excluding others, though. It is literally impossible to exclude others from an idea.
(DIR) Post #3358438 by beebs@queer.party
2019-01-23T21:53:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@byllgrim sure, if you have an authoritarian government you can do all sorts of things! But then you don't really have property so much as you have just following the whims of the authority.
(DIR) Post #3358440 by beebs@queer.party
2019-01-24T16:46:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@byllgrim The right to copy is a fundamental human right. We copy and modify others' ideas all the time, in everything that we do. If you have an idea, you cannot prevent anyone else from having the same idea. The only way you can exclude others from your idea is an all-powerful government that surveills everyone on Earth and punishes them if they ever use your idea or have the same idea themselves. In contrast, to exclude others from actual property, you just...hold it in your hand.
(DIR) Post #3358442 by beebs@queer.party
2019-01-24T21:22:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@byllgrim your examples don't exclude anyone from implementing your idea, though. And of course they don't- because that's literally impossible.
(DIR) Post #3358444 by beebs@queer.party
2019-01-24T22:13:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@byllgrim absolute exclusion is a core part of the concept of property. The system is based on the logic that if I take something from you, you no longer have it, and thus you have been harmed and the harm must either be prevented (don't take it, it's mine) or compensated fairly. If I'm merely filling my cup from the literally infinite well, what justification do you have mustering the authority of a government to stop me?
(DIR) Post #3358446 by beebs@queer.party
2019-01-25T13:00:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@byllgrim idea is not strictly synonymous with IP, but IP is a term that covers three entirely different capitalist fictions that really need to be discussed individually. Is copyright the only one you're interested in?
(DIR) Post #3362349 by beebs@queer.party
2019-01-25T15:28:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@byllgrim I explained why it's not arbitrary, though. When you say "proof by construct" what specifically are you claiming to have proved?
(DIR) Post #3362786 by beebs@queer.party
2019-01-25T15:44:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@byllgrim when you touch my bike, you are temporarily taking exclusive control over whatever parts of the bike you're touching. While you are sitting in the seat, no one else in existence can. The bike is still property that you have just taken. When you only take my property for a millisecond because you were literally just touching it, nobody cares. When you take it for longer, it becomes an issue.
(DIR) Post #3375733 by beebs@queer.party
2019-01-25T23:51:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@byllgrim it seems like you understandy argument (that ideas cannot be property because it is literally impossible to exclude others from it) because you think that excluding others is something you can do partially rather than it being literally the fundamental core of what property is.
(DIR) Post #3377296 by beebs@queer.party
2019-01-26T00:38:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@byllgrim I don't know what you mean with this question.
(DIR) Post #3394998 by beebs@queer.party
2019-01-26T14:46:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@byllgrim I'm only making one claim- that ideas fundamentally cannot be property. If you understand that claim, you understand everything because it's the only claim being made.
(DIR) Post #3400942 by beebs@queer.party
2019-01-26T18:02:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@byllgrim you're on social media having a regular old conversation not in a formal debate. If you're interested in a detailed argument, perhaps you should consider reading one of the many books on the subject?
(DIR) Post #3401083 by beebs@queer.party
2019-01-26T18:07:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@byllgrim if you want to hear a more eloquent person talk about it here's Thomas Jefferson, a dude who loved property so much he owned humans: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl220.php
(DIR) Post #3546777 by beebs@queer.party
2019-01-26T18:07:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@byllgrim you can skip ahead to the line starting "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."