pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 10 replies \ @zapsammy 15 Apr \ on: Is intellectual property legitimate? AskSN
asking for protection of Intellectual Property is an appeal to authority. the one asking for it probably sucks at or is afraid of competition.
Asking for protection of your ownership rights to real estate and other tangible property is equally appealing to authority.
You want to return to the law of the jungle?
reply
reply
Nonsense.
Who issues and authorizes the ownership of land and property titles and their transfer?
Without the authority of the state you have no ownership of property.
When you transfer the ownership of your house you must go to the authorities to register the transfer.
'Ownership' of real estate or any 'property' is am abstract human construct and relies upon the support of the relevant territorial authority.
reply
Without the authority of the state you have no ownership of property.
Absolute nonsense. You speak like this is a fundamental truth of being, rather than merely a consequence of the pervasiveness of the modern state.
The state is not a prerequisite for property.
If any person/group has a monopoly on violence, then you have a choice: abide by their rules (and have them use their monopoly in your favour) or operate outside of their rules (becoming the target of their violence). It doesn't follow that an entity with such a monopoly is in any way necessary.
reply
If the state is not present and you wish to assert a right of exclusive ownership you must be capable of asserting and defending that claim.
You then have the law of the jungle- ie no law.
It is then simply a case of might is right and any property you may think you own can be taken from you by force by any more powerful violent entity than you.
It is only with the state that rule of law and secure property rights, especially those over territory, can be achieved.
In the absence of the nation state you are forced to become one yourself, by default, in order to assert any right to any property.
The ability of the state to secure property rights efficiently and equitably is a primary reason why the state is a major catalyst in and driver of the wealth of nations. Without the state to provision such security individuals are forced to expend disproportionate resources simply to defend their 'property' with little security and ability to invest in development of productive capital assets and infrastructure.
reply
You've made two assumptions here - one is that in the absence of the state, all people become individual actors, incapable of acting outside of their own immediate interest. Communities can form where people protect each others rights and property, without enabling a privileged few to monopolise violence.
Secondly, you seem to be ignoring the potential (or inevitability) for the state to become the most powerful violent entity. The state is not benevolent, they are simply the extreme form of "law of the jungle", where one entity becomes so much more powerful than the others that it can take whatever it wants, from whoever it wants. If the law of the jungle is bad, according to you, then so must be the state, because the two are fundamentally the same.
reply
When you cannot refute my arguments you resort to crude and childish shoot the messenger trolling.
You thereby admit defeat, by default, in the contest of ideas, by demonstrating your inability to debate the facts and issues raised and instead stooping to personal attacks in an attempt to deflect from the weakness of your ideological position.
For your edification, information, amusement or perhaps more likely, feedstock for further abuse, the pinecone shown is specifically that of a Pinenut tree and I am planting a small forest of these edible nut trees. From that one pinecone I will have extracted perhaps 30 seeds and planted perhaps a dozen seedlings...secure in the property rights of the land upon which I make this investment.
reply