From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Jun 12 2002 - 23:13:16 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Technotranscendence wrote:
>
> I think, though, that Lee's definition of property is the problem. What
> gives an item value is entirely a matter of its marginal utility to its
> user, while an item's status as property is matter of the fact that
> labor produced it (or improved it from raw resources). Whether one or a
Actually, as far as IP especially goes, the divisibility of the
"goods" is very much part of the question of whether they are
best seen as private property or used from a commons. Remember
that patent laws and copyright were set up expressly for the
maximum good of society rather than to say that whoever put the
effort end absolutely owns whatever was the result of the effort.
> billion people can use it at the same time is immaterial to the
> situation. If we own ourselves, then we own our own raw, barehanded
It is quite material to what acheives the maximal value for all
of us including the person[s] who produced the item.
> physical or mental labor. Anything which increases our productivity has
> marginal utility to us. To use another's labor without recompense is
> slavery, therefore any product of our labor is property. That the
Not at all unless it is involuntary and makes the person the
poorer for it. It is certainly not true that any and all
products of our labor are property. Any and all products can be
claimed as property but whether that maximizes our value from
these things that came from our labor in a particular situation
and for particular types of things is a much more interesting
question.
> product of our labor can be used by one or a billion customers in the
> market is only a matter of assigning incremental value to each instance
> of use, not to the fact that our labor is our property.
>
You have the right to use your labor any way you wish. This is
true. You also have the right to do whatever you wish with
whatever you produce. Also true. But for some types of
productions you will impoverish yourself, relatively speaking,
and to some extent impoverish others if you insist on treating
these things in the same way as so many material widgets should
likely be treated. The cases are much too dissimilar.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:46 MST