When presented with the idea of scarcity being the motivation for the existence of property rights and being exposed to the fact that ideas are not scarce like property, proponents of IP then go on to say "yes, but with that idea you would have gone on to make a product which you would have sold." Hence, you have an entitlement to those profits.
Thinking about this today, I realized just how silly it is to have a right over such expected profits.
It's like me buying a $1,000 camera expecting to take a picture of the public park's oldest Sequoia tree and then suing when the tree gets cut down because I had "an entitlement to a picture."
Is the analogy too far-fetched or no? It seems silly to have a right to future expected (and not-realized) earnings.
I don't think the analogy is far-fetched at all. All too many people these days (IMO) end up equating desire with entitlement. That is, they think it's okay to use force against others to get what they want just because they want it and don't yet have it.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum