How can a person gain property right?
If we accept that IP is not possible, then it is not enough to mix his labour with something, because then IP would be possible.
How does that follow?
No, it is indeed not enough to mix one's labor with something. The something must be physical and an economic good.
alimentarius: How can a person gain property right? If we accept that IP is not possible, then it is not enough to mix his labour with something, because then IP would be possible.
From what I understand, the main gripe about IP here is that it is an intangible, and thus incapable of being owned. My tangible computer belongs to me, and thus I can do as I please with it as long at doesn't physically damage anyone else's tangible property or person. So I can downooad songs onto it and its all legal.
On the other hand, when I take an unowned tangible object and mix my labor with it to make a tangible improvement, it becomes mine.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Tangibility is not a necessarry component to property. You define IP too broadly. When I think a thought (mix my labor) I fully own that thought. If you think the same thought or a subset of that thought, you fully own that thought (unless bound by contract otherwise). Everyone has IP over their own thoughts, as well as the intangible goods under contract.
If there could not be property in ideas then we could not contract ideas in any form. There could be no agreement regarding intangible goods, since no one could own or claim jurisdiction over them.
Its impossible under out system because the banking system has a mortgage on 100% of all the property in the USA.
The big difference between IP and property is that "stealing" IP does not deprive anyone of it, whereas stealing property does.
However, as to why "mixing one's labour with it" is considered the standard for gaining property rights, I think the reasons are (clearly) practical: it just works better that way, as far as history has seen.
In a free market in law, the actual standard applying to a set of people would be subject to the will of the people in some way - at least, a group of people who does not believe in property rights would likely not support legal systems, PDAs, etc. that enforce private property rights.
Why anarchy fails
a group of people who does not believe in property rights would likely not support legal systems, PDAs, etc. that enforce private property rights.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
JackSkylark: Tangibility is not a necessarry component to property. You define IP too broadly. When I think a thought (mix my labor) I fully own that thought. If you think the same thought or a subset of that thought, you fully own that thought (unless bound by contract otherwise). Everyone has IP over their own thoughts, as well as the intangible goods under contract. If there could not be property in ideas then we could not contract ideas in any form. There could be no agreement regarding intangible goods, since no one could own or claim jurisdiction over them.
Thoughts are a category of abstraction to which the term "ownership" doesn't apply. Only when a thought is made concrete through labor or by embodiment in a discrete physical object can it be contracted. One would be foolish to contract for a thought which was never communicated, which is evidence that it's not the thought itself which is the subject of the contract.
Ultimately a right is an agreement between two or more people. The agreement can be regarding all manner of things including space, stuff, and complex behavior. IP can often be secured in a free society by contract. E.g., I record a song in the privacy of my studio, print up a bunch of CDs, and sell them contingent upon a contractual agreement regarding copying and reselling.
Of course the respect for my IP is dependent upon the integrity and honesty of those to whom I sell, but that is the nature of all rights. Having a right to life, e.g., does not mean someone cannot actually murder you. For rights secured by contract, it is usually easy to determine who corrupted the voluntary exchange, and who therefore violated whose rights, but enforcement of rights is another matter. Privately that can be handled through various systems of arbitrage and loss of reputation. Usually however it is enforced by the laws of the state with jurisdiction.
Natural rights are a set of noninterference agreements necessary to allow an individual, because of his nature, to pursue his values, and that are simultaneously consistently applicable to all society members. IP itself is not a natural right (I can't broadcast my music from a tower and claim everyone in the square who records it is violating my rights). But voluntary transactions between individuals are, and that is how IP rights are created.
IP may be a bit of a misnomer, but the rights are no less real than property rights, if properly constructed.