On the Ownership of Ideas

JackSkylark:

When I started with the notion that you must "own your ideas as part of owning yourself", I was working with the idea of original appropriation of ideas as inherent within self ownership. Beyond the scope of self, everyone else has same ownership of mind (at original appropriation).

How does one determine "original appropriation"? Whatever idea you have, I'll just say I thought of it first.

Skeptik:

How does one determine "original appropriation"? Whatever idea you have, I'll just say I thought of it first.

An idea can occur, for the first time ever, at two places simultaneously.

Jack,

If I think up the idea of the air plane and then someone else builds an airplane, why should the plane not belong to the person who actually built it? A Patent system says that it doesn't.

Yet you have no trouble robbing producers in order to make sure someone with a thought achieves "just" compensation. How about this solution: Whoever thinks a thought can never be robbed of their thought and whoever builds a plane can never be robbed of their plane?

JackSkylark:

What, is your definition of the mind?

I was going to ask you the same thing.I use mind as meaning  the brain and its process, not in a metaphysical sense.

JackSkylark:

Also, it could be argued that there are large differences between the area of discovery and of invention, whereas one is a creation.

That's right but all invention and creation is based on discoveries of pre existing concepts. For example motor vehicles they are based in principles of physics and chemistry like combustion,friction and kinetics.The whole idea of motor vehicles is nothing but an application of this principles, witch, I assume you wold agree,nobody can own.

Even if you were the first to apply some principles in a certain way, how could you legitimately deny someone else the application of the same natural principles if you don't own them?

JackSkylark:

Spideynw:

No, I am saying things that involve copyrights, patents, or trademarks would not be contracted.

Would not, or could not?

I said "would not" and I meant "would not".

Very selective quotation of Professor Hoppe there. Here is what you did not take into account though, a good is scarce when the use of it may entail conflict since two different individuals may each use it for different purposes to reach their subjective ends. This is exactly why IP fails, rather than resolve conflict it creates it, since violence must be used to defend "property" that does not exist, the property does not exist since individuals can use the same idea without any conflict.

Spideynw:

I said "would not" and I meant "would not".

How much would would a would chuck not if a would chuck could not would?

JonBostwick:

Skeptik:

How does one determine "original appropriation"? Whatever idea you have, I'll just say I thought of it first.

An idea can occur, for the first time ever, at two places simultaneously.

The Idea can occur at any time and, if there is no contract, the originator has a rightful claim of full ownership of the idea.

JonBostwick:

Jack,

If I think up the idea of the air plane and then someone else builds an airplane, why should the plane not belong to the person who actually built it? A Patent system says that it doesn't.

Yet you have no trouble robbing producers in order to make sure someone with a thought achieves "just" compensation. How about this solution: Whoever thinks a thought can never be robbed of their thought and whoever builds a plane can never be robbed of their plane?

I do not support a patent system in the manner you suggested. Rather, all men are full owners of ideas and can act upon those ideas in any way they wish - unless they are contracted not to, in which case they must act as if they are conditional owners of the idea.

I am not arguing for "just" compensation, nor am I arguing even for a governmental system. Only that a free system of courts would accept contracts over ideas.

Spideynw:

I said "would not" and I meant "would not".

I just wanted to be sure, becasue in that case we have no disagreement. So, I am assuming you support contracts over ideas on theoretical grounds, you just believe there will be no profitability in these contracts on a free market?

GilesStratton:

Very selective quotation of Professor Hoppe there. Here is what you did not take into account though, a good is scarce when the use of it may entail conflict since two different individuals may each use it for different purposes to reach their subjective ends. This is exactly why IP fails, rather than resolve conflict it creates it, since violence must be used to defend "property" that does not exist, the property does not exist since individuals can use the same idea without any conflict.

I believe we are using two differing definitions of scarcity. I see scarcity as economic demand (meaning the good desired is not a part of general welfare). I agree with you that everyone could equally posess the idea and there be no conflict becasue of it. But, why does the individual not own the idea relative to self? And, if self ownership of the idea is valid, why not contractual ownership outside of self?

I also have a hard time understanding why you would say that the there is a lack of existance. Do you mean only that it does not exist as property, but still exists in reality?

CorporateGhost:

I was going to ask you the same thing.I use mind as meaning  the brain and its process, not in a metaphysical sense.

What faculty acts as the conscious self? What, within man, "does the owning" (as was said earlier).

JackSkylark:

The Idea can occur at any time and, if there is no contract, the originator has a rightful claim of full ownership of the idea.

So what?

 

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

So what?

If you do not individualy own the idea, you would not own yourself. Then we would be in the position of choosing one of the other two theories of ownership that justify action. 

JackSkylark:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

So what?

If you do not individualy own the idea, you would not own yourself. Then we would be in the position of choosing one of the other two theories of ownership that justify action. 

Everybody own their idea. They just don't own somebody's copy of the idea.

JackSkylark:

If you do not individualy own the idea

You do in the sense that it resides as a neural pathway in your brain.

You get one more chance, Jack: what is the takeaway for your idea?

kiba:

Everybody own their idea. They just don't own somebody's copy of the idea.

Ding Ding Ding!

Ladies and worms, we have a winner!