Stefan's Podcast on "Intellectual Property From First Principles"

[brian0918]

I just listened to this podcast, but unfortunately didn't hear any examination of first principles. Stefan doesn't even define "property", nor show how or why the concept arises in the first place. How are we supposed to decide whether the attributes that IP and physical property share in common are sufficient reason to consider IP to be valid property, if this is not even considered or discussed? He gives some examples of how the two are not identical, which one may or may not agree with, but that doesn't answer whether or not it is "valid" property. Instead we are presented with a kind of "weighing" of attributes that are the same or different between IP and physical property. The majority of the discussion seems to focus on differentiating IP from physical property by the degree of effort necessary to copy the property, or by the way in which our current legal system handles them (whether properly or not). 

 

Does he have any other podcasts or writings that start at more fundamental levels - e.g. morality - to derive the basis for what is considered true "property", in order to decide whether or not IP qualifies?

[brian0918]

[Hannibal]

I just listened to this podcast, but unfortunately didn't hear any examination of first principles. Stefan doesn't even define "property", nor show how or why the concept arises in the first place. How are we supposed to decide whether the attributes that IP and physical property share in common are sufficient reason to consider IP to be valid property, if this is not even considered or discussed? He gives some examples of how the two are not identical, which one may or may not agree with, but that doesn't answer whether or not it is "valid" property. Instead we are presented with a kind of "weighing" of attributes that are the same or different between IP and physical property. The majority of the discussion seems to focus on differentiating IP from physical property by the degree of effort necessary to copy the property, or by the way in which our current legal system handles them (whether properly or not). 

 

Does he have any other podcasts or writings that start at more fundamental levels - e.g. morality - to derive the basis for what is considered true "property", in order to decide whether or not IP qualifies?

 

You're working backwards. Property isn't a product of morality - property is a reality of man's nature in a finite world, and morality is build, in part, on top of that reality.

[brian0918]

The concept of rights, and property rights in particular, are a component of political philosophy. Property rights are a necessity of living in society. You would not need property rights on a desert island.

 

Political philosophy is built on morality (which in turn is built on metaphysics and epistemology). First you determine your nature, then from that you determine how to act to survive according to your nature, and then from that you determine how to act in a society.

 

To call something "property" is to ascribe to it a particular high-level concept. The moon is is a finite resource, but is not property. Natural resources by themselves do not become "property" until humans are involved, and only when they are interacting in a social system.

 

By attempting to define property as those finite resources in the world, you are putting the cart before the horse. To derive property rights from "first principles" means to build it on a moral foundation.