Private Property Rights

S

SOCALHUSKER

New member
After reading the following article, Historic Preservation vs. Private-Property Rights, and after much discussion/debate in this section in regards to situations involving property rights, I'd like to know what your opinions are pertaining to this matter, and also how did you come up with them?

I believe it is paramount and vital for the case of justice, peace, morality, prosperity and basic civility that property rights be upheld to the fullest. If not, there is absolutely zero objective standard to base any of our laws, exchanges or agreements on; and we are then left with a case of might makes right. This scenario always ends with theft on a massive scale, the enaction of massive corporate and social welfare entitlement programs, a breeding and perpetuation of irresponsibility and a complete loss of productivity as individuals waste their time and energy scheming, campaigning and dictating how others should live, ruling by subjective opinions and seeking revenge on those who may have forced their opinions upon them, rather than working to create and innovate in a productive and voluntary manner as individuals can and should.

Thoughts?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that property rights must be upheld to the fullest. The other flaw, though, that I see with complete anarchism is that I don't see any way for protection of intellectual property. I'm not debating that privatized law enforcement agencies can protect properties rights generally, but they'd have no jurisdiction on inventions and other cases of intellectual property. Do you contend that protecting intellectual property is unimportant? I know that some areas in Asia have few intellectual property barriers, which is partly how they've been able to become technologically savvy. They can reverse engineer everything without the fear of infringing on patents and things like that. I still think that it provides less incentive for people to innovate though. If you know anything you invent is going to be reverse engineered, why invent something in the first place if your window for capitalizing on it is so small?

 
Seriously, I want to know. Personally, I'm torn as to whether or not I think intellectual property should be protected. If you don't think so that's fine, but if you do, it would be hard to enforce them without a governing body. I can't see of any way to do so.

 
jnkyrdoff6 said:
Seriously, I want to know. Personally, I'm torn as to whether or not I think intellectual property should be protected. If you don't think so that's fine, but if you do, it would be hard to enforce them without a governing body. I can't see of any way to do so.
Click to expand...
That's a big issue for a lot of libertarians. However, I don't think IP should be protected because once someone purchases or make some kind of voluntary exchange with another individual, whether it is for a book, music, classes, or an ipad that product becomes the purchasing person's property. When it becomes their property they can do with it however they choose and if that means copying it and producing similar, or better products, they are well within their rights. What they cannot do though is turn around and try to sell someone else's products as their own. Not because it would infringe upon the creator's rights, but rather because it would be an act of fraud commited against the individual who was buying the products under false pretenses.

You say that this might be a disincentive to produce, but actually historically it has shown to increase technology and prosperity. Individuals are always looking to benefit from and becoming the first to create or innovate is one way to better oneself and benefit greatly.

 
SOCALHUSKER said:
jnkyrdoff6 said:
Seriously, I want to know. Personally, I'm torn as to whether or not I think intellectual property should be protected. If you don't think so that's fine, but if you do, it would be hard to enforce them without a governing body. I can't see of any way to do so.
Click to expand...
That's a big issue for a lot of libertarians. However, I don't think IP should be protected because once someone purchases or make some kind of voluntary exchange with another individual, whether it is for a book, music, classes, or an ipad that product becomes the purchasing person's property. When it becomes their property they can do with it however they choose and if that means copying it and producing similar, or better products, they are well within their rights. What they cannot do though is turn around and try to sell someone else's products as their own. Not because it would infringe upon the creator's rights, but rather because it would be an act of fraud commited against the individual who was buying the products under false pretenses.

You say that this might be a disincentive to produce, but actually historically it has shown to increase technology and prosperity. Individuals are always looking to benefit from and becoming the first to create or innovate is one way to better oneself and benefit greatly.
Click to expand...
That's true. Like I said, I can also see the case for no IP rights because that way everyone can understand anything. Thus, anyone can innovate anything. I saw a special on Hong Kong's economy by John Stossel. In it he showed how they could take apart anything, tweak it slightly, and capitalize on it.

You've presented a good argument for no IP rights. I think I can agree with that. That was the second issue of my two issues with complete anarchism. The other I've already expressed. I haven't been dissuaded from that stance. I can see it like Thoreau wrote in one of his essays, that it's against human nature to have a standing army. I understand that it also takes away some of our freedoms, but I still think it's a necessary evil, because I don't see anyway a nonchoesive U.S. could defend itself against enemy attacks.

I don't mean to make you into some kind of a human search machine or anything when I bring up these points. You can disscuss something with me without having to search for articles backing you up all the time. I write something like "I read that somewhere online" all the time. In fact, I have it up in the first paragraph where I say "I saw a special on Hong Kong's economy by John Stossel." I don't have any problem with it. I don't expect anyone else does. If they do, I don't really care. If you're unsure about a stat or something then I can see it, but otherwise it's totally up to you. I read your link; it's just that I don't want you to feel like you have to find a link, because execpt for the army point, I think I agree with all your other stances.

 
Back
Top