5 comments

• 

  MikeT

  3 years ago

  Actually, it makes perfectly good sense. There was something on TCSDaily.com talking about an "egalitarian instinct" in these societies. It would make sense that when there was plenty, they would share, but when scarcity becomes a real factor they would assert private property rights. It's just a way of preventing free riding.

  
  

  I am curious to know whether he had the chance to critique their nuances in their views of property. Is it possible that they might have always asserted property rights in principle, but simply not enforced them because of other cultural factors during good times? That would seem more likely to me, but I'm just guessing and don't even pretend to know the answer to that one.
• 

  Jackson

  3 years ago

  This really isn't surprising at all -- scarcity is a fundamental attribute of "property," and where there is not scarcity, there is no need for property.
  

  
  So the key question is, then: are ideas scarce? I would argue that they are not, in fact, that it is impossible for them to be scarce.
• 

  Anonymous

  3 years ago

  Well my original post ended up in the wrong place, my bad, I was in a rush to leave work. Now I am home and doing some further thinking.
  
  First, I am on your side that abstract ideas cannot be patented and hence do not possess a "property right".
  
  Second, my point of concern is the use of a "real property" property right as an analogy. You wrote: "Historically, property rights only arise in the presence of scarcity and conflict. For example, during our ancestors' hunter-gatherer days, there was no concept of land as a property right. This is largely because land was not scarce, and there was little conflict over its use." While this statement is loosely true, it leaves out a crucially important concept. A property right does NOT arise out of scarcity.
  
  The "correct" logical process is that scarcity creates VALUE, this value is then perceived by some entity (an individual, tribe, king) who then asserts it belongs to them because they control it. David's paper recognizes the concept of "Original Appropriation". David stated: "There must have been a time when no one had a right to exclude. Everyone had liberties regarding the land, but not rights."
  
  Possession, over a long period of time, along with the invention of law, converted appropriated land and other real resources into being "owned" with the owner poseessing "property rights".
  
  The abusuridy of patenting ideas was an unintended consequence of an article that appeared in Discover Magazine. Evidently a person obtained a patent for an antigravity device (Whatever happened to Antigravity Research?, April 2006). It didn't work. Suppose now that someone does get an antigraivty device to work, is that inventor and all of society going to have to pay royalties someone for an idea that failed?????
• 

  underage sex

  2 years ago

  1edb79f8cc5c Great work http://www.whak.com/off/?333 underage sex
  http://tiny2go.com/5dh?go clips of teen sex
  http://tjek.nu/l- black monster cocks
  http://tjek.nu/ly female masturbate
  http://tjek.nu/lm foot pain
  http://tiny2go.com/5du?go pussy fucking
  http://tiny2go.com/5do?go girls stripping
  http://tjek.nu/lr girls having sex
  http://www.whak.com/off/?327 tamilsex com
  http://nudes.I89.us indie nudes
• 

  tramadol

  2 years ago

  >81e31de21f46 Hi http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol