or just tangible items? i'm inclined to think only tangible items that are the product of actual labor are property.
you call it collectivism, but what claim a person can have on an idea since so much is predicated on previous knowledge. especially since the definition then becomes wholly arbitrary. (i.e; i just put another wheel on an airplane, do i now own that idea if i pay some bureaucrat for the privilege?) i ask because i don't understand how this can apply to natural law or even the law today without becoming the cumbersome mercantile mess that it currently is.
logically, a person has a right only to protect his idea in order for him to profit from it. but it's going to get out. and if you were to say to another human being that he can not buy that item, reverse engineer it and then build the exact same thing for profit, you've just infringed on his natural right to property and denied him the fruits of his own labor. and in doing so, implied ownership of both his life and his property.
how can someone OWN an idea in which so much prior human cognitive effort has gone into? it seems down right unmanageable and more importantly, entirely unjust.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed,