David Schwartz wrote:
> All of these right conflicts are resolved by property rights. Yes, you can
> keep and bear arms on your property, but you can't let a bullet fly onto the
> circle K. Yes, you can smoke in your house or someplace under your control,
> but I can designate my house smoke free if I want to.
Free market capitalism _appears_ to tend towards a structure where the
bulk of property becomes owned by a few owners, and the majority of
owners own very little property.
So it's appropriate for rights to be distributed like that too?
For example, suppose you own _all_ the land I can travel to. Then my
right to not be shot by you is not protected at all. I do not think
that is an appropriate resolution of rights.
> The author's right to profit from his creation is about as absolute a
> property right as you can imagine.
For some kinds of profit, I agree. For other kinds of profit (read:
coercion over others), I disagree.
And if there are two authors who independently create something
similar? The rights do not resolve so long as both authors demand
that the other does not profit. The only resolution is when both
authors view cooperation as a satisfactory kind of profit.
I truly do not believe I have that "absolute property right", much as
I would like it. If I write a program or create a new kind of
technical device, I would like to profit from that. But I do not
think I would be allowed to, as I would be pursued into oblivion by
more powerful entities than I.
But then, I truly believe it is conceptually impossible to create
something which has no connection with what has come before. So I
would not claim it as absolutely mine anyway, unless I had an agenda
to fulfull...
-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 07 2003 - 22:00:12 EST