I started to reply to this as a comment but it got quite long winded so I’ve promoted it to a post, hopefully it’ll clear up some of my reasoning. All I’ll say here is that its all my own fault. (No intellectual property here, like I said :P)

I cut and pasted this out of the SD thread. why don’t we drop it on the ice and chase it around a bit.

If we concede that as an individual, I have a right to have a secret, and

So, starting from the top down, let’s find the first statement that is not stone cold obvious, and debate it. By working one at a time from the top down, we can reduce confusion. I’m on way too many threads right now.

If we establish IP as a general concept, then we can go onto to details. But they will be easier if we can keep track of how we got to where.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property
and then of course,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
Are there any more?

My hope is that we can first agree on the types of property. After that, we can address how it changes hands. If we do this, then ‘unearned’ is defined in the changing hands stage. I just reread your last paragraph, I think we need to add gift or bequest and (yes, it may be wrong, but) theft. Unfortunately much ‘legitimate’ ownership derives from theft. For example, in some jurisdiction, if you possess stolen property long enough, it’s yours to keep. We probably shouldn’t drift too far from IP in the early discussion though.

I’m not sure where you are on the IP scale. I’m quite sure you believe in some facets but that it is over protected. I hope we can more or less accept WiPe’s definitions for ‘real’ and ‘personal’ property. I’m thinking that most of our discussion will be over what constitutes intellectual property. We certainly agree the system is mangled right now, and has lost track of its raison d’être. If it ever existed.

Without establishing a just basis of origination of IP, any discussing will wander pointlessly. Yet if a just origin can be established and understood, they rest may follow naturally.

I also think we might be in the same book if not on the same page, its certainly worth nailing down a lexicon so that we (and others) know what we’re on about. We can maybe iron out any cultural kinks along the way.
Ok Unearned is abit vague. Calling your inheritance a gift is probably less so.
Lets say that a gift is property that is transferred from one party to another through the choice of the giver and doesn’t require the recipient to give anything ‘real’ in return. Does that sound okay? Its still unearned but differentiated from property obtained through fraud or theft.

I would define ‘real’ property as something physical which can only be owned by one entity (individual or group) at a time. Ownership is either derived from the act of creating the property (building a house, amusement park, car, rearing a cow, growing crops, mining ore, etc.) or through purchase with an agreed medium of exchange. Is that about right?

You also care about the same fundamental questions that I do. That’s rare. I’m used to seeing eyerolls and realizing I should find something new to talk about. On SD everything is essentially about interactions. Which is good. That is what matters most wherever there is more than one person. But they tend to stay away from philosophical introspection. Something I’ve looked for occasionally and not found any site that had ‘ground rules’ I could agree with.

Also, while I think I can save you a lot of time building more of your social interaction framework, I think I may also be able to learn a lot. For an example, “The Universe is concious and aware. How do I know this? I know this because I am part of the Universe and I am concious and aware.” I’m not sure that I agree. But I think I do. It’s a new thought to me. That whole paragraph is interesting.

This comment would probably just make the political thread even more confusing. As do all those comments on the mechanics of the blog. But if you want to put this comment somewhere else where it would viewable that’s fine. I don’t mind eating my words publicly. Although I do try to learn from it.

Blog software comment. I botched the security code again. Fortunately, I copied the message. When I paged back, the comment had disappeared. So I pasted and will try again.

Regarding property. I was afraid I might be taking it back too far into fundamentals, but probably not.

My first goal is to segregate the acquistion of property from its characteristics. For example, a house is what is called in the US ‘real’ property. (Hense ‘real estate’) This property could be obtained through legitimate or fraudulent means, but it is still ‘real’ property.

Unless you find a flaw in my case, I would like to reject the category of ‘unearned’ property as impossibly subjective. To determine what is earned or unearned calls for a decision process (and one more decision making body) in each case. Maybe my father promised me the property I inherited in exchange for something intangible, but none the less, valuable to him. Is it ‘earned’, or ‘unearned’?

I would prefer to establish theft or legitimacy separately. Two separate goals. One, decide what is eligible to be considered as property. And two, decide what entitles someone to own that property

If it’s okay with you, why don’t we take this a bit at a time. I think we have very different points of view but may not actually be that far apart. One thing I had to do when I first started writing down my own thoughts a couple of decades ago, was to write my own narrow(er) definitions of words. Too many words have all come to mean nearly the same thing through popular usage. A big part of our discussion may be the process of syncronizing word meanings. We also have a slight language culture difference to cope with.

I really like this comment format. It is absolutely better than anything else I’ve seen. Anywhere. I’d be tempted to comment here just to watch the nifty text appear on the preview. It’s especially fun to enter html tags and watch the preview change as it interprets it.