strike "under" insert "in spite of"
> demonstrate that we'd have these things without the IP environment of past 100 years.
IP are laws that prohibit who is allowed to manufacture and profit by certain types of goods. The burden of proof rests on those who think that those goods would not exist if more people were permitted to produce them. The presumption is that prohibitive laws have the effect of decreasing the things they prohibit.
If private property exists, with any sort of free exchange, then IP that takes resources to produce and nothing to copy will need protection under some sort of property law.
A high tech society is imaginable in the absence of private property, but generally the abolition of private property is not considered as a serious option.
No, it doesn't need to be protected. The ability to copy is a feature, not a bug. Laws that limit the copying of data decrease the proliferation of that data in most cases.
> A high tech society is imaginable in the absence of private property, but generally the abolition of private property is not considered as a serious option.
I see people mentioning it but I agree its considered to be somewhat fringe by most. A society without private property would likely devolve to subsistence level or recreate propertarian norms.
When one has too much power or capital, the ability for one to rewrite the laws that govern the taxation of the accrued private property (intellectual or physical) increases as well. This is why those with the most private property can essentially do as they please; the benefits they derive from their private property are disproportionately high compared to the cost that society incurs protecting their private property.
For instance, the workload that the government is tasked with to protect private property of these elites at home (e.g. the large amount of police resources that need to be available for large tech campuses or in rich areas) and abroad (e.g. by tasking the Acronym Agencies with searching for foreign and domestic threats, by using the might of the dollar and the military to basically force their will on other countries through political, physical, or financial violence (FATCA comes to mind...) [0]).
Private property needs to stay, but the incarnation we find ourselves in today needs to evolve for it to survive. Either through taxes or government stakeholdership in corporations (e.g. Yanis Varoufakis' proposal that companies must give X percentage of their shares to a common fund such that the incentives are aligned for both the companies and the government to act in the long-term interests of its citizens), this imbalance of power needs to be corrected for.
The one thing undermining this is a distrust in the US government that is rightfully earned after decades of neoliberalism (and, to a different perspective, neoconservatism) has worked hand in hand with the elites to steal and pillage the private property of the common man (e.g. how Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher tax percentage that he does).
Unfortunately I don't see this happening. Things are getting worse in the US as public institutions are eroding or becoming more kleptocratic, all the while the elites are starting to act more like feudal lords, thinking that some libertarian wet dream of privatization of everything is the answer (private military and private firefighters come to mind for the extremely wealthy few). This technofeudalism will probably only be stopped by some major shift in global power (e.g. away from the dollar as the world's reserve currency, which I suspect would provoke the US into military action one way or another)
If anyone wants to read a great article about what happened to America's institutions, I recommend Francis Fukuyama's America in Decay [1]. His "end of history" argument seems very premature given what's happened since he wrote that, but most of his other work is spot on.
[0] I certainly don't agree that these policies are beneficial in aggregate, as they result in international hostility, the things Snowden revealed, etc. It is, however, a thing that government does provide for the monied elites.
[1] https://cf.linnbenton.edu/artcom/social_science/clarkd/uploa...
This is conflating power and wealth. When one has too much power, one is able to seek rents. Often this takes the form of government-sponsored monopolies. However, one's security costs increase faster than one's wealth, so wealthy people have an incentive to capture the government and outsource their security costs. This is actually contrary to private property norms as it socializes costs that are properly born by the private entity.
> This is why those with the most private property can essentially do as they please;
This is absolutely backwards, the rich have more money, this incurs benefits and drawbacks. For example, they have much more to lose in the event they are found liable for anything.
> the benefits they derive from their private property are disproportionately high compared to the cost that society incurs protecting their private property.
That would be an argument for expanding the scope of private property (because we are able to get disproportionately more benefit at disproportionately lower social cost).
> For instance, the workload that the government is tasked with to protect private property of these elites at home (e.g. the large amount of police resources that need to be available for large tech campuses or in rich areas)
One imagines that the benefits of a low-crime society might be extended to people who don't live on a tech campus or in the Hamptons.
> Either through taxes or government stakeholdership in corporations
Its probably best to spend more time identifying the problem before we grasp for solutions.
> has worked hand in hand with the elites to steal and pillage the private property of the common man (e.g. how Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher tax percentage that he does).
I agree, working professionals are taxed to death. Taxes on wages and salaries should be lowered to match the ltcg rate.
> Things are getting worse in the US as public institutions are eroding or becoming more kleptocratic
Have you considered this to be a weakness of the way those institutions are structured?
> some libertarian wet dream of privatization of everything is the answer (private military and private firefighters come to mind
Tbf its probably better to have these institutions working for the people who enjoy their services and pay for them, rather than the current system.
I can see no evidence that this is the case, just based on that comment.
Fairness, comradery, and equity are enough.
This seems like an odd claim, as society as a whole was able to weather the pandemic overall in incredible comfort due to technology and content created under our IP regime. And we got a vaccine, covered by IP laws, to people with incredible speed. If anything - it's working well.
I think the burden is on you to demonstrate that we'd have these things without the IP environment of past 100 years.