Hypothetically, do I contribute anything to the economy or society?

Try to give specific reasons, be logically consistent, and take a close look at some of your own views and see if you find any contradictions.

For the sake of the hypothetical, just assume all of these are true:

- I copyrighted a lot of octaves. Pay me and I'll let you use them. Do I contribute anything to the economy or society? Do I deserve what I get for it? Why or why not?

- I own the only freshwater source (a lake) near a city. The city pays me a lot of money for it. Do I contribute anything to the economy or society? Do I deserve what I get for it? Why or why not?

- The alphabet is my intellectual property. I don't even know what to do with all the royalties I'm getting. Do I contribute anything to the economy or society? Do I deserve what I get for it? Why or why not?

- I own half of the electromagnetic spectrum. I rent it out to various broadcasters who pay me billions. Do I contribute anything to the economy or society? Do I deserve what I get for it? Why or why not?

- I own the sunlight. Pay me or live in the shadows. Do I contribute anything to the economy or society? Do I deserve what I get for it? Why or why not?

- I own a lot of land in London. I get a lot of money for it. Do I contribute anything to the economy or society? Do I deserve what I get for it? Why or why not?

(I could add another few dozens but it's getting too long anyways.)

 

Yes you contribute to society.Your labor produced these octaves that give some people enjoyment. You deserve compensation.

No, you do not personally contribute to society by merely owning a natural resource. Personally, I don't believe people should own natural resources. If you are using your labor to extract those resources for others you should be compensated for that labor.

I am assuming since the alphabet has been around for so long that the rights to it were somehow handed down to you. In which case, no, you are not contributing anything and you shouldn't be compensated. I don't believe intellectual property rights should outlive the creator.

No, I treat this the same as owning a natural resource, which I am against.

No, and f**k you Mr. Burns!

I am against earning money by simply owning land. If you are using your labor to improve the land that is different.

 

Persons who play god do no contribute to society. They also own politics.

 

Very cool thread, thanks for posing these questions.

 

This is a thought exorcise. To ignore it is to ignore the point of the questions of capitalism, economy and government along with their roles. You're obviously offended by these questions which means they touch on a serious soft spot...they demand honest answers about our society. You should give it the honesty it deserves to decipher what the economy requires, what capitalism is and what shared domain should be.

 

Score one against the oil industry!

 

I just realized how stupid of a response this was. Obviously I am not a musician. I must have been thinking "song" instead of "octave". No, you shouldn't be able to patent an octave.

 

An individual is not allowed to copyright or patent octaves. As such this question is nonsensical and has zero probative value
Is there an individual anywhere that owns the only freshwater source around a city, and that city has built their entire water infrastructure around that individuals water? An individual can own the property around a lake, but they do not own the water that flows from it. A city would simply tap into a tributary that feeds that lake and get their water in that fashion.
Being that the alphabet has been around for many centuries, no one individual can claim it as their intellectual property. As such this question is nonsensical and has zero probative value.
Nobody is allowed to own the electromagnetic spectrum. As such this question is nonsensical and has zero probative value.
Nobody is allowed to own the sunlight. As such this question is nonsensical and has zero probative value
If you own land in London and made a lot of money from the proceeds of that sale, congratulations, your ( or your parents) investment paid off! Yes you contribute to the person that purchased the land, and you deserve whatever the market will bear on sales price, because you took the financial gamble and it paid off.


I suspect you have a point of view that you are trying to push. Resorting to nonsensical impossible hypotheticals does nothing to lend credibility to your viewpoint.

 

"Hypothetically." Are you saying that whether one contributes to society depends on whether one's action is sanctioned by law? Because if that's your claim, you are claiming that slave owners contribute, as long as owning slaves is legal.

Wrong. See above. The question is not nonsensical at all, and you are very well aware of that fact. YOu are just trying to prevent yourself from knowing that the question is very pertinent.

There are numerous cases of patents being granted for things that were formerly in the public domain. In fact, a patent effectively takes knowledge in the public domain and privatizes it.

City governments understand the danger from such an individual's greed -- even if you don't.

Wrong again. Individuals can own water rights based on nothing but having previously used the water.

?? ROTFL!! As if it mattered where the water's ownership was asserted!

I see you are afraid to address the hypothetical. You have evidently realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

<yawn> That didn't stop Monsanto from patenting basmati rice that had been grown for many centuries....

You lose.

Wrong. You are terrified of the question, because you have already realized that it is not nonsensical in the least, and proves your beliefs are false and evil.

<yawn> Guess you haven't heard of spectrum auctions, or Carlos Helu.

You're really afraid of these questions, aren't you?

Wrong again. Those who own land own the sunlight that falls on it. The hypothetical just takes that sunlight ownership up a few kilometers. And that terrifies you, because it makes the parasitic character of landowning too obtrusive.

Just like investing in a little girl slave paid off if she grew up to be a real hottie...

No, you most certainly don't, so stop lying. All you do is charge him for what was already there with no help from you or any previous owner. You know this. Of course you do. You just have to pretend not to know it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

I see. So, if the government taxes people and decides to give all the revenue to people who own 1959 Buicks, the Buick owners "deserve" the money, because they took the "financial gamble" of owning a '59 Buick, and it paid off...? Whatever the government steals from producers and consumers and gives to the privileged, the privileged must deserve because they "took the financial gamble" of buying privileges, and "it paid off"?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...

OTOH, I know you have one you are trying to push: nobody should be allowed to question the welfare subsidies given to rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic takers.

Pretending you can't understand questions that others have understood very clearly does nothing to lend credibility to your viewpoint, pumpkin, and you'd do well to remember it.

 

Look......in trying to sum up this long winded gobbledy gook into a short coherent retort........ If one wants to make the point that they dont believe a landowner should be able to sell the mineral rights to their property, there is nothing probative in asking if someone should have the right to patent air. With the former, you are talking about a tangible, realistic concept, in the latter you may as well be asking a question about unicorns. Discussing unicorns does nothing to further the discussion about mineral rights. If one has a concept they want to discuss...go ahead and discuss it in a straight forward manner. Dont present fantasy, and then pretend you are making a valid analogy to a tangible concept.

 

You cannot own that which you cannot improve.

 

Who here has shown any interest in making such a vacuous "point"?

Maybe if you could find a willingness to address the issue, you wouldn't be constantly trying to change the subject.

Because it's a question that YOU MADE UP in order to evade the questions that were actually asked.

We have: the concept of human rights, and property "rights" that abrogate them.

You know very well that AfS made some very valid analogies to tangible concepts. You also know that you cannot address his points, and so you have to pretend to think he said something else.

- - - Updated - - -

Were you under an erroneous impression that that meant something?

 

No.....what I know is to not be so foolish as to run down the rabbithole, of what is a particularly silly strawman argument.

 

You apparently don't deal well with abstract concepts. You cannot improve sunlight because you cannnot build upon it. You can improve ore by mining and refining it. The government appears to believe that it owns all bandwidth which can be improved by adding a signal to it. Law regarding water rights goes back to Hamurabi. By the way if joe built a Dam to create that lake in the first place and laid the water pipe into the city does he not deserve some compensation for his efforts?

 

<yawn> You are talking stupid $#!+ again. I scored 170/170 on the GRE verbal. My ability to deal with abstract concepts is therefore incomparably superior to yours, as I will now prove again:

No, that's just more stupid garbage from you. You can improve sunlight in lots of ways: you can redirect it; you can split its spectrum; you can focus it, etc.

You just haven't come to terms with the fact that when you are opposed to the truth, you will always be objectively wrong.

You can do analogous things with sunlight, as proved above. Why do you always choose to be wrong?

Adding a signal does not improve bandwidth. That's just meaningless nonsense.

And has usually been used to enrich parasites and impoverish the productive.

Of course: the market wage for his labor and the market return on his capital. Not ownership of everything he can grab, trap, or funnel into his pockets.