Pirate bay fruits get year in jail

[Pat]

That people are born with the ability to feel ownership of land is not to determinstically say that all people must exercise this ability. Surely you will not dispute that all people are born with a sexual drive; yet, there are many examples of groups of people choosing celibacy.

Wait, what in the fuck?  The ability to feel land ownership is genetic?

Consider the chimpanzee, our closest relative, which is well known to engage in violent war over territory. As indeed many mammals do. A casual glance at human history will reveal we are not so different.

Edit: Oh, and forgive me for my reductionism, but all our abilities are genetic.

[PDH]

This is of course not something I can prove, as you no doubt must understand. The sciences of evolutionary psychology, genetics and neuroscience are yet in their infancy and while we wait for solid evidence we can do no more than speculate.

My argument is that there is something as human nature. The human mind at birth is not a blank slate, as Locke thought it was. Human nature, however, is something quite flexible and adaptible. In particular, we adapt to the culture forged by the experiences of those that came before us.

I don't know where to start...really...good luck with this one, Beeb...

[Pat]

Lol what?

[Barrister]

This is of course not something I can prove, as you no doubt must understand. The sciences of evolutionary psychology, genetics and neuroscience are yet in their infancy and while we wait for solid evidence we can do no more than speculate.

My argument is that there is something as human nature. The human mind at birth is not a blank slate, as Locke thought it was. Human nature, however, is something quite flexible and adaptible. In particular, we adapt to the culture forged by the experiences of those that came before us.

Thus of course you'll understand why I don't just accept your word for it.

[Pat]

I'm not asking you to. I never said more than that I believed humans had this ability. I could of course be wrong.

What I do hold as fact, however, is that humans are a product of evolution - and that there is such a thing as human nature. Is there any one here who will dispute this?

[Warspite]

In what way does territoriality imply an understanding or concept of ownership?

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think that it really matters what chimpanzees do or don't do . . .

What I will say is that there is a sense in which the assertion of a private right over an object is a little bit odd, if you step back and try to think about it abstracted from our own social context.  What does it mean to say one "owns" a object?  It really is meaningless outside a social and legal framework that gives content to that concept.  And there is nothing about the nature of physical things that makes them more "natural" subjects for such treatment than intangible things.

I suppose there is a moral sense in which having created an object (how? from what?), one can claim some right to determine how it used.  But then again, it seems to me there is an equally, if not stronger moral sense that having created a work of art, one can make a similar claim.  What hurts more - someone that I don't like borrowing my saw or a company whose products and actions I abhor using my musical composition to market its product?   The first causes some de mimimus wear to my saw; the second perverts my own creative efforts by associating them to the world with something that sickens me.

[Pat]

In what way does territoriality imply an understanding or concept of ownership?

It implies it because the latter often stems from the former. Of course it doesn't have to, but I have argued no such thing.

[The Minsky Moment]

Huh.  Almost a fundamental difference between the types of property.

More like a practical approach to determining how to enforce within a particular cultural context.
If a hotel chooses not to aggressively investigate and prosecute guests who steal towels, that doesn't mean that there is something questionable about the nature of the hotel's property rights in its towels.  It's just a recognition that the direct and indirect costs of strict enforcement are far too high to justify the benefits.

[Neil]

That people are born with the ability to feel ownership of land is not to determinstically say that all people must exercise this ability. Surely you will not dispute that all people are born with a sexual drive; yet, there are many examples of groups of people choosing celibacy.

Wait, what in the fuck?  The ability to feel land ownership is genetic?

I'm not sure that 'ownership' is the right word.  But all the great apes seem to exhibit territorial behavior.

[ulmont]

I know you understand the distinction between the underlying purposes of a rule of law, and the effect of an ajudication in a particular case.  Where the application of law is uncertain, there is always going to be an upset of at least one side's expecatations. 

The point re: Capital v. Naxos was that productive commercial activity can occur in the absence of an enforceable IP right, and can be more productive than the commercial activity that occurs in their presence.

In that case, are you taking the position that the property rights in question are somehow diminished?

Are or should be, yes.

Not sure that flies:
Personalty is very commonly taxed (income tax, sales tax, VAT, etc)
Personalty is also subject to heavy regulation (commerical regulation, substantive regulation of invididual categories like alchohol, tobacco, weapons, health products, etc)
Personalty is subject to forfeiture and confiscation under certain circumstances.

At the end of the day, though, you are a lot freer to do as you like regarding your bed and your couch than with your house or your lot.

[Pat]

I don't think that it really matters what chimpanzees do or don't do . . .

Why not? We share 98.5% of our genes (or thereabouts).

What I will say is that there is a sense in which the assertion of a private right over an object is a little bit odd, if you step back and try to think about it abstracted from our own social context.  What does it mean to say one "owns" a object?  It really is meaningless outside a social and legal framework that gives content to that concept.  And there is nothing about the nature of physical things that makes them more "natural" subjects for such treatment than intangible things.

I suppose there is a moral sense in which having created an object (how? from what?), one can claim some right to determine how it used.  But then again, it seems to me there is an equally, if not stronger moral sense that having created a work of art, one can make a similar claim.  What hurts more - someone that I don't like borrowing my saw or a company whose products and actions I abhor using my musical composition to market its product?   The first causes some de mimimus wear to my saw; the second perverts my own creative efforts by associating them to the world with something that sickens me.

I agree, and I have never argued against droit morale.

[ulmont]

More like a practical approach to determining how to enforce within a particular cultural context.

From a descriptive rather than a prescriptive approach, a right that almost no one feels obligated to honor a) isn't much of one and b) perhaps shouldn't exist at all.

[ulmont]

I agree, and I have never argued against droit morale.

Droit morale. 

[Pat]

I agree, and I have never argued against droit morale.

Droit morale. 

Well, to be honest I have no strong feelings one way or the other about droit morale. Why are you disgusted by it?