Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
Why not? They are both the products of intellectual labour. I see no real distinction - aside from the pragmatic points already raised. The fact that one cost a lot of money and the other didn't is really irrelevent. The only justification for any of these things is practical - which is why you have a time limit. Property rights don't traditionally expire and the fact that IP does is recognition that this is a social contract of trading a little liberty for supposed economic benefits.
|
Because there was no real intellectual labour involved in coming up with, and implementing, the pizza idea. Its the difference between the first person on the moon building a fence around an area and saying "I declare all this to be mine", and someone building a shop on the moon. Only the second would have a legitimate claim to property rights, since he is the only one who has actually invested productive labour into the land.
The drugs vs pizza example seems like a fairly straightward application of the Lockean 'property rights = resources + productive labour' idea to me, with 'resources' here being slightly metaphorical; I dont know where the pragmatism accusation is coming from.