I resist saying that on computers we create something from nothing. One opens a software word processor and it looks like a blank slate. I press a letter on the keyboard. It seems as though it came from nowhere, but I shouldn't forget the time it took the computer to process the pressing of the button, nor that time expended by my hand traversing the distance to trigger the signal to the computer, and--perhaps--finally, the moment I used up in thinking to press the button.
Most have heard that time is money, so let's not ever discount our time as nothing. The things we create, whether good or bad, consciously or carelessly--we create them using the most precious scarce resource in our social existence: time.
Unlike the scarcity of agriculture growing seasonally, gold jewelry sold in thousands of stores, or oxygen held compressed in tanks; the scarcity of time has no possible competing goods. Nothing can replace time gone and if poorly used we might call it time lost. Consider the tragedy, then, of a society of people who spend their lives choosing how to spend their time using a faulty measuring stick. Imagine the economic tragedy of the historical human being: for all of recorded account we have subjected ourselves to the valuations of fiat. Governments cannot create money from nothing! They cannot magically manifest value, or utility, by sheer command. The tragedy of this system is that fiat creates money from the time of the people trapped by it. Fiat is human beings. When we spend this money we are spending away the time, the lives of our people.
There is tangible property and there is intangible property. There are tangible goods and there are intangible goods.
All property has a right of posession and defense. All goods freely exchanged are so under contractual agreements. These statements are tautological.
If one values the social good, personal social capital or service to an ideology (art, services or labor) moreso than his value of his time, then he will give away his intangible and intangible goods for no charge and license them under minimal restrictions.
Evidence that some have inducted, or have been persuaded, that open source software and the free exchange of information is a negative right, does not make it so. In fact, this ideal is the opposite of a negative (natural) right.
The fact that there is free software and free information, and that you have benefited from it, does not imply there is a moral imperative to give all of your goods and services away. It is evidence that others have provided a goodwill gesture as an example to others to do the same for what they perceive is the greater good, and they had the excess resources to do so. To demonstrate that there are public spaces and buildings, created with private voluntary donations for the good of a community, is not evidence that no one should be allowed private property and that no one should own anything. This is denying the antecedent.
reply
What things qualify as goods? Which goods qualify as property?
reply
All things are property. Anything saleable is a good.
reply
Are ideas property?
reply
All things are whose property? You made no statements about origination of ownership.
reply