But property, as a concept and related body of law, exists for the benefit of society—we tacitly agree not to take each other's stuff because lacking that rule would suck for (most of) us.
Intellectual property as a concept is a recent attempt to recast things like copyrights, trademarks, and patents—government granted monopolies intended to serve specific purposes, and tolerated for the benefit of society—as some sort of Lockean natural right.
However, if you are trying to reconcile the two concepts, you must face the fact that intellectual property restricts each of us from full enjoyment of our actual property.
(For instance, I can't lawfully use my own computer to copy someone else's copyrighted book, my garage-full of parts to implement someone else's patented invention, or even my own pens and paper to market products under someone else's registered trademark.)
"Manag[ing] it contractually", as you put it, would prevent this from being a problem. (Whether an opt-in scheme would be very effective is another story). However, this position relies on the right to contract, not any inherent right to intellectual property, contrary to what your earlier post implied.
Yes -- I hesitate even to use the term "intellectual property" because of the
possible misunderstandings. To be clear: I oppose the granting of
monopolies, maintained by force, as in the patent system. I view this exactly
as you do: as a restriction of your rights to use your own property.
To me, intellectual property has nothing to do with owning "ideas." I think
purely in terms of physics -- mere arrangements of atoms and electrons. For
example, when I publish computer source code, I think about that act in very primitive physical terms, as follows.
I publish my code on a server. The physical particles of that server
are now arranged in a different way. I have also physically configured
the server so that another individual somewhere in the universe can
observe its structure, up to a point.
When the other individual observes the state of the server, she alters
the physical structure of a device that she owns, for example a digital
computer or her own brain. That device is her property.
So, by publishing the code in that way, I have taken an explicit, deliberate,
and voluntary action which enabled the other individual to alter the physical
state of a device she owns in a specific way. That device was her property
before she altered it, and it remains her property after the she altered it.
If I did not want that individual to alter her property in that way,
I should not have made it possible. It was my choice.
I concur with your emphasis on the right of contract. After all, that is how people transfer property rights between each other. All I am saying that so-called "intellectual" property should be no different -- since it too is all about the configuration and movement of physical devices.
But property, as a concept and related body of law, exists for the benefit of society—we tacitly agree not to take each other's stuff because lacking that rule would suck for (most of) us.
Intellectual property as a concept is a recent attempt to recast things like copyrights, trademarks, and patents—government granted monopolies intended to serve specific purposes, and tolerated for the benefit of society—as some sort of Lockean natural right.
However, if you are trying to reconcile the two concepts, you must face the fact that intellectual property restricts each of us from full enjoyment of our actual property.
(For instance, I can't lawfully use my own computer to copy someone else's copyrighted book, my garage-full of parts to implement someone else's patented invention, or even my own pens and paper to market products under someone else's registered trademark.)
"Manag[ing] it contractually", as you put it, would prevent this from being a problem. (Whether an opt-in scheme would be very effective is another story). However, this position relies on the right to contract, not any inherent right to intellectual property, contrary to what your earlier post implied.