I find your definition of property lacking. I find it lacking because it implies that there's some series of ones and zeros that I cannot inscribe onto my plastic disc.
Emphasis on the word my.
If I own something, then I have the right to alter it as I please, so long as doing so does not damage the property of another. Your definition of property does not let me do this, and so conflicts with property rights in general. I am forced to reject it.
Your reliance on society (by which you seem to mean government) to define property rights defies reason. Can society declare that my person belongs to someone else? I reject such notions.
So would you reject private parties agreeing to selling you an item with restrictions? For example, if I make a painting, and only agree to sell it to you if you agree not to do anything to it, how would you handle this? Would you say it is illegal for me to add such a restriction? Would you say any such clauses would be rejected (even if we both had agreed to them)? Any such restrictions would reduce property rights, it seems, because I am no longer allowed to privately agree to terms with other parties regarding the exchange of my property.
I am not a fan of copyright law as it stands by any means, but this article (and comment) seem to go to far.
The notion of "selling with restrictions" is a contradiction in terms. If the property is transferred to a new owner, then there can neither legally nor morally be any restrictions placed by the previous owner on how the new owner may use the property.
There are ways to shift custody of objects that would honor such restrictions that you speak of - but they are not a sale, nor are they exchange of property.
I have no problem with such an agreement, actually. I would have a problem with physical enforcement of it, but no problem with social ramifications for breaking it (something along the lines of a damaged credit report).
Comments
I find your definition of property lacking. I find it lacking because it implies that there's some series of ones and zeros that I cannot inscribe onto my plastic disc.
Emphasis on the word my.
If I own something, then I have the right to alter it as I please, so long as doing so does not damage the property of another. Your definition of property does not let me do this, and so conflicts with property rights in general. I am forced to reject it.
Your reliance on society (by which you seem to mean government) to define property rights defies reason. Can society declare that my person belongs to someone else? I reject such notions.
So would you reject private parties agreeing to selling you an item with restrictions? For example, if I make a painting, and only agree to sell it to you if you agree not to do anything to it, how would you handle this? Would you say it is illegal for me to add such a restriction? Would you say any such clauses would be rejected (even if we both had agreed to them)? Any such restrictions would reduce property rights, it seems, because I am no longer allowed to privately agree to terms with other parties regarding the exchange of my property.
I am not a fan of copyright law as it stands by any means, but this article (and comment) seem to go to far.
The notion of "selling with restrictions" is a contradiction in terms. If the property is transferred to a new owner, then there can neither legally nor morally be any restrictions placed by the previous owner on how the new owner may use the property.
There are ways to shift custody of objects that would honor such restrictions that you speak of - but they are not a sale, nor are they exchange of property.
Cheers, Rick
I have no problem with such an agreement, actually. I would have a problem with physical enforcement of it, but no problem with social ramifications for breaking it (something along the lines of a damaged credit report).