Could a free market be done and done as good or better without intellectual and unlimited property?
I’ll explain what I mean by unlimited property in a bit.
Would the market be more free, creative, prosperous and less monopolistic if we did away with intellectual property?
Would the market be more free, creative, prosperous and less monopolistic if we did away with unlimited property?
By doing away with unlimited property I mean placing limits on how much say real estate you could own.
If someone hasn’t (frequently) occupied or couldn’t (frequently) occupy some real estate, is it really theirs in any meaningful sense, or are they just paying government to unfairly prevent someone else from potentially occupying and laying claim to it?
Taking away the right to own property is part of the UN’s Agenda 21. It’s a slippery slope when you decide how much someone must reside somewhere cuz the next step is saying that the property size is too big for these 4 people or this mere person, then still too big even after it is miniaturized until property rights no longer belong to any individuals. And I don’t think owning a condo in a skyrise is really owning property. I don’t know what to call that actually other than being sold a scam. I mean you own space up in the air that’s in the shape of an apartment. You don’t own the land underneath it or the structure resting upon the land, which’s nuts. You own jack.
When we were kids they explained to us how interchangeable parts were an amazing thing that led to all kinds of advancements. Now we have 400 different car batteries and everything costs so much that the next generation will rent until they get old and die and never own homes. The capitalists in America took what’s good about capitalism and used to to advance the goal of consolidating their wealth at the expense of everyone else rather than to create efficiencies that benefit everyone. Is it good capitalism for a company to create software that serves no purpose other than to force you to buy a proprietary charging cable that they sell at a 10000% markup?
Free markets exist on the borders of societies, and on Frontiers.
Over time, Socialism eventually corrupts and invades all societies, and “Capitalism” is peeled-back, as it is in the 21st Century now.
It’s a degression and regression.
When Europeans discovered the Americas, colonized, conquered, and settled, during that time, they held “free markets”, without many or any restrictions.
The Slave Trade is one result of “pure capitalism and free market”. So if you are against slavery, then you are technically against free markets and “pure capitalism”.
Private Property came later.
Privatization occurs when land deeds are backed by military force. If you can’t back your claims to land with military force, then another militia or army has “the right” to fight and take them. This was the American-Indian wars, between the US government and Indian Tribes.
There wouldn’t be a market, I reckon?
People wouldn’t be able to sell their creations.
The best way to redistribute wealth from UHNWIs to the people is probably just to increase taxes on UHNWIs and spending on the people in the form of UBI, or in the form of supplementary income for workers and more welfare for those who can’t (find) work.
However, another way of doing it is to make the market even freer than it is, by doing away with intellectual property, which is a form of collectivism when you think about it, sacrificing our individual liberty for the greater good of inventiveness, and by doing away with unlimited property, which can be seen as a form of theft, if we define property by what we physically occupy and use rather than solely by contracts, taxes and titles.
For me, the point of doing away with unlimited property is to empower the people, not government.
A small business is defined as a business with 50 employees or less.
A medium businesses with 500 employees or less.
A big business with more than 500 employees.
We could keep small and medium businesses private, while partly or fully transferring ownership of big businesses to employees.
Or if a guy owns more than 500 apartments suites, we could partly or fully transfer ownership to renters.
Queen Elizabeth owns 7 billion acres of land.
Allow her to keep 100 000 acres, which’s still 500 times bigger than the average family farm in the US, and give the rest to whoever lives and works on her land.
If some of her land is unoccupied and unused, either divvy it up and dole it out to whoever wants it, or turn into a national park.
The point is not to impoverish working, middle or upper middle class people, but enrich them at the expense of the ultra rich.
Really my point is, we can both redistribute the wealth, and make markets freer at the same time, by doing away with intellectual property, which’s a form of unfair and unfree monopolization, and by doing away with unlimited property, which’s arguably also a form of unfair and unfree monopolization, rather than by nationalizing and socializing (big) business on the one hand, or by welfare capitalism on the other.
Markets would be fairer and freer if we did away with unlimited and especially intellectual property.
What most libertarians call free markets, aren’t really that free.
As a matter of fact, even some libertarians are against the notion of intellectual property.
Definitely not.
Are you saying you can have free markets without private property and vice versa?
They could still sell their goods and services, just not their ideas, at least not more than once or a handful of times.
So what do you think?
Is a market more free without intellectual property?
Is it more free without unlimited property?
Government isn’t taking your intellectual property from you, because it’s not yours in the first place, it’s just not preventing someone else from using it.
Government isn’t taking 99% of your 1 million acreage lot from you, because it’s not yours to begin with, you’re not physically, personally using the vast majority of it, its just not preventing someone else from using it.
The freer the market, the more amount of private property
You have to first ‘own’ the ideas you have, the words you speak, before you can “trade”, buy, and sell them.
More freedom = More privatization
Government is a third-party ‘Regulator’ between freedom and privatization, a valve.
Why? Because military force, physical force, violence, is always underneath it all. If you want to “own” your own ideas, thoughts, your own body, blood, soul, you have to fight for it. You have to kill others who would take it from you. And they will take it from you, if you let them, if you’re passive and weak.
Agreed, because people are selfish, competitive, combative, have different values and ideas about how to run society, if a group of people want their ideology to become dominant, they need to get organized and take up arms.