Mountain climber finds treasure chest on glacier

[Bullgrit]

Humanity seems to have been advancing pretty darn well in these recent times with property rights as the norm. If the wheel and bow were created today, they'd be in wide spread use by the general population within a year, the creators would be wealthy -- with enough money and time to invest in creating even more great things.

Here's to property rights and capitalism!

Bullgrit

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Pretty much the same thing. It prevents advancement of humanity because a few need to make some profit.

I disagree, as does the history of economics.

It gives innovators an advantage in recouping the costs and possibly making a profit from the time & money they invested in creating their inventions. It gives certainty in the form of a framework within which such people can plan for the future- especially in investing in their own financial health or in further R&D. It minimizes the expenditures innovators must personally invest in self-help measures to protect their innovations from those who would take them, freeing up capital.

There are concrete reasons why China now protects the IP of its nationals as vigorously as any Western nation: the same pirates they permit to go after the IP of foreign capitalists were equal opportunity thieves. Rampant domestic piracy was reducing ROI numbers into the negatives. As a result, China was experiencing an internal collapse of its native "inventor class". Those that could leave the country were trying to do so, and those that could not were going out of business.

Its simple: if innovators find it is counter to their best interests to innovate, they are far less likely to do so.

 

[Kramodlog]

I disagree, as does the history of economics.

It gives innovators an advantage in recouping the costs and possibly making a profit from the time & money they invested in creating their inventions. It gives certainty in the form of a framework within which such people can plan for the future- especially in investing in their own financial health or in further R&D. It minimizes the expenditures innovators must personally invest in self-help measures to protect their innovations from those who would take them, freeing up capital.

There are concrete reasons why China now protects the IP of its nationals as vigorously as any Western nation: the same pirates they permit to go after the IP of foreign capitalists were equal opportunity thieves. Rampant domestic piracy was reducing ROI numbers into the negatives. As a result, China was experiencing an internal collapse of its native "inventor class". Those that could leave the country were trying to do so, and those that could not were going out of business.

Its simple: if innovators find it is counter to their best interests to innovate, they are far less likely to do so.

You're proving my point. It doesn't benefit humanity, it means more money in the pockets of few people. Those aren't the same thing.

 

[Bullgrit]

It doesn't benefit humanity, it means more money in the pockets of few people.

Humanity benefits from the innovation, and the individual is rewarded for his innovation. It's win-win.

Bullgrit

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You're proving my point. It doesn't benefit humanity, it means more money in the pockets of few people. Those aren't the same thing.

Innovation "grows the pie"- it increases the options for all those around. Without it, we long ago would have fallen into the Malthusian trap or been stymied by other very real constraints.

A business does not exist in a vacuum. Sure, the innovator gets money, but so do his employees.

Are there abuses in the capitalist system? Of course. But those are not a consequence of the ability to own property, they are a consequence of other factors, like corruption/bribery/insider trading, flauting ecological regs, predatory business practices, etc.

If you go back and actually read the work of Adam Smith- which not enough of his champions OR critics do- you'd find that the father of lassaiz-faire capitalism acknowledged that the free market was not a panacea, and flat out stated that some things in society should not be left to its whims. Many social ills, in his mind, would be exacerbated by complete lack of regulation, and would need to be remedied: that's the role of government (regulations), societal institutions like churches and other charities, and ultimately, our own moral compasses.

No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.

To feel much for others and little for ourselves; to restrain our selfishness and exercise our benevolent affections, constitute the perfection of human nature.