> Property is at best a social construct that is possibly supported by instinctual behavior.

That very much falls within the "IP is not real" category. Taking a utilitarian approach here is exactly what the sam altman / effective altruist crowd is doing (or claiming, at least).

Believe it or not, but there are different philosophies. The US Constitution, for example, is written under the framework that all rights are innate, and the government merely endorses, not grants, those which are described. This framework creates a moral basis to rights, such that things like property are not merely social constructs but moral goods. To violate them is itself an immoral act.

▲

tzs 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You are assuming that social constructs are not real.

	▲	qarl 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Not at all.

▲

nostrademons an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Your wording is pretty revealing:

> This framework creates a moral basis to rights

The Constitution (and the thinkers that it was based off of) creates a moral basis to rights. At the time the Constitution was written, this was a pretty radical idea. The most prevalent moral framework at the time was the divine right of kings, the idea that the king was ordained by God to rule and anyone who questioned that right was speaking heresy.

	▲	zdragnar 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		My wording was actually wrong, as the constitution recognizes a divine source for the rights, it doesn't create the moral basis. Perhaps 'establishes as the formal basis' would have been more appropriate. You're right that it was a relatively radical idea at the time, but not without precedent. The Dutch, Venice and Genoa were republics, the Swiss Confederation was a union of cantons and territories, for example, not to mention the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy, John Locke, Montesquieu, and the assorted Greek and early Roman city states.

▲

nz an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Funny how, when Aaron Swartz did the exact same thing (in a much narrower and more focused way), he was driven to suicide by the US government, but when Sam and Dario do it, people argue about whether (or not) "IP is real".

Note that society is more about justice than it is about philosophy or logic. Whether you believe that IP makes logical sense or not, is not terribly relevant through the lens of justice. To allow the Altmans and Amodeis of the world to escape the kinds of consequences that Swartz could not (despite having purer intentions than either -- despite being a genuine utilitarian, instead of an aspiring oligarch _pretending_ to be one), would be the height of injustice.

It would be a grotesque and cruel insult to all the people who remember Swartz, and share his values and optimism about the internet and computers.

▲

pixl97 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

What happened to Swartz was injustice.

Why would I want it to happen to more people? This is, at least to me, an insane point of view.

"Oh my god, the police just shot a black man for no reason. To make this fair they should also shoot more white people for no reason". Do you see how absolutely unhinged that sounds?

	▲	jraph 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The parent comment highlights the double standards, they are not campaigning for pushing people to suicide. This is a strawman. Yeah, this double standards thing is profoundly unjust.

▲

zdragnar 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

The funny thing about having a divine source for rights is also recognizing that humans are fallible and thus inevitably going to be unable to live up to that standard. This argument is the basis for people who want government to have limited powers- the less power it has, the less it can abuse it.

There's a flip side to this as well- President Lincoln famously suspended habeus corpus unilaterally in violation of the Constitution, outright ignoring a Supreme Court ruling in the process. It became moot when Congress retroactively approved the suspension and allowed it to continue for the remainder of the civil war. Lincoln remains celebrated, despite what could rightfully be argued as blatantly unconstitutional power grabs.

	▲	pixl97 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		reality > rights The use of the term divine at the time was more of an aftereffect of most people having some kind of belief in god and using that as a casus belli to redistribute power. The actual causal reasons seem more technological and more of England spreading themselves too thin. Lincoln went on to further prove there is no divine power enforcing these rights, it's the distribution of power and information that defines the rights you have. The Constitution is simply a piece of paper, not an agent. We see this happening again in our modern world. Technology has allowed us to concentrate information like never before. If you believe knowledge (hence processing of information) is power then we've created new power structures that must change society. Now, we can say things like "well, you can't concentrate information" but the other party can simply disagree and say it's my divine right to. You're at an impasse unless you plan on taking up a path to violence (any and every legal action is implied violence).

▲

qarl 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> That very much falls within the "IP is not real" category.

AH. Given that framing, then I suppose anything that varies from "these axioms are perfect there can be no others" must fall into the "not real" category.

But isn't there some debate about the moral axioms themselves? A space that is much more complex than "yes/no"?

EDIT: I always wonder, when I get two downvotes in the same moment, if someone is cheating. It happens so often.

EDIT2: And now! 3 upvotes in the same moment. I daresay someone is confessing.

▲

yndoendo an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy.

Most people want a clean environment while the current US administration is pulling back environmental regulations to allow for more pollutants. The current US Supreme Court has taken gifts from those that have invested interest in the outcome of their judgements.

Social axioms are mutable while mathematical axioms are immutable.

Human trafficking is bad. How many of the wealthy that partook of Epstein's trafficking have been prosecuted? This shows that human trafficking being bad is mutable based on wealth and power.

▲

qarl an hour ago | parent [-]

> Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy.

Well... no. I'd say that most of the social constructs I'm thinking of predate wealth. Most likely shaped by evolutionary pressures.

> mathematical axioms are immutable

I invite you to Google "the axiom of choice" to see a lively debate.

▲

zdragnar 42 minutes ago | parent [-]

So long as there have been people, there have been those who had more than others, be it material goods or power, which gains more material goods, which begets power. I'm not really sure there it's true that any society predates wealth, ergo no social construct predates wealth.

	▲	pixl97 12 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>ergo no social construct predates wealth. How wealthy is your dog?
	▲	qarl 35 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Right. I'm thinking of social behaviors that predate humans.

▲

paimapi 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

no, I think people are just annoyed that you're trying to have an irrelevant and kinda cheesy 'is epistemology really real - think about it bro' conversation

I'm also a fan of nuance and non-black&white thinking but that is quite literally not how the rule of law generally works

▲

qarl 18 minutes ago | parent [-]

No - I'm specifically calling out that the total changes abruptly. As if someone were using multiple accounts. But I'm sure no one here would ever dare do that, so I should take it back.

▲

paimapi 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

that's cool - I downvoted you because I was annoyed and I am an independent entity. hope that helps :)

	▲	qarl 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Of course! My only suggestion is - if you're using multiple accounts to do it - that would be naughty.