[carmackfan]

Many social/legal constructs are for lack of a better term, idiotic. Step back for a second and think about what ownership actually implies? Exclusive control over a scarce resource. If a resource isn't scarce, where your control over it doesn't impede or restrict other peoples control over it, there is no feasible model that explains why one person has control or ownership of it over another.

Social/legal constructs like owning ideas or the sound of a voice exist not because they make any sort of logical sense, they exist to give privilege and power to certain groups at the expense of others.

[kube-system]

This is part of natural human behavior. The idea of owning people as physical property is absurd as well, but if you kiss someone's girlfriend you might get punched in the face. The reason this happens is entirely a social construct, but the reality of the situation is no less real.

Social constructs don't not exist just because they are social constructs. The physical world not the extent of reality. Social constructs are also real because we make them real as a part of our own human experience.

[throwaway0123_5]

> Many social/legal constructs are for lack of a better term, idiotic. Step back for a second and think about what ownership actually implies? Exclusive control over a scarce resource.

It implies whatever society decides that it implies, no? For example, many societies had or have conceptions of land ownership that are dramatically different from the western model, oftentimes to the extent of not having individual land ownership at all.

> Social/legal constructs like owning ideas or the sound of a voice exist not because they make any sort of logical sense

They don't make logical sense to you. Consider that for a very long time in the US the idea of owning people made logical sense to the majority.

> they exist to give privilege and power to certain groups at the expense of others.

Do not almost all forms of ownership do this? Some people own hundreds of thousands to millions of acres of land that I have no right to access. Massive swathes of the surface of the planet that we all share. Is the ability to own land not a far greater privilege than the ability to protect your voice from being cloned without your consent?

[johnnyanmac]

>Step back for a second and think about what ownership actually implies?

It implies identity, and control. The former being most relevant here. And yes, if you want to use someone's identity you need to at least get consent.

>Exclusive control over a scarce resource.

"Scarce" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. And in the grand scheme, everything can be "scarce". The internet isn't infinite either, only in a virtual sense (no pun intended).

Meanwhile, thoughts and data are resources, and you can own the idea behind it. Hence, "intellectual property".

> there is no feasible model that explains why one person has control or ownership of it over another.

That's where identity came in. If an inventor got run over tomorrow, there may still be iterations on the invention, but it would completely alter the course of iteration. That's ownership in a sense. Ownership that your ideas can't just be understood or replicated unless you transfer your thoughts to another medium. And like any conversion, data is lost in the exchange.

>they exist to give privilege and power to certain groups at the expense of others.

Yeah, the less off inventors. Do you know why IP is automatically granted? Because someone unaware of the legal channels would just have their own IP signed off once anyone in business gets a whiff of it.

of course, the priveledge still abuse it. But when everything becomes a free for all, the rich get richer.