| It seems to me that when you say that people have a natural right to profit, you actually mean a "right to exclude". I think that's a whole nuther kettle of fish. For one, the two are in contradiction. Suppose you believe that you have
the right to exclude, presumably you also believe that all other humans
have the same right, owing to its status as a natural right. By believing
that you can exclude, and therefore profit by way of eliminating competition,
you acknowledge that the competition can exclude you as well. It boils down to whether or not by "profit", one implies complete domination
of a resource. I tend to think that many parties can profit, without the
necessity to exclude by brute force. This is also the key difference between patents and copyrights. The former
demands total domination of a resource, while the latter does not. > And I would answer, why should the tree be yours just because you got to it first? It's a good point, but there is a difference. It is possible for two parties to arrive at the same intellectual destination without being aware of one another. The same cannot be said for two parties arriving at the same tree, at the same time, but one not being aware of the existence of the other. I suppose you can construct an argument in which both parties lack all physical sense of awareness. :) |