Land, Patents, and Likeness: What property is legitimate?
Details
Come join us for some informal philosophical discussion. No prior knowledge or research is needed, but an open mind is.
Land was here before anyone. An idea didn't exist until someone had it. Your face is the most obviously "yours" thing there is, until software can copy it for free. Each layer of property asks the same question in a different way: what makes a claim of ownership legitimate? Is it legitimate because it's right, because it works, or because it's fair?
Discussion questions:
- Land: Owned or borrowed? Locke said labor makes land yours if "enough, and as good" is left for others, reasoning later used to justify taking Native land. The Haudenosaunee Seventh Generation principle treats land as borrowed from descendants. Which view holds up, and is any title here legitimate?
- Why not sell the air? Should air, water, and land even be considered legitimate property? What should never be property?
- Natural right or bargain? Ideas aren't scarce like land. If inventors have a natural right to them, why do patents expire while land titles don't?
- Right vs efficient vs fair: A patented drug saves lives, but most of the people who need it can't afford it. The high price arguably funds the next cure (efficient), and the inventor earned it (right). Is it fair? When those three answers conflict, which should win, and who decides?
- Property or dignity? Should your face and voice be sellable? If you're a famous person, should you have the ability to prevent people using dopplegangers or AI renders that are eerily similar to you
- Should famous or public facing people have more rights when it comes to their likeness than average people, if their likeness is worth more?
- Should your likeness pass to heirs like land, or expire like a patent?