Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!aerospace.aero.org!abbott
From: abbott@aerospace.aero.org (Russell J. Abbott)
Newsgroups: trial.misc.legal.software
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property
Message-ID: <80981@aerospace.AERO.ORG>
Date: 14 Aug 90 21:40:43 GMT
References: <80565@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <1990Aug10.043721.2081@looking.on.ca> <80636@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <1990Aug11.040632.21692@looking.on.ca> <80817@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <1990Aug14.172413.10447@looking.on.ca>
Sender: news@aerospace.aero.org
Reply-To: abbott@antares.UUCP (Russell J. Abbott)
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Lines: 48

In article <1990Aug14.172413.10447@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>...
>[B]y and large the way the system is supposed to work is that ownership
>is derived from creation/labour, and of course ownership gets traded.

Even though you have broadened your claim that ownership is derived from
creation to the claim that it is derived from labor generally, I'm
afraid I still can't agree with you.  

Most typically ownership is *traded* for labor not *derived* from it.  I
trade you my ownership of some money for your services; you don't derive
your ownership of that money from your labor.  You might argue that you
"own" the services that you provide before providing them.  But I'm not
sure what it means to say that you own a service that you haven't yet
provided other than that you have the right to chose not to provide it.
I'll certainly grant you that.

Of course there is the question of how ownership starts in the first
place if all one can do is trade it.  I guess that gets back to issues
of value-added and stewardship.  How is it decided who owns land?  (It
is said that all wealth derives from land.)  Given that someone does,
that person is generally granted ownership of the stuff that grows on
the land, etc.  In general, if one is creative about adding value to
things that one owns, then one's wealth increases--as does that of
society.

But none of this says to me that ownership is derived from creativity or
labor.  I would agree, though, that the *value* of what one owns may be
effected by one's creativity or by the amount of labor one puts into it.
Perhaps that is the notion that you are after.  

I'd certainly agree that creativity and labor often create wealth.  I'd
also agree that a person exercising creativity or performing labor
typically increases his or her wealth.  If you prefer, one can say that
as a consequence of performing some labor, a person typically "owns"
some additional wealth--which is often in the form of money.  That's one
of the nice things about using money as a medium of exchange of wealth.
But in most cases this happens only if one either adds value to
something one already owns or if one agrees beforehand to be paid for
one's labor.  The labor or creation doesn't create new ownership--
although it may increase the value of something already owned as I said
above.

To summarize, I agree that labor and creation typically increase the
wealth of the person performing them.  I suppose that is the work ethic
that we have all grown up to revere.

-- Russ Abbott