In many instances, the property right is questionable. Much of the property right, such as with IP, was built on the back of a looser interpretation. Disney's earliest years of spoofing mainstream cultural vernacular with Mickey Mouse is perhaps the most well cited example. We could also question the legitimacy of the well documented fleecing of earlier African American musical artists during the 40s-70s that in turn amassed vast libraries of IP.
Art moves as language and relies on an interaction with the language of the culture. The excessive IP is nothing more than a locking away of the keys that permitted the mega corporations to come to power in the first place.
Illegitimate hegemony. Appropriated content. Preserved as capital by those with little to no involvement with its creation.
I completely agree with you on IP and I am concerned over cooperation among countries to enforce IP protections. What I'm more concerned about is what I consider valid property rights such as physical property (equipment, your home, business) and your own body (expression, substances, etc).
NPR had a great article about US tariff policy. It detailed a 3,000 page book that's used to set the appropriate tax:
> The book lists the tax that importers have to pay on approximately every single thing in the universe — including, of course, T-shirts. They're right there under heading 6109: T-shirts, singlets, tank tops and similar garments, knitted or crocheted.
The average tax rate on stuff coming into the U.S. is around 2 percent. The tax on T-shirts is much higher: 16.5 percent. That's what we'll be paying on the Planet Money men's shirts, which were made in Bangladesh. But the Planet Money women's shirts were made in Colombia — and those, according to the book of everything, come in duty-free, with no tariff at all. [0]
To me it just seems very arbitrary and hence rife for corruption.
“What I'm more concerned about is what I consider valid property rights such as physical property (equipment, your home, business) and your own body (expression, substances, etc).”
To an extent, even these forms of capital are accrued on the back of societal and cultural context.
If one inherit's a home from a family member, under what contexts was that permitted? Did we stop to evaluate how much capital and property right was appropriated illegitimately? Did we evaluate government endorsed privilege and bias in the transaction[1]?
Did we stop to evaluate what property was accumulated under corrupt special-interest lobbying such as the TPP itself?
Ultimately, all capital and property is birthed from the culture. In many instances, gender and sex, birthright, race, and a plethora of other chance based factors result in an accumulation or deflation of capital and property.
I completely agree. The problem is that I, along with other people who lean libertarian in their ideology, read the word "we" and interpret it as "politicians" as they are the only party that can reasonably make these judgement calls. Did [Dick Cheney|Barack Obama|Hugo Chavez|Kim Jong Un] evaluate what property is legitimate? I honestly would rather not find out.
One can argue that we can vote but most decisions made are so far removed from the democratic process that its effectively meaningless. In my home town of New York City, I hear people argue that such and such should be allowed or disallowed and there should be more discretion from officials. I always then question them as to who these officials are or who the relevant party is that makes such decisions. If they cannot answer, which they almost always cannot, I ask why they have such faith that those unknown, probably unelected officials will make wise decisions. Maybe I'm just a cynic and regulatory capture isn't really as prevalent as I imagine it is.
In many instances, the property right is questionable. Much of the property right, such as with IP, was built on the back of a looser interpretation. Disney's earliest years of spoofing mainstream cultural vernacular with Mickey Mouse is perhaps the most well cited example. We could also question the legitimacy of the well documented fleecing of earlier African American musical artists during the 40s-70s that in turn amassed vast libraries of IP.
Art moves as language and relies on an interaction with the language of the culture. The excessive IP is nothing more than a locking away of the keys that permitted the mega corporations to come to power in the first place.
Illegitimate hegemony. Appropriated content. Preserved as capital by those with little to no involvement with its creation.