
I read something in one of the comments for an OSNews posting a couple weeks ago that sent me thinking. It wasn't an original or profound thought. In fact, it's a rather commonly-held opinion that happens to be quite misguided. It's an opinion summed up by the "open source = communist" meme that gets thrown around in thousands of flamewars all over the internet. In this essay, I will explore why this idea is wrong and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.
"...the author is saying that he does not believe in the notion of intellectual property -- proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the author has never owned any."
How come I keep hearing this? Is it truly inconceivable to people (@sun.com, heh heh) that an artist, programmer, singer, etc. with worthwhile IP might not think they have the right to a monopoly? What, frankly, do the two have to do with each other? One is a moral question, the other is a career. If all artists thought they had a right to IP, it would more likely indicate bias than wisdom: do they agree so completely about things that *aren't* in their best interest?
I am an information anarchist because I can't find a philosophical basis for intellectual property claims, and because I don't believe in tacit consent. Therefore, I deny that I've ever given up my right to do whatever I want with any idea, no matter how it gets into my head. How does my being a programmer and having what the U.S. considers "IP" affect my thinking? It shouldn't, and it doesn't.
Yes, I understand this would destroy the GPL too. Whoopee. I don't make moral decisions based on what I would *like* the outcome to be. I further deny that government has any business 'promoting' the economy. How does that protect my rights? Do I have a right to live in a prosperous country? A right to stable grocery prices? All we've accomplished is a nation full of families that don't have even one month's spare living expenses in the bank.