First of all, the disclaimer: though I find property rights (especially how we understand them today) questionable in general, I am not naive enough to think that we're going to eliminate them in one fell swoop. I'm not sure this would be either good nor productive in the long run. What we need to do, however, is wean ourselves off of them. But, we've got to start soon and we've got to get serious about it.
There was a time -- in my lifetime, in fact -- when you could register a copyright for your artistic and scientific productions. It lasted less than 20 years and it could be renewed, for a slightly shorter term, just once. After that, the work entered the public domain. It became the common property of all. Patents, which apparently have greater economic potential were also protected for a brief period of time (currently 20 years) so that the owner has the opportunity to reap the benefits of his or her ideas, or so the theory goes, for a reasonable period of time. After that, these two became a common good whoever found a way to profit from it was free to do so. Now, copyrights, depending on country, are valid for up to 100 years after the death of the copyright holder, practically "forever". This makes absolutely no sense.
Even under the less restrictive version of copyright, legal contention is about to cause severe damage. There are miles and miles of celluloid film in the "archives" in Hollywood, none of which can be digitized because there is no way to clarify who holds the copyrights on parts of those productions. Yes, they were produced with less regard for those property rights we all hold so sacred, and now they lie in legal limbo awaiting their own demise. The film itself is degrading and will soon turn to dust. Some excellent, classic cinema will soon be lost forever, because the alleged rights to property of some individuals prohibit their preservation. It would take a mere stroke of the pen to save it, but we've escalated property rights to such a height even doing a good deed, such as preserving an important and inspiring piece of artistic history, would have ramifications that would shake the foundations of our economy. And we live in fear and awe of our economy.
The greatest good for the greatest number of people was the utilitarian mantra, and as weak an ethical argument as it is, it is still more productive and more beneficial than the sacredness we have given to property. We have made property rights much more valuable than any other rights that we have (or thought we had). Those unalienable rights that the Declaration of Independence so proudly declared -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- are apparently only inalienable if no property is involved. The greatest good is no longer the well-being of the citizenry or the safety, security and happiness of us all. No, the greatest good is what we own, which I suppose is fine for those who have, but what about the growing number of have-nots?
One consequence of this shift in thinking is the Citizens United decision; it is also what allows banking criminals to go unpunished while those in need are scorned and further oppressed; it is what lies at the root of the utterly ridiculous discussion about tax rates; it's what encourages the offshoring of profits; it what justifies environmental destruction in the name of dirty energy; it permits the persecution of children for naive ignorance; it is what ultimately destroys our entire society so that certain select individuals can have more, can own more.
It leads to the utter absurdity that what we have is much more important than who we are.
It is shameful, to be sure, and I'm ashamed that we are not more ashamed.
The difference between the property discussed by Locke (physical) and the property I discussed last time (intellectual) has not escaped me. It is nevertheless important to consider them in the same light. You will recall that the Romans redefined "freedom" in terms of "property" and we've been following this line of reasoning ever since. Locke's contribution to the discussion was that what we work should be considered ours, but when this line of thought is pursed back to its roots, it becomes questionable at best (and it is why Proudhon could so convincingly argue that property is ultimately theft, but that's another story). What I would like to have you think about is what it is that is actually "ours".
We know that physical property has its problems, but what about intellectual property? Why do we think that this is solely and completely our own? There are a couple of ways of approaching the issue. One -- a favorite today -- is financial (that is, money-based). Someone writes a song, it becomes popular and a naive teenager downloads it without permission. It would seem to me, and my experience with adolescents bears this out, that a simple "that's wrong, don't do it anymore" can be more effective than suing the parents for tens of thousands of dollars that they cannot ever pay. Or, what about so-called scientific publications? These are almost exclusively produced through public funding (i.e., grants). Why do the rights to these then reside with the authors or the publishers that arrange for their distribution? This seems highly questionable since the public has in essence paid for the results, so why does the public have to pay to obtain them? (If you think this is made up, search for "Aaron Schwartz" and ask yourself why he was facing 37 years in prison.) The reasoning that allows this absurdity to arise, of course, is Locke's. That's why the two kinds of property, at bottom, are really not all that different after all.
There was a time, and there was an attitude, that most things were there for the common good. Granted, the nobility and aristocracy of all times (regardless of how they define themselves) have tried to convince us otherwise, but with the dawning of a more democratic understanding of social interaction, it became clear that some old ideas needed to be thought through again. Maybe those who have gathered more than others now think that this entitles them to more as well. This would be erroneous. In a society, there may be richer and poorer citizens, but that should have nothing to do with their rights as citizens. If it does, something is fundamentally wrong. And if something is fundamentally wrong, it needs to be set right.
At the latest when we traded our society for a mere economy, we tacitly changed the way we view people. My guess is it was done unwittingly, without us even noticing it, but now that we are aware of what we have done, we need to think this all through again. Property is questionable, property rights even more so. What remains are human rights, and they need to be re-established to their proper position in our thinking. Human rights take precedence over property rights.
And, that's the first step. No more, no less. Once we get the order right, many things will change all by themselves, and we'll be at least headed in a more just, more humane direction. The first step isn't a revolution, it is a mere change of mind. Change your mind.