egoutism says that property is determined, at any point in time in any hypothetical, by the exclusion criterion. That is to say an object is the property of a meta-self if and only if it can exclude any other meta-self from the object. This ensures the cost of exclusion is completely the burden of the owner and the people benefiting from their ownership, creating the need to utilize the good well enough to at least cover the expense of exclusion. This rule is consistent with sustainability and mutually beneficial gain once the goods produced with the property is traded into the marketplace. also any transfer of ownership, even thru theft or seizure, is not precluded. but all costs of doing so must be distributed proportionally to those who seek to benefit from it.
all rivalrous property, intellectual or not, will be allocated based upon productivity
the good of intellectual property comes from discovering a concept/technology which in turn lowers the cost of production or raise the value per unit of a good or service. Once a technology is discovered and disseminated, even with the mere sale of a good that utilizes the technology, becomes exponentially costly to exclude others from it. This high costs makes it unlikely for a person to both utilize a technology for profit and simultaneously excluding others from imitating the technology in the form of a competing good.
my argument relies on the assumption that government does things less efficient (negative economic profit) since its non-meta-self interested and the interests of meta-selves are NEVER perfectly aligned. and a government taxation and monopoly creates further deadweight loss. government is not a meta-self interested entity because it is not concerned with generating a profit for its meta-self. it may generate profit for other meta-selves (special interests) but only does so at its own expense, ensuring its eventual fiscal demise.
so since this applies to the good of providing exclusion, then the free market can provide this good more efficiently creating an economic deadweight loss.
an axiom of ego-utilitarianism says ALL concepts exist by default, and that human only discover them, they dont create them. like mathematics and laws of physics. a more abstract example would be quantity.
egoutism also says meta-self profitability for the actor is the true measure of morality, or “whats right”
egoutism says property is an object that is excluded from the complement of the owner’s meta-self. in other words the only criterion that determines who owns what is if the prospective owner can exclude others, whether it be by his own means or with help from others.
, which economic analysiswhen government protects intellectual property it promotes monopoly profits shows creates a net deadweight loss that is suffered by the consumer through lower quantity and quality of goods, and higher prices which is greater than the additional revenue gained by the monopoly supplier.
but more importantly when government protects intellectual property, or any property for that matter, it artificially lowers the cost of exclusion. making it artificially cheaper to own intellectual property. and since government takes on some of these costs of exclusion, by the assumption earlier, it does so inefficiently and creates economic loss. in other words, if it were ECONOMICALLY profitable to exclude others from a general idea/technology, then the prospective owner would have done so more efficiently in a free market. when government subsidizes an industry by absorbing exclusion costs it creates another deadweight loss. and as everyone knows from the deadweight loss of a subsidy, the result is that even though we have more research and development, it is more than the optimum amount that would have occurred prior to the government intervention. in otherwords we have TOO MUCH research and development.
people always worry that we have too little intellectual property. the problem is that they are not considering opportunity costs of research and development. one of the axiom’s of ego-utilitarianism is that all concepts and technology exist independently of humans awareness of them. the mind only discovers them and does not create them. and given enough time all possible technology is inevitable. but what is more important is the order in which its discovered and how much productivity is forgone for this research necessary for discovery. this should be dictated by meta-self profit.
also, a sufficiently competitive market will necessarily have to invest in “low hanging fruit” r&d since keeping the quality of your product static necessarily means that if any one of your competitors does it first you will necessarily lose market share and eventually go out of business with an obsolete product. the prisoner’s dilemma is quite a powerful free market mechanism.
opportunity cost with r and d
an investment may have such high opportunity costs that you could have had both if taken in the right order.
innovation and concepts, the efficiency is in the order of discovery
why rights theory are inadequate and rivalry and theft are a dead end since it relies on all theft as being wrong
reverse engineering
IP and sharing
capital intensity and innovation
consequences…
reputation as justice
math ideas’ and ip
egoutilitarianism 