What is "theft" other than something that only exists in the context of government enforcement of an artificial privilege?
And is this privilege particularly artificial relative to others we accept readily? Most people believe that people should have the privilege to own land. Yet if you think about it, land possession is far less deserving of the government's protection than a drug formula. This drug is something Bayer created, that didn't exist before. Land is something that nobody created, that people simply claimed (in the U.S., those who "own it" derive their ownership from dispossessing Indians), that will continue to exist long after everyone who claims to "own it" is long dead. Why is land more deserving of an artificial government monopoly than a drug formula?
Does the concept of possession exist because we have laws concerning theft? Or do laws concerning theft exist because we have a concept of possession?
Lawless animals have concepts of possession, even the concept of possession of land. The difference between humans and animals is that we have codified our social standards and generally do not have to resort to violence or direct threats of violence to resolve disputes over possession or territory.
Animals recognize possession and dispossession, which are simpler than ownership and theft. The basic difference is that ownership is a possessory interest backed by society's willingness to enforce that interest on the owner's behalf, using violence if necessary. This kind of arrangement does not exist in nature. Society creates the distinction between possession and ownership. It does also codify it, but codification isn't the heart of what's different.
> Wolves do not recognize "ownership" of land, because a weaker wolf cannot appeal to the community when dispossessed of land by a stronger wolf.
A powerful wolf "owns" the best parts of a kill (whether or not they possess it) because their social system values the traits that makes a wolf powerful. Their system for determining the legitimacy of a claim involves violence, or more typically the threat of violence. Modern humans have different social values than wolves and would not consider "I am bigger than you, and male, therefore it is mine" to be a legitimate argument.
Regardless, ownership, narrowly defined as a legal (and therefore necessarily human) concept, is a red herring. Theft, the concept being discussed, exists in systems that have concepts of possession even if we dismiss the possibility that they have a concept of ownership. A beta can certainly steal from an alpha male.
If you define theft as something that can only exist in the presence of a value system that modern humans respect, and then claim that therefore only modern humans can have a concept of theft, then you are doing nothing but making an uninteresting tautological argument. I am asking you to consider the possibility of theft in systems with value systems dissimilar from your own. This includes the concept of theft in human value systems that are dissimilar to those currently codified in our laws.
Governments can take your land through Eminent Domain if it is shown to benefit society as a whole.
Also is the government "taking" the drug, or just not extending monopoly patent rights for it? Also even patents (in the US) have a provision that they be reasonable licensed in exchange for gaining the temporary monopoly.
Governments can take your land through Eminent Domain if it is shown to benefit society as a whole.
By the United States Constitution, in the United States such a taking must be with compensation (reasonable, market-based compensation). And the same is true in most democratic countries with an independent judiciary. (This is notably not true in China, which is why seizing land from peasants is a favorite way for corrupt local officials to enrich themselves.)
Correct, I called out the provision that patents must be licensed at a reasonable rate in the attempt to draw the parallel with the reasonable market rate compensation for eminent domain, but left that portion out by accident. Thank you for calling it out.
And governments have to pay compensation at market price for your land.
Look, I don't think Bayer will complain at all if India (the country) pays for the drug used by patients in India, like the health systems in UK and Canada. Bayer's complaint is that India doesn't compensate the company.
And is this privilege particularly artificial relative to others we accept readily? Most people believe that people should have the privilege to own land. Yet if you think about it, land possession is far less deserving of the government's protection than a drug formula. This drug is something Bayer created, that didn't exist before. Land is something that nobody created, that people simply claimed (in the U.S., those who "own it" derive their ownership from dispossessing Indians), that will continue to exist long after everyone who claims to "own it" is long dead. Why is land more deserving of an artificial government monopoly than a drug formula?