Continuing from:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/childcare-issues/msg23499/#msg23499This same ethical principle also applies elsewhere. If a new machine is invented, the inventors and those who voluntarily funded them are the only ones who chose to put themselves (and everyone else) into a world where that machine exists, while everyone else is put into that world not by their own choice. Therefore, everyone
except the inventors/funders should be the ones who get to decide what happens with that machine. This is the opposite of what we currently have:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PatentIt goes without saying that patent law is uniquely Western:
Although there is some evidence that some form of patent rights was recognized in Ancient Greece in the Greek city of Sybaris,[9][10] the first statutory patent system is generally regarded to be the Venetian Patent Statute of 1474. However, recent historical research has suggested that the Venetian Patent Statute of 1474 was inspired by laws in the Kingdom of Jerusalem that granted monopolies to developers of novel silk-making techniques.[11] Patents were systematically granted in Venice as of 1474, where they issued a decree by which new and inventive devices had to be communicated to the Republic in order to obtain legal protection against potential infringers. The period of protection was 10 years.[12] As Venetians emigrated, they sought similar patent protection in their new homes. This led to the diffusion of patent systems to other countries.[13]
The English patent system evolved from its early medieval origins into the first modern patent system that recognised intellectual property in order to stimulate invention; this was the crucial legal foundation upon which the Industrial Revolution could emerge and flourish.[14]
If my principle were used instead, machinism would be disincentivized: what country would invest in machinism if inventing a machine meant every other country would possess it except the inventing country?