Hacker News Reader

My argument is that the public paying for a thing is not sufficient grounds for claiming that the public should have use of that thing.

Since knowledge creation and nuclear weapons are both examples of things which the public pays for, I defend the comment as it stands. The distinction between IP and physical property does not enter into the claim.

View on HN

My argument is that knowledge can't be stolen from the people or resold to the people at a profit. Immoral and even illegal in my view even if not backed by law.

Nuclear weapons are physical and as such can't be shared with the population but ultimately, assuming for a second that democracy works, american nuclear weapons belong to the american people, even though it is not under direct control of any singular citizen or at least it shouldn't be.

The distinction is fundamental. You can't copy at marginal cost nuclear weapons, but you can copy information indefinitely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com