What follows is less of an article or blog post, and more of a brain dump. These are just some thoughts I've had recently and wanted to write down, and which I've now decided to post in case others find them interesting or useful. I welcome discussion, argument, other thoughts, etc. If you found this read worthwhile, don't forget to upvote. :)

Intellectual Property, or IP, is rightfully legitimate only by explicitly and mutually consensual contract, prior to the exchange of information. If one does not accept the terms explicitly and the information is presented anyways, the presentee is not bound by this contract.

Within this framework, IP (in the form of an NDA or similar contract) is only existent within high-value proceedings, not universally assumed. It's difficult to use it within everyday situations, because people don't enter NDAs willy-nilly.

What, then, is the purpose of making the fiat assertion that IP can be a universal framework, assumed without explicit agreement? This engineers society in what useful way to the subversives?

Look at how things get done in the software industry (one of the ones most influenced by IP law) when IP is in play (proprietary/closed source) vs when it's not (open source). On the one hand, we have Oracle suing Google because Android uses the Java API; we have Apple suing... everyone, because Apple has a patent on rectangular devices with touchscreens... endless bickering over who gets what and whether your widget copies my widget... time and energy and millions of dollars wasted, that could have been spent on universally beneficial endeavors rather than burned to prevent someone else getting ahead. And would anyone seriously contend that other IP-ridden industries are any less dysfunctional?

Contrast this with situations where IP is not in play. We see direct competitors working together (albeit indirectly) to create ever better solutions: look at Facebook and Google, two massive companies which compete in many ways, but both heavily utilize web technology. Google created AngularJS to simplify development of fluid, complex apps on the web. Facebook created React for the same purpose. Both are now widely used open source foundations for web software. And without a doubt, Google samples ideas from React; and Facebook from Angular; to create upgrades with the best of both frameworks. This is infinitely more powerful given that they can see the implementations in code. And this openness of information germinates new ideas in minds at Facebook, Google, or anywhere else to create completely new systems that solve even more problems. It is, in a phrase, cooperative competition.

How much more powerful would this be if the concept of IP simply weren't on the table? If everyone was thrown into this cooperative-competitive arena by default?

So then, why would the subversives engineer intellectual property into culture? To stagnate technological progress. To prevent organizations from working together to build a more beautiful world than either could alone. To keep everyone operating in fear instead of love. To keep everyone bickering about who gets what rather than making more for all. And, of course, to give the subversives control over what progress is made, by picking the winners in all of these squabbles over IP.