I've come up with the following axioms:
1. LABOR + REQUEST + PROPERTY = MONEYHere is an example: It took 2 years for John to make a sculpture of his mother made out of shit. If the feces were in fact produced by John, the sculpture is in fact his property. If the turds were however collected from a public or a private toilet, he has no right to sell it! In the latter case, the shitters have the right to request their feces back. Let's say the fecal matter was his own, but nobody else finds value in it. That would inevitably lead to the fact that his labor would indeed have no financial value itself.
2. LABOR + REQUEST = MONEY
3. REQUEST + PROPERTY = MONEY
4. REQUEST = NO FINANCIAL VALUE
5. LABOR = NO FINANCIAL VALUE
Here's another example: paintings. What's so expensive about paintings? Is it the image captured on the canvas, or is it actually the canvas itself, along with the frames and the paint? You'd be surprised, but the latter is the truth. Here is the proof: replicas of the same paintings are much cheaper. Why?? What's different about a copy? You've got the same image, the exact same idea, captured on the canvas. Nothing else is different, except for the materials and their age. It's the scarcity of the painting's materials that makes it so expensive. That, combined with its popularity, of course. The price has nothing to do with neither the idea nor the labor related to the painting. In fact, I'm quite sure that the copyist took much more time and effort to replicate the exact same authentic look.
What is the value of artistic ideas? Because of art's subjective nature, the price of the ideas should be determined individually, from every person who has been exposed to them. To me, ideas cost nothing, and I am in my right to pay nothing for them, because in subjectivity, opinion equals truth. The seller of ideas has no right to prevent me from paying. However, the author always has the right to keep their idea a secret and not share it with others. This would be especially useful for inventors. This is where patents get mistaken for a tool of justice. On the opposite, patents are totally unjust, because they are weapons of monopoly. Once an idea has been exposed, there should be no laws preventing it from foreign application. That would be immoral and derogatory to the free market. Imagine what would happen if Bill Gates weren't allowed to base Windows on the MAC OS template? Your operating system would probably suck much more than it does today, because with no competition comes no desire to improve things. Plus, you'd be gay, because everyone knows MAC's turn people gay.
No plagiarism means no anthropomorphic evolution. New ideas are modeled after old ideas. Creativity is the ability to deform templates, or combine 2 or more templates into one. Creativity is to take a few old ideas and re-arrange them in your own way into something new. The more you know, the greater the potential for you is to be creative. Plagiarism causes the evolution of intellectuality. Best example: the Bible, greatest book of all. It has been rewritten so many times by so many people before it reached its current form. And who's the author? God. Because we are all God. The ideas of humanity are one whole, which is constantly growing and developing by itself, like a cell in a constant state of mitosis.
