Kapitalism
-
thought stopper
I am pretty sure that would be a permanent condition you are suffering from.
When pressed, the anti communist reveals that insults and thought terminating cliches are all they have
-
Maybe i should rethink my stance.
Don't bother, you tankies are incapable of logical thinking.
You say that like you haven't been the one reduced to petulant insults.
-
People work for material gain. By not entitling creators to the product of their labour you will discourage them from creating (and also be stealing from them). Patent law is exactly the kind of thing that protects the interests of working people but our current system is too weak to stand up to corporations.
What happens if the person who can solve climate change decides instead to trade stocks because saving the world doesn't put food on the table?
IP laws are not your enemy, corporations are.
The people who create products don't own the IP, the company that employs them does.
-
My former boss was in a gulag for most of his teens. He was not paid and to this day he has no idea what crime he was convicted of. He just knows he served time and was targeted by guards because he was Jewish and the Soviets were very bigoted.
Maybe take a second to ask yourself what your real life experience is with the USSR.
My former boss was in a gulag for most of his teens. He was not paid and to this day he has no idea what crime he was convicted of.
Maybe your former boss was bullshitting you. Maybe he knew precisely why he was in prison, but didn’t want to admit his crimes to his employees. It’s pretty common for ex-cons to falsely claim innocence.
He just knows he served time and was targeted by guards because he was Jewish and the Soviets were very bigoted.
There were many prominent Jews in the Bolshevik revolution, and Jews continued to be active members of the Communist Party, in soviets, and in the Politburo.
-
Well it's blatant propaganda. Think about it, when people got rid of kings and 'nobles', they didn't take the wealth from them. Those people stayed rich and invested that money into business. The ruling class never changed, they just changed job titles.
There has also never been a system (under capitalism) where peoples wealth is taken from them when they die.
The whole idea that under Capitalism everyone "Starts from 0" is just laughable.
Capitalism was never a punishment for nobles who didn't work, it was a way for them to continue to stay in power, and still not have to work.
The vast majority of wealthy people were born wealthy. The vast majority of people who start from 0 will die with basically 0.
Adam Smith himself was born wealthy.
Very occasionally, someone like a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs will come along and be successful, but they are the exceptions to the rule. And most of their wealth came from exploiting people.
A few professions could be a path for poor people to succeed, like for example Lawyers, but you have to have the money for Law School in the first place, so most of them came from well off parents.
Capitalism wouldn't exist if it were a fair system.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It’s a good lesson to teach that the wealthy would rather rebrand their image than give up wealth
Hence this part, if you’re looking to change the system then you have to counter the rebrand and set up a system that can’t be undone
-
People, in general, do not work for material gain. They work because they have to in order to live, procreate and raise their children. People want a minimum amount of prosperity and economic safety. Beyond that, they want to work in a way and a place that fulfills them. Work itself is fun when done right, and working with others is awesome. Not even the "smart ones" or whatever work mainly for material gain in general. There are an overwhelming amount of counter examples to any variation of your claim. It would be more accurate to say people work for fame and glory, or to get laid (again reproductive success).
But even if what you said was true, it does not justify a complete monopoly. You could have something like "congrats you patented a new idea - if it catches on you will get a free house as a price!"
Of course you know all this and are just arguing facetiously. If "the person who can solve climate change" does anything but trade stocks they would contradict your argument. There is no money in inventing climate solutions. But nice insult to the people who are working on things like that.
Your actual argument is that we reward gambling and non-productive activity too much. That the smartest people are not working towards the survival or wellbeing of humanity, but for... crumbs off the table of the capitalists. That our economic system is not efficient in working towards our shared human values.
All of the jobs needed in society are not all of the jobs people would do if left to their own pursuits. Incentives are required.
-
The people who create products don't own the IP, the company that employs them does.
Again, not a problem with IP law, a problem with corporate structure.
-
I'm sure all the scientists love it when you tell them they won't be credited for their work and literally anyone will be able to take their idea and do whatever they want with it, that'll do so much to help foster humanity's innate desire to learn and be creative
Literally yes. Why do you think every fucking scientist loves sci-hub and is against Elsevier, and even submits their papers to arxiv for anyone to read for free? You clearly have no experience in the field and are talking out of your arse
What does it mean for corporations to not exist?
Through the existence of exclusively public institutions, whether cooperative or government-owned, which don't work in direct competition but either in cooperation or in emulated competition (I.e. a contest instead of a struggle to drive each other off business).
And it's about coercing people who won't act in good faith with the system into doing so
This literally doesn't happen in public research.
Most people would keep a secret to make money especially if their livelihood depended on it
In public research it works backwards. The more you publish (i.e. make available to the public), the more you earn. You really don't seem to understand the concept of public research.
A corporation will steal your creation and outcompete you in profiting from it if given the opportunity.
Great, so make knowledge accessible to everyone and abolish private corporations.
Yeah some of what I've said doesn't portray my arguments well. In trying to explain that IP law is a process that protects creatives and without it creative endeavours would be eroded. This is not a point of debate. Virtually every country has an IP law. IP law doesn't make it so people won't share their ideas, it makes it so people who do are rewarded.
-
Of course not, it runs on people wanting to live in and improve society.
Money is a system we invented long after society was already a thing, it’s not a required part of it.
Of course you are correct to think of me as an idealist but my general stance is that while perfection can never be archived you should strive for perfection to get closest to it.
Combined with a lifelong pursuit of growth and improvement you keep getting closer to that perfection and the fact you cant archive it means there is always something else to improve and not get bored.
That is my real life work attitude, how i can jump from “high level” complex tasks to “dumb” repetitive labor tasks while still having job satisfaction because even those repetitive labor tasks have a non perfect structure i love to keep improving with every repetition.
Patents are bad, how to solve-
Step 1. Abolish currency.
-
Properly regulated capitalism isn't strictly horrible. The biggest issue we have is that first bit, unfortunately.
-Me, a dirty socialist
oh see here that refers specifically to militias
-
This one is appealing in that they refund the fee even if it's from some other bank. So you can go to the ATM at the corner shop that charges $3 to withdraw, and get that refunded at the end of the quarter. Most banks don't have fees at their own ATM, but this is no fees anywhere. For rich people.
Ally Bank whoop! Online only bank. Used to be unlimited free ATM withdrawals, now $10/mo reimbursed. Plenty for most!
-
In modern economics, a massive change came about in the early 1970s. Productivity and profits decoupled from employee wages, and continued to rise while wages stayed flat. Fast forward 50 years, account for inflation and shifts in technology, and it's easy to see that employee wages HAVEN'T RISEN in meaningful amounts for 50 years. Meanwhile, companies are making more money than ever.
So, I'd say it was in the 70's.
-
oh see here that refers specifically to militias
Ohhh, is that that other thing the US doesn't do?
-
Yeah some of what I've said doesn't portray my arguments well. In trying to explain that IP law is a process that protects creatives and without it creative endeavours would be eroded. This is not a point of debate. Virtually every country has an IP law. IP law doesn't make it so people won't share their ideas, it makes it so people who do are rewarded.
IP law is a process that protects creatives and without it creative endeavours would be eroded. This is not a point of debate
How is it not a point of debate? I'm giving you arguments as to why it's a very good point of debate and you don't seem to be able to respond to them.
Virtually every country has an IP law
Virtually every country also has homeless people and I disagree with that, that's just an argument from majority, kinda useless to me.
IP law doesn't make it so people won't share their ideas, it makes it so people who do are rewarded
I already explained how there are already existing mechanisms without IP pushing for the rewarding of intellectual production, such as the "publish-or-perish" system in public research. You may very well have arguments against it, but the fact of the matter is that you don't need IP as a mechanism to reward people who engage innovation/creative/research processes. Public openings at institutions (whether a national orchestra, a research institute or a cinema academy with subsidised production), contests and grants... IP is not the only method for material rewarding of intellectual creation, which is what you're trying to argue.
-
In a classic example you have a village with 2 bakeries, one of the bakers came up with a machine to kneed the bread, so he can make more bread and sell it cheaper. This is sort of the story people tell to show how great capitalism is.
But we have reached a point where that one bakery now owns a chain of bakers, adds ingredients to the bread to make it more addictive, skips on actual ingredients needed for bread and replaces them with sawdust, made donations to the current political party so any competition has to jump through hoops to get a bakery license, etc.
And don't forget how one bakery could pay their employees only the bare minimum, cut corners where they can and use the profit to undercut the 'good' bakery until the 'good' bakery goes bankrupt and the 'bad' bakery can simply be a local monopoly and raise prices as they like.
-
It’s a good lesson to teach that the wealthy would rather rebrand their image than give up wealth
Hence this part, if you’re looking to change the system then you have to counter the rebrand and set up a system that can’t be undone
Sure. The way to counter the rebrand is to question it and call BS on it when you encounter it, expose it for what it actually is. That was the point of my post.
-
IP law is a process that protects creatives and without it creative endeavours would be eroded. This is not a point of debate
How is it not a point of debate? I'm giving you arguments as to why it's a very good point of debate and you don't seem to be able to respond to them.
Virtually every country has an IP law
Virtually every country also has homeless people and I disagree with that, that's just an argument from majority, kinda useless to me.
IP law doesn't make it so people won't share their ideas, it makes it so people who do are rewarded
I already explained how there are already existing mechanisms without IP pushing for the rewarding of intellectual production, such as the "publish-or-perish" system in public research. You may very well have arguments against it, but the fact of the matter is that you don't need IP as a mechanism to reward people who engage innovation/creative/research processes. Public openings at institutions (whether a national orchestra, a research institute or a cinema academy with subsidised production), contests and grants... IP is not the only method for material rewarding of intellectual creation, which is what you're trying to argue.
Because everyone does it for that exact reason
-
When pressed, the anti communist reveals that insults and thought terminating cliches are all they have
Is your user name ironic?
-
The major premise of Capitalism is risk vs reward. We hit a tipping point though, where 99% of people do not have any capital to risk, and the people who do have the capital have enough to nullify any risk.
Tax the rich.
Not just having capital, but got a hostage situation where their failure would collapse the economy therefore they are not allowed to fail and must be bailed out by the government they paid (often for far less) for earlier.
-
Because everyone does it for that exact reason
Everyone does it because every country works through the capitalist mode of production, not because it's a necessity of production.
How about you answer to the rest of my comment?
