Kapitalism
-
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?
-
In a form of a piece of lead in their heads, no doubt
What a stupid argument. Literally just asserting you're right based on nothing.
Another fascist.
Another fascist
Only for a brain dead tankie someone criticising Stalin and gulags is always a "fascist"
-
Patents are bad, how to solve-
Step 1. Abolish currency.
Yes i know, from the perspective of others i got sidetracked but its part of a larger thing in my brain where intellectual property is a symptom of the capitalist disease. I mentioned the autism thing, we tend to connect dots on all scales.
I could go on and explain how IP can actually become a form of thought police. (Things being invented just to cencor them/The creator of Disco Elysium being banned to publish things from his own paracosm universe) but to be honest your replies have been lacking substance and i am rather tired of defending this towards someone who is not going to change their right. (Which is your right, i respect your entitlement to your beliefs)
-
They are not Capitalists. In fact capitalism is a great idea, it just we don't have it.
Maybe it's Crony capitalism instead?
-
Another fascist
Only for a brain dead tankie someone criticising Stalin and gulags is always a "fascist"
Criticizing them from a Nazi perspective, no doubt.
Another brain dead fascist
-
Is your user name ironic?
See? You've got nothing but lazy insults.
-
Again, not a problem with IP law, a problem with corporate structure.
It is a problem with the law, corporations should not be allowed to own IP only the creator of the IP
-
This post did not contain any content.
On related note, Luanti (formerly Minetest) is a platform for playing and developing block mining games a la Minecraft and Vintage story.
-
Capitalists say the free market is king then they go and make laws to stifle and restrict it so they can make monopolies and gouge everyone out of their hard-earned income.
Buy everything up so your choice doesnt really latter because the money ends up in theirs either way.
And put hurdles in the way so no one could try to get any funny ideas and make their own thing -
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Yes, Intellectual Property must go down. People often think positively of copyright, thinking that no one would support artists if they weren't forced to, and that artists couldn't possibly make a living if it weren't for copyright. I think we are rich enough that if we were to share it properly we could give everyone, not just the talented, time and resources to create art. And I think the talented would still gain advantages by being talented, people want to support artists that mean a lot to them. But to be fair, limiting or removing copyright is not only not that popular of an idea, it's also the least of our worries, cause it mostly concerns entertainment purposes.
Patent laws is where we need to act. To give a clear example: patent laws mean that excessive amounts of money goes to pharmaceutical companies, This is always defended by saying that they in turn will invest this money into research. The problem is
-
They spend far more money on marketing than on R&D, which effectively means that you're often not getting the best medicine, it means your getting the best marketed medicine.
-
When money does go to R&D, the research that's being done, is limited to that which benefits the pharmaceutical company. This is an unacceptable limitation. For example it is not in the interest of pharmaceutical companies to to cure disease, it's far more commercially attractive to make it a manageable chronic disease, where you rely on medication for the rest of your life.
-
Companies will not share their knowledge. For a company these are trade-secrets that could benefit their competition and if you have to compete obviously sharing knowledge is not in your best interest. But if you want to help humanity forward, obviously you should.
-
Drug prices are often excessively high, in part because of the previously mentioned marketing costs that you pay for.
Neither of these problems would exist if R&D was funded by governments and charity. And the pharmaceutical is just one industry that's taken as an example. The way that intellectual property is holding humanity back can not be overstated. Basically we need to go free and open source on IP,
-
-
Yes, Intellectual Property must go down. People often think positively of copyright, thinking that no one would support artists if they weren't forced to, and that artists couldn't possibly make a living if it weren't for copyright. I think we are rich enough that if we were to share it properly we could give everyone, not just the talented, time and resources to create art. And I think the talented would still gain advantages by being talented, people want to support artists that mean a lot to them. But to be fair, limiting or removing copyright is not only not that popular of an idea, it's also the least of our worries, cause it mostly concerns entertainment purposes.
Patent laws is where we need to act. To give a clear example: patent laws mean that excessive amounts of money goes to pharmaceutical companies, This is always defended by saying that they in turn will invest this money into research. The problem is
-
They spend far more money on marketing than on R&D, which effectively means that you're often not getting the best medicine, it means your getting the best marketed medicine.
-
When money does go to R&D, the research that's being done, is limited to that which benefits the pharmaceutical company. This is an unacceptable limitation. For example it is not in the interest of pharmaceutical companies to to cure disease, it's far more commercially attractive to make it a manageable chronic disease, where you rely on medication for the rest of your life.
-
Companies will not share their knowledge. For a company these are trade-secrets that could benefit their competition and if you have to compete obviously sharing knowledge is not in your best interest. But if you want to help humanity forward, obviously you should.
-
Drug prices are often excessively high, in part because of the previously mentioned marketing costs that you pay for.
Neither of these problems would exist if R&D was funded by governments and charity. And the pharmaceutical is just one industry that's taken as an example. The way that intellectual property is holding humanity back can not be overstated. Basically we need to go free and open source on IP,
though usually stupid and fucky copyright laws have one advantage - if someone bigger than you steals your idea you can take them to court. without copyright laws we'd have giant corporations just taking shit and using their platform to sell stolen ideas without a single cent going to the original creator.......
which happens anyway, but uh, i guess it'd happen more?
honestly idk, let's do a test run of a year without any copyright laws and see if anything changes like at all
-
-
though usually stupid and fucky copyright laws have one advantage - if someone bigger than you steals your idea you can take them to court. without copyright laws we'd have giant corporations just taking shit and using their platform to sell stolen ideas without a single cent going to the original creator.......
which happens anyway, but uh, i guess it'd happen more?
honestly idk, let's do a test run of a year without any copyright laws and see if anything changes like at all
wrote last edited by [email protected]one advantage - if someone bigger than you steals your idea you can take them to court
I'm against the notion that ideas can be stolen. I mean, you can keep an idea to yourself, choose not to share it, but if you share your ideas in whatever shape or form, it's there for others to do with as they please. Or atleast, despite that not being the case, in my opinion, that's how it should be. You can of course disagree, but in my view the idea that the first one to come up with an idea, can plant a flag on it and then own this idea, is not helpful. Rather it is limiting, it is holding us back. I think humanity as a whole functions better if we can use eachothers ideas as we please. Humanity functions by copying eachothers behavior and ideas and occasionally improving on them. Like with FOSS, if an idea is improperly executed or can be improved upon, even if just according to some, it is helpful, that the idea can be forked.
Like I said, I prefer to focus on patent law first, rather than copyright law. But fundamentally I think there is no difference.
-
I mostly agree with you, it's just that historically governments have been really bad at producing some necessities of life.
I really wouldn't want anybody other than a government providing clean drinking water. I think they've proven they're great at that, and private industries just mess it up in various ways. OTOH, governments historically haven't been very good at producing crops. It seems like every time a government wants to fully take over farming, the result is a famine. Having said that, farming subsidies, and programs where governments are guaranteed buyers of farmed stuff is pretty great.
It really pisses me off that some of the most right-wing, most anti-government people in the US are farmers, and farmers are absolutely supported by the government. There are certainly some flaws in the system. The corn subsidy being so high is ridiculous, and results in things like high fructose corn syrup being available nearly free, and so it's in everything. OTOH, it's thanks to government intervention that the US is absolutely secure when it comes to price shocks for food items. Almost everything is made domestically. And, while there can be quirks like egg prices being high (which again is due to unregulated / badly regulated monopolies) the overall system is very stable.
Housing is another thing that is iffy if it's 100% government made. The awful apartment blocks of former soviet republics are an example of that. But, unregulated housing construction is even worse. This is one where you need to find some balance between fully capitalist and fully government run.
Mostly though, right now, the governments of the world just need to start cracking down on capitalist businesses that are harming the public. The EU is at least trying, but the results have been mixed. The US was starting to do something under Biden and then Trump took over and... wowza. I think the recent NYC election shows that the population is well to the left of the democratic party establishment, and that cracking down on big business could be a huge win in future elections.
one of the amazing features of the USA is water companies... providing water to your house... because that's how it's always been done here
-
So taxing the rich is an unstable temporary solution, and more fundamental changes are required.
I propose harsher, more lethal, punishments for politicians that accept bribes
-
Someone gets it.
Lets instead do this:
Every citizen, irrespective of their nationality, skincolor, gender has the right to:
- living quarters
- work
- maximum of 7 hours of work
- free healthcare
- paid vacation
- equal pay and treatment for women
- freedom of religion and speech
This is directly taken from a 1936 constitution. Today one could improve on it but we're so much worse, everywhere.
Now guess which one.
I did my 7h of work, I'm retiring now.
-
Someone gets it.
Lets instead do this:
Every citizen, irrespective of their nationality, skincolor, gender has the right to:
- living quarters
- work
- maximum of 7 hours of work
- free healthcare
- paid vacation
- equal pay and treatment for women
- freedom of religion and speech
This is directly taken from a 1936 constitution. Today one could improve on it but we're so much worse, everywhere.
Now guess which one.
Go check those living quarters they had lol, and food queues, and how well the health care worked if you had nothing to bribe with. Those sweet shortages of everything.
You should talk to someone who actually lived in the "union" and stop slurping kremlin propaganda. But will you? I wouldn't bet on it.
-
though usually stupid and fucky copyright laws have one advantage - if someone bigger than you steals your idea you can take them to court. without copyright laws we'd have giant corporations just taking shit and using their platform to sell stolen ideas without a single cent going to the original creator.......
which happens anyway, but uh, i guess it'd happen more?
honestly idk, let's do a test run of a year without any copyright laws and see if anything changes like at all
though usually stupid and fucky copyright laws have one advantage - if someone bigger than you steals your idea you can take them to court. without copyright laws we’d have giant corporations just taking shit and using their platform to sell stolen ideas without a single cent going to the original creator…
It's very difficult for some small independent creator to take a big corporation successfully to court. Imagine going up against The Mouse or someone similar with a lawyer paid for by your legal insurance. You might as well just not do it at all.
The same thing is even worse with patents. I made a few things that I could patent. But for that I'd have to cough up a few thousands per year, roughly 100k over the life-time of the patent, and in turn I only get the right to sue someone violating my patent. I don't even get the guarantee that my patent is valid.
Patents are designed exactly so that big corporations can use them excessively to suppress smaller competitors while they are too expensive and too uncertain for small inventors to use them.
-
Capitalists say the free market is king then they go and make laws to stifle and restrict it so they can make monopolies and gouge everyone out of their hard-earned income.
Capitalism is an egotistic not an idealistic movement. Capitalists don't become capitalists because they think it benefits everyone, but because they think it benefits them. That's why someone like Elon Musk is only against government subsidies if he's not the recipient.
