5 ms·
Who would say that? lol, that is absurd. Sounds like someone has been reading some Marxist Humanism. They do seem drastically opposed; in a system that disreg
by djschnei 10y ago
Who would say that? lol, that is absurd. Sounds like someone has been reading some Marxist Humanism.
They do seem drastically opposed; in a system that disregards personal property rights, you can't use your property to better your and your customer's lives by offering services or products to them that you both deem mutually beneficial. In a system without property rights, the 'ads' are called government propaganda.
- sqeaky 10y agoThere are many kinds of oppression one might be oppressed in some way that still allows a semblance of property ownership.
- djschnei 10y agoThe ability to own property doesn't encompass property rights; especially when "own" is used as loosely as it is today. If property rights are entirely respected, how can someone be oppressed?
- cust0m 10y agoIs easy to talk about property rights after destroy native population and give the lands to a minority when all the rest have only option to sell their work force. The problem with property is its historical construction was not legitim.
- djschnei 10y agoYou almost formed a complete sentence. I didn't do any of those things.
- valarauca1 10y agoyour property to better your and your customer's lives While conveniently ignoring everyone else. But hey why help them? They aren't paying you...
- djschnei 10y agoI have an obligation to respect other peoples rights (which essentially all boil down to property rights). I have no obligation to help others if it isn't mutually beneficial. I might choose to, but it would infringe on my rights to force me to - that's called slavery.
- valarauca1 10y agoWasn't your obligation to respect other people's right forced upon you? How does respecting the rights of others not make you a slave to them? Because from the logic you are using that is a conclusion.
- realusername 10y agoProfitability does not necessarily correlate with better life for customers, it all depends specifically on the subject. Averts are entirely set up from the point of view of businesses, people can live better without ads, businesses need them because another competing business is also doing advertisement, it's just an arms race. Advertising and its growth is a cancer in our society, it destroy society values just for a quick buck and provides zero value to our society. I can't wait to see that die. I can't believe some of the smartest people we have out there spend all their lives making people click on ads, this is totally insane. Advertising is just oppression by private companies, I don't see any difference with government ads. Except that because there is a profit in private advertising, it's even more invasive and everywhere.
- djschnei 10y agoIt is entirely in the customers interest for a business they support to be profitable, which advertising promotes. I'm sure residents of the DPRK would disagree that our ads are as invasive as their government propaganda. Or maybe they would agree with you... not sure that proves anything though...
- jakebasile 10y ago> Advertising is just oppression by private companies, I don't see any difference with government ads. You see no difference between ads that ask you to buy something and a government that uses torture, murder, mind control, propaganda, and fear to carry out the destruction of free will of its citizens? Ok. > it's even more invasive and everywhere. Yes, being sent to labor camps to work to death is just as invasive as having Google know that I like video games.