4 ms·

What are you talking about? This sounds like a Lyndon LaRouche screed. Can you say this in, like, normal English without ideologically biased adjectives? And

by ci5er 7y ago

What are you talking about? This sounds like a Lyndon LaRouche screed. Can you say this in, like, normal English without ideologically biased adjectives? And maybe even throw in an example to clarify?

breck 7y ago
Intellectual Slavery laws of Copyrights and Patents do not in practice "promote the progress of science and useful arts". Instead they serve to transfer wealth from the majority of people to the 1%. Almost all profits from such laws flow to the richest corporations and individuals. In places where such Intellectual Slavery laws have been flouted, such as China in the past few decades, you've seen great progress. If IS laws were followed in China, you'd have a richer Bill Gates and a lot more poor Chinese. In the United States, in states that produce fewer information products, you see much lower standards of wealth, education, and health, as a substantial percentage of income flows from these states to IS states in return for overpriced information goods such as textbooks, software, medicine, and entertainment. If people instead were free to use their own equipment to copy and share intellectual goods, such unnatural flows of wealth would not occur, and you would see a drastic lowering of wealth inequality, an improvement in education, a reduction in healthcare costs, an increase in higher quality educational content, and more. The progress of science and useful arts would be accelerated, as billions of people would have access to the same information that currently only the wealth 1% have access to. Perhaps there might be a few inventors/scientists/authors/musicians/etc who might decide without monopoly profits they won't invent, but even if there were, the impact from their abstaining from the field would not even be noticed, as there would be a flourishing of inventors/creators/etc who would thrive in the absence of restrictions on what they can do with ideas.
- ci5er 7y ago
  Thank you for that. While I believe that you are conflating a few corrupt corporatist systems, that (I believe) will not be broken up by freeing up IP; I understand your point much better now. Again - thank you. EDIT: I updated a grammar and a punctuation. Probably neither to perfection.
  - breck 7y ago
    Sorry this is an emotional topic for me, as sometimes I get flashbacks to when I was a poor 19 year old kid on Napster just wanting to listen to the music all the rich kids were listening to, and then got sued by the RIAA.
    - ci5er 7y ago
      That makes sense. I get triggered by certain things as well (but as I age, less and less, I think?). I do appreciate the extended explanation. Your top-level comment was just not computing for me. I am curious about whether wealth inequality is a top-tier (first-order) problem, as opposed to being a consequence of maybe other problems - and I may reach out to ask you your views on this at a later date.

by ci5er 7y ago

breck 7y ago

Intellectual Slavery laws of Copyrights and Patents do not in practice "promote the progress of science and useful arts". Instead they serve to transfer wealth from the majority of people to the 1%. Almost all profits from such laws flow to the richest corporations and individuals. In places where such Intellectual Slavery laws have been flouted, such as China in the past few decades, you've seen great progress. If IS laws were followed in China, you'd have a richer Bill Gates and a lot more poor Chinese. In the United States, in states that produce fewer information products, you see much lower standards of wealth, education, and health, as a substantial percentage of income flows from these states to IS states in return for overpriced information goods such as textbooks, software, medicine, and entertainment. If people instead were free to use their own equipment to copy and share intellectual goods, such unnatural flows of wealth would not occur, and you would see a drastic lowering of wealth inequality, an improvement in education, a reduction in healthcare costs, an increase in higher quality educational content, and more. The progress of science and useful arts would be accelerated, as billions of people would have access to the same information that currently only the wealth 1% have access to. Perhaps there might be a few inventors/scientists/authors/musicians/etc who might decide without monopoly profits they won't invent, but even if there were, the impact from their abstaining from the field would not even be noticed, as there would be a flourishing of inventors/creators/etc who would thrive in the absence of restrictions on what they can do with ideas.

ci5er 7y ago
Thank you for that. While I believe that you are conflating a few corrupt corporatist systems, that (I believe) will not be broken up by freeing up IP; I understand your point much better now. Again - thank you. EDIT: I updated a grammar and a punctuation. Probably neither to perfection.
- breck 7y ago
  Sorry this is an emotional topic for me, as sometimes I get flashbacks to when I was a poor 19 year old kid on Napster just wanting to listen to the music all the rich kids were listening to, and then got sued by the RIAA.
  - ci5er 7y ago
    That makes sense. I get triggered by certain things as well (but as I age, less and less, I think?). I do appreciate the extended explanation. Your top-level comment was just not computing for me. I am curious about whether wealth inequality is a top-tier (first-order) problem, as opposed to being a consequence of maybe other problems - and I may reach out to ask you your views on this at a later date.