3 ms·
"...amounts to the accumulation of wealth and power outside of the commons..." Considering that we're talking about a publicly traded company, "the commons" (as
by caramelcustard 4y ago
"...amounts to the accumulation of wealth and power outside of the commons..."
Considering that we're talking about a publicly traded company, "the commons" (as you decided to label them) have the ability to purchase stocks (the right to recieve a certain percentage of in of the aformentioned company as well as voting power). The legislation doesn't address anything regarding stocks and if anything, it requires companies like Apple to share their work with their competitors South Korea style.
- waffleiron 4y ago> "the commons" (as you decided to label them) This is a defined term and doesn't mean a group/class of people (as you seemed to have interpreted it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons
- caramelcustard 4y ago"...doesn't mean a group/class of people..." I'm well aware of that, as well as the definition, however, i've come across incorrect usage of the term on SMS as the short form for "common man/common people". Considering the context of that persons comment, i was under assumption that they use that term incorrectly, hence why i've put it in quotation. Regardless, my point still stands. "The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable Earth. These resources are held in common even when owned privately or publicly. Commons can also be understood as natural resources that groups of people (communities, user groups) manage for individual and collective benefit.". Note that the definition provided by you acknowledges various form of ownerships (private vs public) and that aspect is the core of my response to that comment.