3 ms·

> But using an algorithm (even a very complex one) to take a bit of everyone's work and redistribute is for free without crediting or compensating them does not

> But using an algorithm (even a very complex one) to take a bit of everyone's work and redistribute is for free without crediting or compensating them does not benefit authors. I am not sure about that. As long as they also can benefit from it, it just accelerates creation of new things. > I hate analogies but if I write banking software and send 0.000000001% of every transaction to my account, none of the individuals thusly affected probably care that much but I am still going to prison. As long as the amount goes to everybody, I don't think this "tax" would be a problem. Human beings can only survive in a collective after all.

martin-t 2y ago
Both your arguments here seem to boil down to preferring collective good over individual good even at the expense of individuals and even against the individuals' wishes. That's a totalitarian approach and I cannot and will not support it. Totalitarian systems of ruling have always devolved into suffering on a massive scale and although we're seeing a dictatorship prosper, probably for the first time in history, in China, it's just on add case that goes against the trend. It does not disprove the trend, dictatorships have always devolved into abuse of power, China is already promising massive suffering externally by threatening to invade Taiwan (which is a continuation of the legitimate Chinese government which was illegally overthrown by communist rebels in mainland China). And I have no doubt, China will devolve into internal suffering once its current dictator dies and a new one takes his place. The west is only throwing away its values (such as individual freedom) because it is afraid of China getting a short-term lead. To reply point by point: > they also can benefit from it One person puts in work and everyone benefits equally, sounds good on the surface because it only uses positive words, yet when you look at the meaning, I could equally use it to justify taking your entire salary away from you and redistributing it to every person on the planet equally. Would you be OK with that, jst because you get your equal share? You might be tempted to answer yes if everyone suffered the same treatment. Now consider if you were OK with it if only 1% of the population worked and was forced to feed the rest. > I don't think this "tax" would be a problem I describe theft and you call it a tax... > Human beings can only survive in a collective after all. That absolutely does not mean that you should be forced to become a part of a collective against your will or that you have no say who is in the collective with you.

martin-t 2y ago

Both your arguments here seem to boil down to preferring collective good over individual good even at the expense of individuals and even against the individuals' wishes. That's a totalitarian approach and I cannot and will not support it. Totalitarian systems of ruling have always devolved into suffering on a massive scale and although we're seeing a dictatorship prosper, probably for the first time in history, in China, it's just on add case that goes against the trend. It does not disprove the trend, dictatorships have always devolved into abuse of power, China is already promising massive suffering externally by threatening to invade Taiwan (which is a continuation of the legitimate Chinese government which was illegally overthrown by communist rebels in mainland China). And I have no doubt, China will devolve into internal suffering once its current dictator dies and a new one takes his place. The west is only throwing away its values (such as individual freedom) because it is afraid of China getting a short-term lead. To reply point by point: > they also can benefit from it One person puts in work and everyone benefits equally, sounds good on the surface because it only uses positive words, yet when you look at the meaning, I could equally use it to justify taking your entire salary away from you and redistributing it to every person on the planet equally. Would you be OK with that, jst because you get your equal share? You might be tempted to answer yes if everyone suffered the same treatment. Now consider if you were OK with it if only 1% of the population worked and was forced to feed the rest. > I don't think this "tax" would be a problem I describe theft and you call it a tax... > Human beings can only survive in a collective after all. That absolutely does not mean that you should be forced to become a part of a collective against your will or that you have no say who is in the collective with you.