1. Agreeing on it doesn't make it moral. [Edit: although it does create a moral majority, aka, the tyranny of the majority]
2. Trickle down economics at its finest. Where's the evidence?
I'll give you some counter-evidence: music after vs music before MP3 pirating. Seems like this vibrant cultural explosion happened despite all that lack of trickle down, huh.
By your logic the colonialists and imperialists did a favor for all those tragic natives. I mean, where would all those Indians and Indonesians be without all that wealth creation by the East India Company?!?? [Edit: or Apple]
The point is this system of IP is predicated on acceptance of not just winners but losers (at life), and justified with a generous self-serving of trickle-down economics.
[Edit, to insert an LOL at people who think IP wouldn't be created without necessarily oppressing foreigners and people born without silver spoons. Note, I am aware that I have to construct the connection, and I haven't done that here, but there's no point in this forum, abstractions like this remain couched as a conveniently theoretical debate, despite the very real lives that poor people lead]
[Edit, to insert another LOL at people who think that we must support our wealthy people's desire to create more wealth]
You can unapologetically assume that only for as long as you do not accept culpability for the outcome. Or rather, you may accept culpability unapologetically, it just says a lot about you, even if you don't realize it.
[Edit: people can't stand when you only debate on the actual terms of an artificially constructed reality, rather than the make-believe terms that only exist within that reality. It's human, it keeps us from having to think about consequences. But why is that reasonable, it is just convenient.]
You can talk about artificially constructed realities all you want, but the idea that other people matter is also artificially constructed. It's not the "source" of the reality that matters. What matters is whether we generally agree on it.
>>> You can talk about artificially constructed realities all you want, but the idea that other people matter is also artificially constructed.
Yes, we can choose to believe that other moral matters relating to people driven in herds to create profit for far wealthier people matters more than say moralizing about IP regimes which have a large net negative affect on those same people. As I said earlier, it's a matter of priorities. Nicely put ;)
There's a handy quotation from random famous person that nails this one nicely, but I can't think of it right now.
[Edit, but we can break it down more in so many directions, and all of them end up very badly for the true believers in advancing civilization with schemes that necessarily require there to be vast numbers of losers for the small numbers of winners. Goddamn that whole conscience thing gets in the way, put a cork in it fast!!!]
>>> It's not the "source" of the reality that matters. What matters is whether we generally agree on it.
Actually, I think that only matters to the winners under that scheme.
> Yes, we can choose to believe that other moral matters relating to people driven in herds to create profit for far wealthier people matters more than say moralizing about IP regimes which have a large net negative affect on those same people.
You've yet to establish the net negative effect, so I think this is putting the cart before the horse just a little. Also: "other moral matters relating to people driven in" -- what?
> Goddamn that whole conscience thing gets in the way
I disagree with you on how best to advance the lot of people in the world. That's not the same as not having a conscience.
> Actually, I think that only matters to the winners under that scheme.
>>> You've yet to establish the net negative effect, so I think this is putting the cart before the horse just a little.
I'm not the one claiming that trickle down economics is a morally justified way to rationalize the goodness of IP regimes. Why do I have to disprove conjecture which is not generally proven as a net benefit? Proponents of this dogma are the ones who want to justify IP regimes, and not only that they (i.e. you) insist this is the way to progress. You've got to prove that the inequalities created are better than the inequalities averted. That basic first step (proof of net positive) has not been done. I am not suggesting action (i.e. IP enforcement), I am suggesting inaction. As in, don't fuck with people unless your theory is proven.
Of course, it's worth pointing out that whole line is thinking is utilitarian. Are you truly utilitarian? I doubt it. So some consistency would be nice too.
Oh, well, this is something entirely different than copyright, since copyright is not specifically for businesses at all. It certainly doesn't fall in the broadly understood definition of "trickle-down economics."
What you're doing would be kind of like if I called the policy you're endorsing "socialism" and pointed out that that rarely works and is widely discredited among economists and everybody else. Makes for good reading I guess, but it wouldn't be very honest.
The widely accepted view on copyright is that it's needed to protect creators' ability to profit from their work and encourage the production of more such work. That's why it's written into the legal codes and sometimes constitutions of almost every major political entity in the world. Most economists similarly embrace its efficacy -- with caveats, in many cases, but the overall consensus is for. Misnaming it "trickle-down economics" changes that not a whit.
Comments
1. Agreeing on it doesn't make it moral. [Edit: although it does create a moral majority, aka, the tyranny of the majority]
2. Trickle down economics at its finest. Where's the evidence?
I'll give you some counter-evidence: music after vs music before MP3 pirating. Seems like this vibrant cultural explosion happened despite all that lack of trickle down, huh.
By your logic the colonialists and imperialists did a favor for all those tragic natives. I mean, where would all those Indians and Indonesians be without all that wealth creation by the East India Company?!?? [Edit: or Apple]
The point is this system of IP is predicated on acceptance of not just winners but losers (at life), and justified with a generous self-serving of trickle-down economics.
[Edit, to insert an LOL at people who think IP wouldn't be created without necessarily oppressing foreigners and people born without silver spoons. Note, I am aware that I have to construct the connection, and I haven't done that here, but there's no point in this forum, abstractions like this remain couched as a conveniently theoretical debate, despite the very real lives that poor people lead]
[Edit, to insert another LOL at people who think that we must support our wealthy people's desire to create more wealth]
> 1. Agreeing on it doesn't make it moral. [Edit: although it does create a moral majority, aka, the tyranny of the majority]
Yeah, but it does mean that we may unapologetically assume it when we talk about economic issues.
You can unapologetically assume that only for as long as you do not accept culpability for the outcome. Or rather, you may accept culpability unapologetically, it just says a lot about you, even if you don't realize it.
[Edit: people can't stand when you only debate on the actual terms of an artificially constructed reality, rather than the make-believe terms that only exist within that reality. It's human, it keeps us from having to think about consequences. But why is that reasonable, it is just convenient.]
You can talk about artificially constructed realities all you want, but the idea that other people matter is also artificially constructed. It's not the "source" of the reality that matters. What matters is whether we generally agree on it.
>>> You can talk about artificially constructed realities all you want, but the idea that other people matter is also artificially constructed.
Yes, we can choose to believe that other moral matters relating to people driven in herds to create profit for far wealthier people matters more than say moralizing about IP regimes which have a large net negative affect on those same people. As I said earlier, it's a matter of priorities. Nicely put ;)
There's a handy quotation from random famous person that nails this one nicely, but I can't think of it right now.
[Edit, but we can break it down more in so many directions, and all of them end up very badly for the true believers in advancing civilization with schemes that necessarily require there to be vast numbers of losers for the small numbers of winners. Goddamn that whole conscience thing gets in the way, put a cork in it fast!!!]
>>> It's not the "source" of the reality that matters. What matters is whether we generally agree on it.
Actually, I think that only matters to the winners under that scheme.
> Yes, we can choose to believe that other moral matters relating to people driven in herds to create profit for far wealthier people matters more than say moralizing about IP regimes which have a large net negative affect on those same people.
You've yet to establish the net negative effect, so I think this is putting the cart before the horse just a little. Also: "other moral matters relating to people driven in" -- what?
> Goddamn that whole conscience thing gets in the way
I disagree with you on how best to advance the lot of people in the world. That's not the same as not having a conscience.
> Actually, I think that only matters to the winners under that scheme.
That's typically how it goes, yes.
>>> You've yet to establish the net negative effect, so I think this is putting the cart before the horse just a little.
I'm not the one claiming that trickle down economics is a morally justified way to rationalize the goodness of IP regimes. Why do I have to disprove conjecture which is not generally proven as a net benefit? Proponents of this dogma are the ones who want to justify IP regimes, and not only that they (i.e. you) insist this is the way to progress. You've got to prove that the inequalities created are better than the inequalities averted. That basic first step (proof of net positive) has not been done. I am not suggesting action (i.e. IP enforcement), I am suggesting inaction. As in, don't fuck with people unless your theory is proven.
Of course, it's worth pointing out that whole line is thinking is utilitarian. Are you truly utilitarian? I doubt it. So some consistency would be nice too.
> I'm not the one claiming that trickle down economics is a morally justified way to rationalize the goodness of IP regimes.
Yes, but that is the broadly accepted view. It's not incumbent on me to prove it.
Trickle down is most certainly not the broadly accepted view, FYI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
Oh, well, this is something entirely different than copyright, since copyright is not specifically for businesses at all. It certainly doesn't fall in the broadly understood definition of "trickle-down economics."
What you're doing would be kind of like if I called the policy you're endorsing "socialism" and pointed out that that rarely works and is widely discredited among economists and everybody else. Makes for good reading I guess, but it wouldn't be very honest.
The widely accepted view on copyright is that it's needed to protect creators' ability to profit from their work and encourage the production of more such work. That's why it's written into the legal codes and sometimes constitutions of almost every major political entity in the world. Most economists similarly embrace its efficacy -- with caveats, in many cases, but the overall consensus is for. Misnaming it "trickle-down economics" changes that not a whit.