temp10298385

I believe the argument is just ”my job can be performed from home”. It’s not about entitlement, it is about making ones life easier without additional downside to your employer. You might disagree with the no downside part but that is orthogonal to the entitlement argument.

This was a very pleasant read. The part about crossing the chasm really resonated with me. It’s something you try once In a while and always you get pulled back to the side you started on.

This is just hateful. The same point could have been made without kicking someone who is down.

Some (myself included) reject the premise that the designer and benefactor of the agreement has the right to define the usage of ’thing’.

We are talking about intangibles here (often described by the politically and philosophically loaded term intellectual property) I find it unreasonable to treat them as private physical property. It restricts the true potential of the digital, i.e virtually zero distribution costs.

In my view, digital content resembles a ’commons’ in their use and cultural significance. I believe the interest of IP-holders should take a back seat to the far more important free flow of information.

”Intellectual property” has always been stolen and copied and I would argue that the world is better of that way. So much of our art and technology would not exist without these ”thefts”. Intellectual property is only property because a state uses its monopoly on violence to enforce someones monopoly on an idea/concept/information. It is not because of any divine right of an owner to restrict what others do with intangible objects of information.

Also, there is a spectrum. No one would think it just if the Fourier transform was subject to licensing.

This is not the forum for clever one liners in response to engaging and earnest responses. Please add to the discussion instead of devolving it.

I strongly disagree that QE policies and central banking are socialist. In fact, I would argue that QE, as it has been enacted since its inception after the collapse of Japan’s credit bubble, is closer to the opposite since it strengthens capital’s control over labour. The mechanisms of which are asset price inflation, financialization, austerity which reduces spending on public goods, poor wage growth, and so on. These are all examples of capital increasing its power while labour loses power. I agree the policy choice is terrible, but I don’t see how they can be construed as socialist.

Also, keep in mind that the theoreticial justifications for these policies do not originate in socialist/marxist economics. Nor are the technocrats that implement them motivated by socialist theory.

It seems the only connection that exist is that central banking is central (so is the military) and that marxist-leninist regimes make heavy use of centralism. Central banking predates all such regimes, by the way. But that seems like a superficial connection that does nothing to elucidate. I disagree heavily with QE but labeling it socialist does not help in understanding it so that I may effectively oppose it.

Are you suggesting we accept human misery and injustice as necessary evils? Or are you advocating for change as these problems are endemic to modern manufacturing?

Giving people more money (i.e tie wages to increase in productivity) is demand side economics.

Supply side economics is increasing the amount of available goods regardless of demand. The lagging wages are mitigated by credit, i.e. debt.

It is interesting that you think that Piketty, who has studied growth extensively, has not considered the positive sum aspects of the economy. If you read his books you will see him talk about it in excruciating detail.

It is an example of how to think outside the constraints of scarcity when dealing with immaterial ”property”.

But if you are looking for individual artists there’s Patreon.

I’m sure people can think of reasons why Patreon does not fulfill some criteria which to them is important for a healthy artistic community. After all, people are imaginative. What I’m encouraging you to do is to use that imagination to think of ways to embrace digital abundance, instead of trying to shoehorn the property rights that humans constructed to distribute physical goods onto something inherently non-physical.

If humanity can not handle the virtually infinite supply of digital goods without artificially enforcing scarcity, what does that say about us?

Good question. I think I can best answer this by example:

People get paid to develop Blender. Blender even has an in house film studio, with paid artists. The software and artwork is made available for free. No artificial scarcity is imposed. And no one is starving.

Trying to emulate the restrictions of the material realm is the wrong direction.

Lack of scarcity is the unique selling point of the digital. I think future generations will look back at the madness of manufacturing scarcity because society refused to adapt to abundance.

I don’t know what anecdote you are referring to, I did not mention one. I did not even make a statement of agreement or disagreement with the original comment. I just pointed out that I did not see a logical inconsistency.

As for your claim that higher class males avoid trades: yes of course. That is actually a great example of what I mean. People factor in social norms in their decision making, be it male or female.

I’m in agreement here.

I would argue that I’m neither infantilizing women nor blaming every outcome on society. I never mentioned a cabal of men. It seems you are reading in many themes that are not present in my comment.

I believe that norms shape behaviour, that is the extent of my claim.