It sounds like a European soviet republic. Most of them were working reasonably well and were really good at preventing poverty but were stuck in-between being exploited by Russia and artificially cut off from half the world (big reason why they had to fail). Those countries solved problems progressive western democracies couldn’t ever solve, for example gender wage inequality (to the point it endures today). Unfortunately all of us in the „west” are stuck in a death spiral after US and Russia went tits up in the 70s/80s. Maybe we’ll have another go once this is finally done.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you think that soviet states would have negotiated with owners of private property before using it for public benefit?
I’m trying to follow you. It would be ok if a soviet government did it, but if a private company does it, then it’s stealing. Because a soviet government is strong? Has control of the military and all that, unlike some start-up or even an established company?
I’m not sure I’m following you either, it appears to me that you don’t see a difference between tax and theft. It was common to outgrow this belief but it appears to be common now. I’ll try to explain.
When Meta takes from everyone it’s a bully that takes from the weak who can’t fight back. Meta does it so that they become the biggest fish in the pond as an end goal.
When a state takes from everyone and rich in particular it’s because we don’t to have this kind of big fish in the pond. We just want to chill.
I’m not sure I’m following you either, it appears to me that you don’t see a difference between tax and theft.
That’s an odd thing to write. Why do you believe that?
When Meta takes from everyone it’s a bully that takes from the weak who can’t fight back. Meta does it so that they become the biggest fish in the pond as an end goal.
When a state takes from everyone and rich in particular it’s because we don’t to have this kind of big fish in the pond. We just want to chill.
Ok, I think I get this now. You believe in far-reaching intellectual property, and that property is inviolable, except to limit inequality. So, you reject US-style Fair Use which has a public benefit in mind. Instead, copying only doesn’t require permission if the rights-owner is wealthier than oneself. So, most people could freely copy Taylor Swift songs but perhaps not songs by some street musician. Does that cover it?
It sounds like a European soviet republic. Most of them were working reasonably well and were really good at preventing poverty but were stuck in-between being exploited by Russia and artificially cut off from half the world (big reason why they had to fail). Those countries solved problems progressive western democracies couldn’t ever solve, for example gender wage inequality (to the point it endures today). Unfortunately all of us in the „west” are stuck in a death spiral after US and Russia went tits up in the 70s/80s. Maybe we’ll have another go once this is finally done.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you think that soviet states would have negotiated with owners of private property before using it for public benefit?
No, why would they? There’s a difference between strong taking from the weak and community taking surplus from everyone.
I’m trying to follow you. It would be ok if a soviet government did it, but if a private company does it, then it’s stealing. Because a soviet government is strong? Has control of the military and all that, unlike some start-up or even an established company?
I’m not sure I’m following you either, it appears to me that you don’t see a difference between tax and theft. It was common to outgrow this belief but it appears to be common now. I’ll try to explain.
When Meta takes from everyone it’s a bully that takes from the weak who can’t fight back. Meta does it so that they become the biggest fish in the pond as an end goal.
When a state takes from everyone and rich in particular it’s because we don’t to have this kind of big fish in the pond. We just want to chill.
That’s an odd thing to write. Why do you believe that?
Ok, I think I get this now. You believe in far-reaching intellectual property, and that property is inviolable, except to limit inequality. So, you reject US-style Fair Use which has a public benefit in mind. Instead, copying only doesn’t require permission if the rights-owner is wealthier than oneself. So, most people could freely copy Taylor Swift songs but perhaps not songs by some street musician. Does that cover it?