You're making the assumption that the means of production will remain in the hands of the capital-owning class. It won't. If 3D printing keeps progressing, people will have their own means of production completely independent of the class of owners. This vast wealth that's coming is already here, we just don't use it very well. The distribution might well be taken care of if resources can be properly allocated, because the means of production will be highly distributed already.
The doomsday scenario will only happen if the capitalists insist on holding on to the means to production in spite of it being pointless to do so. The capitalists won't need workers, so they don't need money to keep their operation going. So what we need is a system to allocate resources that doesn't rely on currency. If we are approaching an age of abundance, then we'll need something to make sure that we distribute those resources efficiently. I don't know what that might look like, but I hope I get to see it.
Of course they're betting on rebellion. What else will people do if the elites don't step down and relinquish control of the means of production? Militarizing the police is a foolish plan. There are more of us than there are of them and the police are people no different than us, they wouldn't be fighting the people when they're just as badly off. No, if they expect rebellion and they won't back down, they're likely planning something to take that threat out before it happens. Some sort of class cleansing.
The only real reason anything basic is scarce is because it's locked behind a pay wall. These capitalists are still stuck on the idea that if I get something from them, I need to give something to them in return. You don't need to re-compensate for something that was trivial to produce and isn't rivalrous to them.
I think you make a good point. At some time in the future (not all that far), jobs will not be necessary. People won't have to trade their labor to satisfy basic human needs because human labor is not needed. There will still be some particular industries that will always exist (e.g. science, art, and technology), but they will not be a commercial entity. If people work, they will do so because the work itself matters to them, not because they are seeking a paycheck, they don't need one.
Capitalism thrives on one important property: scarcity. Eliminate or drastically reducing scarcity through automation and abundance-creating technology (aluminum used to be more scarce than platinum) will undercut capitalism's core mechanism: allocating scarce resources. The biggest problem with capitalism is scarcity, because instead of trying to use resources efficiently, people leverage it to acquire more and deprive others from satisfying their basic needs. We actually have an inefficient allocation of resources because of capitalism.
So, I see the dwindling supply of jobs as progress, not as a problem to be dealt with. The real problem is making sure the people at the bottom don't suffer for it, but making more jobs is not the solution. Aligning technology to provide for people without the expectation of monetary exchange is the solution. We need technological solutions, not more political pandering about "job creators". That term has been falsely distorted to be synonymous with satisfying basic needs.
The advantages of needing less labor. What about the massive gains of having automated industries? Stuff that took human labor to do is done my machines and people have more free time for other things. They also do it better than human labor. Automation means people have to do less work and get more out of it. At some point, "job" will become synonymous with "hobby" because full automation of all industries means that nobody has to work for what they need and everything will become abundant. Every technology we apply creates more of what we had before. Look at agriculture. 1,000 years ago, how hard was it to feed large populations? Now, the only barrier is money. We produce more than enough food to feed every human on the planet. It's a senseless tragedy that anybody starves to death today.
I think this term has been bandied about and abused to justify far too many abuses of the citizenry and not just in the US nor in the present. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it's not the government's business to provide "national security" because they are both inept at the task and do so at the great neglect of upholding the constitution. Clearly, national security and upholding the constitution are conflicting interests. They should utilize what has been provided in the constitution to leave national security to the people as it was reserved for them to secure. We are in a state of lies, secrets, and spies that threaten all out conflict with other nations and peoples. Our hubris that we can police the world, spy on them, and keep secrets from them all is exactly what has made us a target to anyone that doesn't like what we do.
For the sake of us all, I plead to all that is rational that we give up the military imperialism, the secrets, the lies, and the spying.
Nothing short of nation wide revolution is going to change anything. And then, we have to watch out so that the puppet masters that ruled this government doesn't rule the next.
They're corporations. As corporations, they thrive on externalization. That's why they don't go after infringement directly (i.e. the uploader), it would cost them too much and gain them too little when it would be easier and cheaper to make blameless neutral parties bear the liability. So they blame file hosts, torrents, registrars, and so on. Nuking it from orbit is easier than precision strikes and if they can get others to do the work for them, even bear the cost, all the better. They think they're special because they have money; they think it makes them more important than everyone else and everyone should bow to their whims because they externalize everything they can. Laws are for them to push costs and liabilities on others so they don't have to bear it.
Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
How many times are you going to post erroneous and ignorant diatribe? How many times do people have to point out the glaring factual and logical failure of your narrow way of thinking? When will you realize that everything you say is only correct to you because you demonstrably NEVER question your own dogmatic belief in your own willfully ignorant interpretation of the law and its purpose? You are one person insisting that you are the paragon of virtue and the purveyor of superior cognition, blindly pretending to have the moral high ground, against a sea of people that have reasoned, demonstrated, and proven that you are not only wrong, but intellectually dishonest. I've seen old strings of lights that are less twisted than your logic. You're like an old man yelling at a cloud. You look like a fool, yet you continue your vitriolic diatribe oblivious to your utter lack of credibility. No one believes you, no one respects you, and we're sick of explaining to you why you are so often full of hogwash. You don't contribute to the discussion, you just spew your contempt for the site, its founder, and the people that visit regularly. If this were any other community, you would have been banned a long time ago. Show some appreciation that Mike supports your right to express your opinions. Realize, he allows you to continue to insult him. He has the capacity to ensure you can never harass him or his audience. Be grateful, because he's being very generous.
Personally, I'd prefer this site required registration so that an ignore button can be implemented, but I'll just have to be happy with the report button. Show a little decorum. You've been granted a lot of slack and you behave like an ungrateful prick.
Since we can access such content in other ways, we have every right to complain. EULA's and TOS tomes are no excuse to screw every paying customer over with legal semantics and abusive business practices. If they don't want to reward people for paying, then people will get it without paying. The question is, "Do they want that money or not?"
If you took this attitude and level of behavior to a forum in person, your poor discourse would get you a slap in the face or kicked out. Be grateful that TechDirt doesn't ban people. Any other community would have given you the boot for being a negative, disruptive menace. And, for that, you don't deserve to be here, but you're lucky Mike is the kind of guy that lets you come here to insult him and his community day-after-day.
You call people that make use of copyrighted works "grifters" and, before that, "thieves" (I do believe that's called, "special pleading", a.k.a. "moving the goalpost" and a bit of distinction without a difference). Yet, the reality is, that you and those that think as you do are the real crooks. You draw from the well of common culture to build your "properties" and contribute nothing back to that well for others to build with. So the well that exists becomes stale and over-utilized with nothing available to refresh the supply. You have to be one pompous ass to use shared resources, claim ownership over the transformation of it, and call others "thieves" for doing the same to "your" works. You disgust me you arrogant hypocrite. I wish I had an option to ignore you.
Listen to his voice when he speaks about this issue, even he doesn't believe the crap he's spouting. He has the appearance of a man that is doing something against his conscience because he has no other choice. That isn't to say I think he's exonerated by that. Being complacent in the face of criminal behavior you have the power to stop makes you as guilty as the people perpetrating it.
Re: This quibble lets you dodge discussing the answers!
"Even if Mike is absolutely right about problems, he has no solutions to even suggest."
That's logically false. No one is obligated to provide an alternative solution when pointing out a problem. A factual statement stands on its own regardless of who says it or how they respond to it. Like others have said, he did offer a solution, but you pretended he didn't so you can make ad hominem by way of tu quoque and no perfect solutions.
People have stated many ways one could change their business model to suit the current state of technology as it pertains to content. The fact that your obsession with absolute control through imaginary property rights causes you to reject them doesn't render them invalid.
The age of content as a discreet product is over, the age of content as a service is on the horizon. Make your choice. Do you want to adapt to reality or dig in your heels and be left behind?
Doesn't this violate the 6th amendment where one has the right to face one's accuser and question them in court? You can't question a machine as a witness.
It's clear that these speed cams are not to deter speeding, but to merely to make money for the state and the contractors. As far as I see it, abusing the law to make money from the citizenry is coming damn close to institutionalized slavery.
Re: Wrong from start: Copyright Isn't A Business Model
No one is forced to exercise copyright, but it IS a right (deriving from common law: I made it, therefore it's mine).
Copyright is automatic, so it is forced.
You didn't "make" it, you copied it and rearranged it into something different. To be so arrogant to claim ownership over something made from the thousands of people over generations is just beyond words. Claiming to have the right to control something made up of expressions and ideas that are part of the collective culture of mankind, is the greatest theft of all. The only thing that is yours, and I do mean the only thing, is the time and labor you invested into creating new works.
On the post: Luddites Are Almost Always Wrong: Technology Rarely Destroys Jobs
Re: Re: Re: Cute.
The doomsday scenario will only happen if the capitalists insist on holding on to the means to production in spite of it being pointless to do so. The capitalists won't need workers, so they don't need money to keep their operation going. So what we need is a system to allocate resources that doesn't rely on currency. If we are approaching an age of abundance, then we'll need something to make sure that we distribute those resources efficiently. I don't know what that might look like, but I hope I get to see it.
Of course they're betting on rebellion. What else will people do if the elites don't step down and relinquish control of the means of production? Militarizing the police is a foolish plan. There are more of us than there are of them and the police are people no different than us, they wouldn't be fighting the people when they're just as badly off. No, if they expect rebellion and they won't back down, they're likely planning something to take that threat out before it happens. Some sort of class cleansing.
The only real reason anything basic is scarce is because it's locked behind a pay wall. These capitalists are still stuck on the idea that if I get something from them, I need to give something to them in return. You don't need to re-compensate for something that was trivial to produce and isn't rivalrous to them.
On the post: Luddites Are Almost Always Wrong: Technology Rarely Destroys Jobs
Re: Cute.
Capitalism thrives on one important property: scarcity. Eliminate or drastically reducing scarcity through automation and abundance-creating technology (aluminum used to be more scarce than platinum) will undercut capitalism's core mechanism: allocating scarce resources. The biggest problem with capitalism is scarcity, because instead of trying to use resources efficiently, people leverage it to acquire more and deprive others from satisfying their basic needs. We actually have an inefficient allocation of resources because of capitalism.
So, I see the dwindling supply of jobs as progress, not as a problem to be dealt with. The real problem is making sure the people at the bottom don't suffer for it, but making more jobs is not the solution. Aligning technology to provide for people without the expectation of monetary exchange is the solution. We need technological solutions, not more political pandering about "job creators". That term has been falsely distorted to be synonymous with satisfying basic needs.
On the post: Luddites Are Almost Always Wrong: Technology Rarely Destroys Jobs
This article is ignoring one important facet:
On the post: Awesome Stuff: 3D Printing And Scanning Keeps Advancing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Meta] What's needed to make kickstarter embeds show with NoScript?
On the post: NSA Apologist Says The NSA's Actions Are Fine Because 'Privacy Is Dead'
I had to stop at "National Security"
For the sake of us all, I plead to all that is rational that we give up the military imperialism, the secrets, the lies, and the spying.
On the post: Awesome Stuff: 3D Printing And Scanning Keeps Advancing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Meta] What's needed to make kickstarter embeds show with NoScript?
On the post: President Obama Asks Congress To Give Up Its Oversight On Secret TPP Agreement
Re:
On the post: Awesome Stuff: 3D Printing And Scanning Keeps Advancing
Re: Re: Re: [Meta] What's needed to make kickstarter embeds show with NoScript?
On the post: Universal Music Targeting Domain Registrars To Take Down File Sharing Sites Without Due Process
Re: Re:
On the post: Universal Music Targeting Domain Registrars To Take Down File Sharing Sites Without Due Process
Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
Personally, I'd prefer this site required registration so that an ignore button can be implemented, but I'll just have to be happy with the report button. Show a little decorum. You've been granted a lot of slack and you behave like an ungrateful prick.
On the post: Best Response To A Copyright Threat Ever? Lawyers Explain Why ABA Is Full Of S**t In Claiming Copyright On Routing Numbers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Glaring misspelling...
On the post: Undownloading: Further Proof Those eBooks You Paid For Really Aren't Yours
Re:
On the post: Undownloading: Further Proof Those eBooks You Paid For Really Aren't Yours
Piracy
On the post: The Getty Gets It: 'Open Content, An Idea Whose Time Has Come'
...to share the joy of art
On the post: Copyright Lawyers vs Patent Lawyers Smackdown: And The Winner Is...
Re: I agree: "not the acts of a 'chiseler,'"
You call people that make use of copyrighted works "grifters" and, before that, "thieves" (I do believe that's called, "special pleading", a.k.a. "moving the goalpost" and a bit of distinction without a difference). Yet, the reality is, that you and those that think as you do are the real crooks. You draw from the well of common culture to build your "properties" and contribute nothing back to that well for others to build with. So the well that exists becomes stale and over-utilized with nothing available to refresh the supply. You have to be one pompous ass to use shared resources, claim ownership over the transformation of it, and call others "thieves" for doing the same to "your" works. You disgust me you arrogant hypocrite. I wish I had an option to ignore you.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: Dear Hollywood: Giving Identical Scripts To Congress Reveals That You're Feeding Them Talking Points
Re: This quibble lets you dodge discussing the answers!
On the post: Speed Cam Contractor Responds To Challenged Tickets By Cropping Photos, Moving Cameras
6th Amendment?
It's clear that these speed cams are not to deter speeding, but to merely to make money for the state and the contractors. As far as I see it, abusing the law to make money from the citizenry is coming damn close to institutionalized slavery.
On the post: Two Key Points: Copyright Isn't The Only Business Model; And When Done Wrong Makes Other Models More Difficult
Re: Wrong from start: Copyright Isn't A Business Model
Copyright is automatic, so it is forced.
You didn't "make" it, you copied it and rearranged it into something different. To be so arrogant to claim ownership over something made from the thousands of people over generations is just beyond words. Claiming to have the right to control something made up of expressions and ideas that are part of the collective culture of mankind, is the greatest theft of all. The only thing that is yours, and I do mean the only thing, is the time and labor you invested into creating new works.
On the post: Writer of 'Daredevil' Comics: Equating Piracy With Lost Sales Is 'Baloney'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NEED clarification
Next >>