Of course black patents, in a world where their ideas could be stolen and they could even be barred from access to them, went down. Like, that’s in a system with a heavy profit motive.
People will always like a little treat for doing their task. That’s at a very basic level, though, and when you start talking about everyone needing a “profit motive” you’re now talking about an economic system that claims that few people would do anything without a deeply selfish reward. And yea, not everyone would have the really great ideas but they would do work, and we can see that happen. I literally don’t have a job right now and just to keep busy I’ll go help my friends with stuff, for free, because I like to keep busy and feel productive. The low salaries in my last few jobs weren’t the reasons I left, it was because the management made it very clear they didn’t value any of us and were essentially stealing our labour to enrich themselves.
Like in the patent example, the thing people want is for their work to be recognized. If you steal their work they get pissed, obviously, but most people are happy to do things for others. I even know conservatives who are genuinely motivated to make the world a better place and who want to supprort others(except that they’re really stupid and easily misinformed so they end up doing it wrong and it turns them sour on anyone who isn’t directly in front of them).
Let’s invert the reason why people out of a job leads to political unrest: People with longer hours and low pay are simply largely unable to risk anything when there are no social safety nets, and it gives them more time to actually get into politics and learn about shitty things that the government is doing. It’s a big reason that the USA is the way that it is right now but many countries in Europe have shorter work weeks, better pay, more protections for workers, and stronger safety nets.
You’ve got everything backwards because it’s all you know. You’re justifying the suffering being inflicted on you because it’s easier than facing it.
You’re looking at the source of new ideas: inventive people, and saying they would exist under any system. I’m looking at the system and saying great ideas go nowhere without a way to engage people who don’t care about your idea.
Imagine a world without money. In order to convince people to promote and enable your great idea, you have to convince them it’s valuable, beneficial, and actually a great idea. Imagine a world with money. In order to convince people to promote and enable your great idea, you have to pay them. I’m being serious here: which do you think is easier?
A massive reason why people are hard to convince in the system we live in is because they’re scared of not having enough money. Trying new things is hard and scary when you don’t have a lot of money to go around. On the flipside, if all you have to do is pay them then it doesn’t matter if your idea is good or bad, only that you have enough money to pay for it and your competitor doesn’t. A big wallet is not a good replacement for convincing people that an idea is good.
I don’t care which is easier when one of them is basically cheating. Of course it’s simpler to essentially bribe people to care, but that’s not a system we should strive for. I don’t mind a challenge if the challenge is fair, or near enough to fair.
Besides, money is definitely a fine thing to have and we know this. The problem is when it is made the central and singular goal of a system and when people who don’t have an active income stream are left in the dirt.
Of course black patents, in a world where their ideas could be stolen and they could even be barred from access to them, went down. Like, that’s in a system with a heavy profit motive.
People will always like a little treat for doing their task. That’s at a very basic level, though, and when you start talking about everyone needing a “profit motive” you’re now talking about an economic system that claims that few people would do anything without a deeply selfish reward. And yea, not everyone would have the really great ideas but they would do work, and we can see that happen. I literally don’t have a job right now and just to keep busy I’ll go help my friends with stuff, for free, because I like to keep busy and feel productive. The low salaries in my last few jobs weren’t the reasons I left, it was because the management made it very clear they didn’t value any of us and were essentially stealing our labour to enrich themselves.
Like in the patent example, the thing people want is for their work to be recognized. If you steal their work they get pissed, obviously, but most people are happy to do things for others. I even know conservatives who are genuinely motivated to make the world a better place and who want to supprort others(except that they’re really stupid and easily misinformed so they end up doing it wrong and it turns them sour on anyone who isn’t directly in front of them).
Let’s invert the reason why people out of a job leads to political unrest: People with longer hours and low pay are simply largely unable to risk anything when there are no social safety nets, and it gives them more time to actually get into politics and learn about shitty things that the government is doing. It’s a big reason that the USA is the way that it is right now but many countries in Europe have shorter work weeks, better pay, more protections for workers, and stronger safety nets.
You’ve got everything backwards because it’s all you know. You’re justifying the suffering being inflicted on you because it’s easier than facing it.
You’re looking at the source of new ideas: inventive people, and saying they would exist under any system. I’m looking at the system and saying great ideas go nowhere without a way to engage people who don’t care about your idea.
Imagine a world without money. In order to convince people to promote and enable your great idea, you have to convince them it’s valuable, beneficial, and actually a great idea. Imagine a world with money. In order to convince people to promote and enable your great idea, you have to pay them. I’m being serious here: which do you think is easier?
A massive reason why people are hard to convince in the system we live in is because they’re scared of not having enough money. Trying new things is hard and scary when you don’t have a lot of money to go around. On the flipside, if all you have to do is pay them then it doesn’t matter if your idea is good or bad, only that you have enough money to pay for it and your competitor doesn’t. A big wallet is not a good replacement for convincing people that an idea is good.
I don’t care which is easier when one of them is basically cheating. Of course it’s simpler to essentially bribe people to care, but that’s not a system we should strive for. I don’t mind a challenge if the challenge is fair, or near enough to fair.
Besides, money is definitely a fine thing to have and we know this. The problem is when it is made the central and singular goal of a system and when people who don’t have an active income stream are left in the dirt.