Search results for query: *

And you were disagreeing with someone else on that, and you were describing different things. Which I stated: From that, it should already be clear that I don't disagree about the benefits of developing technology per se, but I also re-iterated that later: My objection is not to that...

You're taking one (fairly insignificant) line out of context here, responding with considerable indignation to that line, and (again) completely ignoring my actual point. I find this somewhat puzzling. You haven't responded to even a single detail of my argument. That doesn't seem at all...

I'm not much older than you, so I have a reasonably similar same frame of reference, qua seeing technology develop. I don't disagree that technology has developed, in some ways very significantly. The issue is that this isn't relevant to what I was talking about. I was talking about economic...

Look at actual purchasing power, and the devaluation of savings/pensions. All the 'upward' movement was a mirage, a total illusion. Consistently, since the chaos of the World Wars, the trend has been that the currency becomes worth less and less, because they print more and more. Prices go up...

You're both right, but describing slightly different things. It's not that the (technological) standard of living has declined, it's that the effective cost of living has gone up across the board, the tax burden on the lower and middle class has increased, while the government's service level...

I'm not opposed to a contractual lease agreement as you outline. I also agree that a lease of the physical thing itself, with conditions, can be used to impose prohibitions against copying the thing, without having to claim hypothetical ownership of any idea. I do disagree that this sort of...

I get what you're saying here, and I don't really object to the above. I do think there's a categorical difference between the above and the stuff you subsequently compare it to (copyright), as I'll outline below. In Dutch, the things referenced above are just called an "unwritten agreement"...

Something's cut off from the above, I think, but I get the gist of it. However, I don't think of copyright like that, and neither do the people defending it. They say that they're selling me something, and afterwards they presume to tell me what I can and cannot do with it. That's unacceptable...

I'm not sure that this is, technically speaking, correct. Either way, it's not relevant here, because it's not happening. But even in a supposed case of actual "stolen labour" (i.e. slavery), I think that phrase is not actually correct, and that "labour" isn't being "stolen", but rather one's...

I don't claim, to be sure, that IP laws cannot be used in a manner that would yield good results. My argument is that they are an inherently immoral tool, and that therefore, even using them for good purposes is still wrong. "The road to hell", and all that. The big corporations are the ones...

Yes, he is ignoring that, and rightfully so. Because the labour theory of value is bunk. IP isn't and cannot be consistent with actual property rights, because it violates real and demonstrable property rights in order to protect hypothetical and imaginary ones... derived from a discredited...