Do executives deserve the majority of their company's output? (capitalism, 2014, union)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So now writers must deal with unions to be able to publish their books. I presume the unions are communist/socialist controlled.
Writers, artists, musicians, and other creative people own the intellectual property they create, and are free to negotiate sales under any terms they wish. Buyers are of course to either buy the works or not.
This is a crazy topic. We are actually arguing the merits of socialism? Please name a country where socialism is working.
Not true, if they can find a way to publish their books online or through some other formate, they are free to.
My point was that once you use the labor of other people to spread your product, you lose claim on any profit you could have made from that distribution.
That being said you will still gain fame and other attributes
Your view of a society is null if you believe the first bolded statement.
As for the second bolded statement, I guess you haven't heard of the internet.
You've been exposed as a fraud. Go back to your office in the Ministry of Truth and try again.
Rather than ask for a clarification you jump to a conclusion. Your bolded area wasn't the end of my sentence. If you kept reading you'd see that I was strictly speaking of production capacity.
People are free to entertain themselves or others, and entertainment can still be produced in mass.
As for the second claim, I was limiting my explanation to using other people's labor for your own profit. Using a public platform (the internet) is perfectly fine.
I just don't understand what your point is, you keep making empty arguments, what do you not understand?
Rather than ask for a clarification you jump to a conclusion. Your bolded area wasn't the end of my sentence. If you kept reading you'd see that I was strictly speaking of production capacity.
People are free to entertain themselves or others, and entertainment can still be produced in mass.
As for the second claim, I was limiting my explanation to using other people's labor for your own profit. Using a public platform (the internet) is perfectly fine.
I just don't understand what your point is, you keep making empty arguments, what do you not understand?
The rest of what you said was pointless. Clarification of a false statement is irrelevant.
Every point you've made has been disproved. People are free to do what they want in this society. You're advocating changes that aren't necessary. People need to do for themselves, that is all.
So now writers must deal with unions to be able to publish their books. I presume the unions are communist/socialist controlled.
Writers, artists, musicians, and other creative people own the intellectual property they create, and are free to negotiate sales under any terms they wish. Buyers are of course to either buy the works or not.
This is a crazy topic. We are actually arguing the merits of socialism? Please name a country where socialism is working.
No they don't, IP laws only exist because of state violence.
IP is meant to be shared and developed, you can't have one person stifling free expression because they original came up with the idea.
In a free society, people would be open to share resources and develop new content. Just look at the gaming industry, each time a few friends get together to make their own project based on a pre-set IP, the corporate owner of that IP shuts them down severely limiting creative endevors and creating an environment where they only exist for profit.
The rest of what you said was pointless. Clarification of a false statement is irrelevant.
Every point you've made has been disproved. People are free to do what they want in this society. You're advocating changes that aren't necessary. People need to do for themselves, that is all.
Your understanding of the basic concepts I hope to communicate are flawed to say the least.
When IP laws are created, creative property falls under the ownership of some private organization that looks to create profit from that creativity.
If entertainment wasn't based on the desire for profit, the arts would prosper.
And again you can't explain to me what you don't understand, these concept are not that difficult to comprehend.
The rest of what you said was pointless. Clarification of a false statement is irrelevant.
Every point you've made has been disproved. People are free to do what they want in this society. You're advocating changes that aren't necessary. People need to do for themselves, that is all.
Are they free to produce original entertainment based off of some pre-set IP, or would they be shut down by the owners who care only for profit exploitation.
When you make everything about profit, you not only limit the arts, but you stifle what people are allowed to make and what they're not.
Are they free to produce original entertainment based off of some pre-set IP, or would they be shut down by the owners who care only for profit exploitation.
When you make everything about profit, you not only limit the arts, but you stifle what people are allowed to make and what they're not.
My point was that once you use the labor of other people to spread your product, you lose claim on any profit you could have made from that distribution.
If I told you my true opinion of your idea my post would violate C-D TOS and I'd get an infraction or get a week vacay from posting.
You should understand the word Bourgeoisie,
Quote:
In Marxist philosophy, the bourgeoisie is the social class that came to own the means of production during modern industrialization and whose societal concerns are the value of property and the preservation of capital to ensure the perpetuation of their economic supremacy in society.
You are likely Proletariat,
Quote:
Workers or working-class people, regarded collectively (often used with reference to Marxism).
The bourgeoisie (capitalists) own the means of production and provide jobs, the proletariat workers get paid for the labor they contribute.
One is making money based on his capital necessary to have a factory. The other is making money based on wages paid. In a free market they always come to equilibrium (as long as the economy is functional). Unfortunately in US today the market is anything but a free market, with all the government interference and union interference.
So each party contributes what they have and each walks away with a profit. That's how capitalism works.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
