Arguably they already figured out how to lecture us: "We can't scale back extraction so we might as well go for geo-engineering." Though they are probably still working out how to balance scare tactics with learned helplessness.
Devil's advocate: maybe because the author perceives "tickle down economics" as a position adopted by many of the working class and may even aide in survival.
Sorry I was being oblique to signal some snark. You're sort of hitting my point directly: "luxury beliefs" are just whatever you personally believe to be (a) wrongly held and (b) limited to only the aristocracy (ie. not the opinion of "real Americans"). But concretely demonstrating both is kind of difficult and largely relies on your own subjective experience. It's a political cudgel, not a proper tool of inquiry.
Wait, why on earth is the article advising you to flee from a black bear? You literally cannot outrun a black bear- I've driven along side one that was running parallel to the road at around 30 miles an hour.
If there aren't cubs around, you yell, clap and raise your arms. It'll run in a heartbeat. If there are cubs around, you back away slowly- running will just make it chase you. If it follows, stop moving.
That's when you play dead, to get used to how you'll be in a minute.
Realistically, it is a game of chicken. If you stop, you're signaling to the bear that you aren't intimidated. As long as it has an escape route, it'll back down.
Brown and black, though not grizzly. The moose are more dangerous.
There are benefits to shared services, the question is how to fund the services and if it should be voluntary.
> When property ownership disappears, all natural rights do.
Statements like this undermines their argument. Microsoft secures all sorts of rights under their EULA and is contractual. Enforcing property ownership is exactly how Microsoft has risen to dominance. And that is to say nothing of the a-historicism of this explanation of property rights.
is it common to group IP rights into "natural rights"? any argument i've heard for property rights emerging from "natural rights" has been reasoned from the resource in question being scarce (and hence, my taking of your property immediately deprives you of that resource). i've never heard the argument "my copying of your property deprives you of the benefits from some future interaction i would have otherwise voluntarily entered into" argued from a natural rights perspective.
Just brainstorming a low-tech analogy to help sketch-out the problem space, let's imagine if a bronze-age scenario of:
1. Alice underwent great expense to transport a rare new fruit bush from another country, with a little selective-breeding to find a variety that would thrive in local soil.
2. Alice sells these fruits. Perhaps she makes buyers agree never to plant the seeds as a condition of purchase, but that doesn't matter since...
3. Carol finds one of the seeds, simply fallen on the street. (Therefore contracts aren't part of this scenario.)
4. Carol plants her own bush and starts selling the fruits too.
5. Alice complains that Carol has wronged her and that she has some kind of right to the sale of the fruit.
It's true that in this low-tech example Alice didn't construct the plant--certainly not same way as with a program or screenplay--but she did invest some similar kind of time/effort/resources in making it available.
So the question is whether that kind of "work" creates some kind of right, one which exists outside any kind of contractual agreement. If so, what are its differences or limitations from her other rights?
I'm not sure about IP rights, but saying natural rights derive from property rights, which this sounds like, is pretty popular in right wing libertarian circles. The idea being that if you own yourself, all human rights become property rights. This is the basis of things like Ayn Rand's "objectivism", a philisophy effectively claiming to have solved morality once and for all.
It is, of course, clearly nonsense if you try to use it for anything more than justify unfettered capitalism or drug legalization. Most famously being unable to effectively condemn things like pedophilia, slave contracts or human trafficking. But this exact ability to come to counterintuitive conclusions about many things means it remains very popular among certain groups of people.
> saying natural rights derive from property rights, which this sounds like, is pretty popular in right wing libertarian circles
But it’s a distorsion of free market!
Not versed into philosophical currents, but very-right-wing people would claim that it’s not the role of the state to protect one’s IP rights, much less at least than protecting their physical integrity (at least every citizen has a body, as opposed to patents); The sponsor of the state to protect patents or copyright is effectively a “bribe” of states towards some private citizen, for something which is incredibly costly and unfair to prevent (think “The state guarantees me against the harm of my ideas getting used by everybody”), and therefore constitutes a unfair advantage, a misuse of public power, and a distortion of free market in favor of IP owners. Frequently seen when large corporations alter governments to tilt the balance to their advantage.
In a ideally liberal state, Microsoft would keep its secrets for itself OR choose to publish, but if you succeed to decompile, then Windows becomes effectively open-source, and you wouldn’t have such monopolistic behaviors enforced with the help of public taxes. But then the USA wouldn’t be hegemonic.
Indeed. We've been told that the current economic system is providing better access for all, but when we point out specific cases when that is not the case we're then told it's providing better quality to fewer people as if that's what we were originally promised.
Another fast and loose term is "User". The claim OP makes is that Users will control the network and money created. Seeing how you can't directly transfer an NFT from opensea to a different marketplace, I find this claim dubious. But that aside, the "user" is a programmer, not your Aunt and Uncle.
Ostensibly yes because landlords would get a larger share of the surplus, but as long as capital writes regulations, entities that extract more surplus will be better able to change the rules. Just look at how much was spent in California to keep gig workers as contractors.
