Yes. It just doesn't FEEL like slavery to you because it's relatively less slavery than ppl suffered in the past.
We now have the technology to be completely free, and Anarchists know this and fight for this.
The rest of you are all keeping us from achieving freedom, as a species, because you're too busy spouting the rhetoric that your masters told you.
Just take a look around you. If you're like most people on this forum you wake up whenever you want, eat a nutritious breakfast that you can easily afford, and in general, do whatever the hell you want.
That's like step 3 in freedom's ten-step ladder. Your low standards for freedom make me sad.
I don't get you anarchist rabblerousers.
Clearly. So why mock what you admit you don't understand? You could hit the books and understand it first, but of course, then you'd run the risk of becoming one of us so I guess you're just afraid.
But you want to blow it all up so you can...what...own an AK-47? Pay 15% in taxes instead of 30%?
No. Those are conservative republican values. Waaaaay too statist for anarchists.
Your understanding (or lack thereof) of the subject you are speaking about clearly shows.
Ask yourself: is your life really that bad? And if it is, it has nothing to do with the government, big pharm or the banking industry. It's because of you.
No, it's because of You. Literally.
Your attitude on display here perpetuates the exact problem that we are fighting. You set the human race back for decades and keep us in bondage. Fuck you.
Those 3 examples are all irrelevant. People aren't complaining about copying for personal use, if you have the skills to do it, then fair enough, whatever, it's insignificant.
I can't imagine what you're blathering on about... My three examples were clearly laid out specifically for hellboy to ask which scenarios he feels are stealing and which are fine... I took care to express that and then even ask the question of him at the end of each option!
If you felt the need to respond, the proper syntax would be like:
"1=no, 2=no, 3=yes." -Although that would still be a very anti-free answer in my opinion.
What people are saying isn't cool is someone spending millions of $ on R&D for a product, building that product, selling it, then some person seeing it on the shelf, going home, copying it, and then selling it to 5 million people for 10% of the price of the original because their R&D costs were insignificant in comparison.
I couldn't be more clear on that point.
But what you and those people aren't seeing is the bigger picture; This artificial system that allows the person to work in this manner is overall a net loss for society... A simple understanding of opportunity costs will allow you to see this.
I like the example of arrowheads. Think back to the days when early hunters came up with the technology of attaching sharpened rocks to their arrows to kill bigger game.
Back then, Og would show off his fine idea and craftsmanship, and others would study and reproduce it too. If Og wanted to hunt less and trade more, then he could open up a business making these arrowheads, perhaps get some employees to help him make lots of them... Other hunters would buy, and Og could have a good life selling his product for a reasonable amount of income. (Not the equivalent of $Billions though, this is understood.)
If someone tries to move in Og's territory making arrowheads too, then they'd be less experienced and have no reputation yet. Og would outsell this newcomer until the newcomer has found a way to make a similar or better product at a lower price... The free market functioning perfectly.
The free market is desirable because no matter what happens, consumers win. We're all consumers so this is the best outcome for everyone.
For hundreds of thousands of years, this was Mankind's way of doing business. The free market is NATURAL, and PERFECT. It's what we all thrive best with... Except the parasitic few who have learned to use the state in the last couple centuries to unfairly monopolize their industry.
If Og was born in the USA, and invented something like the hairdryer instead, then he'd see that he doesn't have to settle for a "good" life offering his product, but can earn much, much more by patenting the product and using the state's force against everyone else who tries to make hairdryers too.
It's unnatural, it's counterproductive, and most of all, consumers lose all of the BETTER hairdryers that could have been made by others if this monopoly wasn't protected by the government.
In short, IP makes monopolies while killing the free market.
The rules of the past don't apply. Back in the caveman days you wouldn't sell your arrow heads to millions of people, and wouldn't spend $1bn researching how to make an arrow head. The inventions were trivial, and didn't take millions in spending in R&D to do.
So some things that take too much investment to discover wouldn't have gotten discovered... Meanwhile, every product not protected by IP would be improved countless times by fair, free-market competition.
You're just not weighing the opportunity cost in, nor appreciating the nature of the free market.
The patent/copyright system is by no means perfect, but without it we'd have no drugs, next to none of the hi-tech stuff we have, etc.
Now you're being silly. Many drugs and tons of technology were invented before monopolistic patent laws!
People would still work hard & invest a lot into making difficult things because mankind has a need to invent... Just look at the histories of all the big scientists and inventors up until the USA was founded!
