The end of ownership

a reply to: WhiteHat

The ownership is not the problem of this world; greed is.

Whose greed, exactly?

a reply to: Astyanax

Everyone's. Believe it or not we all have greed, top to bottom, rich to poor.

a reply to: Astyanax
What ketsuko said.
People's greed.

The concepts of the OP is just one step, the next step would be to have companies that are public property, that are owned by the community, which purpose wouldn't be to make profits but to serve the community.

a reply to: gosseyn

All these new age things you think about are actually dividing people into groups of us and them. Groups of mature strong individuals and weak childish drones. Think about it.

Owning your property is mature. You must acquire and care for your property. The ones who do not will suffer. The ones who do will prosper. Those are the two groups I like to see on Earth. The ones that do and the ones that do not. Eventually the strong survive and the weak perish.

Think about guns. Obama and his backers would like for you to give up your power. They want you to regress to an infantile state. If you become more mature then you will possibly take some of Obama's power. He doesn't want that. He wants to socialize and play golf and take vacations while you work like a disempowered slave.

Think about the two sides of the political coin... Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans are the strong. The Democrats are the weak. That is just the way it is. Grow and join the local team.

a reply to: gosseyn

I think a better solution would be for companies to plan the complete life of a product. Through its manufacturing and finally disposal or preferably recycling into another viable product.

Like buying ice cream in an eatable container...

a reply to: Azureblue

How naive does the OP think we are.

THIS......

I bet my balls that the video the OP has posted was made by and for the copyright dreadnought. IMO, the purpose of this is video is designed to train people to accept that they have no need (and therefore no right) to own anything.

Does anyone seriously expect the rich, the super rich and the billionaires to subscribe to what this video is teaching?

or how about THIS

en.wikipedia.org...

This law, also known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act, or (derisively) the Mickey Mouse Protection Act,[2] effectively "froze" the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this Act, additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still protected by copyright in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019 or afterward (depending on the date of the product) unless the owner of the copyright releases them into the public domain prior to that. Unlike copyright extension legislation in the European Union, the Sonny Bono Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired.

We've seen how these large corporations think of the Environment or sustainability. The only thing sustainable about their reshaping of society is their profits, the Public are already in serfdom;

The public has already bailed out the Too Big to Fail Banks,
now they have further rewritten the rules to pass the buck back on the public with Bail-In provisions of Financial Institutions.

I guess the OP conveniently overlooks their track record to date.

www.eff.org...

What Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a secretive, multinational trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property (IP) laws across the globe and rewrite international rules on its enforcement. The main problems are two-fold:

(1) Digital Policies that Benefit Big Corporations at the Expense of the Public: The IP chapter would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of expression, right to privacy and due process, as well as hindering peoples' abilities to innovate. Other chapters of the agreement encourage your personal data to be sent borders with limited protection for your privacy, and allow foreign corporations to sue countries for laws or regulations that promote the public interest,

(2) Lack of Transparency: The entire process has shut out multi-stakeholder participation and is shrouded in secrecy.

The twelve nations currently negotiating the TPP are the U.S., Japan, Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Canada, Mexico, and Brunei Darussalam. The TPP contains a chapter on intellectual property covering copyright, trademarks, and patents. The official release of the final TPP text confirmed what we had long feared: that U.S. negotiators pushed for the adoption of copyright measures far more restrictive than currently required by international treaties, including the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

The TPP Will Rewrite Global Rules on Intellectual Property Enforcement

Why would I give up my meagre meal (crumbs) they throw at me twice a day in this prison when they own the keys, the building , my shirt on my back and the amount of time I spend in servitude (cradle to grave taxation)

Seriously?

a reply to: Generation9

Your post was well thought out until this

He doesn't want that. He wants to socialize and play golf and take vacations while you work like a disempowered slave.

Think about the two sides of the political coin... Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans are the strong. The Democrats are the weak. That is just the way it is. Grow and join the local team.

Whatever country you live in if you are under the illusion that a 2 party system allows for empowering of individual rights or fair distribution of wealth in a sustainable manner then you have missed the bigger picture. Both sides of politics pay the same piper. You think you get a choice.

originally posted by: gosseyn
The concepts of the OP is just one step, the next step would be to have companies that are public property, that are owned by the community, which purpose wouldn't be to make profits but to serve the community.

The government fits that description. We, the people, "own" the government, right? That's what we are told. Their purpose isn't to make profits, but to "serve the community" just like you said. That phrase is on the side of nearly every cop car in the land.

And that's worked out so well.

originally posted by: gosseyn
The concepts of the OP is just one step, the next step would be to have companies that are public property, that are owned by the community, which purpose wouldn't be to make profits but to serve the community.

So basically communism.

There is no incentive for anyone to really work there. No one is altruistic enough to bust their butts for some nameless guy across town, not really.

a reply to: gosseyn
This has more sociological implications than economic yet I feel most will miss this point. Theoretically I think this is a great idea yet in practice I’m sure other things will likely happen. The problems would be with corruption, greed and fear. It’s not a problem with the original idea but in the conversion or rather resistance to convert to the idea. People enjoy feeling like they own things even though materialism drives us apart. I suppose the question is do we wish to be consumers of nature or stewards.

a reply to: WhiteHat

What ketsuko said.
People's greed.

Does that include yours?

And what are you planning to do about it?

a reply to: gosseyn

The concepts of the OP is just one step, the next step would be to have companies that are public property, that are owned by the community, which purpose wouldn't be to make profits but to serve the community.

Right. That is the very definition of Socialism.

And it’s been tried countless times before. It is not only immoral (government blowing taxpayers’ money on risky commercial ventures), it is inefficient and results in shortages, corruption and the production of cheap, shoddy goods.

Surely you cannot be completely ignorant of history? The example of the Soviet Union and its satellites demonstrates that ownership of the means of production by the state brings economic disaster. It was the same in China until Deng’s reforms. More recently, we have the example of North Korea. And if you want an example closer to ‘home’ all you have to do is look at the ruination of British industry by successive Labour governments between the end of WWII and the dawn of Thatcherism.

Here is a paragraph from a book I’ve been reading:

What the workers saw in Soviet power, above all, was the chance to control their own factory environment. Thy wanted to regulate their own shop-floor relations, to set their own wages and working conditions, and combat the ‘sabotage’, the conspiratorial running-down of production by profit-conscious employers, which many blamed for the industrial crisis.... Many workers, especially those under the leadership of the Bolsheviks, saw the solution in the sequestration (or nationalization) of their factory by a Workers’ State, called ‘Soviet Power’, which would set up a management board of workers, technicians and Soviet officials to keep the factory running. It was part of the growing political consciousness of the workers, the realization that their demands could only be achieved by changing the nature of the state itself. — Orlando Figes, A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924

It’s an old saying, but it clearly bears repeating: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Beware.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

“This law, also known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act... effectively "froze" the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this Act, additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still protected by copyright in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019....”

We've seen how these large corporations think of the Environment or sustainability. The only thing sustainable about their reshaping of society is their profits, the Public are already in serfdom...

A pox on your cheapskate, selfish, ungrateful, thieving attitude.

I am a writer, an editor and a musician. I live on what I make, and the only estate I can leave my heirs is the copyright to my work. You want to deny them this, and enjoy all the art, literature and music you want for free.

Despicable.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

“This law, also known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act... effectively "froze" the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this Act, additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still protected by copyright in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019....”

We've seen how these large corporations think of the Environment or sustainability. The only thing sustainable about their reshaping of society is their profits, the Public are already in serfdom...

A pox on your cheapskate, selfish, ungrateful, thieving attitude.

I am a writer, an editor and a musician. I live on what I make, and the only estate I can leave my heirs is the copyright to my work. You want to deny them this, and enjoy all the art, literature and music you want for free.

Despicable.

I have no argument with needing your copyright to earn a living. The problem I have is that I should not have to pay copyright to give your kids a free meal for life when the govt writes laws that state that copyright lasts for the life of the artist plus 70 years (another lifetime.) (going by what I read once) This effective gives the dead artist surviving family a meal ticket for life and when its owned by a corporation it effectively owns the copyright for the effective live of the art.

Furthermore; I resent paying any copyright after you have sold your art and the copyright that goes with it to some huge corporation that owns that copyright for the life of the artist plus 70 years. Moreover, I deeply resent the Sony musics of the world claiming that by breaching copyright we are taking food off your table and that of your kids AFTER THEY HAVE PAID YOU very small amounts of $$ for it.

When copyright is owned by corporations copyright should last no longer than the life of the artist.

Every artist should be able to make money out of their creative capacity just like anyone else but it should not provide a fee meal for the artists offspring over the age of 25 years once the artists has died, unless there are extenuating circumstances of those being provided for by the copyright

a reply to: Astyanax

I am well aware of the failures of the past century, but they are just that, failures, not something definitively defining what we are as human beings and what we can become. Besides, the corporatocratic world of today is a big failure too.

The problem is : people have difficulties to imagine public property without a state, difficulties to imagine a society without a government. A human society in which everyone is in charge, in which technology is in the public domain, a society where everyone is a scientist because that would be part of the education of children just like reading, writing, and calculus. Billions of children going to school everyday around the world, and what do they learn ? Think about it.

What do you propose ?

a reply to: Astyanax

Wow! How did you get the idea that I want to take the food away from your mouth? I have enjoyed your posts in other threads, you are well reasoned and intelligent. Did you read the rest of my post before shooting yourself in the foot?

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act allowed for the extension of copyright so Disney could hang onto mickey mouse,

pay particular attention to my closing remark

Why would I give up my meagre meal (crumbs) they throw at me twice a day in this prison when they own the keys, the building , my shirt on my back and the amount of time I spend in servitude (cradle to grave taxation)

Seriously?

originally posted by: gosseyn
a reply to: Astyanax

I am well aware of the failures of the past century, but they are just that, failures, not something definitively defining what we are as human beings and what we can become. Besides, the corporatocratic world of today is a big failure too.

The problem is : people have difficulties to imagine public property without a state, difficulties to imagine a society without a government. A human society in which everyone is in charge, in which technology is in the public domain, a society where everyone is a scientist because that would be part of the education of children just like reading, writing, and calculus. Billions of children going to school everyday around the world, and what do they learn ? Think about it.

What do you propose ?

You can't have that unless people are truly capable of self-governance. People cannot self-govern without being moral, virtuous and possessing self-control.

Think about the current population of this country and think about that.

Then sit back and laugh.

a reply to: gosseyn

A human society in which everyone is in charge, in which technology is in the public domain, a society where everyone is a scientist because that would be part of the education of children

So you would suggest a Scientific dictatorship in charge? I forgot Scientists are fair equitable and have no commoner failings like jealousy, rush to publish, or dare I mention it need to eat?

a reply to: gosseyn

I am well aware of the failures of the past century, but they are just that, failures, not something definitively defining what we are as human beings and what we can become.

Oh, you mean they tried but didn’t get it right?

Socialism and Communism have been tried enough. Every failure means more lives lost, more cruelty, torture and rapine, more poverty and scarcity, more misery.

The world has had enough. We will not give you another try.