deleted by creator

You deserve worse. Keep asking the broke government for more free stuff, and then when they print more money, make a pikatchu face on the prices shooting up with even more inflation.

Enjoy! I’m enjoying watching you suffer.

Encryption doesn’t protect you from being identified. Encryption prevents eavesdropping unto the connection from a third party. DMCA lawyers don’t need to do that to identify you as a seeder. All they need to do is request the content from you, watch you send to them, and make a record of your ip address.

The blacklist, maybe protects you. No idea. Though it can easily be circumvented by a motivated group.

Yeah… right. People will stop being lazy even though they can be, and will just work day and night to benefit others. Very convincing. I’ve seen all kinds of people who were put in cushy cushion jobs for decades and didn’t learn shit. Never heard of boomers?

Under capitalism, you can do the bare minimum, but a job cut will always hit you first if you make yourself worthless to the company. Is it perfect? No. But the incentive is clear, at least.

Until everyone fights what “rights” are, which is kind of the problem everywhere. You have a picture of these rights, which are pink and rosy. I believe you have good intention. But you have to imagine an contentious environment where everyone will disagree with you to maximize their gain, and minimize their effort. Any system you put in place and anything you define as rights will be malleable and will be up for thousands of debates, and eventually you’ll be the dictator for setting up a system that you think will work. Back to square one.

This is why I said it’s opinion. I got my answer. You agree with firing people. Good enough for me for now. Others don’t.

Well, I don’t think you can use written laws to fight human plans to centralize power. I guess our current system is proof of that. People will always find a way to centralize that power to benefit themselves and their groups.

But anyway. I guess we’re getting into a dead end. This is becoming opinion stuff at this point, whether this will work. I’ll have to think more about this stuff.

Humans will be humans wherever they go.

But to summarize. You basically want to wreck the current system on the basis that everyone will be diligent, reading all the time, just for the “greater good”, more so than their own profit.

And btw, about the “bare minimum”. No one has a reason to not do the bare minimum as they don’t get fired (consequences). There will always be the lazy guy who does the bare minimum, and everyone will get lazier because they’ll get jealous with zero consequences.

Because the fraction of the current world that reads every day and learns every day is extremely small. Again, like I said before, how many people around you come back from work and want to read technical books and watch courses instead of chilling, or hanging out with friends? I have two friends who are nut jobs like me and work all the time. EVERYONE else is lazy and just wants to have fun after work, and that’s in my circle. This spans over decades in the different jobs and sectors I worked at, in different countries. Do you have a different experience around you? I have trouble convincing people to read for 30 minutes every day.

Are you trying to argue that the majority of people watch educational videos in their free time and read technical books and prefer that over hanging out?

Agreed. It’s a nepotism problem. I’m just drawing the picture that removing money from the picture basically makes relationships the new currency. It’s basically how life used to be a long time ago, and those who were closer to the leader got better jobs with perks. People will always find a way to benefit and will centralize power eventually. I can’t say much about hypotheticals and whether your coop will fix that, but in my opinion, history suggests that we’ll just end up with a new system of power.

OK, at least we agree we can fire people. That answers my question. The circumstances aren’t important. This idea that people can’t be fired is just ridiculous.

Do you think communities will be happy seeing their friends/family being fired, and not understanding why? This actually reminds me of the movie Casino (1995), where Robert De Niro fires that Texan guy for incompetence, and then hell breaks loose due to relatives not understanding how that works. This is human nature. People will always prefer to keep an incompetent relative vs firing them for a good reason, no matter what.

I haven’t said that people have to be fired to maintain competitive growth. I said that assuming a normal/average growth (and let’s even make it simpler for you and ignore growth), and assuming a breakthrough requires many new people to hired to work with a new technology, then the people who are there and who aren’t interested in learning the new way of doing things, will just become a burden to the company. Let’s do the math:

• More people are hired
• Same output is maintained

Let’s do the 5th grade math: Same output / More people = less earner per person every time this happens

Meaning: If this trend continuous due to multiple breakthroughs (which isn’t crazy, we have seen tons of those in the last 25 years in different sectors), then this company is destined to become bankrupt, especially because people will continuously keep earning less with no lower-bound to that other zero, to the point where it’s not enough to make a living.

Nothing you said answers this dilemma. You keep talking about general things and avoid this (very realistic) scenario that keeps happening. How will such a company survive?

Nice try evading the question. Try again.

Read the post. Read my question. Tell me what’s wrong in my scenario and how it’ll work in your “well-educated” mind.

If you understand it, you can explain it to a 5-year old.

Let’s see what your next excuse is gonna be.

Either answer my questions, or go away. This conversation is over.

You haven’t presented a valid argument. 2+2 is simple, but it works. When someone says the 2+2=10^50, and money falls from the sky, and everyone being lazy leads to growth, I’ll ask them to justify.

Take a step back and evaluate your ego.

Sorry but you’re evading my questions.

That’s OK. I’m not looking to “win” here. Just think about what I said, and next time you have this discussion, have good answers. Maybe you’ll change your mind one day and understand why the world we live in is the way we live in. Not that things can’t be improve or that we’re drowning in corruption. But that’s another topic for another day. Have a good one.

Like I said, its like workers hold all the voting shares in the company, so these issues would resolved the same way that they are resolve in corporations owned by shareholders.

You’re ignoring a key point I’m trying to make: The workers have a conflict of interest, unlike shareholders. The workers want to minimize their work and maximize their gain, which is mutually exclusive in one company. While shareholders in the current system just want to maximize their gain (regardless of whether that’s good or bad). So why would the worker strive to learn new things instead of keeping the status quo? Most people don’t see the big picture and don’t want to read a book to learn a new thing. How many people around you come from work and spend their evenings reading new things to stay up in their job? This is one problem.

Like I said before to another guy, if you keep dividing the extra without firing anyone, given a limited growth, eventually there won’t be enough money to go around. Everyone will go bankrupt. How do you solve that problem too?

“Better” is in your opinion. I need answers based on concerns and problems that happens in the real world. A fast-paced world.

Assuming the revenue of the company doesn’t have massive growth (which is the normal situation unless a breakthrough happened), we need to hire more people who have the skills needed to keep up with the market. So, assuming we want to keep everyone (including useless people who’d rather have beer instead of reading a book to learn the new stuff), the income of everyone will just go down over time. Eventually, with no one getting fire there won’t be enough money to go around to feed them. What am I missing here?

My original questions aren’t answered. You’re just talking about the temporary procedure, not the long term plan, as in the questions I asked.

This is exactly the problem with such discussion. We end up with anecdotes. Yeah, I gotta see that company’s financial statements, their business model, and their growth, to decide whether this is a good thing. In fact, the idea that it makes “enough money” doesn’t sound good good. This kind of “stability” (I’ll call it) is either due to a niche field or a dying company that sooner or later will become irrelevant. It’s not how the real world works.

And even with this model you proposed, someone eventually can put their foot down. Those employees can sell their shares if they want, and we’re all the way back to the (evil) capitalist model you don’t like.

You said a bunch of nice things, but you ignored the core of the problem. If workers hold all voting shares, what happens when they’re split on an issue? Who can tell them to STFU for the better of the company?

Another similar question: What if there’s an issue that will lead to half of them getting fired? Like, say, a technological advancement? So if work can be optimized by 200% by adding computers, but then 50% of the people are useless then. Wouldn’t the workers vote to stay employed/paid instead of saving the company that can be destroyed in a competitive market where better, faster companies can emerge if this company doesn’t adopt the newer tech? Who will make that decision?