1) the individual idealist should be compensated.. so that he is encouraged to keep doing what he does best: ideas. To say that incentive is unnecessary is to say that Creators-of-Worthy-Ideas are to die a martyr's death, unknown, unheard, with their whole lives, families, etc sacrificed for their Idea because the market was owned by the MegaCorps.
2) Not all ppl are creators. Some, however need to be developed. (See Investment * "bottom-up")
Purpose
2) social benefit is the end goal: even the idea-maker should have a lower income if (a) he's not making more ideas (b) is society is crapping out. The problem is if society is crapping out, then he will either (a) be scared of losing his income & will work harder to come up with a good idea or (b) be disillusioned about losing his income and won't create anymore.
If ppl wanna be an idea factory, great. they should be encouraged to do so for everyone's benefit. If tehy just wanna for their own benefit, then they're a sycophant.. no good to society.
Investment
As for idea!=product, any.com which decides to INVEST other ppl's lives & $ into the idea/creator, should be allowed to. More ideas= (See production)
Investment will occur directly proportional to (a) how stupid ppl are (not knowing their own good) and (b) if ppl are able to. Ppl freely giving if they have their needs met is a societal-benefit, which sohuld be invested in. Give more? Get more! That's the point of investment.
Personal sacrifice is a bottom-up thing.. and if ppl don't value something, and if Marketing (see below) can't convince 'em, well, nothin' we can do.
Production
1) Always requires investment.
2) Is the major hurdle is idea-generation. Thus, any average-joe SHOULD be allowed the rights to owning the idea (upon buying the product), knowing that he won't be investing to produce it. Or if he does, ppl will still trust the Official-Producers over average-joe. And if average-joe DOES have a better means? So be it. See.. "Owning Ideas".
I doubt that ANY product should only have a 1yr life-span WITHOUT a decent (a) FREE & AVAILABLE recycling program for the product whereby the producer is responsible for their product's life-span (b) 'customer loyalty' program, whereby investment is much more like a co-op.
In fact, it's a good "automatic" test/judge. it's market-governance... that is, their idea fails/rises based upon consumers being HONEST about what they want/need.. (that is, if the market isn't listening to marketING!)
Marketing
If they lie to consumers, then it'll be bite-back from the consumers. That's fraud.
If they tell the truth to consumers, "yes, you don't think you need this product, but be convinced, it's a great product.." and if they are convinced? it's fine. society moves forward. If they're not, well, such is the market.
Privacy
And anyone who doesn't wanna hear about new ideas shouldn't be forced/bill-boarded. Nothing's wrong with a little marketing, but when "getting the word out" infringes on ppl's (natural NEED!) for privacy & their own non-contrived thinking.. there's a problem.
Availability of Product
Does owning the product == owning the idea? I think so. Any piece of music I listen to spins out other musical ideas in me. It's an investment I make into myself.
Availability of Ideas
Ideas and fluid, and to hold them captive (generally, on first assumption) holds production and societal good captive.. that is, if market-saturation is a good idea. Some products shouldn't be saturated. They're wasteful, filler, lied to us by marketing.
Patents/Owning Ideas
Owning the "right" to an idea is a worthy thing. If a patent were not held, then any company with more investment could beat-out the original producer by producing faster. That's competition, and it's good, but not when it wastes ppl's lives & energy. Why not auction off ideas/patents as they come in to the top 3 production/investors? That'll keep ideas in the pub
Slashdot Mirror
1) the individual idealist should be compensated.. so that he is encouraged to keep doing what he does best: ideas. To say that incentive is unnecessary is to say that Creators-of-Worthy-Ideas are to die a martyr's death, unknown, unheard, with their whole lives, families, etc sacrificed for their Idea because the market was owned by the MegaCorps.
2) Not all ppl are creators. Some, however need to be developed. (See Investment * "bottom-up")
Purpose
2) social benefit is the end goal: even the idea-maker should have a lower income if (a) he's not making more ideas (b) is society is crapping out. The problem is if society is crapping out, then he will either (a) be scared of losing his income & will work harder to come up with a good idea or (b) be disillusioned about losing his income and won't create anymore.
If ppl wanna be an idea factory, great. they should be encouraged to do so for everyone's benefit. If tehy just wanna for their own benefit, then they're a sycophant.. no good to society.
Investment
As for idea!=product, any .com which decides to INVEST other ppl's lives & $ into the idea/creator, should be allowed to. More ideas= (See production)
Investment will occur directly proportional to (a) how stupid ppl are (not knowing their own good) and (b) if ppl are able to. Ppl freely giving if they have their needs met is a societal-benefit, which sohuld be invested in. Give more? Get more! That's the point of investment.
Personal sacrifice is a bottom-up thing.. and if ppl don't value something, and if Marketing (see below) can't convince 'em, well, nothin' we can do.
Production
1) Always requires investment. 2) Is the major hurdle is idea-generation. Thus, any average-joe SHOULD be allowed the rights to owning the idea (upon buying the product), knowing that he won't be investing to produce it. Or if he does, ppl will still trust the Official-Producers over average-joe. And if average-joe DOES have a better means? So be it. See.. "Owning Ideas".
I doubt that ANY product should only have a 1yr life-span WITHOUT a decent (a) FREE & AVAILABLE recycling program for the product whereby the producer is responsible for their product's life-span (b) 'customer loyalty' program, whereby investment is much more like a co-op.
In fact, it's a good "automatic" test/judge. it's market-governance... that is, their idea fails/rises based upon consumers being HONEST about what they want/need.. (that is, if the market isn't listening to marketING!)
Marketing
If they lie to consumers, then it'll be bite-back from the consumers. That's fraud. If they tell the truth to consumers, "yes, you don't think you need this product, but be convinced, it's a great product.." and if they are convinced? it's fine. society moves forward. If they're not, well, such is the market.
Privacy
And anyone who doesn't wanna hear about new ideas shouldn't be forced/bill-boarded. Nothing's wrong with a little marketing, but when "getting the word out" infringes on ppl's (natural NEED!) for privacy & their own non-contrived thinking.. there's a problem.
Availability of Product
Does owning the product == owning the idea? I think so. Any piece of music I listen to spins out other musical ideas in me. It's an investment I make into myself.
Availability of Ideas
Ideas and fluid, and to hold them captive (generally, on first assumption) holds production and societal good captive.. that is, if market-saturation is a good idea. Some products shouldn't be saturated. They're wasteful, filler, lied to us by marketing.
Patents/Owning Ideas
Owning the "right" to an idea is a worthy thing. If a patent were not held, then any company with more investment could beat-out the original producer by producing faster. That's competition, and it's good, but not when it wastes ppl's lives & energy. Why not auction off ideas/patents as they come in to the top 3 production/investors? That'll keep ideas in the pub