[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Craighead, Scot D wrote:
> >It is not in the best interest of the capitalist to bring progress to
> >mankind by solving problems.  
> 
> I know this will amaze you, but I disagree.  New products and
> industries are invented to solve problems.

They're invented to meet needs, not to eliminate the need.  The need is
the reason for the business.  A capitalist needs to maintain demand.  A
capitalist medical research firm has no interest in finding a cure for a
disease.  It is much more profitable to provide "symptom management" where
there is recurring revenue.

> >It is not in the interest of the capitalist to promote personal freedom. 
> 
> Why not?  Believe it or not, happy workers produce more.  People doing
> jobs they enjoy produce more.

I do believe that happy workers produce more, but the capitalist weighs
that gain in productivity against the gain in profit margins caused by
that restriction of freedom.

And if you have the right PR, you can spin it to get both... reduce the
freedom of your workers and make them like it.  That's essentially what
the police and copyright industries do.

> > It is not in the interest of the capitalist to provide general education.
> 
> Really?  Most employers are looking for employees that have skills.  
> Most employers are currently bitching that they have high school
> graduates that can't read, write or add.

They want the public to have enough education to be a productive worker,
but that doesn't include education that makes them a better citizen.  
Philosophy, art, history: these things do not make for more productive
workers.  They are, arguably, necessary for the powerful elite... the
generals and CEOs, if you will... but this kind of knowledge in the hands
of the public leads to contradiction, unrest, and a demand for more
knowledge and liberty.

> >It is not in the interest of the capitalist to support peace.
> 
> It's harder to trade when you at war

Depends on who you're fighting.

Capitalists make it a point of declaring war against enemies that don't
have the power to seriously impact trade.

Capitalists declare war on non-capitalists... even peaceful, democratic
non-capitalists (e.g. chile 1973) in order to increase trade with allies
and boost profits for war industries.  War also allows for the creation of
the public perception that goods and services are more scarce, thus
driving up price, regardless of the lack of change in cost of production
and distribution.

Capitalists declare war on the already weak or those of limited
resources... nations full of civil unrest, third world nations, nations
without a homeland, etc.

Capitalists declare war on non-specific enemies... drugs, terrorism,
communism, etc.  This allows the war to be almost wholly offensive for the
capitalists because the acts of war are made in the name of prevention.  
The "enemy" doesn't know he's the enemy until it's too late.

> >Suffering is opportunity.  Scarcity is value.
> 
> Generalizations usually say nothing.

Those aren't generalizations.  Where there is suffering, there is
opportunity.  Find a counterexample.  And "Scarcity is value" is merely a
restatement of the "law of supply and demand".

Does E=MC^2 say nothing?  What about f=ma?

They're not generalizations, they're laws.  What I wrote was a simple
restatement of the basic laws of capitalism.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org