Giving people what they want.
Sure, there are sometimes negative externalities, giving people what they want isn't always what they need. At least sometimes, people want stupid things. But enormous world changing products and services which are profitable in line with the extent that they change the world for the better are certainly not necessarily a net negative for humanity, in fact I'd say it's closer to the reverse..
That's the "invisible hand", "selfishness turns out to good" political economy motto.
Which is unscientific BS.
If a company can lie, cheat, steal or sell people things that are bad for them, including making them want stuff they did not care about through misleading ads and manipulation marketing, they will do it.
I still maintain the only alternative to giving people what they want is forcing them to follow your plan. Historically people who take this path frequently turned out to be wrong, and all the people who they dragged kicking and screaming with them down the path end up bearing the brunt of the negative externalities for their poor decisions.
At least if you give people the absolute freedom to make their own choices when or if they end making bad ones they have only themselves to hold responsible. This is what annoys me most about this whole central economic planning groupthink people are prone to indulging in. The constant pretense that it's some well known scientific fact that only ignorant hicks aren't aware of on a level similar to evolution vs creationism with their ensuing, tired middle-brow dismissals.
And who said anything about a "centrally planned economy"? Certainly not me.
I dismiss "free market" on the premise that it doesn't exist and it never existed (and furthermore: that it can never exist). As soon as you have a government and regulations you don't have a free market. And even if you could have a free market, as soon as some players in the free market can grow big enough to change the market environment to their favor, it ceases to exist again. There is nothing to rebalance it automatically: only power plays.
>I still maintain the only alternative to giving people what they want is forcing them to follow your plan.
How about letting them decide and produce what they want, instead of "giving it" to them?
That's silly, freedom is a matter of degree. A market with some simple rules governing violence and the enforcement of contracts is certainly more free than a Soviet style planned economy. You can neither have a perfectly free market nor a perfectly controlled market. Even North Korea has a black market. Generally when talking about about the 'freedom' of a market, the measure which matters is not the arbitrary number of regulations which exist but the ability of players (both individuals and firms) to freely and knowingly enter into contracts and transactions. Laws which prohibit coercion, theft, and deception can aid in making the market more free in the ways that matter.
No -- but the ideology of the free market sidesteps the issues of huge imbalances and influencing and maintains BS about invisible hands and "egoism working for the better" long after they have been proven dead and burried.
Now, if that was only spread by some naive "free market" bloggers and the like that would be ok. But the bullshiting includes most of the souped down political economy that is fed to the masses and to policy makers by "financial experts" and "economy advisors" (and even most university classes on economy).
You have a centrally planned economy with an identity crisis. The supporters of which are loathe to admit it.
(Case in point)
Contrast it with say an aeroponic backpack which would harvest moisture from the air and cultivate a personal crop of an edible tuber root for aforementioned meeting thirst and hunger needs.
Totally speculative of course, but anything of that magnitude which could be pulled off would be an absolutely wild profit maker and would not be prone to being ignored by the just plain old hungry and thirsty target market.
That's just silly. How do you think Monsanto or McDonalds makes their billions?
And where are companies like those investing the most heavily and seeing the biggest growth in profits? Not here in the rich west.
This does not include shareholders that are also employed by the company, they may choose to optimize for something else, not only financial profit.
Maximizing profit is good. Sleeping well is good. Optimizing for both is better.
Two ways:
1) you have no conscience. Which also helps you to get into the higher ranks of the company (back stabbing, bullshiting, taking credit for others et al). That puts the right people in position to both maximise profit AND sleep well (because they just don't care).
2) You just do your tiny part, it's the whole company that does the bad. You merely "follow orders" or "do what you have to do". So you sleep well. Like those guards at concentration camps slept well and were perfectly normal people (see "The Banality of Evil".
That's how, say, Coca Cola, a perfectly legit company, with people wearing $10,000 dollar suits and smiles, nice, agreeable people, employs thugs to kill workers in Latin American plants when they demand better pay. And they can keep a straight face doing so, because the actual bad doing is happening down the chain and abroad. They just demanded "efficiency" and "stop the problem" that's all. They never said how exactly.
Thanks. I was starting to feel optimistic about the world.
That we've come to equate "profit" with "financial profit" is telling, but I suspect it's a recent thing. And I agree that all humanity would profit if we focused more on sustainability, doing good work that makes sense, and even (gasp) solidarity -- the less focus on quarterly financial gain and trinkets, the better, the more we all profit :P
But to say that 'for profit' is not compatible with ANY ethics then you are 100% wrong. To be a profit company you have to set some ethics aside, but not all. I also work for a company who has a great ethical model. The best companies know how to balance a profit model with an ethic model in order to keep customers, employees, and yourself happy. If you have stakeholders then you are probably fucked...
As far as the OP, I think that there are "shades of grey" when it comes to hacktivism. The ideals of a hackers, need to become (IMHO) a little bit more flexible. I believe we need to push companies to be open in a practical way. If Google, ok let's be practical GitHub, release code that was a few versions old then they'd be allowing people to see what they do (to learn) and at the same time maintaining a competitive edge (which is part of what IP is "supposed" to be at it's heart).
What you are suggesting will quickly devolve into barbarism. E.g., if I build a house, don't I at least have the right to sleep peacefully in it with my family?
Suppose I start with raw materials Y, and transform that into X. Are you saying that everyone else has the same rights to X as I have?
Then, in that case you don't even own your body. Watch out for my horde of pillagers and looters! :)
"I owe no man."
Similarly, no other man owes you anything!
Contrary to what? You really think a bunch of people owning most of the land makes us more civilized? That this is not barbarism? HEH.
Oh, and I also mentioned people owning their time and work, so maybe I should have added "dignity" to that and it would have nipped your strawman right in the bud. I just thought it obvious that I am suggesting something less selfish, not more selfish. I suggest shared ownership of shared resources, born out of taking selfish human delusions less seriously. I suggest a bigger focus on stewardship and less delusions of ownership.
But you have a point; this suggestion is not intended for barbarians who think leashes make people better or viable in the first place, just because it's true for them. I simply have no plan for those yet, sorry.
Are you comparing pillagers with land owners? Sigh
and I also mentioned people owning their time and work
Tell me what kind of work you can produce without using any natural resources?
I suggest shared ownership of shared resources, born out of taking selfish human delusions less seriously. I suggest a bigger focus on stewardship and less delusions of ownership.
This is nothing but a subtle leash.