xianc78 @xianc78@gameliberty.club

@raucao
> . Our capitalist system is largely based on a competing theory, the “subjective theory of value”, which states that value is defined not by the labor required to provide a product or service, but by market forces, or more concretely by the subjective value negotiated between a buyer and seller. I admit this theory is compelling when applied to some examples, for example when explaining the value of a Pokemon card. When it comes to intellectual property, however, I find it very unsatisfying, given that a laissez-faire free market would presumably evolve a very different approach to intellectual property. As such I think that intellectual property as a concept depends at least a little bit on Marx for its legitimacy, which I find very funny.

i guess he's spot on with that, IP is socialism

https://bird.makeup/@iluminatibot/1901875594452976060

@adiz @lispi314 @pup though to a lesser extent its irrelvant because these extremists deny that they are even doing actions. an ethical framework requires acknowledging that you are doing it, and then defining if its good or bad to do that.

it cannot really be said they are actively being either of the two because they deny that they even doing what they are doing. which makes it the worst. shrug.

@lispi314 @adiz @pup deontologists are okay but it really depends on what the set duty is. they can end up being terrible people since they are only concerned about maintaining the duty (the consequentialist could decide that disobeying the duty is optimal, assuming their moral calculus is reasonable)

virtue ethics is just dead, overall. nobody does that.

@lispi314 @adiz @pup i don't like consequentialism. it is just the dominant ethics set of the times.