I think the key point is that the FSL is necessary when profit is required. The GPL is a philosophy of social distribution more than a way to build a capitalist enterprise. Using GPL software ensures that software stays socially distributed instead of privately; but that can lead to issues for private profit.
> over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”;
just because missiles do not fly, does not mean there is a positive peace.
Everyday Utopia was certainly a beautiful read, it is ultimately a book about hope and how we should be experimenting more in our world. The Persuaders had some really good insights into contemporary political persuasion tactics. No Bosses is very provocative in its argument for a change in the fundemantal division of labor in our age.
Also I would recommend the "Monk & Robot" series by Becky Chambers. It takes place in a solar-punk style world that is more character driven and less conflict driven.
1) Do not give too much wealth to PCs. Keeping the heroes poor is a kind of dramatic tension that not many campaigns explore!
2) Give them ways to spend their money! If the PCs need to go to an island, make the waters dangerous, and drive the price of the safer boat up. The danger is not fully evaded, but perhaps now they have a crew to help in any encounters. The party of course is always free to think of more creative ways around.
Make sure you as a DM always have an idea of the goals of the PCs, that includes economically. If a PC is aiming to purchase a nice item, keep that in mind when doling out gold, but always be sure to keep dramatic tension of the economy in place.
I'm using reparations as a general term of making people whole. The landlords, whether or not they did anything morally wrong, have taken what they should not have (collusion). Therefore, reparations are called for. This is the argument I am making, predicated on the Justice Department's agreement of the complaint given leading to this case.
My argument is that if harm can be proved, those harmed must be made whole. I don't understand how that is frivolous. I am not the one saying that a collusion suit should move forward here.
Yes, if it causes harm to people. Being a landlord is a job (so I'm told), do some math, figure out how much is fair (cost:labor calculation) then ask on the open market if people want to pay that. The problem is that the underlying system here did NOT do this calculation, hence price-gouging. It is the lack of free market that is the problem, thanks to this price centralization.
To define exceedingly. Well I guess I just see this as a natural partner in the housing crisis. To combat things like this is to help solve the housing problem today. The prices are not going up like this because there are too many people, the prices are going up because of economic centralization.
Well the problem is that with these software systems, we have already answered your question. If we do not change something (after seeing this!) then we have allowed 'dumb' collusion. Where these landlords can profit exceedingly and then claim complete innocence.
The landlords see their rent prices increase in their checks each month, it is not as if they have not noticed increased profit over the last years due to this.
So if this is allowed, we will start to see increased centralization and then passive acquiescence to gross profit.
I am not saying the solution here is by giving people dollars. But creating a system where landlords (by disallowing this kind of price centralization) can't screw over their tenants.
And saying that people who argue for reparations are incapable of rational thought is quite rude.
Today, we punish people by taking away their money. Taking away someones money should not doom people to poverty over this kind of stuff! I am not saying kill all landlords here. I am saying that the landlords profited too much and it must be made fair.
There should be no 'punishment' of the landlords truly, I am saying we make a system where landlords can not unjustly profit from us (and I do speak generally here).
Stuff like this is what causes the housing crisis, it must be dealt with systemically, not by giving a few people none-the-wiser a lesser life.
I agree that contemporary rhetoric on reparations is quite poor. But, scholars today agree that reparations are a way of understanding our government's position on change and not on giving money to people (Reconsidering Reparations by Olufemi Taiwo is about this). You give some good stuff to think about with the historical point, but I still believe it must be tried again, and better this time.
So I don't discount the legal processes, I am saying they must be changed. That is how we can actually solve issues like this, instead of simply putting a band-aid on each time we have systemic issues like this.
I find myself to be an anti-nihilist as a matter of fact. Reparations is not an _ideal_ for which I have grounded in nothingness (nihilism). Reparations must be a state of being for our government, whose material being should be solving injustice and not propagating it.
I believe that the matter of their defense is irrelevant. The truth is that real people were harmed by this, and they deserve reparations today. As to who pays, it must be the landlords. This is the supposed 'risk' they take on by being landlords, which everyone tells me is so great to bear.
Also to get on a soap-box, this is the truth of reparations, it is not in relation to a single event, it is an attempt to solve injustices that exist institutionally in our world today.
I have been listening to Yanis a lot lately. His ideas are quite provocative. His economic ideas are quite refreshing, to hear an economist talking about what a post-subjective-money world may look like.
Today, we have a new class of people, who to borrow Yanis's metaphor I would call Techno-peasants, who exist in a grand subjugation. Any reader of these comments would do well to listen to a few interviews of his.
Let this be a reminder that our avenues for change in the world are artificially limited. Due to that, we must not wait for some allowed moment to ask for change, but demand it every day.
This article asks a good question. What is the point of capitalism? If these acquisitions exist simply to make the line go up, why? Bandcamp will NOT be better off under this new rule, we will all be worse off as listeners of music. Why allow this at all?
I think the key point is that the FSL is necessary when profit is required. The GPL is a philosophy of social distribution more than a way to build a capitalist enterprise. Using GPL software ensures that software stays socially distributed instead of privately; but that can lead to issues for private profit.