Sharing knowledge: capitalism vs socialism

[soon2bepro]

(it could be that this post belongs to politics, but I think in this forum it will find more of the kind of action I'm looking for, besides the subject has recently been brought up on a couple other threads in SMP)

It seems obvious to me that the more knowledge people have on a field, the easier it will be to improve on it, thus eventually achieving even greater knowledge and understanding on the field (and some other fields, occasionally). Hence, is it really wise for people to be holding back their knowledge / copyrights / etc and only give them away for a very high price?

Yes, I know, they have to be compensated. But the truth of the matter is that most scientists/inventors/artists/programmers don't do it for the money. It's the companies backing them up that need to make huge profits out of it.

So... Maybe if the state financed all useful scientific projects, made it easier for artists to work (or even financed the ones considered best), things would go better; as from my original premise, knowledge creates exponential growth of knowledge; thus such a society would work better in this area than a fully capitalist one.

This is mostly true for science/technology, and not so much for art/etc.

Waiting for the flaming from all the ACers, and possibly some insight.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

So... Maybe if the state financed all useful scientific projects

[/ QUOTE ]

How is usefull defined and determined by the state? The market has competitive mechanisms that reward those who identify people who are able to make htese decisions and provide them with the stuff that they need, the state has no such incentives (and some argue has incentives opposite to this).

[soon2bepro]

The state is elected by the people, thus should represent the wishes of the majority. Something useful is something that a large portion of the people want or could find use for.

On the contrary, big companies only think short-term, so researching something that would allow further investigation is usually out of the question.

My argument is mostly theorical. I'm not saying it can be applied today (though I believe it can)

It doesn't even need the state part. The most important point I was trying to make is that a society where knowledge is free is extremely more likely to make faster, larger progress.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

The state is elected by the people, thus should represent the wishes of the majority. Something useful is something that a large portion of the people want or could find use for.

[/ QUOTE ]

If ifs and ands were pots and pans...
The state doesn't have a mechanism that is as effective as the market. You say it "should" represent the wishes of the majority, but what happens when what is "best" for the majority is in contrast with what is best the politician? As long as he has self interest he has incentives to not only do what works for him but also to obscure the fact that people didn't get the best deal that they could.

[ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, big companies only think short-term, so researching something that would allow further investigation is usually out of the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the basis for this statement? Large companies have long running R&D departments that are commited to long term goals. How have companies lasted for 100s of years in fiercly competitive markets without long term planning?

[ QUOTE ]
The most important point I was trying to make is that a society where knowledge is free is extremely more likely to make faster, larger progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

This i agree with, which is certainly an argument agianst patents and many other IP situations.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
So... Maybe if the state financed all useful scientific projects, made it easier for artists to work (or even financed the ones considered best), things would go better; as from my original premise, knowledge creates exponential growth of knowledge; thus such a society would work better in this area than a fully capitalist one.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is why that won't work:

1. The first rule of the bureaucracy is to protect the bureaucracy.

2. Red tape would slow the process down incredibly.

[madnak]

This is one of those arguments that I think is perfectly valid, given an ideal state.

But I think an ideal state is impossible, or at any rate inherently unstable.

[soon2bepro]

I'm not arguing for a state, or against it. I was merely trying to adjust my idea to the current system.

There are many alternatives, some being better than others given specific situations and most importantly the average level of intelectuality.

But the point I'm trying to make here is that to me it seems that in mostly any situation, free knowledge is better than restricted knowledge.

Of course, given our current situation, it's very difficult to apply this concept fully, but the more we can apply it, the better, IMO.

What ACers should have a trouble with is that how can free knowledge be better, if, in their mind, progress is only achieved through greed; and if you don't pay scientists/etc for what they produced, they won't do it.

I think they're just wrong here. As I said above, most of these people don't care about making a lot of money, just enough to fulfill their basic needs so they can continue to do what they LIKE. That's just it, they do it because they LIKE doing it. It's not a job for them. It's not a sacrifice.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

What ACers should have a trouble with is that how can free knowledge be better, if, in their mind, progress is only achieved through greed; and if you don't pay scientists/etc for what they produced, they won't do it.

I think they're just wrong here. As I said above, most of these people don't care about making a lot of money, just enough to fulfill their basic needs so they can continue to do what they LIKE. That's just it, they do it because they LIKE doing it. It's not a job for them. It's not a sacrifice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe your still writing this stuff about ACism, do you not read the posts about it?

Here's the deal. Humans work for incentives. Money is one incentive, job satisfaction is another, free time and flexible hours are a third, and there are lots of others. The free market allows for the most people to get what they perfer out of life. Its not "greed" its self interest. If you want to help people in africa you can apply for a grant from the Bill Gates foundation, if you just want to make a boatload of money you can try ot be a trader, a lwayer, surgeon, dentist or any one of a number of things. If you want to make some money, but also help people you can be a doctor 3 days a week with a private practice but volunteer in low income areas the other 2 days. ACism doesn't stop people from being nice to each other, or sharing information, it finds the best ways to utilize people's skills to fill their desires, whatever they are.

[Paragon]

There are a lot of comments about how AC is a fantasy land. On the flip side for me, people hoping for a benevolent government are creating their own fantasies. Just look at stem cell research. The U.S. is actively fighting medical progress in this discipline. Meanwhile, there are all sorts of greedy, self-interested companies that would drool over a chance to develop this field of knowledge.

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
So... Maybe if the state financed all useful scientific projects

[/ QUOTE ]

Define useful, how does the normal human being with his goverment t-shirt on knows what is useful and what is not useful. What makes you think the normal human being with his goverment t-shirt on wont be biased on picking the useful projects?
You need to realize that people working on the state are just normal human beings.

[ QUOTE ]
thus such a society would work better in this area than a fully capitalist one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it would, for instance a society in which all goverment money is spent on health will defenetly have a better health system than a fully capitalisit society.
The problem with youre society its that it doesnt distribute resources on an apropiate way.