Uriel-238 said:
I'm not going to parse out what is considered a luxury or not, or rather what you consider a luxury or not, Elamdri, since a luxury, like porn or fair use, is subjective.
Elamdri said:
Quite simply a luxury is something that is not necessary to sustain life but rather improves the quality of life. A shelter is a necessity, owning a home is a luxury. Transport is a necessity, owning a car is a luxury. Food is a necessity, fine cuisine is a luxury. We live in a world where things like televisions, internet, video games, movies, music and all these other great things are not rights which we hold absolute.
You're treading very close to the principle of less eligibility [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Less_eligibility] there. Of course, considering you invoked social darwinism (which I will address below), I suspect you are so far removed from poverty that you might actually endorse such policies.
But the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations disagree with you. Indeed they dictate that the standard of care for displaced refugees (the worst off of all peoples) should not only include mere food, shelter and basic living supplies, but also medical care, facilities for religious practices, internet access and enough education that they can make informed decisions concerning their destinies.
Interestingly, even the Romans saw entertainment as a necessity, rather than a luxury, since a common alternative recreation is crime. It is one of the reasons the circus was so important (or, for that matter, the theater during the late middle ages). Think about that, when you decide that cable television or game consoles cannot be afforded to those dependent on the goodwill of the community.
Then again, your attitude suggests you may prefer a return to the use debtors' prison to cull the numbers of the destitute. On the other hand, I understand the drug trade pays well, and is always looking to fill its attriting ranks. High risk, but less so than incarceration in which you slowly die via malnutrition.
Granted, the US doesn't guarantee the Geneva Convention rights listed above to the poorest of its own citizens, and it also sanctions some practices that are nearly the equivilant of human trafficking for those that are undocumented, but these, as you've clearly stated are not your concern. Some of our nation's affluent-centric organizations have taken offense that we provide enough benefit that some recipients can actually afford a refrigerator on occasion. So apparently there is a wide sweeping controversy as to what is or is not a luxury. For example, medical care.
Uriel-238 said:
But your apathy is acceptable so long as you will not gripe to the rest of us when the copyright nazis come for you...
Elamdri said:
As an American, I reserve my God given right to be a hypocrite when and where it suits me
This reminds me of Jon Kyl's disclaimer regarding his statement on the Senate floor that were
not intended to be a factual statement, implying to the rest of us that bullshit had become the accepted norm in our government's discourse regarding policy in the US. You've just made a similar implication that hypocrisy is (to you, at least) an acceptable norm when it comes to discourse here. I suppose that makes everything you say irrelevant, since you expect preferential treatment when it comes to your own affairs, over those of everyone else.
See, this attitude places you squarely in the category of
part of the problem. You and your kind are exactly what contributes to the and... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons]) of which our civilization, our economy and our ecology can tolerate only a small percentage in the population before they each begin to collapse. Too bad you don't have children and don't intend on having any, as you might actually see reason to leave the place intact for future generations.
Elamdri said:
Please don't misunderstand me, what I put forth is cold, unforgiving Social Darwinism as applied to a capitalist system.
is-ought problem [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism]; just because one system functions by a particular process doesn't mean that is the best process, or that other systems should adapt the same process. It was widely adapted during the industrial age, and came to a grand head when the chancellor of Germany used the principle of social darwinism to justify the
final solution, launching the greatest systematic state execution of social undesirables in history.
Of course that wouldn't concern you, as you're not one of them, yes?
Fortunately, capitalism doesn't work based on social Darwinism, and while companies can be measured by their profit, no single stratagem works universally. Indeed, if companies thrived best by being inconsiderate (or downright abusive) to their employees and to their customer base, that would be a strong incentive to any nation to reconsider capitalism as an economic policy, since the negative impacts of capitalism would outweigh the benefits.
Yes, it is true that natural selection sometimes applies to social groups, who either die out, disband or change (the Shakers come to mind), but history has shown us that civilizations thrive on population, and that populations most quickly unite under one cause via inclusiveness. That is to say, they make contracts that define an agreeable level of reciprocity to bring those outside into the fold.
The societies that can create a system by which the largest numbers are organized are usually the ones that, by culture, technology or sheer expansionism dominate the others around them. Classical Greece and Rome, Middle ages France, Spain during the Renaissance, the Ottoman Empire, The British Empire, and the United States, all rose to power integrating their conquests, and (for now, with the exception of the US), they fell correlating to the separation between the affluent and everyone else; when those contracts no longer failed to provide an adequate degree of reciprocal treatment.
It's a phenomenon we know and expect, including the fact that the rich become blinded by greed and insecurity to let go enough of their assets to provide for those without. And corporations
never do, unless it is a clear means to gain more profit.
Uriel-238 said:
But we all get pounced by Hunters sooner or later.
Elamdri said:
...my feelings are that the hunters have already pounced. The way I see it, we have already lost...
No, I don't think you know what it to get pounced, otherwise you'd have more empathy for those who have been, and more concern for those who have yet to be (including yourself).
You might not be aware of this, but you
are one of the fringe in that you actually play games. Game software is given far less respect than other kinds, say utilities, productivity software or operating systems. When one person has their copy of Windows 7 shut down without clear cause, it makes news. Less so when it's one's console (even though the latter is significantly more expensive than the former). Also, here in the US a EULA can be challenged in court. It has a questionable degree of authority, and has rarely been upheld outside business-to-business disputes. Which is a good thing, because many EULAs violate an end user's constitutional rights, and most people can't even understand them let alone pick through them.
TLDR is an argument that flies when you're a home user without a staff of full-time lawyers to comb through contracts.
But I'm sure that we're far less doomed to lifestyles of fucked-up DRM. My life is not that much lessened by the games I've missed so far due to DRM boycotts. Considering the AAA industry is in a creative lull, yet the mostly-DRM-free Indy industry continues to progress at breakneck pace, I think your grim vision of the future may still be just one of Sauron's tricks.
Besides which, it's telling [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive] when the pirated version provides a better product experience than the legit version.
238U.
"Many can't go [to the workhouses]; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.''
"But you might know it," observed the gentleman.
"It's not my business," Scrooge returned. "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!"
