I never said I know it all. I´m not really into IP and I admit that half of the knowledge I have about it comes from school. I never force my opinion onto anyone – just saying what I feel is true. I do not feel the same from you yet, but since I´m strictly positive I´ll give it a try.
You don’t need to teach me the essence of my studies :D. If you think you don’t understand a word I used, just ask. Capitalism doesn’t have strict definition in my mind. Its understanding comes from me watching how world under the system we call “capitalism” works. Basically sector, where money is located, has power and individuals, which have money, have power. Money is cumulated under personal, or corporative ownership. Quick example – earth is dying because it’s not being protected by people, because there is no money from it. When the situation reaches critical threshold, money will flow into a sector “saving planet”, minds will be attracted, because they could gain part of that money for their own needs.
Now to the IP. Its purpose is to guard your idea from plagiarism. If there was no shield from individuals, or corporations, that have tons of money to use your idea to produce products that could be sold on a market, you would be helpless. Though if they have a lot of money and you don’t they can bypass it anyway (even if they had to terminate you - that’s just way of life, in this case the humanity).
Now instead of saying IP is bad and my argumentation is bad…please enlighten me :). As I said I´m not really into it and I would be honoured if you explained why it’s bad and what would your solution for it be, since every real sceptic has to have at least an idea of what could work better. I don’t have time, nor motivation to study something I don’t want to study, but I have plenty of time to hear out constructive perspective of another human being.
I wouldn't say your argumentation is bad. The issue is that your premises are wrong. Your argumentation may be fine, but if your axioms are wrong, you'll still get wrong conclusions and it'll make perfect sense the whole way through, it just won't describe reality accurately.
Unfortunately, experience has taught me that I am not presently able to explain issues this complex in comments and text. When I try, it goes badly. If you want to understand my perspective, you can't get it by fitting what I say into your current framework, you've got to build a new framework within which you can properly understand what I say. Does that make sense? In practice, to understand my meaning, you'll have to look at how I describe the world and to understand how what I'm saying can possibly make sense. Once it does, you'll be able to compare this new perspective with your previous one and either unify them, or determine which one is more constructive and descriptive of reality. I think you will find that your current understanding is valid, but incomplete.
I do not assert that I am smarter than you, or even more correct than you, but I see things that you don't in this particular case, and I think you would benefit from understanding my perspective. There are undoubtedly countless other topics where you see things I don't, and I would absolutely benefit from seeing your perspective on them. What I'm still working out is how to effectively accomplish that sharing of perspectives, particularly over the internet. No one ever taught me how to communicate like that, so I'm trying to figure it out for myself. Forgive me if I flail a bit as I make mistakes and learn from them. :-P
We are understood then and positively on the same boat. It does make perfect sense, since I´ve already incorporated that knowledge into my pillars. So all I do is, that I humbly ask, whether you will try to share your pillar (or more if needed) with me, so I can get more insightful perspective, or you won´t, because it will be waste of time for you (perfectly understandable don´t take me wrong). Be it anyway, was a good talk to me!