Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Louis Rossmann" channel.

  1. 1
  2. Just gonna state, people have natural affinities as part of physical, emotional, mental, and even spiritual traits, (as a result of both nurture and nature, so in a sense you are incorrect there people do have natural things they can or are good at) these determine talents for which you can become significantly more proficient at then if you start at something for which those traits of the affinities don't apply. Let me pull an example from myself: I wasn't born with a natural capability to understand programming and software, nor to develop games. However I was born with an inherent love of math and problem solving and have a high knack for it, (and as well other inherent capabilities that associate with software development) making my logical thinking capabilities considerably effective for those type of things. Mix in the fact that I developed a personal (uneducated) interest in philosophic concepts, writing/narratives, video games, and social design, it became part of my character for me to build up to wanting to work on software and games. It becomes a natural extension of my original developed traits for me to become a developer/designer. In part it helped to build to that point by desiring devotion into that subject, but I was already way more efficient and effective at learning the environment then many (won't say all, but I can say most) of my peers pushing me ahead of the curve for such. Doesn't mean I'm the best or that great, nor that I end up superior to those who took longer, but it did mean that my specific traits gives me a better advantage in certain specific cases. (especially compared to other fields I could try) This generally applies to every human to some degree, we all have specific fields we are most effective in as a natural result, regardless of the passion we take for them. Some people don't want to go into those fields for any number of reasons, but that's the truth, they don't need to go into it and perhaps they're better for it, but in most cases its usually the most effective and efficient path. Others often refuse to acknowledge this, but as expertise and specialization in the economy expands, this detail and competition is going to become more pronounced and necessary and it will become harder to oppose participation in your fields according to your natural talents. And in some cases folks will stunt their natural talents lacking proper recognition or practice in what may actually be their best field. This is generally why apprenticeships were considered superior to a centralized education before the late 19th century.
    1
  3. This is why putting government in the problem is stupid, right to repair doesn't need to be solved by government because the issue it tries to solve was created by government, patents and IP law are infringements upon individual rights because you can not own an idea, manifested object, something with practical and functional existence can be owned, but a concept or idea can not be for it is not manifested. It requires active systems that can encroach upon personal liberties since someone could devise a unique object that infringes that infringes someone's conceptions, but how can you validate ownership without government? You can't. By having the government forbid replication of good ideas implemented badly you are encouraging monopolies that ARE GOVERNMENT ENFORCED. And the only people that can take advantage of the monopoly system are those with the money, thus monopolies follow money. Monopolies die when government is left out. This applies for all IP law, film, software, books, music, none of them have to truly compete against superior skill and talent, once someone has been registered with the government, they can coast on it and rip everyone off. Bandaid solutions don't fix the problem, IP law and patents need to die. (and we know for a fact that neither patent, copyright, or trademark are enforced by someone without money, also trademark and copyright can be socially enforced, as that generally happens naturally especially with the internet, Streamlabs is the perfect example of that)
    1
  4. This is why putting government in the problem is stupid, right to repair doesn't need to be solved by government because the issue it tries to solve was created by government, patents and IP law are infringements upon individual rights because you can not own an idea, manifested object, something with practical and functional existence can be owned, but a concept or idea can not be for it is not manifested. It requires active systems that can encroach upon personal liberties since someone could devise a unique object that infringes that infringes someone's conceptions, but how can you validate ownership without government? You can't. By having the government forbid replication of good ideas implemented badly you are encouraging monopolies that ARE GOVERNMENT ENFORCED. And the only people that can take advantage of the monopoly system are those with the money, thus monopolies follow money. Monopolies die when government is left out. This applies for all IP law, film, software, books, music, none of them have to truly compete against superior skill and talent, once someone has been registered with the government, they can coast on it and rip everyone off. Bandaid solutions don't fix the problem, IP law and patents need to die. (and we know for a fact that neither patent, copyright, or trademark are enforced by someone without money, also trademark and copyright can be socially enforced, as that generally happens naturally especially with the internet, Streamlabs is the perfect example of that)
    1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1