I still contend that you’re misusing the phrase “cause and effect” and that it’s not “broken,” because there is a clear cause: greed. Selfishness causes people to try to take ownership of goods or services to which they didn’t contribute—and the effect is compensation not reaching its correct owners.
That cause-&-effect is very consistent to me. Nothing’s broken there. The concept itself is fine; the problem is the abusers and manipulators using it in a negative way. So your real enemy is greed and intellectual theft.
I demand greater rigor from the latter because it is the system by which we run our society etc.
Sure, but you can’t really enforce that demand since you’re not a king of the land or something. You’d need to get into politics and stop lobbyists or something.
What is the proper approach to winning a broken game?
Counterpoint: why do you need to “win?” Why not fight with fairness, and do what you can to ensure that the producers around you receive what they’re due, even if you may end up receiving less as a result?
I still contend that you’re misusing the phrase “cause and effect” and that it’s not “broken,” because there is a clear cause: greed. Selfishness causes people to try to take ownership of goods or services to which they didn’t contribute—and the effect is compensation not reaching its correct owners.
That cause-&-effect is very consistent to me. Nothing’s broken there. The concept itself is fine; the problem is the abusers and manipulators using it in a negative way. So your real enemy is greed and intellectual theft.
Sure, but you can’t really enforce that demand since you’re not a king of the land or something. You’d need to get into politics and stop lobbyists or something.
Counterpoint: why do you need to “win?” Why not fight with fairness, and do what you can to ensure that the producers around you receive what they’re due, even if you may end up receiving less as a result?