Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.
Edit: pls do not downvote the comments this is a constructive discussion
Edit2: IP= intellectal property
Edit3: sort by controversal
Some friendly pushback to help me understand, overfishing doesn’t directly effect me, I don’t eat fish, I don’t live near the ocean. But I’d say it has lots of indirect effects on me. Incentive structures still promote overfishing. What do? What does force mean? Is changing the incentive structure force? Is fines for overfishing, or losing your commercial fishing license force?
(P.S. is know nothing about fishing, this is just to help frame my questions)
You knowing nothing about fishing is a perfect example. Would it be a good idea for you to set policy about fishing? No, there is too much nuance and complexity in managing existing sea life. Some fishing is good for a healthy ecosystem, too much fishing is bad. To manage the shared resource of the sea requires the input of fishing folks, conservationists, environmentalists, and anyone else with an interest. No one group or even small coalition should be allowed to control any aspect of commercial fishing. It must be decided collectively or not at all.
By force I mean anything that would compel action from someone with a threat of consequences. Changing the incentives is not force because you’re not imposing consequences, just making the prospect less appealing.
But I am indirectly affected greatly by overfishing and directly by the overall health of the oceans. The health of the environment directly effects me. So shouldn’t I also have some say in the health of the environment?
I think maybe I’m quibbling over word nuance.
I agree, but that being said, vaccine mandates save lives, while “minding our own business” when it comes to super-spreaders of disinformation has had huge consequences in the sphere of public health (as well as many others).