Do I have *All* the Topics Covered? (Score 1)

Creators

1) the individual idealist should be compensated.. so that he is encouraged to keep doing what he does best: ideas. To say that incentive is unnecessary is to say that Creators-of-Worthy-Ideas are to die a martyr's death, unknown, unheard, with their whole lives, families, etc sacrificed for their Idea because the market was owned by the MegaCorps.

2) Not all ppl are creators. Some, however need to be developed. (See Investment * "bottom-up")

Purpose

2) social benefit is the end goal: even the idea-maker should have a lower income if (a) he's not making more ideas (b) is society is crapping out. The problem is if society is crapping out, then he will either (a) be scared of losing his income & will work harder to come up with a good idea or (b) be disillusioned about losing his income and won't create anymore.

If ppl wanna be an idea factory, great. they should be encouraged to do so for everyone's benefit. If tehy just wanna for their own benefit, then they're a sycophant.. no good to society.

Investment

As for idea!=product, any .com which decides to INVEST other ppl's lives & $ into the idea/creator, should be allowed to. More ideas= (See production) Investment will occur directly proportional to (a) how stupid ppl are (not knowing their own good) and (b) if ppl are able to. Ppl freely giving if they have their needs met is a societal-benefit, which sohuld be invested in. Give more? Get more! That's the point of investment.

Personal sacrifice is a bottom-up thing.. and if ppl don't value something, and if Marketing (see below) can't convince 'em, well, nothin' we can do.

Production

1) Always requires investment. 2) Is the major hurdle is idea-generation. Thus, any average-joe SHOULD be allowed the rights to owning the idea (upon buying the product), knowing that he won't be investing to produce it. Or if he does, ppl will still trust the Official-Producers over average-joe. And if average-joe DOES have a better means? So be it. See.. "Owning Ideas".

I doubt that ANY product should only have a 1yr life-span WITHOUT a decent (a) FREE & AVAILABLE recycling program for the product whereby the producer is responsible for their product's life-span (b) 'customer loyalty' program, whereby investment is much more like a co-op.

In fact, it's a good "automatic" test/judge. it's market-governance... that is, their idea fails/rises based upon consumers being HONEST about what they want/need.. (that is, if the market isn't listening to marketING!)

Marketing

If they lie to consumers, then it'll be bite-back from the consumers. That's fraud. If they tell the truth to consumers, "yes, you don't think you need this product, but be convinced, it's a great product.." and if they are convinced? it's fine. society moves forward. If they're not, well, such is the market.

Privacy

And anyone who doesn't wanna hear about new ideas shouldn't be forced/bill-boarded. Nothing's wrong with a little marketing, but when "getting the word out" infringes on ppl's (natural NEED!) for privacy & their own non-contrived thinking.. there's a problem.

Availability of Product

Does owning the product == owning the idea? I think so. Any piece of music I listen to spins out other musical ideas in me. It's an investment I make into myself.

Availability of Ideas

Ideas and fluid, and to hold them captive (generally, on first assumption) holds production and societal good captive.. that is, if market-saturation is a good idea. Some products shouldn't be saturated. They're wasteful, filler, lied to us by marketing.

Patents/Owning Ideas

Owning the "right" to an idea is a worthy thing. If a patent were not held, then any company with more investment could beat-out the original producer by producing faster. That's competition, and it's good, but not when it wastes ppl's lives & energy. Why not auction off ideas/patents as they come in to the top 3 production/investors? That'll keep ideas in the public-arena, and require that production is competetive based on a product's produciton-worthiness.. first-to-market is a variable, but so is product-lifespan & warranty. (See Production)

Bottom-Up

1) People invest when they buy. Buying is good when you have the money to buy. 2) Otherwise, you're left with no product to learn from, no ideas to grow from. Held down. Oppression of the poor. 3) I think it's "right" to have all people grow as they desire to grow. Those who WANT to work hard to overcome? Great. Let ppl invest in them. Those who wish to sit like lumps, who need no investment, should NOT have an inheritance (*cough* Hilton *cough*).

Scarcity

Some is natural, some artificial. Artificial is based on (a) irresponsibilities solved by Producer-life-span-responsibility (See Production) and (b) not enough Producers. If there's $$ held up in the market, then get it to the Producers! (This is simple: it's called Investment & pre-sale) If there's no $$ in the market (or no market), it's a great idea for societal benefit, then (God Forbid!) *Genuine* Human Self-Interest *CAN* motivate.

Birthrights

BS. We're born where we're born, and all we can do is make the best of it and hope ppl 'round us are willing to invest in us. If they're not, then it's a Human Rights issue, liable to the present government or economic structures which created them. (Aka, Britain set up bad social structures in Africa, then they need to fix them now knowing better.. Southern American Plantation owners had a bad societal scheme? then they need to fix it. And 3 generations later, who are "they"? (a) anyone who wants to/believes in a better tmw (and need invested in.. like TEACHERS & aid workers) (b) those with excess income should not be allowed to hoard. Investment-as-policy anyone?)

Application

1) Art: the product is NOT the final-work. The product is *A* means of investment. Some products are no PRODUCTive thing at all, in the concrete realm. Humans are more than products, thank God. We are creative and emotive and social, and require artistic investment to be sane and, oh look.. PRODUCTIVE! Art is a means of investment in another person's non-(directly)-productive capacities. The artist is then a Creator, who should be invested in. This only works if his art is (a) available and (b) desired. To have a full society disown an artist is either (a) society not knowning what's good for itself or (b) the artist not knowing what's good for himself! 'A' is solved by *proper* marketing, 'B' solves the problem altogether.

2) Code: the product is the compiled version + value-adds. Do I get the source when I buy the code? I think so. Why? It makes idea-generation MUCH more competitive, the market much more progressive. Forking can be a good thing-- see Ideas & Production above. (aka, we'll see if pidgin or funpidgin is better in time..or if Ballmer or Shuttleworth is making a better investment!)

Corollaries

1) This is based on ppl knowing their own good.. doesn't this make religion 1-step away from marketing? Yes, by convincing & creating withing ppl needs and desires. Readily able to be abused. But (social/physical)-nature is usually tolerant to a point, and if a society crumbles, then, well, maybe that's a good thing for it to try again.