Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's almost like capitalism stifles innovation. It's not. It's nowhere close. "Capitalism" (which is a weasel word to begin with), has produced far more innovation than any other economic system. Even aside from the overwhelming historical evidence soundly disproving your point, your argument is designed to deceive: > It actually pushes innovation towards profits, not pure innovation. Strawman argument - very few p…
> It's not. It's nowhere close. "Capitalism" (which is a weasel word to begin with), has produced far more innovation than any other economic system. This is like saying Earth has produced far more life than any other planet: where's the competition? We don't have a non-capitalist control society to test against ever since Colonialism exported Capitalism to every corner of the globe. > Strawman argument - very few pe…
This is false - we've had many attempts at alternative systems to free markets - all of which have failed because they don't work.
Also, bringing "colonialism" into this shows that you're not interested in seeking out the truth - just pushing your own political agenda onto other people.
> This is a whole lot of words that says precious little.
Funny, I thought the same about most of your comment.
> you'd be hard pressed to find any technological advancements especially that don't have their roots in defense projects, grant money, other such institutions
Turns out that a decent number of technologies had their fundamental research funded by "defense projects, grant money, other such institutions" - which doesn't mean anything, because (1) many innovations are not funded in those ways (2) the vast majority of modern technology's commercialization was done exclusively by "capitalism" and (3) as we've seen with communist countries, the government can fund as much research as it wants, and it doesn't matter for any purpose except weapons development if the private sector doesn't go through the process of refining it and making it cheap enough that consumers can buy it.
> Horseshit.
That perfectly describes your next paragraph:
> The entire open source community disagrees with you
No, they don't. The open-source community does not encourage innovation in any way. It encourages free clones of successful products whose innovation was performed by another entity (literally a parasite on the economy) and ego projects. A large number of successful open source projects (e.g. Netscape/Firefox, OpenOffice, Llama, Inkscape, Blender, Eclipse) are reactionary projects that were started several years after a piece of proprietary software started to become popular, and often copy the UI, features, and workflow of those programs - the literal opposite of innovation.
> Massive volunteer organizations like the internet archive disagree with you
No, they don't. The internet archive does barely any innovation at all - in fact, they perform significantly more theft and copyright infringement than "innovation".
> Food pantries disagree with you
No, they don't. Food pantries are not models of innovation.
> Humans have worked for one another for things besides money since long before money existed, and that very much includes innovation
I never claimed otherwise - but only someone speaking from a position of extreme ignorance would claim that anything except money has been responsible for the vast majority of innovation across all of human history (and especially over the past several hundred years).
> If innovation required financial benefit, we'd have never left our caves.
Strawman argument - I never claimed this. Quite a silly strawman, too.
> Would love a citation on this
Software and genetics are patentable in the US, purely as a result of corrupt regulators - there you go.