Tired of waiting?
Click here to disable ads!
You are not logged in. If you sign up for an account,
you can gain additional voting power over time, allowing your vote to have an even
greater impact on submission scores!
Create and defend the common knowledge from the vectorial class. Liberate the passive consumers from the domain of the market.
The game can be won and is intended to be short, don't complain about it :-)
Guy below me is right
When would the right to knowing things become a priviledge. That's not even true in third-world countries, in fact one guy built an average sized windmill out of all the materials he could find in his town, in Africa. All you need to learn is the willingness to create, modesty in success, and optimism in failure.
For one, it seems like I have little control over the outcome. So on its own the game is worthless.
Secondly, I'm also offended by this concept.
In your ideal world, information would not be shared efficiently, because it wouldn't stand a market for the information. Without a marketplace, vital or useful information would be drowned out by complete garbage.
If you look at many socialistic states, people are no longer defined by wealth, but they are defined by class. Socialism devolves society back to the caste system. Since there isn't a marketplace to test worth by merit and demand, there is no place for a person of low reputation to make his ideas known.
Socialism (or sharing of production / property) results in a devolution in society because all of the downsides to capitalism actually become worse. Hording of marketshare becomes easier because now the marketshare is held by status and not whoever can meet demand.
Now, when common is an alternative to marketplace, it thrives because status remains in the marketplace and doesn't move to the common. However, whenever common overtakes marketplace, people in the common become recognized more by status than accomplishments.
People of equal skill become too high in supply. And since skilled people can easily meet demand (because supply is too high, and cost to the consumer is little) it only takes a few skilled people to meet demand, and again you end up in a caste system where people of low regard can never become more valuable.
Also, there's simply some things that cannot be produced by common.
Also, many people in common are simply free-riders anyway.
Actually they don't refer to them as ideas, but knowledge. It's more so that we're being brainwashed into accepting what we're told and given and not developing ideas of we're own because we're content with following the ideas and orders given by others.
Different strokes for different folks.
Bit of a silly game really
I mean, I bet all this talk of evil corporations in the market brainwashing people into being "passive consumers" makes sense to college students after a few joints, but it doesn't really stand up to any amount of scrutiny.
For example, when the evil corporations suck up the ideas that the people in the middle spit out, it is because the individual has decided to copyright an idea of theirs and make money off of it. Who are we to judge them for that? If someone has an invention, it's morally acceptable for them to want to capitalize on it. If someone has an interesting idea, it's completely OK for them to put it in a book and SELL it.
Moreover, I reject this "passive consumer" malarky. I'm a consumer. That's what kind of economic agent I am. I work for firms and use the income I earn by doing this to consume goods and services. Does that mean I'm a passive, unthinking drone who just does what the evil corporations tell me? No, it means that I buy stuff that I like. I might buy TVs, I might buy books, I might buy airplane tickets to go abroad and experience another culture. Consumption does not render me an uncultured, ignorant moron, and I find the assertion that it does offensive.
Yeah, so in conclusion it's a decent enough game, but the message is incoherent and, quite frankly, offensive.
Anything's possible, so I don't see why this would not be plausible or feasible. With limited imagination it's easy to think something is impossible, but that's only because of lack of imagination. In my eyes, this is how society should be, and I believe there is a way to make it happen. After all, our consciousness is fueled by ideas, living in what is essentially an infinitely expanding bubble of thoughts - shouldn't ideas be free? I'd rather not live in a world where we are told what to think, so whatever factors make free ideas implausible (economic, social, etc.) simply need to be changed in order for us to improve society for the better. Just thought I'd give a little input.
I thought this was an interesting message which was well executed, it's perfect for what it is. Good job on this :]
An indirect Sequel to "The Artist" shows the life of the salaryman
Cornelius & Toots are back, and a Haunted House Ride seems a little spookier than usual!
this one isn't funny
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.