/lit/ - Literature

>>10153241
>but to say that people generally desire more than what they have and better lives for their children is just an acknowledgement of reality
Yes, of course, I must in some wise acknowledge your vague generalizations as in comport with reality, because if I were to contradict you, I would be "denying reality." But there is nothing "realistic" about the statement that "people generally desire more than what they have." There are no discrete quantities or qualities associated with this statement. It's a completely worthless abstraction, and it only seems to have worth because you believe in the Randian-brand limited picture of the world.

There only needs to be a system to "protect innovators" if you break the human race apart into the class of thinkers and the class of menial laborers. To say that "innovation has been increased" by capitalism is an assertion that can't really be backed either, since each techno-material advancement equates to a global social regression.

There are few things more anti-intellectual and stifling than the patent system. The idea that you should get "credit" or in any way benefit materially from a notion you arrived at is such a novel perversion I wonder how you can incorporate it into your ideology of "capitalism as human nature." It didn't become commonplace in Europe for an author to sign a work as his until the 15th Century, after the invention of the printing press, but obviously if you had studied any history, or if you gave your knee-jerk fabrications more than a second's thought, I wouldn't be explaining this shit to you right now.

>(And for your information, I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, in addition to The Communist Manifesto and essays by Marx and Engels.)
Not surprised you would say some faggot shit like this, either

>>10088941
He's mocking you because you're reading "History of Ancient Philosophy," not because you're reading in public