Okay, look, the reason people are disagreeing with you is that you’re responding to the following problem:
“Private companies are preventing access to public resources due to their rapacious, selfish greed.”
And your response has been:
“By changing how we structure things to make it easier for them to take things, we can both enjoy the benefits of the public resources.”
The companies are not the same as normal patrons. They’re motived by a desire for infinite growth and will consume anything that they can access for low prices to resell for high ones. They do not contribute to these public resources, because they only wish to abuse them for the potential capital they have.
Drawing an equivalence between these two things requires the willful disregard of this distinction so that you can act as if the underlying moral principle is being betrayed because your rhetorical opponent didn’t define it as rigorously as possible. They didn’t do that out of an expectation that you would engage with this in good faith.
Yes, I know the companies are not the same as normal patrons. I don’t care that they’re not the same as normal patrons. All I’m concerned about is that the normal patrons get access to the data. The solution I proposed does that.
The problem, as I see it, is that’s not all that you are concerned about. Your goal also includes a second aspect; you want those companies to not have access to that data. So my proposal is not acceptable because it doesn’t thwart those companies.
I’m not drawing an equivalence between companies and individual patrons, I’m just saying my goals don’t include actively obstructing those companies. If they can get what they want without interfering with what the normal patrons want, why is that a bad thing?
Really?
Okay, look, the reason people are disagreeing with you is that you’re responding to the following problem:
“Private companies are preventing access to public resources due to their rapacious, selfish greed.”
And your response has been:
“By changing how we structure things to make it easier for them to take things, we can both enjoy the benefits of the public resources.”
The companies are not the same as normal patrons. They’re motived by a desire for infinite growth and will consume anything that they can access for low prices to resell for high ones. They do not contribute to these public resources, because they only wish to abuse them for the potential capital they have.
Drawing an equivalence between these two things requires the willful disregard of this distinction so that you can act as if the underlying moral principle is being betrayed because your rhetorical opponent didn’t define it as rigorously as possible. They didn’t do that out of an expectation that you would engage with this in good faith.
Why are you doing this?
Yes, I know the companies are not the same as normal patrons. I don’t care that they’re not the same as normal patrons. All I’m concerned about is that the normal patrons get access to the data. The solution I proposed does that.
The problem, as I see it, is that’s not all that you are concerned about. Your goal also includes a second aspect; you want those companies to not have access to that data. So my proposal is not acceptable because it doesn’t thwart those companies.
I’m not drawing an equivalence between companies and individual patrons, I’m just saying my goals don’t include actively obstructing those companies. If they can get what they want without interfering with what the normal patrons want, why is that a bad thing?