Charles Leadbeater: The rise of the amateur professional

[myhomeboy]

who the hell dislikes these videos?

[ClementsGroup]

I think think this idea makes an interesting point for network marketing organisations

[happyrobot42]

makerbot makes this whole producer consumer thing a moot point .. maybe =)

[addikid]

Funniest thing about open source? Ppl will rather pay for free(quality) stuff over some corporations overpriced version, Otherwise known as Donations!! lol drives any sane economist mad

[addikid]

Funniest thing about open source? Ppl will pay for free stuff!! Otherwise known as Donations!! lol drives any sane economist mad

[MoreyBean]

Just like most creative ideas, the mountain bike was being developed in Crested Butte, Colorado simultaneously with its creation in northern CA. I bought the third mountain bike sold in Colorado Springs at John Crandall's Old Town Bike Shop: a Mt. Fuji!

[Floxflow]

Brilliant!

[binghamsproductions]

Very informative, keep up the good work!

[Shivaumma]

Hey Charles. I am our fan!!!

[soldatheero]

this guy is amazing i love this

[MysteriousDoor]

Good for pointing out how unproffesional people are collaborating to make products, but something really made me tick when i heard it, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Patents are pronounced pat-ents

Not pay tents.

[maaarty787]

it's just accent. pat-ents is not more correct than pay tent, anymore than tomah-to is more correct than tom-ayto.

[SacredSocietyAP]

@maaarty787 Wro-Ong!

[taralapinski]

Malcolme Gladwell

[tessler6868]

lol, silly talk and silly man. makes it sound like there haven't been amateur inventors & tinkerers for like, EVER. what's happening NOW though, is tinkers & inventors (and universities, btw) are encouraged to develop something for nickle & dime "X-prizes" -- their ideas 'bought' by corporations to market (or kill, if competition to existing products) = corporate r&d on the cheap.

the guy's an effing journalist & author. doesn't know nitty gritty of it -- just cherry picks some anecdotes.

[Clariccy]

@tessler6868 "what's happening NOW though, is tinkers & inventors (and universities, btw) are encouraged to develop something for nickle & dime "X-prizes" -- their ideas 'bought' by corporations to market (or kill, if competition to existing products) = corporate r&d on the cheap."

Yup

[80Handbags]

Continued from last comment... or on a bus, couldn't we all help add information about our local environment by texting a number as we go in on the bus, we could inform people of traffic, if the bus was full, the weather, what we saw as we passed things, recommend different routes, text in where we started and ended our journey, then maybe, they could re-rouet the bus to make it more efficient to where we are going, you could get rid of in-accurate annual market survey people in this way.

[obiez]

You know, that sounds awsome, and really technology is right there, though I wouldn't want anyone taking away my daily element of surprise. Not everything should be marketed, not everything should be known, not everything should be comfortable. Just my thought.

[80Handbags]

well since he wants us to collaborate our ideas, i'd better start now, and i'm being serious, why don't we get a discount on our food when we put something back in the right place on the shelf in the supermarket, you wouldn't need so many staff then, or why don't we get some sor of discount by doing some sort of something, data entry or something, whilst we wait at the doctors surgery, or the dentist, will continue on next Comment.....

[thedailyenglishshow]

The story about the gaming company in China was interesting.

[temega]

Great talk. Got his book We Think but haven't started reading yet

[jspen2]

Fascinating.

[Mahewston]

He's using some of Christensen's descriptions of disruption and innovation almost word for word.

[ridinghigh80]

Finally? Proof of a real alien!

[Conza88]

What he practically expresses is the free market of ideas. When there are less regulation (or boundaries) for entry, i.e the users (amateurs) can influence and participate in the marketplace, through self interest. Good stuff!

[thErusteDbunnY]

im not sure that i draw the same conclusions that he does, but this talk did get me thinking. I love that. Thanks.

[celshader]

This has already transformed information broadcasting. Anyone can be a broadcaster or news source with very little cost.

I have noticed this is beginning to effect manufacturing as well. I have worked in web development for many years and I have noticed more and more of my small business clients getting involved in things like manufacturing in plastic, importing and exporting, and expanding overseas. Things that previously were only within reach of big corporations.

[stratvic]

His mistake is to think that government can be useful in this process. The opposite is most often true.

Government can best assist by eliminating barriers such as patients, copyright, licenses and the like i.e. removing government from the equation.

[rspawn]

"Government can best assist by eliminating barriers such as patents, copyright..."

So you missed the part in this video where it is explained that patents and copyright are meant as an incentive for innovation by protecting inventors from others stealing their innovations. The problem now being that corporate interests have corrupted the patents and copyright systems.

[stratvic]

Another example of unintended consequences... government is just not good at this stuff.

[rspawn]

me: "The problem now being that corporate interests have corrupted the patents and copyright systems."

stratvic: "Another example of unintended consequences... government is just not good at this stuff."

Those consequences *are intended* by corporations.

If government can't stop those corporations then we need to fix government because without it no-one will protect us from corporations.

[stratvic]

Sure the corporations game the rules with deliberate motivation to profit from their actions. Gaming is a major contributor to the unintended consequences that stem from government action. Appealing to "fix" the government if successful just results in changes the rules to be gamed. Often the best solution is a hands off approach because the rules become more of a drain than the benefits they are designed to provide. Patents being a case in point.

[rspawn]

If governments take a hands off approach (eliminating themselves, since the purpose of government is to make laws) - then corporations will have their hands all over us; no rules so anything goes.

To really change government and reclaim it as our means of collective self-governance that it was originally intended to be (the renaissance concept of Democracy, the basis of contemporary Democracy), a radical change in awareness needs to take place, which will probably take some time.

[stratvic]

"the purpose of government is" NOT "to make laws. The purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property.

The governments solution to problems and errors the government is always more government. More government typically involves the reduction or threats to life, liberty, and property.

[rspawn]

"the purpose of government is" NOT "to make laws. The purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property."

The government protects life, liberty, and property by making laws.

If you think the government does not make the laws, then who do you think makes the laws? What do you think all those "bills" are that Congress and Senate vote on? Those are the laws and regulations they are making.

[stratvic]

Government makes laws but it is not their purpose, it is a means. Their purpose is to protect life, liberty, and property and all laws should be measured against upholding those values.

[rspawn]

Do you think government could protect life, liberty, and property without making laws?

If government would stop making laws there'd be nothing to hold back corporations from exploiting people.

[stratvic]

"Do you think government could protect life, liberty, and property without making laws?"

The government protects life, liberty, and property by protecting rights i.e negative obligations. Laws are a tool for achieving that purpose, however misused it sends us into the never ending demand for laws concerning positive obligations that undermine life, liberty, and property?

[rspawn]

"The government protects life, liberty, and property by protecting rights"

If not by putting these rights into law and enforcing those laws, then how does government protect rights?

[rspawn]

"negative obligations"

The right to life (Declaration of Human Rights) is a "negative obligation".

It translates directly to "thou shalt not kill" - an obligation.

How can the right to life be protected without a law that prohibits murder?

[stratvic]

re "Negative obligations" Look it up.

The right not to be killed, not to be robbed, not to be enslaved, etc.

[rspawn]

"re "Negative obligations" Look it up.

The right not to be killed, not to be robbed, not to be enslaved, etc."

Which is pretty much what i said in my example re Human Rights.

again the question:

How can the right to life be protected without a law that prohibits murder?

[stratvic]

Again I repeat laws are tools not the purpose of government.

You do not have a right to life, you have the right to not have someone take your life from you. Otherwise we would have a law against death and by "right" live forever.

The purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property of people from being taken by other people including groups of people such as governments and that includes the possibility of your own government violating those rights.

[rspawn]

"laws are tools not the purpose of government."

Agreed: laws are the tools that government uses to protect our rights.

"You do not have a right to life, you have the right to not have someone take your life from you."

Which is why the government has made a law that prohibits murder.

How can the right to not have someone take your life be protected without a law that prohibits murder?

[stratvic]

You are confusing rights with laws. You have rights irrespective of laws. Laws are merely rules written by some arbitrarily person/s and enforced on others through force. You do not have the right to not be killed because someone else said they will grant you that right. Laws at their best affirm natural rights and at there worst defy them. Arbitrarily determined laws by arbitrarily determined law makers often have little to do with rights and plenty to do with interests and power.

[rspawn]

Without law there's no way to sue/trial anyone who violates a right. That would mean anyone could get away with violating other people's rights - that's practically the same as having no rights.

"Laws are merely rules written by some arbitrarily person/s and enforced on others through force."

Laws are not written by arbitrary persons.

Laws are created by elected representatives of the people, aka the government.

[stratvic]

There is such a thing as justifiable self defense. There is also the well established and historically important practice of ostracism and disassociation. Government does not have a monopoly on reinforcing cultural norms of which rights are the most universal and forcefully applied.

The process of voting and the legitimacy of a majority to rule over a majority is arbitrary as is the term of office, voter eligibility, and the method of electing and determining a majority.

[rspawn]

"There is such a thing as justifiable self defense."

Without laws anyone's claim to justifiable self defense is as good as anyone else's. Then who comes out on top depends NOT on who's most justified, but depends on who the strongest. Then there is no justice.

[stratvic]

If you or your loved one were being beaten and it was against the law to defend yourself would you?

You make the mistake in believing that the law can serve as a moral compass. The laws in history are a guide as to how immoral laws can be and you would be delusional to believe that laws are more morally appropriate today than they have been in the past.

If you believe in majority rules then you contradict your self with "..but depends on who the strongest.." just replace numerous or popular.

[rspawn]

"It is the duty of moral people to violate immoral laws."

- Howard Zinn

No mistakes about it.

If there is no (just) law, -then- who's 'right' depends on who's strongest - that's not justice.

[stratvic]

If there is no morality, -then- who's 'right' depends on who's strongest - that's not moral. Thankfully human society and social structures are based on morality.

If there is law, -then- who's 'right' depends on who's strongest (the majority/most popular) - that's not justice.

[rspawn]

"Thankfully human society and social structures are based on morality."

Then it is to be expected human society makes moral laws. As long as society is governed by means of true democracy, a majority of that moral society supports the laws that are made.

[stratvic]

History testifies that laws society produces are both moral ind immoral. The problem with law enforcement is that it divorces the enforcement from those involved by employing soldiers to do the dirty work escaping a critical moral test. If we had to personally enforce many of our laws we would find it morally reprehensible e.g. taxation - theft, patent law - forbidden to learn, etc.

[rspawn]

Enforcement of the law is the responsibility of the Judicial, policing (your "soldiers") is part of that. Creation of laws is the responsibility of the Legislative. The separation of the powers of government in Judicial, Legislative and Executive is a major aspect of the "checks and balances" that make it harder to abuse those powers.

If those who make the laws also enforce the laws, you remove one of the checks and balances so that it becomes easier to abuse government powers.

[stratvic]

The judiciary enforce laws made by the strongest/most popular/majority. The Judiciary are also appointed by the strongest/most popular/majority. I don't disagree that the separation of powers is a good idea but it hardly solves the problem of rulers ruling over the unfortunate ruled and the enactment and enforcement of immoral laws.

[televisionsux]

This was written 10 months ago, which where I come from was still being run by the banksters.Social structures and human social structures are based on morality.....lol...you better start at the top the moral money ponzi scheming banksters.Or were you referring only to somebodies private body parts...when discussing laws and morals and society?

Just wondering.

Patents can't be put on ideas..

[hazonku]

actually they can to a degree. It's called intellectual property.

[Lowbudget2]

But if gov't protects us from corporations than who protects people from gov't?

Unless each have something protecting it from another there isn't that checks and balances thing though, no?

[phicubed]

Charles thank you. Your talk is very inspiring. Very profound. Very real and honest. Thank you for sharing your experience and knowledge with me.