Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:51:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1853 times
|
| |
|
|
<3874CFB7.C78E8E40@voyager.net> <FnxHxs.MKz@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Perhaps a workable patent system could be constructed which would
recognize parallel development. I don't even see that it is necessarily
bad to see an invention, and figure out by oneself how to do it, and
sell your duplicate idea. The important thing is that inventors get
rewarded, and that the interests of the inventor are protected when they
share their idea (which is actually the purpose of the patent system -
to encourage ideas being shared).
The worry people often hold about patents protecting this that and the
other thing, is the inventor refusing to share the idea. How often does
this happen? And is it really a problem if parallel development is
allowed? Also, is the inventor really going to succeed if he isn't
willing to share his idea? Would it really be likely that someone who
wanted to invent a cure for AIDS so they could deny the cure to AIDS
victims would actually find such a cure?
I'm thinking that part of the problem the Libertarian movement has is
that it doesn't do a good job of explaining that almost anything that
might be remotely worthwhile that the government does will still be done
(and probably more efficiently).
The fight against poverty and homelessness is actually hindered
significantly by government. Zoning regulations prevent affordable
housing being built where it is needed. The minimum wage law may make
sure people are minimally compensated, but the minimum wage isn't a
living wage, and it does prevent alternative employment situations such
as "we provide you food, shelter, and at least some medical care in
exchange for labor". The only truly unfair labor practice I have heard
about is groups who go to cities, and pick up homeless and tell them
they have a job for them, and then bring them to a camp on a farm, where
all is provided, but they have to "pay" for it out of their wages, which
aren't enough to cover the "cost", and they are never given the
opportunity to opt out. I'm not sure what I can put my finger on here
which is violating rights, but this "black hole" condition is clearly
wrong (now if the "right" to declare bankruptcy is at all legitimite,
that does give an out - so maybe that is the out). The case like this
that I heard about, the "employers" used dogs and guns to keep the
"workers" under control.
Charity, schools, libraries, and museums will all still exist. I bet
most of us would contribute more to these causes than we do under the
current taxation system.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
