|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: enimatpyrt]
#2155231 - 12/03/03 12:59 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Gazzbut said:
Once again very slowly..... WE SHOULD GET TO VOTE ON ISSUES RATHER THAN PERSONALITIES. WE WONT BE VOTING A NEW PRESIDENT EVERY DAY, WE WILL BE DECIDING POLICY.
Direct democracy is much too chaotic, fickle, and subject to manipulation. It just doesn't work. The founding fathers of America realized this.
Public whim would make a mockery of what you are advocating.
|
infidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Phred]
#2155431 - 12/03/03 01:53 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Excuse me for not defining my terms. there's no need to (re)define your terms. you already defined them here: "I advocate Laissez-faire Capitalism -- the complete separation of economy and state. In a free market the government has no influence on transactions" you had it right the first time. this is what a true free market would be like - intellectual property would not be recognized by individuals or corporations acting independently of the state.
|
infidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: RandalFlagg]
#2155448 - 12/03/03 01:57 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Direct democracy is much too chaotic, fickle, and subject to manipulation. It just doesn't work.
correct. the same can be said of a true free market economy.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: infidelGOD]
#2156228 - 12/03/03 06:13 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Direct democracy is much too chaotic, fickle, and subject to manipulation. It just doesn't work.
correct. the same can be said of a true free market economy.
True.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: infidelGOD]
#2156730 - 12/03/03 09:06 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Sophistry.
The government indeed has no influence on transactions -- voluntary exchanges of goods and services.
The government does have the right and obligation to protect the rights of its constituents. Those rights include, of course, the right to create, earn, retain, and exchange property. If someone is robbed or defrauded of their property, the government steps in.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: infidelGOD]
#2156747 - 12/03/03 09:10 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
infidelGOD writes:
the same can be said of a true free market economy.
Incorrect. A more accurate statement would be, "A free market is much too chaotic, complex, and fickle to manipulate successfully".
Marxists demonstrated this to the world decades and decades ago.
pinky
--------------------
|
infidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Phred]
#2157950 - 12/04/03 11:07 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The government indeed has no influence on transactions
in a true free market, no they wouldn't. in reality, the so called free market economy has tons of government interference. not just in intellectual property laws, but also in tarriffs and anti-trust laws. these things would not exist a true free market economy as you yourself defined it.
much like a true, direct democracy, this ideal of a completely free market is unrealistic and unworkable.
Those rights include, of course, the right to create, earn, retain, and exchange property. If someone is robbed or defrauded of their property, the government steps in.
you're assuming that the recognition of intellectual "property" is a given and that the government is simply enforcing this, but what is the mechanism by which intellectual property is recognized? is there a contract or agreement between individuals or corporations? No (except perhaps in the case of EULAs), the contract is between government and an individual, sometimes money is exchanged for the government's recognition of intellectual property (for example, paying a fee to file a patent). and without this transaction with the government, many transactions between individuals involving the sale of said intellectual property would not and could not take place. so unless you are talking about a hypothetical free market, it wouldn't be accurate to state that "government indeed has no influence on transactions"
the economy we are living in, while described as a "free market", has plenty of government interference and influence. this is the way things should be.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Phred]
#2158256 - 12/04/03 01:39 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
infidelGOD writes:
the same can be said of a true free market economy.
PinkSharkMark writes:
Incorrect. A more accurate statement would be, "A free market is much too chaotic, complex, and fickle to manipulate successfully".
Marxists demonstrated this to the world decades and decades ago.
I think that we(meaning people in this forum) tend to get caught up in semantics when discussing these economic ideas. To me, a "free-market" is when there are no rules in regards to the exchange of goods and services. This means there are no environmental rules, no anti-monopoly rules, no worker safety rules, etc... People are allowed to do whatever they want in their economic activity. This could also be termed anarchic capitalism.
When you use the term "free-market", I think you are referring to an economy that has no income redistribution, but that has rules in place that punish people who impose upon other people.
Complete control of an economy(the complete economic muzzling of a people) has proven to be a complete travesty and failure. But, anarchic capitalism has pitfalls as well in today's modern world.
I believe in having an economy that is 95% free-market and 5% controlled.
|
infidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: RandalFlagg]
#2158507 - 12/04/03 02:56 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I think that we(meaning people in this forum) tend to get caught up in semantics when discussing these economic ideas
too true, which is why I use the term "true free market" in reference to pinky's ideal of an economy completely seperate from the state. it's kinda like how people say that America is a "democracy" but not a true democracy. similarly, our economy can be loosely described as a free market but it is far from the true free market that pinky is advocating.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: infidelGOD]
#2158649 - 12/04/03 03:39 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
infidelGOD writes:
in a true free market, no they wouldn't.
Looks like you insist on defining a free market as what I call an "anarchic market". I have no problem with that, as long as we are clear that this is the case. To avoid confusion, from now on I will refer to a "Capitalist free market".
in reality, the so called free market economy has tons of government interference.
In reality, the misnamed "free market" in existence today is not in fact a Capitalist free market, for the very reasons you point out.
not just in intellectual property laws, but also in tarriffs and anti-trust laws. these things would not exist a true free market economy as you yourself defined it.
Tariffs and anti-trust regulations would not exist, true. Laws protecting one's intellectual property would exist, just as laws protecting one's other property would. Don't confuse non-interference in voluntary business transactions with non-protection of individual rights. The two are not equivalent.
much like a true, direct democracy, this ideal of a completely free market is unrealistic and unworkable.
Incorrect. I call you on this. Please support your assertion. WHY is it unrealistic and unworkable?
you're assuming that the recognition of intellectual "property" is a given and that the government is simply enforcing this, but what is the mechanism by which intellectual property is recognized?
The same mechanism which recognizes property of other kinds, such as crops, for example, or manufactured goods.
Intellectual property such as a book or screenplay or computer program or invention is created by humans. Before a specific human (or group of humans, sometimes, as in the case of a large computer program or a new medication) created that book or program or whatever, it didn't exist. Just as he who creates an armchair or a bushel of wheat owns that armchair or bushel of wheat, so does he who created a book or painting or song or invention own it. The principle in each case is identical.
and without this transaction with the government, many transactions between individuals involving the sale of said intellectual property would not and could not take place. so unless you are talking about a hypothetical free market, it wouldn't be accurate to state that "government indeed has no influence on transactions".
More sophistry. In a Capitalist free market, government has no influence on voluntary business transactions. Government has "influence" on illegal actions, such as theft or fraud. Theft and fraud do not meet the definition of voluntary business transactions.
Everything you just said about government "influence" on fraudulent actions involving intellectual property can be said about fraudulent actions involving crops or manufactured goods. You choose to make an arbitrary and artificial distinction between the two.
the economy we are living in, while described as a "free market", has plenty of government interference and influence.
Correct.
this is the way things should be.
Incorrect.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: RandalFlagg]
#2158667 - 12/04/03 03:49 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
RandalFlagg writes:
This means there are no environmental rules, no anti-monopoly rules, no worker safety rules, etc... People are allowed to do whatever they want in their economic activity.
No anti-monopoly rules, correct. But of course there would have to be certain environmental rules -- you cannot toss your toxic waste over the fence into your neighbor's yard, for example, as that is a clear cut violation of his rights.
Similarly, there would have to be certain worker-safety rules. You can't order someone to work an eight hour shift in front of a blast furnace stark naked, for example, or penalize him for refusing to do so -- that violates his individual rights.
When you use the term "free-market", I think you are referring to an economy that has no income redistribution, but that has rules in place that punish people who impose upon other people.
I refer to that socio-economic system (Laissez-faire Capitalism) wherein the government stays out entirely of voluntary exchanges of goods and services between individuals and groups of individuals -- even to the point of not printing currency. The government's sole area of power is the protection of the rights of its constituents.
I believe in having an economy that is 95% free-market and 5% controlled.
Which 5%?
pinky
--------------------
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Phred]
#2158777 - 12/04/03 04:32 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I believe in having an economy that is 95% free-market and 5% controlled.
Which 5%?
I'll throw out some examples:
I think that:
-The government should have the authority to regulate tariffs. -The government should have the authority to restrict monopolies. -The government should have the authority to step in if certain economic products or procedures are deemed harmful to the general public. -Public tax money should be used in some way to subsidize education for anybody who wants to take advantage of it. I should add that I am not a supporter of how public education is currently ordered at the moment and I think things should be changed. However, I recognize that in a free-market oriented economy there will always be poor people. These poor or irresponsible people probably can't afford to offer their kids any education. Education is the most important thing a person can use to better their lot in life. I believe that the availability of it is necessary.
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: RandalFlagg]
#2158793 - 12/04/03 04:36 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Direct democracy is much too chaotic, fickle, and subject to manipulation. It just doesn't work.
What examples are you basing this belief on? As far as I am aware direct democracy has never been tried.
Are you saying the current form of democracy is not fickle and is also free from manipulation?
One of the major potential drawbacks I can see with direct democracy is that people could still use media influence etc to get the decisions they want. However, if people were to vote on a whole raft of issues as opposed to simply selecting representatives then it would surely be much harder to manipulate people than it is currently. Perhaps you mean the votes themselves could be rigged? Obviously this would be an area that would need to be looked at very closely, but I think it has been shown by the fiasco surrounding the last election in America that our current system is far from secure in this respect.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: GazzBut]
#2158829 - 12/04/03 04:53 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Direct democracy is much too chaotic, fickle, and subject to manipulation. It just doesn't work.
What examples are you basing this belief on? As far as I am aware direct democracy has never been tried.
None. I am going by my common sense. I think bad things would happen.
Are you saying the current form of democracy is not fickle and is also free from manipulation?
No. But, the fact that it is not 100% direct and accountable to the whim of every individual in this country insures that there is stability.
In a direct democracy situation who would be responsible for determining what was voted on? Who would be responsible for working out all of the intricacies of the laws? Millions of people could never come to an agreement. But, several hundred who represent those millions can.
For example, what do you think the American public would have voted for on September 11th? It might be possible that a majority would have voted to invade every Muslim country on Earth. What would happen if irrational public whim and sentiment were to be fully implemented into law? People are too stupid to allow the kind of democracy that you are talking about.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: RandalFlagg]
#2159089 - 12/04/03 06:35 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
RandalFlagg writes:
-The government should have the authority to regulate tariffs.
Why? By what rationale do you justify that people may buy a vacuum cleaner made in the US for whatever the owner agrees to sell it for, but may not buy a vacuum cleaner made in Canada for whatever the owner chooses to sell it for?
-The government should have the authority to restrict monopolies.
Why?
Actually, I don't really care what your reasoning is on this one, since it's a moot point anyway. No monopoly may arise and be maintained longer than the lifespan of a patent without government intervention anyway.
-The government should have the authority to step in if certain economic products or procedures are deemed harmful to the general public.
Well, that pretty much leaves the door wide open for anything, doesn't it? It's similar to the fatal flaw in the Constitution where the federal government was given the right to regulate interstate commerce, and the courts and legislators have tortured it out of all recognition to the point where it is used to "justify" every government intervention in the economy.
-Public tax money should be used in some way to subsidize education for anybody who wants to take advantage of it.
Why? Why is it necessary that I be charged for the education of someone else's children anymore than I should be charged for providing them shoes or housing or food or toothbrushes?
Education is the most important thing a person can use to better their lot in life.
Correct.
I believe that the availability of it is necessary.
Education is available. It must be paid for, however. I ask again, why should I pay for educating someone else's kids?
pinky
--------------------
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Phred]
#2159676 - 12/04/03 09:33 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Yikes...I am not one of the Lefty's on this forum. You're not supposed to drill me so hard. 
-The government should have the authority to regulate tariffs.
Why? By what rationale do you justify that people may buy a vacuum cleaner made in the US for whatever the owner agrees to sell it for, but may not buy a vacuum cleaner made in Canada for whatever the owner chooses to sell it for?
There are people in this world who are willing to work for a pittance in comparison to what Americans work for. Therefore it is very difficult for the American worker to compete with these people. Sometimes, it is beneficial for the American worker to have a little help.
-The government should have the authority to restrict monopolies.
Why?
It is not in the best interest of the general public to allow one entity to have complete control over an entire industry. By not allowing monopolies, competition is allowed to foster, which is good for the consumer.
Actually, I don't really care what your reasoning is on this one, since it's a moot point anyway. No monopoly may arise and be maintained longer than the lifespan of a patent without government intervention anyway.
I am a firm believer in allowing competition in the marketplace. It is possible for a company to so dominate a market that it can stifle the ability of another company to compete. I know this sounds socialist of me to say: I believe that if an entity is determined to have too much influence in a market, something should be done about it.
-The government should have the authority to step in if certain economic products or procedures are deemed harmful to the general public.
Well, that pretty much leaves the door wide open for anything, doesn't it?
Admittedly, that is a broad statement I made. I don't think the government should poke its nose in everything. But, I do feel that the government should have the right to regulate certain practises which harm the environment or the consumer.
-Public tax money should be used in some way to subsidize education for anybody who wants to take advantage of it.
Why? Why is it necessary that I be charged for the education of someone else's children anymore than I should be charged for providing them shoes or housing or food or toothbrushes?
If a parent cannot provide their kid with the bare essentials (food, housing) then the kid should be taken away from them.
A lot of parents out there are worthless and would not provide their kids with education, thus dooming them to an uneducated and unfulfilled life. Education is the only thing that enables someone to really choose where they want to go in the world. By making sure everybody receives it(no matter what their initial socio-economic status is) we give them the ability to compete in the marketplace. An educated populace creates a strong and vibrant economy.
Education is available. It must be paid for, however. I ask again, why should I pay for educating someone else's kids?
There is not anything that says you "should". It is my personal opinion that the benefits outway the problems.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: RandalFlagg]
#2160003 - 12/04/03 11:40 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
RandalFlagg writes:
There are people in this world who are willing to work for a pittance in comparison to what Americans work for.
Correct.
Therefore it is very difficult for the American worker to compete with these people.
In certain industries, also correct.
Sometimes, it is beneficial for the American worker to have a little help.
At the cost of the American consumer? Especially a poor American consumer? Why should a poor American consumer be prevented from buying a less expensive foreign product? Note that tariffs are meaningless to the rich -- the rich can afford to buy expensive domestically-produced stuff. Tariffs hurt the poor.
It is not in the best interest of the general public to allow one entity to have complete control over an entire industry.
Why?
By not allowing monopolies, competition is allowed to foster, which is good for the consumer.
Except apparently competition from imported products, eh?
As I said, it's a moot point anyway. In the absence of government interference, monopolies can't arise.
It is possible for a company to so dominate a market that it can stifle the ability of another company to compete.
Nonsense. Even in the heavily-regulated economies of today there is no instance of that occurring. Name a single product in the US which you must sole-source.
I know this sounds socialist of me to say: I believe that if an entity is determined to have too much influence in a market, something should be done about it.
Determination does not guarantee success. No matter how determined MacDonalds and Coca Cola and Wal-Mart are to crush their competitors, they have been unable to do so, and always will be unable to do so.
It is my personal opinion that the benefits outway the problems.
Even if achieving that benefit comes at the expense of violating the rights of others? Okay, then.
pinky
--------------------
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Phred]
#2160122 - 12/05/03 12:21 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
At the cost of the American consumer? Especially a poor American consumer? Why should a poor American consumer be prevented from buying a less expensive foreign product? Note that tariffs are meaningless to the rich -- the rich can afford to buy expensive domestically-produced stuff. Tariffs hurt the poor.
Tariffs help create more blue-collar jobs domestically rather than shipping them overseas, so the poor can be put to work at a steady job, rather than working multiple minimum-wage jobs or living off of welfare. Tariffs help the poor.
--------------------
  "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Phred]
#2160299 - 12/05/03 01:15 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Sometimes, it is beneficial for the American worker to have a little help.
At the cost of the American consumer? Especially a poor American consumer? Why should a poor American consumer be prevented from buying a less expensive foreign product? Note that tariffs are meaningless to the rich -- the rich can afford to buy expensive domestically-produced stuff. Tariffs hurt the poor.
Yes, tariffs do harm to the American consumer. But, sometimes it is what is in the best interest of the nation.
Imagine if a certain U.S. city was home to 95% of the factories of a certain industry. This city and its citizens are heavily dependent upon this industry. Now imagine if the Chinese government all of a sudden decides to move into this industry. Chinese factories are opened up and they pump out the product in question for a much cheaper rate. All of the plants in the American city proceed to go out of business. Is it worth having people save five cents on something if an entire region in my country is economically destroyed?
I don't think tariffs should be used indefinately, but they can be used to lessen the blows of industry migration.
It is not in the best interest of the general public to allow one entity to have complete control over an entire industry.
Why?
If one entity is so supremely powerful, it can limit the ability of other entities to compete in the marketplace.
If only one entity in an industry exists, it limits choices for the consumer.
By not allowing monopolies, competition is allowed to foster, which is good for the consumer.
Except apparently competition from imported products, eh?
When the influx of imported products causes economic havoc, that must be rectified.
It is possible for a company to so dominate a market that it can stifle the ability of another company to compete.
Nonsense. Even in the heavily-regulated economies of today there is no instance of that occurring. Name a single product in the US which you must sole-source.
There are none because the U.S. has anti-monopoly laws in place which restrict such a thing from happening.
It is my personal opinion that the benefits outway the problems.
Even if achieving that benefit comes at the expense of violating the rights of others? Okay, then.
When public funds are pooled to accomplish a certain goal, often it does violate our rights. The question is, how much are you willing to put up with to ensure a basic educational standard amongst the population?
|
infidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Phred]
#2160664 - 12/05/03 06:10 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Looks like you insist on defining a free market as what I call an "anarchic market" huh? I haven't defined free market at all. I'm going by your definition of a free market as the complete seperation of state and economy - a definition I happen to agree with. you didn't even make up the term "anarchic market" until a contradiction was pointed out to you (or perhaps because you realized how untenable your original position was). but that's fine, you can define it however you want. I'm just saying that a complete seperation of state and economy (whatever you want to call it) is unrealistic. what you are advocating is much more extreme than you make it out to be. much like a true, direct democracy, this ideal of a completely free market is unrealistic and unworkable. Incorrect. I call you on this. Please support your assertion. WHY is it unrealistic and unworkable? well for one thing, as I explained, intellectual property laws would not exist in a completely free market. and even if they did, the lack of anti-trust laws would stifle competition and the lack of reasonable import tarriffs would destroy many critical industries. I guess this is a value judgement because you might have no problem with monopolies or job losses. you might be one of those people who actually like the Wal-Martization of America. also in a true free market, every economy would be specialized to produce what it can most efficiently (read: cheaply) produce, this is seen as a positive by many advocates of globalization and free trade, but as you probably already know, a specialized economy is much more vulnerable than a diversified one. and also, there would be reduced career options for people and a reduced selection of consumer goods, as all goods of a particular type would be produced in the same place (where it can be produced most efficiently) - in other words, less freedom of choice. also millions of north american auto workers, steel workers, textile makers, furniture makers, etc. etc. would be out of work as all those can be produced more cheaply elsewhere. devoloped countries with higher wages would be especially vulnerable to such job losses in a truly free market, and again, you might have no problem with this.. but I think most people would agree that this is undesirable. Intellectual property such as a book or screenplay or computer program or invention is created by humans. Before a specific human (or group of humans, sometimes, as in the case of a large computer program or a new medication) created that book or program or whatever, it didn't exist. Just as he who creates an armchair or a bushel of wheat owns that armchair or bushel of wheat, so does he who created a book or painting or song or invention own it. The principle in each case is identical. well sure, if you're talking about the concept of creating something or the concept of "ownership", the principle is the same. heck, if you reduce everything as you've done here, you could say almost everything is the same in principle - you could say that slavery is the same "in principle" as owning land as it applies to the concept of "ownership". but let's try to deal with reality here without reducing everything. the government does not recognize intellectual property in the same way it recognizes physical property. this is obvious. for one thing, ownership of intellectual property is limited to a certain amount of time and then it becomes public domain. does the government take away your house 20 years after you buy it? a physical thing can be owned indefinately. intellectual property, by it's very nature, can't really be "owned" (at least, not for long) because it is just information, nothing more than zeros and ones. is there some kind of natural law that covers the ownership of such information? the ownership of physical property, for the most part, is self-evident and government isn't necessary (though helpful) because a physical property can be physically defended. with intellectual property, there must be an overriding governmental authority that recognizes ownership. another difference between physical and intellectual property is that many copies of a physical thing can be made and owned. with intellectual property, only one individual (or corporation) can own it. for example, if I create an armchair, it does not prevent my competitor from creating one and selling it. but if I invented a better mouse trap, my competitor could not create and market a similar one, even if he independently discovered it and even if it took him many years and millions of dollars in research, the government would prevent him from selling his product under threat of force, simply because his product resembles mine. need I mention how many things are discovered independently? am I "stealing" your property when I independently discover something after you've discovered the same thing? according to you, that's theft - identical "in principle" to stealing physical property. Everything you just said about government "influence" on fraudulent actions involving intellectual property I never mentioned any fraudulent actions. read it again. I mentioned a non-transaction as an example of government influence - "without this transaction with the government, many transactions between individuals involving the sale of said intellectual property would not and could not take place"
|
|