Patents and Copyrights: A Socialist Approach

It's greedy to want to keep the fruits of one's own labor but it's NOT greedy to want another's, right?

 

What do you think college and home is for?

 

Cons are incapable of understanding the concept of moderation.

 

Progs don't grasp self reliance.

 

What nations provide free housing to everyone?

 

Ever hear of the GI bill?

 

Unless your living on a deserted island, no such thing.

 

So the GI Bill gave a free house to every man, woman, and child in America? Lol! While you're at it, can you make it Christmas every day?

Thanks for the laughs! You should emigrate to North Korea. They have the dystopia that you crave!

 

I'm not surprised you would feel that way thinking that other people owe you a living just for existing

 

There's a reason these communists don't put their money where there mouth is and freaking MOVE to Cuba or North Korea.

 

I like to tell him life is short act now while supplies last don't let another sun set in the USA set on you. They want the benefits of capitalism but they want to rename it something else and not put in the work.

 

Yes, of course.

 

BS.

You know how we know it’s bullshit? As a country becomes more socialist they produce less innovation.

For instance take the healthcare industry. Once a country moves from a capitalist healthcare system to a socialist one their innovation for healthcare drops dramatically from where it was. That’s why the US produces more patents on healthcare innovation than EVERY COUNTRY in the world COMBINED.

 

So if it’s the social responsibility of myself to pay my taxes as I work, what is the social responsibility of the lazy **** who is capable of producing but instead a wants to sit on his ass all day and collect a check from the government.

What is his social responsibility?

 

Good thing I don't.

 

To get a job and contribute.

 

Those who benefit from society DO give something back. They create jobs and products. Without the entrepreneurs and people willing to take the financial risks, things woould not be invented, nor manufactured, nor IN YOUR HANDS.

The people who blame society for not giving to them generally don't give a damn thing more than they absolutely have to in order to get by today. THEY give nothing back; they perceive themselves as the benefactors of the works of others, because they exist. IF we were all like them- nobody would have anything; we would all be homeless and starving. IF on the other hand we were all productive and using the opportunities to build more opportunities as well as benefit us- none of us would be poor or starving.

It's all in attitude, how you think, what values you hold. You can be a winner or a loser- by your choice of attitudes.
I love to see people win. I don't mean beat others, but win for themselves, make the most of their lives. Anyone can- many simply will not try. Too much work, besides- they believe themselves entitled to live off of the work of others, and the crap being sold in that video is gobbled up by such people.

 

You're saying, then, that the inventor has an objective moral obligation to reward everyone who contributed to his life. What if he or she doesn't like that person?

 

And if he refuses?

 

Here's how some of these people think:

"I'm the consumer. If I didn't buy their products, there wouldn't be any market and the inventor and makers of these products wouldn't be rich, so I should be entitled to a share of the profits and ownership of the company making them."

A similar approach could be applied to the concept of the sale of the same mans labor to his employer. He refuses to give his productivity away for nothing, nor does he feel his obligation to his employer amount to anything more than to work the agreed upon hours. However, he sees the obligation of his employer to him as far more extensive and expensive. Nobody get from him without directly compensating him, but others owe him beyond any agreement- and he thinks he should have free access to the fruits of the labor of others, simply by the act of their having been productive.

The concept of fairness simply get inverted when it is to his advantage or benefit.... and reversed back when it's not. That's the mindset of the people promoting socialism; something for nothing from somebody else- but it doesn't work both ways.

 

Survival benefits.

 

Nope, sorry.

 

No you dont.

 

Yea you do.

 

Some patents might have to be imminent domained. Like it should be with land, the financial burden on the state should be very high. If society needs to take a patent or land from someone, that someone should become fabulously wealthy in the exchange.