I am going to be critical here, Chris; do not take it personally. What you have written still is not sensible and does not represent reality; and the consequences of what you would substitute are nightmarish.
A patent protects someone’s intellectual property from exploitation unfairly by others. If another party comes up with the identical product, there is adjudication to decide whose patent applies–so the reward for invention remaIns. If yet another party comes up with an improvement, that improvement is patentable, and the inventor profits. Where is the “force?” of which you speak. Nowhere.
Yes, why not look at tylenol, or rather any number of medicines like it. If it had not been patentable, no one would have cared to develop it; aspirin was available. But patents on medicines have an expiration; once the patent-holder profited, presumably, the patent expired and others could license the product. But it would not have happened at all unless someone invested work and money to development, knowing that he would ultimately profit by that work, according to patent law. No, Chris, your own example proves that “knowledge” is NOT free.
…
About logic: these appeals to “logic” by libertarians are not at all convincing. The most preposterous propositions proceed unimpeded from the self-styled logical mind, struggling to confine itself to some abstract “absolute truth,” with no reference in reality. For example, read anything by Lifty, or orion, or better yet:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
So Doc (and I surmise T-bolt as well), you admit a private club is a suitable venue for one(s) to practice racism if one(s) so wishes, right? If that indeed is the case you have conceded that there is…somewhere…a line, that must be respected by any and all, where behind it lies territory that the government may not employ its coercive powers, right? Where is that line? How do you define that line? Can/should the line “move with the times?”
In other words…point to “the intersection” we spoke of earlier on a “map” for me. Can you make X mark the spot?[/quote]
Both of your responses have induced some thought and I will respond when possible. Push also beat me to the line he and DrSkeptix are now on which is where I was going with my previous question to him.
((((How did I ever let myself get involved in the PWI forum? There are only so many hours in the day)))
And I well-know the slippery slope - that if you keep piling “values” on top of the market, you choke off nearly all the benefits to a free exchange of property. There should be limits. But allowing racial discrimination to perpetuate in markets for the sole reason that we owe it to ourselves to not violate some holy precept that people should be able to discriminate indiscriminately (!) simply makes no sense and doesn’t square with the hard-earned victories of our Western civilization [/quote]
A couple of questions for you.
As a business owner of a sport supplements store, would it be good for business for me to hire an obese person? Because I can tell you right now, I wouldn’t do it. I would consciously discriminate against an individual that does not reflect the goals/values of my store. But, according to your post (if I understand it correctly), I should not do this (or be able to) because of victories of Western civilization?
Racial discrimination should not be allowed, but discrimination based off appearance (not “pretty” enough) should (not) be allowed?
So, going off of what Push asked in his last post, I will ask a similar question. Where do you draw the line? Where am I doing it wrong?
And I well-know the slippery slope - that if you keep piling “values” on top of the market, you choke off nearly all the benefits to a free exchange of property. There should be limits. But allowing racial discrimination to perpetuate in markets for the sole reason that we owe it to ourselves to not violate some holy precept that people should be able to discriminate indiscriminately (!) simply makes no sense and doesn’t square with the hard-earned victories of our Western civilization [/quote]
A couple of questions for you.
As a business owner of a sport supplements store, would it be good for business for me to hire an obese person? Because I can tell you right now, I wouldn’t do it. I would consciously discriminate against an individual that does not reflect the goals/values of my store. But, according to your post (if I understand it correctly), I should not do this (or be able to) because of victories of Western civilization?
Racial discrimination should not be allowed, but discrimination based off appearance (not “pretty” enough) should (not) be allowed?
So, going off of what Push asked in his last post, I will ask a similar question. Where do you draw the line? Where am I doing it wrong?
[/quote]
I don’t speak for Dr or TB23, but I wanted to point out that there is an important difference here. Hiring someone obese to work for your supplement store would reflect poorly on your business and ultimately on the products you want to sell because those products are specifically made for those who do not want to be obese. It would be similar to an obese person promoting a weight loss pill on TV. This is not discrimination based on “taste” or your dislike of obese people, but rather a smart, economically driven decision. This is the same reason that ugly people do not get modeling jobs and we are OK with it since it is a field where looks have a direct effect on profitability.
The equivalent to where the original argument was heading would be to NOT SELL your supplements to an obese person because you simply don’t like obese people and you believe you have the right to discriminate towards them because you own the store.
This is not discrimination based on “taste” or your dislike of obese people, but rather a smart, economically driven decision. This is the same reason that ugly people do not get modeling jobs and we are OK with it since it is a field where looks have a direct effect on profitability.
[/quote]
In the basic sense, it is still discrimination. I’m refusing to hire someone based off their appearance for economically driven reasons, whether it is “fair” to the obese individual or not. Companies do it all the time.
As a business owner of a sport supplements store, would it be good for business for me to hire an obese person? Because I can tell you right now, I wouldn’t do it. I would consciously discriminate against an individual that does not reflect the goals/values of my store. But, according to your post (if I understand it correctly), I should not do this (or be able to) because of victories of Western civilization?[/quote[
I wouldn’t hire them either, but your problem is that you compare unlike things and try and make them like. Obesity isn’t race, nor do we have the unfortunate history of denying obese people civil rights. Race is unique, and it doesn’t make for good comparisons to other classes.
Just because I call for race-based anti-discrimination doesn’t mean that I am logically or ethically bound to call for anti-discrimination of all classes. This is your major error - you think one must equate to the other. It doesn’t.
No, see above.
You go wrong because you think a connection exists that does not. We differentiate among different classes and treat them unequally. Race is highly protected and is not in the same category as other classes.
You go wrong because you think a connection exists that does not. We differentiate among different classes and treat them unequally. [/quote]
Why though? Why is that okay (to differentiate based on “looks”, but to do so based on race is not?
If you use the excuse that the individual doesn’t have a choice on what color they are, well, neither does a person who is born with a handicap. They had not choice in being born that way, but I’m still probably not going to hire them.
There is no such thing as equality in the free market.
The history of segregation of the obese vs. blacks? C’mon, if an obese doesn’t get hired by the local GNC, other places will hire him. The dude not getting hired to wait table at Hooters isn’t a social problem. Two different Americas, enforced by one race over the other, is. Noone here wants to use governemnt to squash every instance of discrimination imaginable. However, when it’s systemic, reinforced by an undeniable history…You just can’t keep waiting until The Market (que religious sounding organ music) finally, some day, whenever,–at the expense of continued suffering–solves the issue. You’re placing the Market over your fellow citizens (blacks) in this case.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The history of segregation of the obese vs. blacks? C’mon, if an obese doesn’t get hired by the local GNC, other places will hire him. The dude not getting hired to wait table at Hooters isn’t a social problem. Two different Americas, enforced by one race over the other, is. Noone here wants to use governemnt to squash every instance of discrimination imaginable. However, when it’s systemic, reinforced by an undeniable history…You just can’t keep waiting until The Market (que religious sounding organ music) finally, some day, whenever,–at the expense of continued suffering–solves the issue. You’re placing the Market over your fellow citizens (blacks) in this case.[/quote]
No, it’s as simple as being able to operate my store (since, you know, it’s mine) the way I see fit.
How many of you so-called conservatives are going to line up and ask the state to dictate to business owners what they do with their own money? At what point is the respective business owner considered discriminatory and what should the role of the state be to correct this individual?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The history of segregation of the obese vs. blacks? C’mon, if an obese doesn’t get hired by the local GNC, other places will hire him. The dude not getting hired to wait table at Hooters isn’t a social problem. Two different Americas, enforced by one race over the other, is. Noone here wants to use governemnt to squash every instance of discrimination imaginable. However, when it’s systemic, reinforced by an undeniable history…You just can’t keep waiting until The Market (que religious sounding organ music) finally, some day, whenever,–at the expense of continued suffering–solves the issue. You’re placing the Market over your fellow citizens (blacks) in this case.[/quote]
No, it’s as simple as being able to operate my store (since, you know, it’s mine) the way I see fit.
How many of you so-called conservatives are going to line up and ask the state to dictate to business owners what they do with their own money? At what point is the respective business owner considered discriminatory and what should the role of the state be to correct this individual?
[/quote]
So your answer to blacks would’ve been “Eh, guess you’ll have to wait until the market takes care of this. Whenever that might be. Good luck.” Hell, the misery under segregation could justify revolution in the minds of many.
I can’t up and give you hard and fast rules for when a state should step in. There are none. It’s something to be debated as specific instances arise.
I am going to be critical here, Chris; do not take it personally. What you have written still is not sensible and does not represent reality; and the consequences of what you would substitute are nightmarish.
A patent protects someone’s intellectual property from exploitation unfairly by others. If another party comes up with the identical product, there is adjudication to decide whose patent applies–so the reward for invention remaIns. If yet another party comes up with an improvement, that improvement is patentable, and the inventor profits. Where is the “force?” of which you speak. Nowhere.
Yes, why not look at tylenol, or rather any number of medicines like it. If it had not been patentable, no one would have cared to develop it; aspirin was available. But patents on medicines have an expiration; once the patent-holder profited, presumably, the patent expired and others could license the product. But it would not have happened at all unless someone invested work and money to development, knowing that he would ultimately profit by that work, according to patent law. No, Chris, your own example proves that “knowledge” is NOT free.
[/quote]
Actually Knowledge is free. All you have proven is that the acquiring and use of that knowledge is not always free. However, I would like to know how you could have come to a conclusion that there would not be Tylenol if there was no patents, do you have a time machine that visits alternate realities? If you do that is pretty awesome.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The history of segregation of the obese vs. blacks? C’mon, if an obese doesn’t get hired by the local GNC, other places will hire him. The dude not getting hired to wait table at Hooters isn’t a social problem. Two different Americas, enforced by one race over the other, is. Noone here wants to use governemnt to squash every instance of discrimination imaginable. However, when it’s systemic, reinforced by an undeniable history…You just can’t keep waiting until The Market (que religious sounding organ music) finally, some day, whenever,–at the expense of continued suffering–solves the issue. You’re placing the Market over your fellow citizens (blacks) in this case.[/quote]
What is this The Market, the market is not God. It is a description of peaceful transactions which presuppose that those in “the market” will be competitive to a point where racism would be pushed out because those that are not racists would push out those that are.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The history of segregation of the obese vs. blacks? C’mon, if an obese doesn’t get hired by the local GNC, other places will hire him. The dude not getting hired to wait table at Hooters isn’t a social problem. Two different Americas, enforced by one race over the other, is. Noone here wants to use governemnt to squash every instance of discrimination imaginable. However, when it’s systemic, reinforced by an undeniable history…You just can’t keep waiting until The Market (que religious sounding organ music) finally, some day, whenever,–at the expense of continued suffering–solves the issue. You’re placing the Market over your fellow citizens (blacks) in this case.[/quote]
What is this The Market, the market is not God. It is a description of peaceful transactions which presuppose that those in “the market” will be competitive to a point where racism would be pushed out because those that are not racists would push out those that are. [/quote]
The Holy Market, peace be unto it, is not infallible. The state did what the market had yet to do. End of story.
And, while I’m not sure anyone here does this, I second the request made of libertarians to stop using the label Conservatives. Please? We’re not anti-statists.
Why though? Why is that okay (to differentiate based on “looks”, but to do so based on race is not?[/quote]
Because with one class, there is no moral or rational justification for the discrimination, and with the other, there is.
The difference is, the libertarian is a moral relativist and can’t distinguish that some forms of discrimination are worse than others and cannot be tolerated in the name of our hard-earned civilization. I don’t suffer from moral relativism, and never have.
