Poverty soars among young families in US

[GenSeneca]

Sure!. . .personal responsibility. . .all the way to dying!
Well, I understand that it is your opinion. Obviously it is not mine.

Debate exchange offers window into larger question about role of health care

"A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it. Who's going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?" asked host Wolf Blitzer.

Paul, a medical doctor, first responded by saying American society is primed to believe government would pay for it.

"Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him,' he said.

When pressed on the question, Paul responded: "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," to applause from many tea party backers in the audience.​

You leftists are just so dishonest about everything and everyone that you disagree with, it's really sad and pathetic... Then you have the nerve to preach to us about being civil in our discourse.

 

[Dr.Who]

Sure!. . .personal responsibility. . .all the way to dying!
Well, I understand that it is your opinion. Obviously it is not mine.

If you do not want people to suffer then you have two choices:

1. Help them.
2. deprive someone else of their rights by forcing them to help.

In that debate the debater was saying that he personally helped people when he was cut off by te mod.

 

[Openmind]

If you do not want people to suffer then you have two choices:

1. Help them.
2. deprive someone else of their rights by forcing them to help.

In that debate the debater was saying that he personally helped people when he was cut off by te mod.

I believe there are more than those two choices, and that ONLY all the options put together can be really efficient:

Help people who suffer yourself, in any way possible for your particular case(monetary, personal assistance, kindness, advocacy, understanding, non-judgemental attitude).

Support and institute policies that are fair and balanced and provide a maximum of assistance without thwarting people in need motivation to ALSO help themselves (i.e., policies that would INCREASE assistance for a single mom to find work, maybe free childcare when she goes to training, or job interviews, maybe allowing for continued financial support or food stamps for a short period until she is truly established in her new job), rather than making it almost impossible to find a job that will pay more than the meager assistance a single mother gets. . . because the close to minimum wage jobs doesn't compensate for the amount of money she needs to pay for child care.

Understanding that, it is the money people have to live on that matters, not the money they pay in taxes. Blaming people who make $22,000 a year for NOT paying FEDERAL taxes (they do pay local and sales taxes anyway), while this money is barely enough to cover BASIC SURVIVAL NEEDS in this country, and feeling that it is unfair to ask someone who makes $10 millions a year and keeps at least $7 million from it to give up an additional few hundred thousands dollars is NOT helping.

I agree with you that it would be GREAT if those millionaires should decide to take it upon themselves to send those few extra hundred of thousands of dollars with their current taxes, but we KNOW it doesn't happen. . .so someone has to step in and say: "it is obvious that you are taking more advantage of good economy (and even poor one in the case of the very wealthy) than poor people, it is obvious that, although you MAY be working hard for your money, you are also dependent on a whole bunch of "assistance" from the government to have reached your place (including public education, including infrastructure, including public sponsored laws that helped you in your businesses, etc. . .) and it is only fair that you pay back to the "community pool," or the "commons" for some of those advantages that have helped you reach your elite status.

 

[Dr.Who]

I believe there are more than those two choices, and that ONLY all the options put together can be really efficient:

You may belive in more than those two but all you did was combine them which means that the loss of rights from choice 2 still occurs.

Help people who suffer yourself, in any way possible for your particular case(monetary, personal assistance, kindness, advocacy, understanding, non-judgemental attitude).

By all means.

Support and institute policies that are fair and balanced and provide a maximum of assistance without thwarting people in need motivation to ALSO help themselves (i.e., policies that would INCREASE assistance for a single mom to find work, maybe free childcare when she goes to training, or job interviews, maybe allowing for continued financial support or food stamps for a short period until she is truly established in her new job), rather than making it almost impossible to find a job that will pay more than the meager assistance a single mother gets. . . because the close to minimum wage jobs doesn't compensate for the amount of money she needs to pay for child care.

If such policies were along the lines of stopping people from harming each other and providing a country in which opportunity for all was equal then that would be great.

But right away you started mentioning things that already are and would still be catastrophies.

Giving people money makes them dependent. Making a fair country in which their opportunities to provide for themselves are not harmed by either individuals or gov would indeed help.

Understanding that, it is the money people have to live on that matters, not the money they pay in taxes. Blaming people who make $22,000 a year for NOT paying FEDERAL taxes (they do pay local and sales taxes anyway), while this money is barely enough to cover BASIC SURVIVAL NEEDS in this country, and feeling that it is unfair to ask someone who makes $10 millions a year and keeps at least $7 million from it to give up an additional few hundred thousands dollars is NOT helping.

Just take the same rate from both and it is as fair as an income tax can be.
Taking a different rate from different people is the definitiion of unfair.

I agree with you that it would be GREAT if those millionaires should decide to take it upon themselves to send those few extra hundred of thousands of dollars with their current taxes, but we KNOW it doesn't happen. .

Actually it does happen. The whole reason that Buffet does not pay income tax is because he donates so much money. It is completely fair that when he gives more to charity than he earns through work that he not pay taxes on the money he earns. If we are going to have an income tax then the deduction for giving makes perfect sense and we should not complian when some give so much that it offsets their income completely.

.so someone has to step in and say: "it is obvious that you are taking more advantage of good economy (and even poor one in the case of the very wealthy) than poor people, it is obvious that, although you MAY be working hard for your money, you are also dependent on a whole bunch of "assistance" from the government to have reached your place (including public education, including infrastructure, including public sponsored laws that helped you in your businesses, etc. . .) and it is only fair that you pay back to the "community pool," or the "commons" for some of those advantages that have helped you reach your elite status.

If we focus on opportunity rather than outcome and just make sure that all have the same access to opportunity then any differences that result are completely the result of hard work. If a rich man works harder with the same oportunities then he deserves to be rich.

The problem is that gov constantly meddles with the opportunities we have by rewarding their friends with opportunities (or just blatant cash) and obstructing opportunites for the rest. Too much of what passes for law is nothing more than an excuse to stop some people from being successful so that others can be more successful.

Try reading John Locke for a better understanding of "commons". Everyone should get their shot at picking apples without someone stopping them. But if some end up picking more apples through hard work they do not owe anyone
anything based on a false application of "assistance". The gov is incapable of offering assistance fairly and should not try. It can set up systems where opportunity is not obstructed by either itself or individuals.

 

[Openmind]

You may belive in more than those two but all you did was combine them which means that the loss of rights from choice 2 still occurs.



By all means.



If such policies were along the lines of stopping people from harming each other and providing a country in which opportunity for all was equal then that would be great.

But right away you started mentioning things that already are and would still be catastrophies.

Giving people money makes them dependent. Making a fair country in which their opportunities to provide for themselves are not harmed by either individuals or gov would indeed help.



Just take the same rate from both and it is as fair as an income tax can be.
Taking a different rate from different people is the definitiion of unfair.




Actually it does happen. The whole reason that Buffet does not pay income tax is because he donates so much money. It is completely fair that when he gives more to charity than he earns through work that he not pay taxes on the money he earns. If we are going to have an income tax then the deduction for giving makes perfect sense and we should not complian when some give so much that it offsets their income completely.



If we focus on opportunity rather than outcome and just make sure that all have the same access to opportunity then any differences that result are completely the result of hard work. If a rich man works harder with the same oportunities then he deserves to be rich.

The problem is that gov constantly meddles with the opportunities we have by rewarding their friends with opportunities (or just blatant cash) and obstructing opportunites for the rest. Too much of what passes for law is nothing more than an excuse to stop some people from being successful so that others can be more successful.

Try reading John Locke for a better understanding of "commons". Everyone should get their shot at picking apples without someone stopping them. But if some end up picking more apples through hard work they do not owe anyone
anything based on a false application of "assistance". The gov is incapable of offering assistance fairly and should not try. It can set up systems where opportunity is not obstructed by either itself or individuals.

I agree that if everyone had access to REAL equal opportunities, this would be fair.
Obviously, this is not happening, and has probably NEVER happened.

I am less concerned about the government helping people to even the field of opportunities, than I am about our government, historically, having given away HUGE opportunities to some people, who have then used those opportunities to make HUGE amount of money. . .and made all of us pay for basically what was ours to begin with. . .but was "privatized."

One of the biggest, among most recent exemples would be our airwaves. Airwaves was an open field, belonging to NO ONE, because it belonged to ALL. A typical "commons."
But, the government selected to give a few selected corporation the RIGHT to airwaves. . .for nothing! And now, we are invaded by "private" enterprise who sell us back our own airwaves. . .not just the technology (which would be fair, especially if they developped that technology within private enterprise. . .which is often not the case, since MANY technologies are developped in publicly sponsored research pools in universities, who then "SELL" patents to private corporations) but our own COMMON AIRWAVES.

I disagree that the government cannot set up assistance fairly, at least more fairly than private organizations, as most private charitable organizations do have "criterias" for assistance that are based on social preferences. ..once again, the gap between the "worthy" and "unworthy" recipients!

 

[Dr.Who]

I agree that if everyone had access to REAL equal opportunities, this would be fair.
Obviously, this is not happening, and has probably NEVER happened.

But that is the only real solution to our problems. We must do all we can to advance the real solutions rather than embracing the false solutions.

I am less concerned about the government helping people to even the field of opportunities, than I am about our government, historically, having given away HUGE opportunities to some people, who have then used those opportunities to make HUGE amount of money. . .and made all of us pay for basically what was ours to begin with. . .but was "privatized."

Everyone should indeed have equal access to opportunity. (which in no way means quotas) Maybe you should be more concerned with everyone having equal access to opportunity, then the inequality you mention later would not have occurred in the first place.

The gov should not be in the business of giving HUGE opportunities to just some.
In fact it shold not be in the business of GIVING anything. It sets up the rules so that opportunities are available to all. Its called the rule of law and it is called equal protections under the law. Anything else will not be fair.

One of the biggest, among most recent exemples would be our airwaves. Airwaves was an open field, belonging to NO ONE, because it belonged to ALL. A typical "commons."
But, the government selected to give a few selected corporation the RIGHT to airwaves. . .for nothing! And now, we are invaded by "private" enterprise who sell us back our own airwaves. . .not just the technology (which would be fair, especially if they developped that technology within private enterprise. . .which is often not the case, since MANY technologies are developped in publicly sponsored research pools in universities, who then "SELL" patents to private corporations) but our own COMMON AIRWAVES.

I am not getting all of this and think you should start a thread to describe it better. I would warn you that your concept of private enterprise invading sounds an awful lot like neo-communist rhetoric and is intrinsically biased against those who would work to build something. Private enterprise is nothing more than an individual exercising his right to avail himself of the opportunity all should have. If all have it then there should be noting to complain about. But if all do not have the same opportunities then the fault is not with enterprise but with the lack of opportunity some have.

I disagree that the government cannot set up assistance fairly, at least more fairly than private organizations, as most private charitable organizations do have "criterias" for assistance that are based on social preferences. ..once again, the gap between the "worthy" and "unworthy" recipients!

The most fair way to do it would be to have multiple providers. Which is what happens in the market of charities. The gov always chokes out other providers.

 

[Openmind]

But that is the only real solution to our problems. We must do all we can to advance the real solutions rather than embracing the false solutions.



Everyone should indeed have equal access to opportunity. (which in no way means quotas) Maybe you should be more concerned with everyone having equal access to opportunity, then the inequality you mention later would not have occurred in the first place.

The gov should not be in the business of giving HUGE opportunities to just some.
In fact it shold not be in the business of GIVING anything. It sets up the rules so that opportunities are available to all. Its called the rule of law and it is called equal protections under the law. Anything else will not be fair.


I am not getting all of this and think you should start a thread to describe it better. I would warn you that your concept of private enterprise invading sounds an awful lot like neo-communist rhetoric and is intrinsically biased against those who would work to build something. Private enterprise is nothing more than an individual exercising his right to avail himself of the opportunity all should have. If all have it then there should be noting to complain about. But if all do not have the same opportunities then the fault is not with enterprise but with the lack of opportunity some have.


The most fair way to do it would be to have multiple providers. Which is what happens in the market of charities. The gov always chokes out other providers.

The concept of Commons is extremely interesting, and very old. As I said in another thread, I am just beginning to read a book that gives many exemples and that goes back centuries, when "commons" was basically the natural way to share resources, to create communities, to assure that every person was sharing in what was naturally his (water, land, food, air, beauty, protection, etc. . ). Most civilizations today, and OUR Constitution are based on that concept of "commons."

However, over the centuries, and exponentially over the last couple of centuries, many of the "commons" have been grabbed by enterprising people, often with a vision that was NOT the development of those commons for the common good, but for personal interest.

That doesn't mean that the market is bad. . .it just means that the optimum role of the market should be the greater good, rather than individual greed. Basically, it explains the idea that a society that would provide equal opportunity for all, would take into account the different abilities of people to participate and contribute to the greater good, remain restpectful and remember that MANY of the basic resources were met to BELONG TO ALL, and that, even if at some point individuals (or corporations) were "awarded" those resources, there should be a sort of "annuity" (not necessarely monetary, but in recognizing that without those resources that belong to all, the "market" would never have been able to develop in the first place), and focus on creating a society that is not based on a dichotomy (government and market), but on a three legged base (government, market, and commons).

Not that different than what is happening in Alaska: The oil resources in Alaska belonged to ALL. The Oil rights were "GIVEN" to oil corporations, but at least, the people who are by natural right the REAL owners of those resources, are receiving a type of "royalty."

I wish I could say a lot more. . .but being at the beginning of my exploration of this new (to me), but very old concept, I do not want to venture and mislead anyone. However, if you are interested at all, and you like reading, here is the reference for that book (which, by the way, is totally not political and doesn't take sides).

"All That We Share, A Field Guide to the Commons" by Jay Walljasper with an introduction by Bill McKibben.

 

[GenSeneca]

... and feeling that it is unfair to ask someone who makes $10 millions a year and keeps at least $7 million from it to give up an additional few hundred thousands dollars is NOT helping.

You're not suggesting we "ask", you're proposing that we put a gun to their heads and force them to comply.

I agree with you that it would be GREAT if those millionaires should decide to take it upon themselves to send those few extra hundred of thousands of dollars with their current taxes, but we KNOW it doesn't happen. . .so someone has to step in...

The "someone" you're calling for just happens to have a monopoly on the legal use of force (government).

...it is only fair that you pay back to the "community pool," or the "commons" for some of those advantages that have helped you reach your elite status.

The "rich", as a group, are already paying more in taxes than any other group, they are already paying more than anyone else for the education of others, paying more than anyone else for infrastructure that everybody uses, and they pay more in taxes than anyone else for everything else paid for with tax dollars.

Besides, you're demanding that the "wealthy" be forced to subsidize the lives of other people, and that has nothing to do with paying for infrastructure, education, etc, so your argument is a non-sequitor.

Lastly... Dr.Who was right, the options are to either;

1. Help them yourself
2. Force someone else to help

Feeling that you've already done #1, you're now pushing for government to use it's monopoly on the legal use of force to enact #2.

 

[GenSeneca]

That doesn't mean that the market is bad. . .it just means that the optimum role of the market should be the greater good, rather than individual greed. Basically, it explains the idea that a society that would provide equal opportunity for all, would take into account the different abilities of people to participate and contribute to the greater good, remain restpectful and remember that MANY of the basic resources were met to BELONG TO ALL, and that, even if at some point individuals (or corporations) were "awarded" those resources, there should be a sort of "annuity" (not necessarely monetary, but in recognizing that without those resources that belong to all, the "market" would never have been able to develop in the first place), and focus on creating a society that is not based on a dichotomy (government and market), but on a three legged base (government, market, and commons).

This is not a trick question, I'm not trying to score "gotcha" points here, I'm just curious if you've ever read works from Engels/Marx?

I am well read on several of the most popular ideologies and what you've just described sounds like it was paraphrased from Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto.

 

[Openmind]

This is not a trick question, I'm not trying to score "gotcha" points here, I'm just curious if you've ever read works from Engels/Marx?

I am well read on several of the most popular ideologies and what you've just described sounds like it was paraphrased from Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto.

No, not at all. . .although I admit that I never read Marx entirely, but I am quite familiar with the ideology, as it was part of my education (not an "endocrination," but an overview of different political philosophies throughout the world) in High School in Belgium.

The difference I see is that, this author doesn't support government run "commons," but commons as a THIRD leg. . .an ownership by the people, not controlled by the government nor owned by the private sector. . .although the government is suppose to serve as our ward for the common.

The book actually demonstrates how the idea of commons was a base for even OUR Constitution, but was then bastardized and too many "private" interests took advantage of the commons, privatized them for nothing (thanks to the government complicity . . .or stupidity, and basically are now making US pay for what was common resources, common wealth.

We have seen it with land, we have seen it with water, more recently with the airwaves.

One of the areas where it may be the most evident is in scientific discoveries. Specifically in the 80's. . .Private pharmaceutical industries began purchasing discoveries that were developed BY THE PUBLIC SECTOR, so we, the people, basically covered the development of those new medicines or technologies, and the private sector was allowed to purchase those for far below the cost of the development, and is now free to charge US anything they want for what was basically rightfully ours.

It extend even to language. Language is obviously not a "private" ownership. . .except that, it is becoming so. Do you realize that, a few years ago, Ralph Lauren SUED the Polo association for using the word "polo" when referring or advertising the shirts commonly worn by their players for decades?

I know, it may not seems like much if you look at those details. . .but it amounts to huge resources belonging to all of us being squandered when bought by adventurous people, then made into premium "products."

Some public offices have realize what was happening and have attempted to limit the squandering. For exemple, Pennsylvania State Constitution (1968) states that "Pennsylvania's public natural resource are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come."

The Roman Catholic Church states (1992) that "The right to provate property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the orignal gift of the earth to the whole of mankind."

Even Ben Franklin, who was the creator of the patent processes, refused to patent his popular "Franklin Stove." He explained his decision this way: "As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad to serve others by invention of ours."

Thomas Paine said: "Nature's gifts are the common property of the human race."

The polio vaccine was never patented, because his developer, when asked the question: "Who owns the patent on this vaccine?" Answered: "Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" (from a 1955 television interview)

But what I like the best about this "new" (old) idea is how it empowers all of us as both recipient, and responsible parties of the natural gifts of this earth. How we can use this power, NOT to destroy the market or the government, but to sit at the table with both.

 

[dogtowner]

But, the government selected to give a few selected corporation the RIGHT to airwaves. . .for nothing!

who gets them for nothing ?

 

[Dr.Who]

The concept of Commons is extremely interesting, and very old. As I said in another thread, I am just beginning to read a book that gives many exemples and that goes back centuries, when "commons" was basically the natural way to share resources, to create communities, to assure that every person was sharing in what was naturally his (water, land, food, air, beauty, protection, etc. . ). Most civilizations today, and OUR Constitution are based on that concept of "commons."

However, over the centuries, and exponentially over the last couple of centuries, many of the "commons" have been grabbed by enterprising people, often with a vision that was NOT the development of those commons for the common good, but for personal interest.

That doesn't mean that the market is bad. . .it just means that the optimum role of the market should be the greater good, rather than individual greed. Basically, it explains the idea that a society that would provide equal opportunity for all, would take into account the different abilities of people to participate and contribute to the greater good, remain restpectful and remember that MANY of the basic resources were met to BELONG TO ALL, and that, even if at some point individuals (or corporations) were "awarded" those resources, there should be a sort of "annuity" (not necessarely monetary, but in recognizing that without those resources that belong to all, the "market" would never have been able to develop in the first place), and focus on creating a society that is not based on a dichotomy (government and market), but on a three legged base (government, market, and commons).

Not that different than what is happening in Alaska: The oil resources in Alaska belonged to ALL. The Oil rights were "GIVEN" to oil corporations, but at least, the people who are by natural right the REAL owners of those resources, are receiving a type of "royalty."

I wish I could say a lot more. . .but being at the beginning of my exploration of this new (to me), but very old concept, I do not want to venture and mislead anyone. However, if you are interested at all, and you like reading, here is the reference for that book (which, by the way, is totally not political and doesn't take sides).

"All That We Share, A Field Guide to the Commons" by Jay Walljasper with an introduction by Bill McKibben.

I am glad you are still exploring and Ihope you keep an open mind as you do so.

Some points:

If a group of apple trees, for example, is a commons, then all who pick apples are sharing the resource. No one should stop one person from picking apples and everyone should be free to pick as many apples as he can eat or sell (what he should not do is throw them in the creek). If he eats them then clearly he is doing what is natural to man. If he sells them then he is providing a service to those who would rather buy than climb - even a service to those who cannot climb. The greater good is best held up by enforcing equally applied rules about how to collect apples. One rule might be that one cannot stop another from picking his own apples. One rule might be that one cannot erect permanent ladders that would block the ladders of others. This is what we call regulation.

Backing up just a moment to the "greater good" the fact that one man picks apples because he wants to make a profit is still the greater good. The buyer of those apples will make a deal that is agreed upon to be fair for both the buyer and the seller. The motive if either is irrelevant as long as they make a mutually agreeable deal and the greater good will be served. The greater good is only abused when one cheats or defrauds another. When one alters he rules so they no longer result in equal opportunity or when one maliciously wastes a resource - for example by throwing apples that another could have picked into the creek.

In the example of the oil companies we have a choice of permitting every single joe with a drill to get oil which would probably result in unqualified individuals destroying the environment or we can regulate it. What you describe as BIG OIL being given the rights is governments attempt at regulation. I doubt you would have no regulation and clearly with regulation this is an example where licensing is required. When the regulation results in an unequal distribution of the resource to all who want it do we blame the private enterprise or the regulator? Clearly it is the regulators job to make sure that the regulated resource is regulated equally. The one who is stopping people from getting the oil is the government itself and solutions likewise need to be directed at the government regulators and not at those who are merely "picking apples." Did the oil companies make shady deals with the regulators to get preferential treatment? I bet they did. As an analogy, I don't blame the child more than the parent when he manipulates the parent. It is the regulators who need to be above accepting bribes. We expect no less from our policemen and we should expect no less from our congress and regulatory agencies. Just like we do with policemen we prosecute both those who take bribes and those who offer them.

In short the best way to share natural resources is to permit everyone an equal opportunity to go and get them. This is what is meant in the constitution when it says that all men have the right to the pursuit of happiness. The happiness is not guaranteed but the right to go and get what one wants (the opportunity) is. I doubt one could name any abuse of that in which it is not the gov that failed to permit equal opportunity. Since it the governments role to ensure equal opportunity by definition any failure of that is a failure of gov to do its job. If one man impedes his neighbors access to apples then it is the gov that is supposed to stop that crime. If one man makes a deal with the gov to have better access to apples than the next man then it is also the government who is at fault for failing to provide equal opportunity. (it is also the individuals fault for corrupting the regulator)

What is a false understanding of this is the notion that when a group of individuals all go to pick apples and have equal opportunity that they need to end up with the same amount of apples at the end of the day. The fact that they end up with a different amount of apples is proof that merit or providence* is being rewarded. Assuming you do not believe in providence then only merit is left. But if you do believe in providence then who can argue with God?

* luck in contrast to providence is the same concept but with magic as the driving force rather than God. And chance in contrast to providence is the same concept but with statistics as the driving force rather than God - and chance tends to equalize things, like when multiple coin flips result in proof that the odds of getting heads is 50/50 but those first few coin flips might falsely make one think that the odds were different if they one got head on the first five flips. Chance cannot be accused of causing inequality in the world but it can be accused to driving men toward equality. This is a paraphrase of a saying from thousands of years ago: "I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to always to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.

 

[Dr.Who]

The book actually demonstrates how the idea of commons was a base for even OUR Constitution, but was then bastardized and too many "private" interests took advantage of the commons, privatized them for nothing (thanks to the government complicity . . .or stupidity, and basically are now making US pay for what was common resources, common wealth.

We have seen it with land, we have seen it with water, more recently with the airwaves.

One of the areas where it may be the most evident is in scientific discoveries. Specifically in the 80's. . .Private pharmaceutical industries began purchasing discoveries that were developed BY THE PUBLIC SECTOR, so we, the people, basically covered the development of those new medicines or technologies, and the private sector was allowed to purchase those for far below the cost of the development, and is now free to charge US anything they want for what was basically rightfully ours.

It extend even to language. Language is obviously not a "private" ownership. . .except that, it is becoming so. Do you realize that, a few years ago, Ralph Lauren SUED the Polo association for using the word "polo" when referring or advertising the shirts commonly worn by their players for decades?

I know, it may not seems like much if you look at those details. . .but it amounts to huge resources belonging to all of us being squandered when bought by adventurous people, then made into premium "products."

Some public offices have realize what was happening and have attempted to limit the squandering. For exemple, Pennsylvania State Constitution (1968) states that "Pennsylvania's public natural resource are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come."

The Roman Catholic Church states (1992) that "The right to provate property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the orignal gift of the earth to the whole of mankind."

Even Ben Franklin, who was the creator of the patent processes, refused to patent his popular "Franklin Stove." He explained his decision this way: "As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad to serve others by invention of ours."

Thomas Paine said: "Nature's gifts are the common property of the human race."

The polio vaccine was never patented, because his developer, when asked the question: "Who owns the patent on this vaccine?" Answered: "Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" (from a 1955 television interview)

But what I like the best about this "new" (old) idea is how it empowers all of us as both recipient, and responsible parties of the natural gifts of this earth. How we can use this power, NOT to destroy the market or the government, but to sit at the table with both.

I agree completely that there exists and abuse and bastardization. It baffles me that you can draw the conclusions you do from that observation.

If a man picks apples from the commons are those apples not his once with his own labor he has picked them? Even if you do not agree then surely you must recognize that this is the system of "rule of law' that we live by. Private property is a fundamental basis of the society and laws we live by.

ALL the abuses you mention are to be blamed primarily on the government that fails in its role to apply the rule of law so that all men have equal opportunity. The solution is not to blame corrupt businesses for wanting to take from the commons - this is the nature of work and industry. The solution is to put an end to the gov practice of permitting the abuse of equality of opportunity and convict both those who corrupt the rule of law when they take bribes and when they offer them. The crime is NOT in the act of using a resource but in the act of corrupting the rule of law.

 

[Dr.Who]

who gets them for nothing ?

That's a good point.

The licenses that permit anyone to use the airwaves are sold by action so everyone has an opportunity to use them. Furthermore, the airwaves are divided into bands some being sold by auction but some still being free to anyone with a transmitter (like a walkie talkie) or anyone with a cheap license alone (like a shortwave) or anyone with cash to buy a more expensive license (like a radio station). And that anyone does not need to be a rich individual, he could be a corporation which is really a group of people who alone would not have the money to buy the license but together do.

It appears that the airwaves are regulated so as to give everyone a fairly good opportunity. I do not think they could be unregulated or too many of our radio stations would "bleed" over each other thereby harming each other. But if there is a fault in the system then do not blame those who buy the licenses according to the rules but blame those who do not enforce the rules fairly and to a lesser degree those who cooperate with the poor enforcement of the rules.

 

[Openmind]

I agree completely that there exists and abuse and bastardization. It baffles me that you can draw the conclusions you do from that observation.

If a man picks apples from the commons are those apples not his once with his own labor he has picked them? Even if you do not agree then surely you must recognize that this is the system of "rule of law' that we live by. Private property is a fundamental basis of the society and laws we live by.

ALL the abuses you mention are to be blamed primarily on the government that fails in its role to apply the rule of law so that all men have equal opportunity. The solution is not to blame corrupt businesses for wanting to take from the commons - this is the nature of work and industry. The solution is to put an end to the gov practice of permitting the abuse of equality of opportunity and convict both those who corrupt the rule of law when they take bribes and when they offer them. The crime is NOT in the act of using a resource but in the act of corrupting the rule of law.

I absolutely agree that a man who picks an apple from a tree in a commons has the right to eat that apple. However, does he have the right to pick all the apples, then let them rot, or oblige other people to pay for them? What gave that first man who decided to "claim" that apple tree as HIS PROPERTY the right to do that? Who GAVE him the right of ownership on that tree?

If that tree is the only one in the village, does he have the right to suddenly take away the tree that belonged to the WHOLE village and put a claim of ownership on it?

The fact is that "private property" is a fairly NEW context in the history of men. Although I am all for individual property rights, I believe it has gone to such extreme that it is jeopardizing our society. Patents, copyrights, trademarks have not only limited EVERYONE's ability to enjoy many products, but have gone so far as forcing some products that are NECESSARY for life (i.e., some pharmaceutical products) into a market that are so over priced that they are no longer available to all. And please do not tell me that all these products take money to be developped, and that those patents and trademarks are protecting the investment made by the developer. . . MANY of those pharmaceuticals advances were developped in PUBLICLY SPONSORED labs, as in University paid for by OUR tax money, and then awarded (for a fee) by the university to a pharmaceutical corporation, who can charge whatever "the market can bear" (often a lot more, actually!) for an extended period of time, with no "generic" allowed!

It wouldn't be so bad if the "fee" paid for those PUBLIC discovery went back in the common purse. . .or where used by the university to award scolarships, or to lower the amount of money that that university requires from the government to keep on running. . .but it doesn't! At best, the university will "invest" that money in college footballs. . .and cry that there is not enough money to provide scholarship for academic students, and impose a higher tuition fee on everyone.

You may answer: that's free enterprise!
Well, it's not, or at least it is a double standard!

If an big corporation (let's say, IBM, has an employee who, even in his spare time, comes up with a new code, or a new product, IBM will have the right to claim that new discovery as its own, and will sue the person if the person leaves IBM and try to market that product on his own. . .and they will win, because what was developed during the period of employment (or directly after) by an employee, "RIGHTFULLY" belongs to the employer!

However, if you look at it in a "public sector" like a government sponsored university research lab, although the cost of the research and development has been covered by tax payers money all along, the tax payers are not given any rights to that new products which can be sold for profits by the university, without any money coming back to the tax payers. . .since they will have to pay the "market price" for that product, even if their life depends on it!

You can blame the government for that dichotomy in handling the "private" and the "public" sectors. But the fact is that there are so many lobbyists, and politicians bought by big corporations, that, instead of "regulating" this kind of transactions to protect the rights (basically the ownership) by the commons (all the people), we are moving towards even LESS regulations, and the pendulum is leaning even FURTHER to right of ownership of a FEW, compare to the right of the community to keep ownership for the common good.

The rule of law is changed in favor of "corporations," increasingly over the last 10 years. . .Now, "corporations are people," and THEIR rights often superseed (LEGALLY, based on Supreme court decisions) the rights of the REAL community of people.

So, little by little, more of our "commons" or communal rights fade away. AIR is one of the most basic "commons." No one can deny that air was not "invented" by someone, that EVERYONE has the right to breathe, that it is a BASIC necessity of life. . .a basic right, without which, all other rights are moot, since we stop to live.

Yet, AIR is being used as a "product." Corporations have been given "permission" to polute the air we breathe, in some case making it so toxic that some people can die from it. The government tried to correct those excess through the EPA, not very successfully, as the penalties for poluting the air even beyond the "acceptable" level are often minor compared to the monetary benefits big corporations can reep from poluting.

Yet today, the EPA is facing a huge attacks by lobbyists, and by politicians who are constantly siding with the "rights of a few" as compare of the "rights of many." They don't care that CLEAN AIR is a common good, that it is a basic right. They side with the "right to make a profit" as being greater than "the right to clean air."

WE are our government, no matter how you want to look at it. And the REAL problem with the government is not that it is too big, it is that it is no longer control by the people, but by big corporations.

I was talking about the "three legged stool" (Government, Market, and commons), these three "forces" should be equal, and balanced to work at the advantage of all. Instead, we are allowing the "market" to oversee, to change, to manipulate both the government and the commons.

Our life shouldn't be a "market driven" life. It should be a "people driven" life, with the government AND the market bolstering the good of the people, NOT the other way around.