(Re)Writing a New Constitution

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see it as a separate system. I see it as trial by a peer jury. We can have the same kind of conflict today in the U.S. when it becomes necessary to try a minority defendant- can a jury of one race be a peer jury for a defendant of another race?

[/ QUOTE ]

so you're saying you're a segregationist? you want all black juries for blacks, and all white juries for whites?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
can a jury of one race be a peer jury for a defendant of another race?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. Why would race matter?

[Bedreviter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) How would you keep big business from oppressing innovation and new ideas?

[/ QUOTE ]

Remove the apparatus used to oppress innovation and new ideas (e.g. patents)

[/ QUOTE ]

You want to get rid of patents? So any company that spends hundreds of millions on developing a new product would risk not getting any money back as copycats can copy the invented product and can sell it cheaper because they do not need to make up for the cost of development? Wouldnt this make spending money on innovating products way to risky, thus reducing the will to come up with new stuff?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) How would you keep big business from oppressing innovation and new ideas?

[/ QUOTE ]

Remove the apparatus used to oppress innovation and new ideas (e.g. patents)

[/ QUOTE ]

You want to get rid of patents?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
So any company that spends hundreds of millions on developing a new product would risk not getting any money back as copycats can copy the invented product and can sell it cheaper because they do not need to make up for the cost of development? Wouldnt this make spending money on innovating products way to risky, thus reducing the will to come up with new stuff?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be one way of putting it, looking only at the seen aspects and ignoring that which is unseen.

Why should I be forced to subsidize this particular business model?

[Bedreviter]

I couldnt get that link to work right now [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

But what business model would you be subsidizing? If I invent a product I want to be paid handsomely for the effort and investements and risks I had inventing it. If I spend 10 years of my life making a product, borrowing money, having people sponsor me and still knowing Im running a risk of never being successfull the least I would want is a guarantee that if the product is successfull then I will reap the benefits of all the time, labour and money invested in it. It would suck balls if 2 weeks after I am done with my product my neighbor copies my exact product and can sell it at a lower price because he did not spend 10 years, lots of labour and money in the development process.

And I think most businesses would be very reluctant to invest 100 of millions in a product if they know that anyone can copy it and they will not see the return of their initial investment.

You are free to not buy the product, but if you want to buy a product invented by me then I should be the one getting your money, not someone who wasnt willing to invest what was required for the development of said product.

[Danastasio1]

[ QUOTE ]
15) Supreme Court decisions would be made by randomly-selected jurors and not by justices. Grand juries would select which cases would be heard. Many more cases would be heard because there would be there enough “courts” to hear all of the cases deemed worthy of hearing by the Supreme Court Grand Jury. The pay would be the equivalent of the pay of the justices so as not to discriminate against the working class (i.e., 2 weeks of Supreme Court duty would get you paid about the same as a 2 week paycheck for a current Supreme Court justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would lead to a myriad of problems. However, I'll make just one argument against as I assume there will be others who can articulate similar arguments with greater effectiveness / clarity. Legal issues of paramount importance inherently deserve to be decided by a body nominated and installed by elected representatives and determined to be the highest quality of jurist. The idea of grand jury selection and "random jurors" handing down rulings on matters of great national interest with repercussions for generations such as the death penalty or abortion is, to say the least, unacceptable. I would add that although many journalists and authors complain about the Court rejecting hundreds and hundreds of cases each year, don't mistake this as the Court lacking the time or the ability, it is instead primarily a matter of whether the Justices believe a case falls within the Court's jurisdiction.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I couldnt get that link to work right now [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

But what business model would you be subsidizing? If I invent a product I want to be paid handsomely for the effort and investements and risks I had inventing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Labor theory of value FTW!!!

[ QUOTE ]
If I spend 10 years of my life making a product, borrowing money, having people sponsor me and still knowing Im running a risk of never being successfull the least I would want is a guarantee that if the product is successfull then I will reap the benefits of all the time, labour and money invested in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you entitled to such a promise? And who has the *legitimate authority* to *forcibly prevent* other people - people who DID NOT "steal" the idea from you - from similarly reaping the benefits of the time, labor and money THEY invested?

[ QUOTE ]
It would suck balls if 2 weeks after I am done with my product my neighbor copies my exact product and can sell it at a lower price because he did not spend 10 years, lots of labour and money in the development process.

[/ QUOTE ]

But all of this is begging the question, working from an assumption that you're entitled to a government-granted exclusive monopoly. You're not. Please explain why you should be.

[ QUOTE ]
And I think most businesses would be very reluctant to invest 100 of millions in a product if they know that anyone can copy it and they will not see the return of their initial investment.

You are free to not buy the product, but if you want to buy a product invented by me then I should be the one getting your money, not someone who wasnt willing to invest what was required for the development of said product.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your second unfounded assumption: there are no ways of protecting ideas through voluntary agreements. COPYING is one thing, but patents restrict MORE than copying. Patents restrict INDEPENDENT INVENTION. Copying can be restricted through voluntary agreement, since to COPY something you must SEE it first - and you can set the terms upon which you agree to sell or show something to someone else.

[Mook]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is teh awesome. He wants to ban volume discounts in his constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not to mention bundled cable TV packages!

Historians in the year 2227 will marvel unabashedly at the foresight of that brave and noble group of early-21st-century framers. Marvel, I tell you!

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is teh awesome. He wants to ban volume discounts in his constitution. That may be one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this forum, right next to banning low fat milk.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

It was just an idea, maybe it is stupid and won't work.

1) How would you keep big business from oppressing innovation and new ideas?


[/ QUOTE ]

Remove all regulations and taxes on business, preventing government from playing favorites with one at the expense of another.

[ QUOTE ]

2) How would you reposition America as the innovative leader that we saw throughout most of the 20th century?


[/ QUOTE ]

see above. also, volume discounts actually drive innovation.

[ QUOTE ]
3) If volume discounts were illegal, how would this hurt or destroy the economy?

[/ QUOTE ]

For one, it's unfeasible, so you'd have a bunch of insane regulations attempting to describe what 'volume discounts' mean (not to mention you'd have a bunch of arcane loopholes instantly provided by congress to the biggest donators).

Also, how would you handle service industry pricing? Do I go to jail if I cut my rate for my Indian programmers when you hire 10 of them?

Also, implementing this ban would be a function that relied on oppression. You'd have to get state agents accounting and tracking and involved in every business transaction. You'd be sending in agents to bust up warehouses of tin cans just like Prohibition era Eliot Ness.

Since businesses would have to price each unit the same to every vendor or customer, they would either:

1. circumvent the law by coming up with *other* reasons for charging less to certain customers who happen to be buying more, or perhaps make different products that are the same in all but name in order to sell them differently. This would of course spur the govt to clamp down with even more heavy-handed oversight of every business operation in the country.

or:

2. businesses would follow the law and all consumers would suffer higher prices for basic items, and jobs would be lost.

This doesn't even touch on the cavalier dismissal of actual respect for people's free choices that is required to even contemplate such a law. It is completely counter to all notions of freedom. This is ostensibly a free a country you know. if I want to sell you two bottles of milk for a 10% discount that isn't anyone else's business but yours and mine.

This idea is a singularly bad idea. it encompasses nearly all the mistakes that can be made when proposing public policy.

natedogg

[Bedreviter]

[ QUOTE ]
Your second unfounded assumption: there are no ways of protecting ideas through voluntary agreements. COPYING is one thing, but patents restrict MORE than copying. Patents restrict INDEPENDENT INVENTION. Copying can be restricted through voluntary agreement, since to COPY something you must SEE it first - and you can set the terms upon which you agree to sell or show something to someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what ways does patent restrict INDEPENDENT INVENTION?

Im not sure if I understand you correctly, so Im gonna ask a question that might seem stupid but your answer will help me understand your position: If Microsoft spend $ 100.000.000 developing a new operating system (lets say Vista), and they sell if for 150$ a piece. Lets assume they have gone above and beyond to make it difficult for people to access the codes written within the program, but I am still able to crack them all. Should I be allowed to copy all the codes, maybe add a few more and then sell my own Vista+ for 50$ without Microsoft being entitled to stop me?

Do you think property rights should not relate to intellectual property?

What are the chances that someone comes up with the same product as myself at approximatly the same time as myself without any interaction?

I believe I should be entitled to government granted exclusive monopoly because that is the only way one can protect my investment.

I find it very hard to understand how you can defend property rights if you do not want to defend intellectual property. People who own land that I do not only does so because they or their anchestors got there before me. Not my fault someone else got their first, I like that land so Im gonna move in there and basically I dont think anyone should be entitled to stop me. What gives you the right to the property you live on?