Copy Paste Clip number :
 

Copy-Paste anything you want, then get it from anywhere.


Clip number :   0IUKSE
Direct URL :   https://www.heypasteit.com/clip/0IUKSE
Date :   2020-04-09 20:39:07 GMT
Download as file
[quote="Truth To Power"]

I am the person who tells the truth, that's who.  Most insurance is not for natural disasters -- it is often void in such cases -- but for man-made ones like medical bills, liability suits, and operator error in use of powerful machinery.  Insurance is to spread risk.  If people had just compensation for the loss of their rights, they would not feel so much need to be protected against risk of loss.[/quote] 


So what are you proposing that's different? Initial government appropriation of land seems to be all you're concerned with, and that was already done in the past during the time of Western colonialism. Most everything is solidly private property today, so your politics is not only anachronistic, but it's invalid. 

How would government better-preclude risk today - - through government bailouts of bad debt, as is happening under Trump? 


[quote="Truth To Power"]

That's obviously not what I said.  People would just be less interested in insurance because they would not feel so vulnerable to economic hardship resulting from losses.[quote] 


Please take your marketing / salesmanship hat off, for a change, and instead *describe* how things would be different, according to you. 


[quote="Truth To Power"]

No.  It would mean both more [i]freedom [/i]to innovate and relentless [i]pressure [/i]to innovate, as in the fashion industry.[/quote] 


So you're saying lower-barriers-to-entry, but the right-wing argument still stands - - R&D requires *money*, and with an insufficiently-protected *product* at the finish line, who would want to bother starting the race? 

(I myself actually *prefer* your approach, since it's more democratic and beneficial to the end-user / consumer, but technically speaking, I think the right-wing objection is valid and needs to be addressed within the context of capitalism, for the sake of economic incentives for private-type R&D. In the real world most is done by the government, anyway - - ARPANET-to-the-Internet is the classic example - - and then practically given-away to the private sector. I'd favor *full* socialization of resources for worker-controlled R&D.) 


[quote="Truth To Power"]

Because they have problems they want to solve.[/quote] 


Okay - - again, I'm in philosophical agreement on 'natural monopolies' and 'intellectual property', and on *any* monopolies, for that matter. 

 
[quote="Truth To Power"]

By paying engineers instead of lawyers.[/quote] 


Okay, no argument. 

 
© 2020  HeyPasteIt.com  -  All rights reserved.