LOL 
âŚ
1 Like
4 Likes
Just some of the reasons every general practitioner we talked to and that our daughter shadowed in preparation for med school gave her the same advice, do not become a general practitioner, this isnât what we got into medicine for. Fifteen minutes of talking to a patient, followed by 30 minutes of paperwork.
The best part is states like California with a 13.3% state income tax took money from their citizens and wrote it off on their Federal returns and the rest of the country subsidized Californias high taxes. Fortunately the tax cuts ended that travesty.
1 Like
Land, IP, healthcare. Everything.
So was theftâŚ
I would counter that we need to bring other forms of intellectual property back down to the same level as patents. We should also permit flesh and blood Persons to hold patents somewhat longer, on application, than mere legal entities.
So what is your stance on IP? Do you have developed beliefs on it?
It belongs to the intellect. Or whoever paid him to think.
Not âintellectual theftâ. Physical property in some capacity is universal, IP only developed in Europe. Whatâs more is that IPâs three main classesâpatents, copyright, and trademarkâwere not originally unified and grew out of separate contexts.
Though I support it, I donât think of IP as property. I reserve that word for tangible things. I also only ever speak of âIP infringementâ and not âIP theftâ.
Thatâs fine. For you. I have trained my whole life. I am paid to think. My thoughts are my property.
3 Likes
I mean what views do you have for each type? Do you support database rights? They only exist in Europe. What mask works? Theyâre neither patents nor copyrights, but they have some of the characteristics of both. Patents on genetic sequences and organisms. I support abolishing them where they exist and obstructing their creation where they donât exist.
I just reserve the word âpropertyâ for physical stuff. That doesnât devalue IP.
I donât know anything about that.
People who invoke utilitarianism shouldnât complain when it cuts in the other direction.
Come on Samson, read what you wrote with the eye of someone who did not write it. Itâs funny. 
There shouldnât be anything shocking or funny about not liking incentivizing innovation or any other social welfare metric as a reason to support/oppose policy. Itâs actually disgusting and when that kind of reasoning is used in support of policies, it dirties the good ones and compounds the immorality of the bad ones.
Utilitarian arguments are not wielded honestly. If they were, then the same people who make them should also be arguing for organ harvesting like Peter Singer does.
Why should government (your fellow tax payers) give you health care for free?
1 Like
Oh, lookie! Hi, Husker!