Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They have very discreetly eliminated the terms Individual Rights and Individual Liberties from all of their correspondence and writings - and have substituted the terms, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
I think you are grasping at straws. Civil liberties are liberties that protect the individual from the government. If in fact, it is true what you say--that the Cato Institute has eliminated all of their correspondences from using the terms individual liberties, it must have just happened a few days ago because Ed Crane, Cato's founder, just used the term in a correspondence on April 20th, 2009.
Quote:
Originally Posted by From Cato's website
We are delighted to have two of the nation’s most effective proponents of free markets and individual liberty on board now at Cato,” said Cato founder and president Ed Crane. “Mark Calabria and Jeff Miron are distinguished economists who will play an important role in advancing Cato’s mission in the months and years ahead.”
Even the Von Mises Institute now wants to amend the Constitution to remove Individual Patent Rights from the main body of the Constitution, which would take control of an Individual's innovation and throw it to the corporate wolves.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Again, I think you are grasping at straws. Nowhere in that blog did they claim that they wanted to amend Constitution. It was a short blog expressing Hayek's view on patent and copyright laws. Many Austrians are of the persuasion that patent and copyright laws are government granted monopolies that exclude competition, and by creating these artificial monopolies they lead to a decline in human welfare since monopolies will drive up prices.
Last edited by I Like Taxes; 04-23-2009 at 12:54 PM..
Their ****ing website and fact that many members of th Cato Institute used to write criticisms of the War on Terror, the Invasion of Iraq, and the War on Drugs on the Cato website and for magazines/websites like Reason.
Where is YOUR proof that Cato every backed the violations of civil liberties under the Bush Administration?
Just saying it over and over again doesn't make it so.
Reason got a contact high from Reagan mob-farts and tried to appropriate some respectability for the Libertarian Party by hitchin' a ride. They ended up holding their noses while wearing 3-piece suits.
Too late, they realized they had been kidnapped - and were eventually enslavened by the Bushie Bushie Bon Ami. Surfin USA!
Try reading Liberty Magazine and notice the difference.
I think you are grasping at straws. Civil liberties are liberties that protect the individual from the government. If in fact it is true what you say--that the Cato Institute have eliminated all of their correspondences from using the terms individual liberties, it must have just happened a few days ago since because Ed Crane, Cato's founder, just used the term in a correspondence on April 20th, 2009.
Civil liberties (14th Amendment) are liberties that protect a group (like a Corporation) from the tyranny of an Individual having Individual Rights.
Again, I think you are grasping at straws. Nowhere in that blog did they claim that they wanted to amend Constitution. It was a short blog expressing Hayek's view on patent and copyright laws. Many Austrians are of the persuasion that patent and copyright laws are government granted monopolies that exclude competition, and by creating these artificial monopolies they lead to a decline in human welfare since monopolies will drive up prices.
Most twisted piece of reasoning I've come across since yesterday.
Hayek is a Corporate Hack.
A gang is a gang as far as I'm concerned.
And yes, pooled money and resources can and do act as force.
Is the 2nd Amendment an "artificial" mechanism for self defense?
On 9-11 we became judge, jury, and if nessesary, executioner. And the country was virtually unanimous on that until election time when democrats saw political expediency in redefining terms and gleaning details that would be detrimental to their political foes.
There's a rhinoceros outside your door too. And all the hope and change in the world won't make it go away.
"""On 9-11 we became judge, jury, and if nessesary, executioner. ""
Civil liberties (14th Amendment) are liberties that protect a group (like a Corporation) from the tyranny of an Individual having Individual Rights.
Civil liberties are laws that protect the individual from the state. Now you are spinning the argument into whether corporations should be granted the same rights as individuals. The concern over whether if corporations should be considered a personhood and granting them the same rights as human beings is certainly questionable.
Quote:
Most twisted piece of reasoning I've come across since yesterday.
"The patent is incompatible with the free market precisely to the extent that it goes beyond the copyright. The man who has not bought a machine and who arrives at the same invention independently, will, on the free market, be perfectly able to use and sell his invention. Patents prevents a man from using his invention even though all the property is his and he has not stolen the invention, either explicitly or implicitly, from the first inventor. Patents, therefore, are grants of exclusive monopoly privilege by the state and are invasive of property rights on the market."
With monopolies come special privileges and monopolistic prices. Government-granted monopoly privileges introduce coercion into the picture. Such privileges make consumers pay higher prices for the monopolized good or service and force them to restrict their consumption and consumer sovereignty takes a back seat.
Quote:
Hayek is a Corporate Hack.
A gang is a gang as far as I'm concerned.
And yes, pooled money and resources can and do act as force.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong. Hayek showed concern that the legal framework regarding corporations have diminished competition and efficiency.
"The systematic study of the forms of legal institutions which will make the competitive system work efficiently has been sadly neglected; and strong arguments can be advanced that serious shortcomings here, particularly with regard to the law of corporations and the law of patents, not only have made competition work much less effectively than it might have done but have even led to the destruction of competition in many spheres." The sociology and politics of health ... - Google Book Search
Quote:
Is the 2nd Amendment an "artificial" mechanism for self defense?
I don't completely understand your question and its relation to the discussion.
Last edited by I Like Taxes; 04-23-2009 at 05:49 PM..
When even right wing groups like CATO are calling it torture you know it is torture.
Yeah, probly would've been better to lose LA than to torture. Just think of all the savings in pensions, welfare, government budget, less immigration.... and to finally get rid of Hollywood.
If you are taliking about the thwarting of an attack in LA, that was proven incorrect already. There's a timeline that does not jive. Someone posted the video or quote from Bush and it's on these boards somewhere. You can most likely google it.
Civil liberties are laws that protect the individual from the state. Now you are spinning the argument into whether corporations should be granted the same rights as individuals. The concern over whether if corporations should be considered a personhood and granting them the same rights as human beings is certainly questionable.
[i]"The patent is incompatible with the free market precisely to the extent that it goes beyond the copyright. The man who has not bought a machine and who arrives at the same invention independently, will, on the free market, be perfectly able to use and sell his invention. Patents prevents a man from using his invention even though all the property is his and he has not stolen the invention, either explicitly or implicitly, from the first inventor. Patents, therefore, are grants of exclusive monopoly privilege by the state and are invasive of property rights on the market."
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Like Taxes
"Patents prevents a man from using his invention even though all the property is his and he has not stolen the invention, either explicitly or implicitly, from the first inventor."
That's bull****! He simply would not be allowed to commercialize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Like Taxes
With monopolies come special privileges and monopolistic prices. Government-granted monopoly privileges introduce coercion into the picture. Such privileges make consumers pay higher prices for the monopolized good or service and force them to restrict their consumption and consumer sovereignty takes a back seat.
Consumer sovereignty? You really ARE a bleeding Socialist!
"Make consumers?" "Coercion"? Protect pluralities from the FORCE of my patents?
I BEG OF YOU, PLEASE DO NOT SEND THE POLICE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Like Taxes
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong. Hayek showed concern that the legal framework regarding corporations have diminished competition and efficiency.
Oh, he just found out that Corporations are mindless pigs?
The Patent Office refuses to issue patents to Corporations because Corporations do not have a "mind" with which to invent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Like Taxes
"The systematic study of the forms of legal institutions which will make the competitive system work efficiently has been sadly neglected; and strong arguments can be advanced that serious shortcomings here, particularly with regard to the law of corporations and the law of patents, not only have made competition work much less effectively than it might have done but have even led to the destruction of competition in many spheres." The sociology and politics of health ... - Google Book Search
Yeah - gangs can be a sonofabitch, can't they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Like Taxes
I don't completely understand your question and its relation to the discussion.
You SAID that the Constitution granted artificial rights related to patents.
I want to know if you think 1st through 10th Amendment Rights are artificial rights granted to, or on behalf of, Individuals.
As far as gangs go, I'm torn over whether I like Socialists (forced good intentions) or Corporatists (greedy pigs) the more or less.
I want to know if you think 1st through 10th Amendment Rights are artificial rights granted to, or on behalf of, Individuals.
I know that I haven't been a part of this discussion, but actually the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights) don't grant any rights to anyone. Instead they tell the federal government what it cannot do with the reasoning being that our rights are inalienable, and are not contingent upon, nor granted to us by, government edict.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
c'mon tater salad, you can do better than that!
