If you design a new fuel-injection system that lets cars get 5,000 miles, per gallon, you are only entitled to make a profit on your design if you can manufacture it cheaper than anyone else.
The problem with this is the word "entitled". In a true free market, you are not entitled to anything.
The problem with your argument is that it proceeds from a context shift of the word "entitled."
I'm not totally sure what you mean by this.
I was just trying to point out the difference between the government entitling you to a certain profit and the inherent value of your product creating that certain profit.
(pretty much my thoughts copied from another thread...)
I am pro-capitalism/free market(and libertarian), Without Govt. intervention in not allowing others to merely copy a product, innovation would suffer greatly. If corporation "A" spends several million in research, and developement, should Corp. "B" be allowed to make an exact duplicate of the product while only using a miniscule fraction of money for their own development of said product? Corp. "B" would then be able to offer this product for significantly less because they would not have to recoup for the initial enormous investment Corp "A" had in the research and developement. This would allow Corp. "B" to excell in the market and unlitmately Corp. "A" would never recover. And thats assuming there is only one other competitor. If there was a price war amongst 2 or 3 Corp. who made copies, this would speed up the demise of Corp. "A".
It means he generally prefers to focus on failed semantics and logical constructs rather than dealing with ideas as presented.
Oh, how the conquered do protest.
Much to your displeasure, you can't proceed from false premises, and you can't change the meaning of words.
Oh, how the conquered do protest.
Much to your displeasure, you can't proceed from false premises, and you can't change the meaning of words.
entitledAadjective
1 entitled
qualified for by right according to law; "we are all entitled to equal protection under the law"
"conquered"...very cute.
You're obviously a bright kid. Why don't you step out of battlefield logic text and step into the real world where people discuss things civilly, rather than try to gain points, score wins, or "conquer"?
You can still point out logical fallacies but, if you do it with a kind hand, you might actually serve your cause, whatever that might be.
Try publishing a journal article with the "real world" rigor you learn here. This place is fun, but it ain't the bigs. When it comes to regimented and exacting discourse, this place is a long way from the "real world."
You can have all the tavern chat you want, but I'll be playing at a higher level.
Try publishing a journal article with the "real world" rigor you learn here. This place is fun, but it ain't the bigs. When it comes to regimented and exacting discourse, this place is a long way from the "real world."
You can have all the tavern chat you want, but I'll be playing at a higher level.
That's correct. The hard-core Libertarians approve of what you just described.
Wow. You make some good points sometimes. But if your arrogant condescending manner represents the "higher level", I'll be glad to just hang out with Lex in the tavern.
Steveh has addressed here what I've thought, reading which of your posts I have: Arrogance, abrasiveness, and belittling condescension don't win people to your way of thinking; quite the reverse. You don't seem to care about such things as "friends" here, so it may not matter to you, but to me, it comes across as a lesson in how to lose friends and alienate people.
These people can't poke me with a stick then complain when I smack them over the head with it.
I give what I get.