Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:It doesn't matter whether it's a driver's license, an automobile license plate, or the myriad of business licenses, these documents of control are the total responsibility of government, and the cost cannot properly be assessed to the applicant.

Do you think people should have to have a drivers licence to drive?

I have more of a problem with the government licensing hair dressers, gambling, and marriages than I do with driving. It's literally the government deciding who can or cannot do those things and requiring those who wish to do so to ask permission from the government to do those things. It's bullshit, and antithetical to capitalism.

BigWhit wrote:I have more of a problem with the government licensing hair dressers, gambling, and marriages than I do with driving. It's literally the government deciding who can or cannot do those things and requiring those who wish to do so to ask permission from the government to do those things. It's bullshit, and antithetical to capitalism.

The late and great free-market economist Milton Friedman was against even doctors being licensed.

And he was right. Even with licensing the amount of people going to chiropractors and quack doctors prescribing water pills is alarming. At least we could put legitimate medicine on equal footing as con artists.

Not to mention pharmaceutical companies...

BigWhit wrote:Not to mention pharmaceutical companies...

Under the AEP, there are is no patent protection for exclusive manufacturing rights for a specific time period, but the government does pay the company a royalty for other manufacturers' use of the technology for an indefinite time period, or alternatively, mandatory licensing.

Mandatory licensing would be a more philosophically consistent position.

BigWhit wrote:Mandatory licensing would be a more philosophically consistent position.

Not really, since if there is no patent protection, and competitors can use the technology to reduce costs, thereby lowering prices in a competitive environment, part of the savings to the end user can be returned to the developer of the new technology through taxes. Mandatory licensing is not needed at all and is probably a less efficient approach to the issue.

bobevenson wrote:Probably not since everybody learns how to drive and the current rigmarole is quite meaningless. But if the government is going to require a license, there should be no charge whatsoever to the applicant.

Not every one learns to drive.

Do you think that a test and licensing ought to be abolished?

There are currently 215 million people licensed to drive. Are you saying that the rest of the population should pay for them, or do you want a situation where there unlicensed drivers are allowed to drive what they want, even articulated lorries and busses?

bobevenson wrote:Actually, the entire medical profession is a scam protected by its union, the American Medical Association.

Presumably you also think that anyone should be allowed to take up Pharmacy, and sell what ever drugs they want, claiming whatever they want for their effectiveness?
\
Welcome to Bob's Snake Oil for the cure of Cancer and AIDS.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Probably not since everybody learns how to drive and the current rigmarole is quite meaningless. But if the government is going to require a license, there should be no charge whatsoever to the applicant.

Not every one learns to drive.

Do you think that a test and licensing ought to be abolished?

There are currently 215 million people licensed to drive. Are you saying that the rest of the population should pay for them, or do you want a situation where there unlicensed drivers are allowed to drive what they want, even articulated lorries and busses?

Licensing of any kind is government control, and the cost of that control, as a function of government, should be paid for 100% by the government from tax receipts. By the way, the late and great Nobel prize winner and free-market economist Milton Friedman was against even medical doctors being licensed.

bobevenson wrote:

BigWhit wrote:Mandatory licensing would be a more philosophically consistent position.

Not really, since if there is no patent protection, and competitors can use the technology to reduce costs, thereby lowering prices in a competitive environment, part of the savings to the end user can be returned to the developer of the new technology through taxes. Mandatory licensing is not needed at all and is probably a less efficient approach to the issue.

Mandatory licensing would protect patents while ensuring competition and lower prices while keeping the government out of it. The market would be much more free, and consumers (patients) would have better care.

But I'm not in favor of any government subsidies at all.