Economics: I, Pencil

[RichardR]

AND because it always has, and because we know the mechanisms by which it does so. Amazing how people keep ignoring that...

Straw man – no one is ignoring that fact.

If someone said, “I can’t see how the free market would solve that problem, so it won’t” – that would be argument from personal incredulity. I don’t think anyone is saying that. You are the one making the claim.

You have claimed that patents are not necessary. People have asked you to justify that claim. (It was your claim, remember?) Specifically, how would pharmaceutical company, whose products are easy to copy, protect its inventions? You have not answered that as far as I can see; you just claim the market will solve it unless someone can demonstrate it won’t. That is classic shifting the burden of proof, or argument from ignorance.

 

[RichardR]

It's 4:36pm on December 24th there, liar.

http://www.amblondon.um.dk/en/menu/...aysInDK/PublicHolidaysinDenmark-until2010.htm

You don't actually know where he is right now, though, do you?

 

[RichardR]

And then what? Sit on it?

Search me.

Just ask NOVO.

What would they say?

He didn't, because he can't.

Still hasn’t.

 

[shanek]

Straw man – no one is ignoring that fact.

You ignored exactly that when you said, "he is saying the market will find a solution, because no one can prove it won’t." That's a strawman that ignores both of the aspects I mentioned.

If someone said, “I can’t see how the free market would solve that problem, so it won’t” – that would be argument from personal incredulity.

Which is exactly what the defenders of big government are arguing when they demand that I come up with a way that the free market can solve a problem.

I don’t think anyone is saying that. You are the one making the claim.

What claim do you think I'm making? The ENTIRE PURPOSE of this thread is to refute that argument from incredulity!

You have claimed that patents are not necessary.

No, I have said that it is wrong to conclude that they are.

Specifically, how would pharmaceutical company, whose products are easy to copy, protect its inventions?

This is that very argument from incredulity you say people are not making.

That is classic shifting the burden of proof, or argument from ignorance.

No, it's not! That's what people on YOUR side are doing!

 

[RichardR]

You ignored exactly that when you said, "he is saying the market will find a solution, because no one can prove it won’t." That's a strawman that ignores both of the aspects I mentioned.

I was ignoring nothing. I was just pointing out what you were really saying.

Which is exactly what the defenders of big government are arguing when they demand that I come up with a way that the free market can solve a problem.

I wouldn’t know about defenders of big government, since I am not a defender of big government. I am just asking you to back up your claim.

What claim do you think I'm making? The ENTIRE PURPOSE of this thread is to refute that argument from incredulity!

You made a specific claim about patents. You haven’t backed it up.

No, I have said that it is wrong to conclude that they are.

Sophistry. Are patents needed to protect pharmaceutical companies? Yes or no?

This is that very argument from incredulity you say people are not making.

No, it is not an argument at all. It is a question. One you are apparently unable to answer.

No, it's not! That's what people on YOUR side are doing!

My side? I am not on any “side” here, I’m merely trying to understand what you think would take the place of patents, to protect pharmaceutical companies’ inventions. You won’t answer presumably because you don’t know. You are trying to turn this around by claiming this is argument from incredulity from others. But you are the one making a claim here – the burden of proof is upon you.

Argument from ignorance is where you:

assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true.

That is exactly what you are doing. I am not doing the converse – assuming “that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false”. I am just asking you to back up your claim.

 

[shanek]

I was ignoring nothing. I was just pointing out what you were really saying.

In order for me to be "really saying" that, I would have to not be saying what you claim you weren't ignoring. So, were you ignoring it, or were you lying?

You made a specific claim about patents.

No, Claus made a specific claim about patents. Which he hasn't backed up.

Sophistry. Are patents needed to protect pharmaceutical companies? Yes or no?

If you really understood the point of this thread, you would realize that this question is immaterial, because any response I could give would just validate this argument from incredulity.

Argument from ignorance is where you:

That is exactly what you are doing.

That is absolutely 100% false!!! That is what THEY are doing, Claus and the others! You've done it in the very post I'm replying to! The very demand that I show exactly how the free market can protect pharmaceuticals without patents, and saying that I must do so to defend the concept of free market solutions, IS ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE!

I am not doing the converse – assuming “that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false”. I am just asking you to back up your claim.

I WASN'T THE ONE WHO MADE THE CLAIM!!!! CLAUS WAS!!!!!

Geez...

 

[RichardR]

If you really understood the point of this thread, you would realize that this question is immaterial, because any response I could give would just validate this argument from incredulity.

So you admit you can’t answer the question.

Don’t blame you. Answering it honestly would mean either (1) conceding you were wrong about patents not being necessary or (2) having to explain how else a pharmaceutical company would protect its inventions (ie you would have to back up your claim). Easier to bluster and pretend the question is “immaterial”. Standard woo woo.

Your statements lead to logical questions which you won’t answer. Worse, you dress up your non-answer with a load of “if you read my posts” or “if you understood my point” intimidation-type responses. Doesn’t disguise the fact that, like a lot of woo woos, you made a claim you can’t support.

Perhaps you think you have “won” the argument. Good luck then. You’re not getting your point over, though, you just demonstrate that you have no answer to the real world question I asked – how would a pharmaceutical company protect its inventions? Questions are not logical fallacies. Refusing to answer them is woo woo.

 

[shanek]

So you admit you can’t answer the question.

Don’t blame you. Answering it honestly would mean either (1) conceding you were wrong about patents not being necessary or (2) having to explain how else a pharmaceutical company would protect its inventions (ie you would have to back up your claim). Easier to bluster and pretend the question is “immaterial”. Standard woo woo.

And I can't tell you how to make a pencil, either. Gee, they must not exist then!

 

[shanek]

Okay, you woo-woos, THIS is the claim:

[Lack of patents] will effectively put a stop to all inventions and developments of anything.

See it? Do I need to repost it in big, bold, red type?

[Lack of patents] will effectively put a stop to all inventions and developments of anything.

See? Now, stop trying to shift the burden of proof! THIS is the claim!!!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Is a hissy fit imminent? Place your bets!

I say within the next 7 posts.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, Claus made a specific claim about patents. Which he hasn't backed up.

Not correct. You made a specific claim: That patents don't exist in a free market. You have not backed that up.

If you really understood the point of this thread, you would realize that this question is immaterial, because any response I could give would just validate this argument from incredulity.

Nice try to turn the tables. Won't work. Answer the question:

Are patents needed to protect pharmaceutical companies? Yes or no?

That is absolutely 100% false!!! That is what THEY are doing, Claus and the others! You've done it in the very post I'm replying to! The very demand that I show exactly how the free market can protect pharmaceuticals without patents, and saying that I must do so to defend the concept of free market solutions, IS ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE!

Quite contrary. Me "and the others" (clear sign of growing paranoia) are ripping your imaginary society apart, bit by bit, by showing real-world examples of why it can never be a reality.

I WASN'T THE ONE WHO MADE THE CLAIM!!!! CLAUS WAS!!!!!

Hissy-fit. How many this month?

 

[CFLarsen]

Okay, you woo-woos, THIS is the claim:

...

See? Now, stop trying to shift the burden of proof! THIS is the claim!!!

Your claim - that patents don't exist in a free market - came before my post:

In the Free Market concept are there patents, trademarks and copyrights?

To which you replied:

Patents and copyrights, no.

I have justified my claim with real-world examples. Please justify yours.

You also haven't answered this question:

I claim ownership of a certain logo, and you do the same. We each have different independent private bodies. Who should win?

Please answer that question.

And stop calling people "woos" and throw hissyfits, whenever they point out that you haven't answered questions. I've lost count of your hissyfits. You definitely have serious anger management issues.

 

[CFLarsen]

Search me.

I dunno either. And shanek refuses to tell us. Or, can't.

What would they say?

Their business is hurt. shanek ignores this.

Still hasn’t.

Still hasn't. Never will. Can't.

 

[Daylight]

Completely wrong, and completely 100% impossible in a free market. I have no idea how you were able to reach such an insane inclusion from the arguments here.

No!!!! You’ve shown in a “free market” there is no government intervention, and hence no protection of the little guys (or start-ups) of unscrupulous behavior by big business. In a “free market” the bigger the company, the more power it has. A big company can do what ever it wants to a small company, and get away with it. The end result is eventually one maga-company.

In a natural disaster a big company even more so would price gouge. Any retailer not supporting the new prices would lose the ability to buy from the large company and go out of business.

As for the other part, name one large company that does not use a dictator type company structure? One where everyone is free to choose the people running the company.

 

[karl]

As with everything else, profit. I don't know the exact mechanism the market would employ, but then, I don't know how to make a pencil, either...and neither does anyone else.

This is what's frustrating me about this thread...the pencil proves that questions—nay, demands—like the ones you just gave are invalid. They are arguments from incredulity.

Your frustration stems from your inability to grasp the difference between physical objects and ideas. The pencil example would be relevant if I was talking about the printing and distribution of books. But I'm talking about coming up with the content of books. Without copyright laws, once a book was available to the public, anyone could legitimately copy the content and sell the same thing at a potentially lower price because they'd have one less mouth to feed (the writer).

This would be great for the consumers and publishers at first. With content freely available to anyone with a printing press, prices would drop considerably on all books that have been written up until now. But there would be no more incentive to pay writers anything. It's easier to wait until they give up and self-publish, and then just copy it. From the writer's point of view, books would become freeware, and only hobbyists (and perhaps those given government grants to write for example textbooks) would remain.

What you are saying is, you don't know the exact mechanism by which you would walk on water, but you attempt to prove that you can by showing how easy it is to walk on land.

 

[shanek]

Not correct. You made a specific claim: That patents don't exist in a free market. You have not backed that up.

Claus, I QUOTED YOU. Stop LYING.

[and even more of Claus's typical personal abuse deleted]

 

[shanek]

No!!!! You’ve shown in a “free market” there is no government intervention

IN...THE...ECONOMY!!! You still have laws against murder etc.

and hence no protection of the little guys (or start-ups) of unscrupulous behavior by big business.

Such as?

In a “free market” the bigger the company, the more power it has.

Completely 100% wrong. In a free market, there is NOTHING a company can do to you, short of getting the support of government or resorting to criminal activity, that you don't voluntarily agree to.

In a natural disaster a big company even more so would price gouge.

I have proven time and time again in this forum that price gouging is impossible in a free market as prices have equilibria, and I have debunked every single example of price gouging that people have come up with. This concept has exactly as much support as UFO abductions.

As for the other part, name one large company that does not use a dictator type company structure?

Time-Warner. They're a federalist republic if there ever was one.

 

[shanek]

Your frustration stems from your inability to grasp the difference between physical objects and ideas. The pencil example would be relevant if I was talking about the printing and distribution of books. But I'm talking about coming up with the content of books.

In a market sense, there is no difference. They are both products of labor in response to consumer demand.

Without copyright laws, once a book was available to the public, anyone could legitimately copy the content and sell the same thing at a potentially lower price because they'd have one less mouth to feed (the writer).

And someone could decipher the secret formula for Coke. These are market challenges to be overcome, nothing more.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, I QUOTED YOU. Stop LYING.

[and even more of Claus's typical personal abuse deleted]

Did I make my claim before or after you made yours?

 

[Cain]

Shanek,

Do you ever get the feeling others are out to "get" you. What are we to do with all these LYING BIGOTED LIARS? You TOLD them that they're LIARS, QUOTED them, and completely DISPROVED their fanciful anti-market PROPAGANDA.

Let's conservatively estimate that you've spent 75% of your waking hours for the last few years spreading libertarian propaganda. What has it accomplished? I think a poll taken here awhile ago said most people were turned off by your incessant proselytizing. For the sake of the movement, please stop.

I suggest you limit yourself to three posts a day, and only two of these can be spent on libertarianism. You're a goddamn monomaniac. Also, you should not think of these as "limitations" per se, but incentives. Maybe the time you spend countering others with the same telegraphed arguments could be put to use for thoughtful and probing reflection. A novel concept for you, I know.