So guys here's where we hash out our collective ignorance (mine included, le gasp) of politics. Bunch of little minds is better than one little minds, ya know.

So I'll start off by asking a question. I figured that, with what little I know of the way patent and copyright laws work, after the inventor or creator or whatever dies, it's free for everyone forever to do what they want with it, unless it's bought or bequeathed. But, as I recall seeing that companies are technically people or something like that, they could buy and sell patents. Why is this legal? Seems like a bad idea.

Patents on something the patenter didn't invent shouldn't be legal imo.

Genes etc.

Absolutely agreed. I'm interested in a logical rebuttal to this.

I agree with it, but a patent is as close to proof of invention as anything. I think patents should be free, as it will encourage inventors to lock in their designs before large companies can move in.

Inventors sell patents, and companies can stipulate in contracts that they own anything you invent while you work for them.

Problem is that research into things like that becomes charity, essentially. Expensive, time-consuming charity.

This is actually a lot of what's wrong with the research industry today. Pharma companies don't seem to understand that you can't measure and quantify the unknown. Putting deadlines on research is just... dumb.

Deadlines are necessary because you are putting research teams and resources into the research, both of which are highly expensive. If you don't limit the outlay, make that money back and do so in a reasonably time-frame then you end up exhausting your ability to continue existing as a company.

Clearly what needs to happen is we need to find a source of temporally unlimited* energy, distribute it to everyone on earth equally, and let the science flow. That or virtual reality.
*(fancy phrase to mean essentially unlimited according to our human timeframe)

Sarah Palin is dumb. Yes? Yes.

What an excellent point, allow me to discuss it: Don't make stupid posts like this. Spawn discussion, don't spew ♥♥♥♥. I'm sure you expected everyone to go HAHA LOL UR SO RIGHT XD but that's not going to happen. Instead, this is me ridiculing you for attempting to beat the ♥♥♥♥ out of the dead horse that bandwagon is. Idiot.

This is a good point. I've been thinking about this a lot. As I understand it, corporations are required to maximize profit for their shareholders, regardless of benefit to society as a whole. I've been told herpes is curable, but there's more money in treatment than a cure obviously, so nobody has ever researched it far enough to find a cure. This is just one example. I can't think of a way that situations like this would be avoidable in a capitalist system. This just solidifies my faith in socialism.

Kinda, yeah. It seemed really, really witty.

Honestly, whyumadbro?



But if you insist, I'll elaborate on that non-existent point: How should we determine who gets to be a "politician" and who doesn't? It seems like a great deal of people holding office somewhere aren't there based on their merit, they're there because they can lie and persuade really well. Then, when people find out that they're total d-bags, they get thrown out of office as quickly as possible (which unfortunately can take a while in most cases since a lot of positions are held for 2, 4, or 6 years) Then someone else who's even better at lying replaces that d-bag and the cycle continues. Very few things are actually accomplished by people who are essentially figureheads that don't know what they're doing. I'm all for democracy and people getting a choice in their candidates, but it's the process of picking the candidates that irks me; instead of intelligent people who can do what needs to be done, anyone who wants to can run for an elected position. "BUT THIS IS AMERICA! OBVIOUSLY WE CAN ALL BE WHATEVER WE WANT TO BE! LAND OF THE FREE DAH DAH DAH"- yeah, OK, sure, and everyone could also be a space cowboy if they wanted to. Point being, some people just aren't suited for office, yet they somehow lodge their butts in there by persuading the public that they really can do a good job. How do we weed the morons out? Setting up a merit-based system of examinations (in the style of old China or somthin') is about all I can come up with. Your guys' thoughts on this?

Because the point of the topic is discussion, not to make dumb jokes. I pity you if you think that was witty.
Witty - Noun: Mental sharpness and inventiveness; keen intelligence
How the ♥♥♥♥ is making fun of Sarah Palin demonstrative of keen intelligence? It's ♥♥♥♥ Sarah Palin for christ's sake, not exactly unknown that she's a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

Any system is prone to corruption, there never will be a government without it without complete transparency, which as you should be aware is a laughable idea. Take a look at lobbying some time. It makes more sense to be productive at the basic level, the voters. Education has always produced positive results, be it birth rates or poverty levels or anything like that. Knowledge is power.

Add to ragdollmaster's point - politicians also accepted the right money.

Nonseq is right. But i would go a little bit further - i would say that large (probably multi-national) companies are pulling the strings of half the senators in the government. Who is it easier to get money from; an uneducated idiot or an informed idiot? The more desperate people are, the the more poor they get, the less knowledgable they become; then the commercials showing shiny happy people start to become more effective - "if you want to be like them, buy this and this, and also this." These companies have insane amounts of money at their disposal, and they use it to get what they want.



The voters have power, yes. But the companies have money. Which goes farther in this world?

There's this wonderful thing called sarcasm.



Oh, ♥♥♥♥ no. The basic fact that the overwhelming majority of people on this planet are, put lightly and simply, self-centered, precludes the creation of any "perfect" government.

It's not like we don't get anything done with the current system, but a huge political problem is the whole Democrats vs. Republicans crap. They don't seem to ever work together. No matter what one side proposes, the other side swats it down without regard of how it would help the country, simply twisting the issue in their minds so it seems like they're doing the rational thing. The only time congress can really get through something is when there's an objective, non-partisan issue at stake and there aren't many differing opinions on the matter, and this is unfortunately rare, to say the least.

Here's another of my views on this: It's easier to manage things on a smaller scale. This is why we have a federal system- national, state, county, and city-wide levels of government running life for the country. I think a big problem with America, if you'll forget the pun, is the size. Not just the physical size or population of the country, but the fact that our government is so enormous. There are entire branches of government which just exist as checks and balances for other branches. We have thousands upon thousands of bureaucrats in office at this moment, and it seems like the governmental sector is growing by the day (correct me on this if I'm mistaken) Smaller countries seem to have a much easier time regulating their affairs- for instance, generally speaking, the many countries in Europe seem pretty well off, despite the global recession. Sure, the whole point of states is so that we can break up the country into more easily manageable sectors, but when it comes down to it, we're still a huge-ass country, and somebody (or a whole lot of bodies, to be more accurate) has to make sure that everything runs smoothly from city to city and state to state.