Her crime?  Wrong address!!!

Seriously, how many times do we need to read this before changes are enacted.  If you can’t read an address or know what house you are busting into, than frankly, I sure as hell don’t want you to have a rifle and SWAT gear.

http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-cuts-down-mass-moms-door-wrong-home-143434056.html

I hereby propose a new law. All S.W.A.T. raids must now field a representative from the local post office to instruct and guide the S.W.A.T. unit in identifying and recognizing distinguing marks and numerals which aid in the identification of specific housing units.

Thankfully there were no negligent discharages on the part of officers this time.  Less an innocent woman would likely be dead and a 3 year old girl motherless.

If you look at it from an individual perspective, why expend billions when there are people starving right here. But this same argument can be applied in many aspects. Why expend money on anything when there are people who hungry? Sure this is a complaint by many against Stealth Bombers and aircraft carriers. But why spend money building new schools or solar energy when there are hungry children?

The presence of a need, does not necessarily preclude pursuing other activities. If that were true, why would anyone watch TV or read a book when they could work extra hours at McDonald’s or Walmart and earn extra $$$ to feed the poor.

One must look at the overall benefit and the future benefit, as well as the intrinsic benefits Space exploration brings.  First off, dreams…how many successful entrepeneurs are where they are today because when they were small kids they dreamed of going into space. While most of them never went to space, that ‘dreaming’ aspect led them to pursue other dreams successfully.

There are many benefits and new technologies that stem from space exploration. But many will question whether the investment provides equivalence in return. Did we gain a value equivalent to the $100 billion spent on the International Space Station? I am not sure…

Many like myself will argue that we’ve failed to re-coup our investment because we so often compromise on achievement. For example, we tend to stay close to home, low orbit and very safe. The result is an ISS that if not supplied will quickly fall and burn up in the atmosphere.  Nor has it been allowed to grow. It is kept afloat by governments. Likewise, these same governments are tied to ever-present social issues that prevent their investment in space. (We currently have no means of reaching the ISS from the U.S. since the shuttles were retired.)

But are there other benefits to be had?

What benefit does the moon hold for earth?  What could a colony on the moon off us?

1. First off, preservation.  While the cost of establishing a base on the moon would be exhorberent. Doing so would provide the first level of survivability for the species. However unlikely, one sufficiently large asteroid impact on earth could probably wipe out humanity.  While such mike make the earth unlivable for decades, even more, life would eventually regain it’s footing on earth; sans humans. A colony on the moon would allow a potential re-population of the earth by humanity.

   How do you put a price tag on saving the human race?  Is $1 trillion dollars to much to save all of humanity?  Is Earth just one big New Orleans waiting to happen? Will we, like New Orleans, realize only to late that we should have spent the money on the dikes?
    

2. Second reason for my support. Many will say “You’re speaking of an unlikely hypothetical disaster in the distant future. Give me something more tangible and immediate.”  Okay, pollution. A large amounts of our planet are being polluted by industry, strip mined for minerals and resources, and left in a toxic moon like state.

   The moon is the perfect place to establish an industrial zone.  Strip mine all you want, you’re still outclassed by craters. Pollute the environment…what environment? Habitats are going to be destroyed because there are zero habitats on the moon.  Not every industry could be moved to the moon. It is doubtful we’ll find oil or coal on the moon. But the mining of many metals and minerals could be possible as the moon’s composition is much like Earth’s.

   After establishing a colony on the Moon, the building of a space station at null gravity (place between Earth and the Moon’s gravity wells) will become more economically feasible as materials could be launched from the moon’s lower gravity well. This station could then send out deeper colonial missions to Mars.  A location with greater resources for a colony to establish and flourish.

3. Lastly, because it’s there. Mankind has always pursued opportunity. Why do people climb Mt. Everest, is it because of the view (mostly clouds)? Or because it stands there saying “Overcome me if you can!”.  Why did we colonize the New World? A task only slightly less daunting for it’s time than the Moon or Mars would be for ours. Granted they never had to worry about breathable oxygen, but they did have to worry about potable water, food and disease.  The journey often took many months and the hardships were immense with many colonists perishing shortly upon arrival, and even in transit.  But look at the immensity of advancement that came from the journey to, and colonizing of, the new world.

   One would be hard pressed to argue against the fact that the standard of living for the entire planet went up during that colonial period.  For thousands of years, the world remained much the same. Small incremental advancements in sail, metallurgy, science, medicine. Then within a couple of hundred years of discovery, we advanced more than in the thousands of years prior. Could we see a similar state of advancement?  Might venturing to the Luna & Mars be the catalyst to a period of advancement that leads us beyond many of our troubles.  Reducing further problems like hunger, obesity, poverty.  

How do you calculate such benefits?

Going into space is an investment. One much akin to the stock market. One has the potential to lose their shirt, break even, or be extremely profitable.  In my personal opinion it one worth making.  Also in my personal opinion, it is one we’ve been doing wrong for years.  Government was the sole entity allowed to invest in space. But that is changing, and I believe that grants and incentive awards should be offered to encourage space exploration.

And while I may be mistaken, it seems to me that Newt Gingrich’s talk on colonizing the Moon was focusing on encouraging and facilitating private enterprise to do so. As opposed to financing it all with government dollars. And that is something I support even more strongly.

How might the government be able to facilitate such?

• How about a tax free moon?  No seriously, any goods created or services provided on the moon would be tax free including income.  I imagine this alone would get the finances started to explore space privately. 
   
• X prizes – awards, both financial and meritorious, for those private ventures that achieve set goals. First private entity to land a craft on the moon – $1 million.  $25 million to the first to land a return a human being.
   
• Allow such venture to be donated to in a tax free manner. Google needs a big write off, so they donate $50 million to an established fund that feeds such X-prizes.

But this can be done, with minimal cost to the tax payer and the potential of much benefit. Now, we just need Mythbusters to do some tests on how firearms function in a low gravity vacuum.

Please note that the new location of the N.U.G.U.N. Blog will now be at http://blog.nugun.org

If you have us on your site or blog roll, we’d very much appreciate it if you updated to the new address. However, the old one should remain a working alternative for sometime.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/31/what-is-so-appealing-about-ron-paul-to-young-voters/

Please understand, in no way do I think Ron Paul is the perfect candidate. I have a few issues with his stances, namely, the fact that I am opposed to state rights. I believe individual rights trump both state and Federal and that the point of the two governments is to be in constant opposition to protect the rights of the individual.

That said, the media (& his own party’s) repeated attempts to silence Ron Paul and his message, leads one to be concerned about the system.  Today, CNN casually leaves Ron Paul off the tally listing. I could understand if they simply include Romney and Gingrich. But they included Santorum, who had one win and less delegates than Ron Paul.

But here is the interesting case study. I’ve noticed that election after election that Ron Paul is winning the young vote 29 and under, and a lot of the mid-30′s crowds as well.

What does this say?  Some are finally starting to talk about this trend.

I am of the opinion that Ron Paul is really the 2016 candidate. But he will probably be too old to run at that point.

What do I think is leading to this support?

1. He is the only candidate talking about getting rid of America’s debt. The younger generations understand they’re going to inherit this debt.  Who wants to inherit your parent’s credit card debt. When grandpa says let’s pay it off, I’m with grandpa.

2. He is the only one addressing the issue of the American empire and militarism.  What many criticize him for as “isolationism”, but is in fact merely non-imperial behavior. Ron Paul supports free trade, diplomacy. I think this approach makes greater sense to me. I see how we’ve handled Cuba. 1/2 a century of embargo and zero effect or achievement of goals. I believe the sanctions are the wrong approach. That increasing trade relations would do more to bring down the regime and further change.  We can look to China, which is still no rose garden. But it’s been the introduction to capitalism that has encouraged change, not embargoes.

3. He comes across as not part of the big entrenched government beaucracy. I think this is what a lot liked about Barack Obama as a candidate, they had the hope that he would not be a typical entrenched politician. Many have since become disappointed and disenfranchised with President Obama on these matters.

4. On a number of social issues, Ron Paul’s libertarian approach gains approval of a generation that views the world much differently than it’s predecessors. Most younger people seem to want government out of marriage. Something Ron Paul supports, perhaps for different motivations. But the results are the same.

All of this needs to be noted by the Republican party who is more and more increasingly being seen by the younger voters as an old boys club which is simply concerned about politics and elections, and not the issues. 

I think 2016 and 2020 will have very different platforms to today’s politics. The Republican party has done much to impede Ron Paul. They are failing to grasp that it is not a man, but an ideology. In truth, were the ideology to have a better figurehead than Ron Paul, I believe the primary would already be over. 

Eventually things will change regardless. A nation cannot continue to have $1 trillion deficits without eventually facing the muster.

We are slowly but progressing to a greater understand of how the human mind works. Such knowledge is a tool. And as any tool it will eventually be used for both good and evil. 

I’d wager Dr. Stephen Hawking would be a prime candidate for such technology as it progresses. But imagine how lame the Hawking jokes will be without his broken digital voice. 

http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/31/10281528-words-from-brain-waves-may-let-scientists-read-your-mind

“The bullet is still a prototype, but if it passes further testing conducted by a private firm, the bullet will be accessible to recreational shooters, law enforcement and the military.”

Two thoughts:

a) When can I get my hands on these?

b) How long until there are calls to ban them by the hoplophobes?

Granted I am sure the cost of such units will be probably be prohibitively expensive to the average gun owner. 

http://news.yahoo.com/self-guided-bullet-strikes-target-mile-away-video-132957445.html

Article
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/29/us/florida-fatal-crashes/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

A spokesperson stated the Highway Patrol would “review this situation and determine if our process needs to be changed.”

I can tell you without a doubt that the policy and process needs to be changed. But I can almost guarantee you that a review will determine no fault on the police department and no need to change policy.  The police department will continue to be ‘unresponsive’.

How do I know this? From nearly half a dozen personal experiences.  Enough for me to anecdotally conclude that police departments are not trained in being responsive to potential emergencies, only past ones.  And while many excuses can be made as to a shortage of officers, vehicles, etc. There is something more to it.

Recently, I found myself behind a swerving mini-van which posed a danger to itself and numerous other vehicles. I did my civic duty and called 9-1-1 twice. I drove through half the county awaiting to see a police vehicle.  It never showed. Had I not remained with the vehicle until it was safely off the road, people could have died.  Now I know it takes time to respond. But I drove through half the county, often at speeds as low as 35mph.  Are you seriously going to tell me not a single county officer could respond within that time? 

Similarly, 6 weeks before my wedding I was nearly killed in an accident. A combination of skilled driving and divine miracle allowed me to reach my wedding day.  It was a drizzly day, I came over a small hill on I-91 only to see a car parked with it’s flashers in the middle of the highway.  Attempting a sudden 65 to 0 stop in the drizzle is no easy task.  Lead time was very slim, and I could feel my light Honda starting to hydro-plane.  I knew if I rear-ended that car, I was dead.  I made a decision to turn toward the guard rail wagering my chances of surviving a side impact with the rail was better than plowing into the vehicle. Miraculously I was able to turn before impact with the rail and narrowly pass the disabled vehicle.

I called 9-1-1 to report a car in a dead stop in an unviewable area of the highway posing an extreme danger. The dispatcher was non-chalant, and I could tell by their voice they were not going to act.  “Excuse me, but I almost died.  And there are already more cars narrowly avoiding impact. Get a patrol car out there and do something.” 

And in a similar incident where I-95 flooded in the New Haven, Connecticut area.  Cars were on the highway and finding themselves suddenly hydroplaning with zero visibility through about 8 inches of water. Alerted the police to the need for them to bring a patrol car to the area and slow down the traffic before someone was injured.

I do not understand why our police force is so focused on responding to incidents instead of pre-empting them. But I can tell you, this Florida incident was caused in part due to this mentality, and do I want to say “laziness”? Though I think it is more of a doctrine of “response” instead of “prevention”. 

You see, as soon as that first impact occurred on that night (one in which the highway had already been closed to two prior impacts). A patrol car should have been routed to the area of the accident to start slowing down the traffic. Flashing red & blue lights in fog & smoke tend to slow down most drivers.  

Lives could be saved through an implementation of a “pre-emptive” and responsive doctrine.  No, police cannot be everywhere (but strangely they seem to be when it’s quota time for traffic tickets – then they can be sitting out in the middle of corn fields watching stop signs for which a dozen cars might use in an entire day).

This failed doctrine holds true beyond automobiles.  One cannot rely upon the police force to keep you safe. You can’t always have a police officer with you. And sadly, you can seldom expect law enforcement to arrive in a fashion timely enough to keep you safe. I believe a lot of this comes down to the beauracracy involved.  Before you even reach a police officer you must go through a 9-1-1 dispatch that is often poorly trained, and poorly paid.  If you can get through that hurdle you then must potentially get through beauracratic policies that may further impede response.  Ones designed to prevent officers from wasting gas driving around to potential emergencies that might never materialize. We’ll never know the extent of beauracratic influence that officers have to deal with, and how it impedes their service (unless of course you’re an officer). But from a few discussions I’ve had in the past, there is a lot more than us average folk are aware of.  I mention the gasoline as just one, where chiefs and supervisors force the rank and file to be less effective due to budget restraints and rising gas prices being one of the most affectable.  So when you wonder why you always see a police cruiser just sitting there all day, that’s your likely answer.  And many of these police chiefs do so because they’re beholden to politicians who will often use “budget cuts” to police departments as one  of their first weapons in their political negotiations.

For example, in the 1/2 dozen times I’ve called 9-1-1 over a vehicle swerving on the highway. One might point out that not a single one resulted in an accident. So why should the police respond? But I will counter with the fact that I expended my time to assist those vehicles (by flashing my lights and honking whenever they were about to impact) and thus prevented accidents that were likely if I had not remained shadowing the vehicles.

The problem with “potential incidents” is that a police officers arrival is likely to make them “avoided incidents”. If an officer had been set-up immediately to warn of the accident ahead and thus slowed traffic, or better yet, kept there after the first two accidents until visibility returned. How would you document the success?  A police officer’s presence would have likely prevented any accidents. From a management’s point of time it would likely be viewed as a waste of resources. Especially if one had to pay overtime to maintain an officer’s presence.  It is very hard to guage the success of preventative action. 

For example, we know exactly how many people are killed by criminals wielding firearms.  We know how many criminals are killed by citizens wielding firearms in their defense. But we only have a vague idea of how many incidents have been prevented from ever occurring due to armed citizens.  Many encounters in which an armed citizen defends themselves go unreported. The criminals flees and the citizen sees little point in getting caught up in paperwork with law enforcement, especially if the city or area they’re in is reknown for not being gun friendly. Most of the accounts I’ve heard of a firearm being used to dissuade a perpetrator from action were not reported to law enforcement. Most seem to feel their firearm accomplished it’s purpose and they are safe. End of story. However, I believe this to be a failing in the gun community. If one is accosted, one should report it. Regardless of a safe outcome, reporting it to the authorities has the potential to provide safety to the next passer by.

How many people use firearms to defend themselves in a given year? I’ve heard anywhere from 65,000 to 2.5 million. I’d wager it falls somewhere in the middle, probably around a 1/4 of a million each year.

All this said, remember, the final responsible party for your safety is yourself. Avoid putting yourself in dangerous situations. Be it walking down a street in a bad neighborhood or driving during poor visibility conditions.  And if you must engage in such situations take prudent actions. Be armed, and be aware.  Drive slow and provide yourself more lead time by leaving a greater space between yourself and the vehicle in front of you.

Solution? Snake season. It’s something many individuals have pointed to as a solution for certain invasive species.

However, opening a hunting season might not be enough on it’s own. How many snake hunters are there? We do not have a huge tradition in this country of men taking their sons out to stalk that huge snake buck.

I’d propose some incentives:

1. A bounty stamp
   $5 = < 5′ $10 = 5′- 10′ $20 = 11′ – 15′ $50 = 15′ – 20′ $250 = > 20′
    
2.  Any bounty stamped snake skin can be used in garments and luxury items and sold tax free within the state. Suddenly, watches will use bounty skin just to be sold tax free.

Demand for the skin will increase. And eventually the problem will disappear due to economics.

Articles on the matter:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/31/pythons-wiping-out-mammals-in-everglades-researchers-say/?hpt=hp_t3

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/feb/22/python-hunting-season-set-south-florida/

One thing I am curious about, is whether Romney’s 15% tax return includes his Social Security tax. Why? Because I believe Social Security is just that, a tax. One that is only applied to the first $250,000 apparently.

I think we also need a tax credit called the “Militia Are Regulated Credit” (MARC) Act. If you document possession of a semi-automatic rifle chambered in one of the main calibers of our armed service, 1,000 rounds of ammo, a current CPR/First Aid certification you receive a $500 tax credit. Since you’ve helped make America safer, and reduced how much we need to spend on our military budget.

In a recent decision a U.K. judge determined that a photo violated the copyright of another for having a similar look and feel.

[See discussion at DPReview.com, one of the best sites on the web for digital camera and lens reviews.]

But a simple Google search reveals that this is both a common subject matter and a common processing technique. There are hundreds if not thousands of like photos. This example greatly exemplifies the flawed nature of our intellectual property laws in Western society. And while this is a U.K. court decision. Realize that much of the IP laws in the Western World are pushed by the same media conglomerates. Many of the laws are similar because they are driven by the same interests. Namely, U.S./Western corporate cartels which pressure/buy-off U.S. legislators who then pressure other nations to adopt the laws that the copyright cartels have paid our legislators to pass.

Recently, we saw an amazing thing happen in politics regarding the proposed SOPA/PIPA bills. We witnessed a huge industry with a massive and entrenched lobbying arm that has been purchasing politicians for years received the biggest public smackdown in history.

We saw politicians discover the game has dramatically changed. And that the internet industry is not to be taken lightly. How did this come about?

Simple, some of the biggest sites staged a campaign of awareness and service removal. Sites such as Wikipedia became inaccessible. Many other popular sites had intro pages one had to click through in order to continue. Many blogs and smaller internet sites were adding to the mojo. I myself did not, as the determination of the vote had already been turned and the bill was no longer going to pass or be a threat in it’s present form.

In fact, the demonstration of power by the internet industry was very hedged. They new they had already won weeks ago. They did it more so as a demonstration. And yet that simple demonstration sent ripples waves through the entire political system. Imagine what would have happened if Google and Amazon actually shut down access to their entire systems for one day.  For those unaware, a huge portion of the internet runs on Amazon’s Cloud Service, including big companies such as Netflix.

But why is this happening? Where is this war brewing from? And who is right? What is causing this chaos?

I believe that it is due to a universal hegemony of thought control and ownership. Most people have been taught that intellectual property is property and that it can be stolen, and must be protected. But few are introduced to the concepts surrounding the establishment of intellectual property laws, and what their purpose is.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution states
“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”

No where was the intention of IP to protect monetary profit of cartels.  But that is what it has become.

A couple of key elements are including in that clause. To Promote progress of science & arts. Secure for a limited time. Authors & inventors. Writings and discoveries.

First clause states the reason: “To promote progress”, as such, if the law is not promoting progress one can deem it to be failing it’s purpose.

When a company like Google spends $8 billion dollars buying a company such as Motorola for the sheer reason to shield themselves from legal lawsuits by Apple and Microsoft, one truly has to question is progress being impeded?

The situation has become akin to a game of Jenga. So many blocks stacked on top of one another that to remove one causes the entire tower to fall down.

Second, “for a limited time”, if this is not met than the law is in violation of the passage that grants it authority.

Disney has pushed for copyright extensions. Largely to prevent Mickey Mouse and others of it’s work from entering public domain. Originally the laws specified up to 28 years for a copyright. This has continualy been extended to the point that it now lasts for 120 year or 70 years after death of author. It is hard to refer to such as “a limited time” when it exceeds the lifespan of humanity.

The result is that nothing is entering the public domain. No new works are becoming freely available to the benefit of humanity.

But why should they? I am sure some of my capitalist minded friends believe that they should be owned and profited by in perpetuity. But the problems is that ideas and invention derive and build upon each other. If you apply universal unending copyright law throughout history, you create a system that not only doesn’t promote progress but makes it impossible.

Disney, a stuanch financer of perpetual copyrights built itself on the creative ideas of others Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, Snow White, Pinnochio, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Sword in the Stone, Aladdin,….shal I go on and on? Their success is built on the creativity of others.

Likewise with invention. The automobile cannot be constructed without the gear. No gear without the invention of the wheel. A perpetual right and exclusion results in an end of progress.

Next part of the clause we look at addresses who was to benefit “Authors and Inventors”.

Is this being held true today? Who is benefitting? While the Recording Industry Association of American (RIAA) likes to talk about theft and piracy. Anyone familiar with the history of RIAA knows that few have ever stolen more from the artists. An industry cartel that is famed not just for failing to pay artists their due but for being gatekeepers who controlled the industry forcing all artists (until very recently) to go through them in a process where the artists lost much of the right to their creative works.

Likewise in the industry of invention. Very few individuals are receiving patents. It has become a facet of society only accessible to the corporation entity. Even when an individual conceives of some new ‘thing’, it often becomes the property of the employer. Inventors are more often than not laid off after the completion of their design rather than profiting by it and being able to further their inventive skills.

Furthermore, everything has become patentable, or ownable. T-Mobile claims to own a shade of pink and will sue any business that uses it. Amazon believes they have the sole right to check out a user with a single click. Billions of dollars are being spent on patent wars in our court systems, many of which are over intuitive logical progression of thought. For example, a few decades ago the internet was created. Several thousand years ago auctions were created. Yet somehow the idea of an auction on the internet is worthy of the granting of a patent. Newspapers have been around. Now there are e-readers. Does the mere publishing on a newspaper on a new technology constitute invention? I do not think so.

But here is a bigger problem. Invention is becoming the exclusive right of big companies. I have ideas. Ideas I’ve had for years. Some potentially patentable, but I cannot afford the approx. cost of $10,000 to file a patent. Even $1,000 to file a provisional patent is outside the scope of many. Most of my ideas I am not seeking to profit by, and would gladly put into public domain for others to use. Yet our Patent office does not facilitate such, quite the opposite. The swamped patent office doesn’t even really vet most submissions. They collect their money and let tax payer dollars be wasted in the court system by frivolous lawsuits. Which are often won due to the ignorance of judges on these matters. (As seen in the example at top.)

IP laws are becoming stronger and stronger and covering broader and broader applications. While at the same time they are being consolidated in ownership. A handful of industry agents control a large portion of the new creative and innovative works.

Realize that in 2009 there were 482,871 patents filed. Of that, 4,914 were filed by IBM. Literaly 1% of all patents gained in 2009 was by a single company. Talk about being the 1%.

New legislation, such as the America Invents Act will only further this divide. Raising costs of filing patents AND making America a “first to file” nation. Which means while you’re trying to perfect your idea and raise the cash to file, someone with deep pockets could copy your idea and file before you and own your invention.

The scenario has the potential to be even more grave in the future. Some may wonder “Why is a gun blog, talking about copyright?” Besides the fact that many of us bloggers have to dance the line or risk litigation.  I view Intellectual Property as one of the most dangerous threats to society with the potential danger from it only being surpassed by slavery.

What….I’m crazy…or sure sounds like it. And you might be right. But hear me out.

Recent advancements in technology have begun to allow us to understand the brain in a much greater way. Already we’re starting to see prosthetics controlled by the mind. Replacement mechanical eyes that allow the brain to see. There has even been progress made in “reading one’s thoughts”. Granted, all these technologies are very rudimentary. But in 40 years they could become commonplace. What happens if iPhone are no longer in your hand, but in your head. Perhaps even with extra memory storage for your brain. What happens when you whistle that song? Or that tune gets stuck in your head. Suddenly, you might find yourself owing money to a copyright cartel because you saw a trailer for the new Smurfs movie and now you can’t get that stupid song out of your head “La la la la la”.

But the truth is, that Intellectual Property, if not checked and balanced has the potential to become a form of slavery. One in which your thoughts and ideas are owned, and the mere engaging of such creativity could cost you money.

That kind of tyranny, would require an over-throw by force and arms if necessary. Such a world would not be one I would want to live in or see my children subjected too.

Thankfully, with the recent (re)action on SOPA/PIPA, I have a small hope that we might be able to start bringing some sanity and balance to intellectual property laws. Sadly, I think it will be slow and a long time coming.

There are better solutions. One’s that would achieve the goals stated in the Constitution far better, encouraging progress, benefitting the inventors and artists and fostering a more open business climate. One such concept would only allow individuals to acquire patents. And would merely provide a tax break to whatever company employed the patent holder. This strategy does not preclude another company from building and selling a better mousetrap. It just let’s the company that employs the patent holder have a competitive edge. And would create a system where inventors are kept employed, and given freedom and funds to further invent. As opposed to our current system which encourages inventors to be discarded.

And while it is more complex issue that a simple post can detail, and would require a more complex solution. The real point here is that there are serious problems with the present system that are not being addressed, while at the same time new law after new law is being passed to further the divide from original intention to present.  This has been allowed to happen largely because the common person is unfamiliar with the argument.

Downloading is stealing, right?  Really, stealing deprives another of their object. Downloading cloning. What happens when you can simply print a car or a house.  That’s crazy right? What if I told that such technology was potentially right around the corner?

When we create laws. We need to be forward thinking, and consider how these laws will affect the future – both for good and for bad.