3 ms·
You are free to produce the substance. If you produce it, it is your property. You own it. You may choose to keep it, or you may choose to trade it for someo
by fexl 16y ago
You are free to produce the substance. If you produce it, it is your property. You own it. You may choose to keep it, or you may choose to trade it for someone else's property. You may ask a billion dollars per gram if you like. No one may force you to trade your property for anything specific, or even to trade it at all, or even to continue producing it.
I am free to produce the substance. If I produce it, it is my property. I own it. I may choose to keep it, or I may choose to trade it for someone else's property. I may ask twenty thousand dollars per gram if I like. No one may force me to trade my property for anything specific, or even to trade it at all, or even to continue producing it.
Et cetera, et cetera. Apply that same formula equally to each living being in the universe, and you have my view on the matter.
Also, no subsidies. A subsidy involves the taking of an individual's property by force, which is morally wrong.
- Retric 16y ago<parody> This ignores patents, which is the prevention of the creation of something useful by force which is wrong. (Note: Some people disagree with my stance, they are wrong.) </parody> IMO, there is no absolute morality, there are system of morality that are self consistent, but you cant transplant individual ideas between them to get an absolute truth.
- fexl 16y agoThat was a good parody. You got my position on patents exactly right. You also accurately mocked my tendency to state my views point blank without including disclaimers that they are my views. So excuse me: morally wrong in my book. You say there is no absolute morality. I don't know. The more interesting question is whether you disagree specifically with the moral principles I invoked, and how and why. I can't tell from your post.