4 ms·

The alternative is the government, right?

by weberc2 7y ago

hannasanarion 7y ago
How is government ownership of food patents worse than corporate ownership of them?
- refurb 7y ago
  It’s not worse. But is it better? I can think of several instances where the federal govt gave sweet-fuck-all about human rights or what’s best for society.
  - mcv 7y ago
    It should be. Governments are supposed to represent the people and be accountable to them. Corporations are far too often only accountable to their shareholders. Reality is often different, of course.
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    Government decisions are made democratically, by the people or officers appointed by them, to do what they believe is best for the people. Corporate decisions are made autocratically, by the owners or their appointed officers, to do what they believe makes the most money. How is the former not categorically better than the latter?
    - weberc2 7y ago
      In theory they are better, but in practice “what makes them the most money” is often “what is best for the people” and governments and elected officials are often inept or corrupt. This doesn’t apply for every government or corporation on every issue, so we need to be nuanced in who we entrust which issues to. Specifically we want to look at the severity of the issue, the incentives, and the corruption and the competence of the government in question.
    - refurb 7y ago
      Because once people are democratically elected or appointed, they no longer are beholden to the people. Once in power, they are free to do whatever they want, which history shows, tends to be pretty self-serving.
- weberc2 7y ago
  I wasn't saying it was. Merely observing that the government isn't a popular alternative either. Note that this isn't even my valuation--anti-corporatists tend to very strongly dislike both corporations and (the U.S.) government. Of course no political movement is entirely homogenous, so there are probably people who distrust corporations but love the government.
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    I definitely wouldn't say that government is always trustworthy, but having the food supply controlled by a democratically operated nonprofit entity with a clear interest in everyone's wellbeing is obviously better than having the food supply controlled by a single for-profit entity with no stake in the wellbeing of employees or customers except insomuch as it provides profit for its owners. Also it should be noted, "government ownership of patents" means that the patents are unenforcable. The government is forbidden by law from charging licensing fees for its IP, so government ownership of patents is inherently open-sourcing them. While Monsanto owns the patents, they can legally wreck anyone who attempts to violate them. If the government owns the patents, "violation" doesn't exist because anyone can use them freely.
    - weberc2 7y ago
      > I definitely wouldn't say that government is always trustworthy, but having the food supply controlled by a democratically operated nonprofit entity with a clear interest in everyone's wellbeing is obviously better than having the food supply controlled by a single for-profit entity with no stake in the wellbeing of employees or customers except insomuch as it provides profit for its owners. I don't think this argument is very convincing. For example, why limit the application of this rationale to food supply? Why trust the market (i.e., corporations) with _anything_. Is our government strictly superior to the market in all cases, or does the market have some strengths that the government lacks? If so, why are those strengths the wrong tradeoff for this case in particular but perhaps not for others? Without more nuance, this argument could support socialism (as in "the government completely owns production", not the capitalism-friendly democratic socialism). Another issue is that we're not talking about complete ownership of the food supply, but only temporary ownership (i.e., patents have a lifetime) over individual food products that are individually subject to competition and regulation. > While Monsanto owns the patents, they can legally wreck anyone who attempts to violate them. If the government owns the patents, "violation" doesn't exist because anyone can use them freely. Patent enforcement is a feature, not a bug. We want people to invest in making food production more sustainable, so we need incentives. Notably, patents _do_ expire, so Monsato's (or whomever) risk is rewarded and society benefits. If the enforcement is too strict or the patents too long, we can adjust those knobs accordingly. No need smash the system because the knobs aren't tuned properly.

The alternative is the government, right?

hannasanarion 7y ago

How is government ownership of food patents worse than corporate ownership of them?

refurb 7y ago
It’s not worse. But is it better? I can think of several instances where the federal govt gave sweet-fuck-all about human rights or what’s best for society.
- mcv 7y ago
  It should be. Governments are supposed to represent the people and be accountable to them. Corporations are far too often only accountable to their shareholders. Reality is often different, of course.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  Government decisions are made democratically, by the people or officers appointed by them, to do what they believe is best for the people. Corporate decisions are made autocratically, by the owners or their appointed officers, to do what they believe makes the most money. How is the former not categorically better than the latter?
  - weberc2 7y ago
    In theory they are better, but in practice “what makes them the most money” is often “what is best for the people” and governments and elected officials are often inept or corrupt. This doesn’t apply for every government or corporation on every issue, so we need to be nuanced in who we entrust which issues to. Specifically we want to look at the severity of the issue, the incentives, and the corruption and the competence of the government in question.
  - refurb 7y ago
    Because once people are democratically elected or appointed, they no longer are beholden to the people. Once in power, they are free to do whatever they want, which history shows, tends to be pretty self-serving.
weberc2 7y ago
I wasn't saying it was. Merely observing that the government isn't a popular alternative either. Note that this isn't even my valuation--anti-corporatists tend to very strongly dislike both corporations and (the U.S.) government. Of course no political movement is entirely homogenous, so there are probably people who distrust corporations but love the government.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  I definitely wouldn't say that government is always trustworthy, but having the food supply controlled by a democratically operated nonprofit entity with a clear interest in everyone's wellbeing is obviously better than having the food supply controlled by a single for-profit entity with no stake in the wellbeing of employees or customers except insomuch as it provides profit for its owners. Also it should be noted, "government ownership of patents" means that the patents are unenforcable. The government is forbidden by law from charging licensing fees for its IP, so government ownership of patents is inherently open-sourcing them. While Monsanto owns the patents, they can legally wreck anyone who attempts to violate them. If the government owns the patents, "violation" doesn't exist because anyone can use them freely.
  - weberc2 7y ago
    > I definitely wouldn't say that government is always trustworthy, but having the food supply controlled by a democratically operated nonprofit entity with a clear interest in everyone's wellbeing is obviously better than having the food supply controlled by a single for-profit entity with no stake in the wellbeing of employees or customers except insomuch as it provides profit for its owners. I don't think this argument is very convincing. For example, why limit the application of this rationale to food supply? Why trust the market (i.e., corporations) with _anything_. Is our government strictly superior to the market in all cases, or does the market have some strengths that the government lacks? If so, why are those strengths the wrong tradeoff for this case in particular but perhaps not for others? Without more nuance, this argument could support socialism (as in "the government completely owns production", not the capitalism-friendly democratic socialism). Another issue is that we're not talking about complete ownership of the food supply, but only temporary ownership (i.e., patents have a lifetime) over individual food products that are individually subject to competition and regulation. > While Monsanto owns the patents, they can legally wreck anyone who attempts to violate them. If the government owns the patents, "violation" doesn't exist because anyone can use them freely. Patent enforcement is a feature, not a bug. We want people to invest in making food production more sustainable, so we need incentives. Notably, patents _do_ expire, so Monsato's (or whomever) risk is rewarded and society benefits. If the enforcement is too strict or the patents too long, we can adjust those knobs accordingly. No need smash the system because the knobs aren't tuned properly.