3 ms·

>The way I reconcile it is usually, "Monopolies are okay when the the good in question only exists because of the monopolist." Can you give an example of such

>The way I reconcile it is usually, "Monopolies are okay when the the good in question only exists because of the monopolist." Can you give an example of such a thing?

Dylan16807 12y ago
Did you read the second line of the comment?
- PepeGomez 12y ago
  Yes, I did? You didn't give any examples, except that salt isn't such a thing.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    Salt is the fourth line. It comes after the examples you asked for. Are you screwing with me? SilasX listed that they have a monopoly on SilasX's labor. That's a pretty sensible monopoly. They also listed "Creator's monopoly on patterns that only exist because that creator found them" as something they are okay with.
    - PepeGomez 12y ago
      That's not an example, that's a vague category and I'm asking for examples of such things.
      - SilasX 12y ago
        The first one easily generates examples: for all people X, X's monopoly on the labor of X. My monopoly on my labor. PepeGomez's monopoly on PepeGomez's labor. The second one would be artistic works like books, drawings, movies, etc. Would also include inventions. In that case, it's a lot more likely that someone later on would come up with the same invention, which is why limits on monopoly length are reasonable; as time goes by, it becomes less true that "If not for this monopolist, we would not know of this pattern."
        PepeGomez 12y ago
        But what do you mean by "your labor"? How could you not have a monopoly on your labor? >Would also include inventions. Inventions don't exist because of a single person. In most cases there is only one or a few workable solutions. Most patentable things are invented multiple times.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Please assume good faith.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    I did assume good faith for that comment. I've skimmed posts or forgotten lines plenty of times. So I simply pointed them back at the answer to their question. ...the one after that seems to disprove good faith, though. No argument against the examples, just total lack of recognition that they exist. There are explanations for that to be an accident, but they are not likely. Still, I took more time to explain very carefully and earnestly, and got no reply in return.

>The way I reconcile it is usually, "Monopolies are okay when the the good in question only exists because of the monopolist." Can you give an example of such a thing?

Dylan16807 12y ago

Did you read the second line of the comment?

PepeGomez 12y ago
Yes, I did? You didn't give any examples, except that salt isn't such a thing.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Salt is the fourth line. It comes after the examples you asked for. Are you screwing with me? SilasX listed that they have a monopoly on SilasX's labor. That's a pretty sensible monopoly. They also listed "Creator's monopoly on patterns that only exist because that creator found them" as something they are okay with.
  - PepeGomez 12y ago
    That's not an example, that's a vague category and I'm asking for examples of such things.
    - SilasX 12y ago
      The first one easily generates examples: for all people X, X's monopoly on the labor of X. My monopoly on my labor. PepeGomez's monopoly on PepeGomez's labor. The second one would be artistic works like books, drawings, movies, etc. Would also include inventions. In that case, it's a lot more likely that someone later on would come up with the same invention, which is why limits on monopoly length are reasonable; as time goes by, it becomes less true that "If not for this monopolist, we would not know of this pattern."
      - PepeGomez 12y ago
        But what do you mean by "your labor"? How could you not have a monopoly on your labor? >Would also include inventions. Inventions don't exist because of a single person. In most cases there is only one or a few workable solutions. Most patentable things are invented multiple times.
dredmorbius 12y ago
Please assume good faith.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  I did assume good faith for that comment. I've skimmed posts or forgotten lines plenty of times. So I simply pointed them back at the answer to their question. ...the one after that seems to disprove good faith, though. No argument against the examples, just total lack of recognition that they exist. There are explanations for that to be an accident, but they are not likely. Still, I took more time to explain very carefully and earnestly, and got no reply in return.