Bernie Sanders, an avowed Socialist, says that if Hillary Clinton is the Democrat candidate, he will run against her. Bernie could draw away the extremist left-wing element much better than Ralph Nader.

I would say that there will always be two sides to anything, and that there must be a voice to the positive to provide a visible alternative to the opposition. Yes, the merits of each position should speak to the value, but I would argue that knowing there ARE two sides is kind of important.

This is even more important in today's world where we increasingly hear the shrill anti-capitalist voices spawned by the pseudo-capitalism born of political interest.

exactly

Having been in publishing, I hold many copyrights. I published comic books, graphic novels and magazines. These being very collaborative, they required artists, writers, and editors The moochers I encountered were those contributors who were hired to perform a specific job and thought that by dong so, they owned the rights to the work. I tried to explain to them that they owned the rights only if they brought the finished work to us and we agreed to publish it for a fee while they retained the rights. They could not tell the difference no matter how I explained it. They tried to sue us, but no patent attorney would take the case. If a person is hired to perform a certain task, that does not mean he owns the result of that task. If that were true and you hired a painter to paint your house, he would own the walls of your house since the paint job couldn't exist without the walls. What and what is not property must be clearly delineated, otherwise capitalism cannot exist.

It was all over but the shouting when the income tax amendment and central bank were instituted in 1913.

So, are you a patent attorney? Your statements would so indicate, in which case they are an example of conflict of interest. I have sought patents, been granted patents, been an expert in patent search activities, and I stand by my statement that the entire process is corrupt. The whole system is a prime example of the revolving door, where the patent examiners become either patent attorneys or employees of patent firms based on keeping the process spinning until the patent attorneys have collected sufficient revenue from the patent seeker.

There are trade secrets that have lasted for generations, with the technical details passed on to family or friends.

The Lockheed example I cite is from personal experience. The inventor (a friend) dutifully successfully sought a patent, which was granted. Lockheed discovered the patent when they tried to file themselves, and subsequently decided that since the holder was an individual they would let him try to sue. They were successful in bankrupting him before a final judgement.

That was the Pelosi spin on the merits of Crapitalism.

Maybe, just maybe, the idea that that the majority party voted on rules all, is fundamentally flawed.

You arn't really suggesting that we take all the money and distribute that around evenly?

Absolutely! Plus a point and wish I could add more. Well said, Friend.

That's why people hear me praising some of the message of Rand Paul, but if he runs third party, the game is over. We MUST unite behind a person who can win the election, even if we don't agree 100% with them. I'll take 80% and work on the other 20% later.

Third parties may be exciting and might really move the message, but all they do in the end is elect the other guy. Can you say Ross Parole? Bill Clinton would have passed into the shadows of liberal losers a long time ago, never rising up to run for POTUS again, a total loser - except Ross Parole decided to run third party that year and sucked away just enough votes to elect Bubba.

You got it. If a united Nazi party had support from 20% of the voters and the other 80% were scattered amongst smaller parties of no more than 10% of voters, which party gets to rule by majority vote?

I can't claim credit for that one. Someone else posted that quote here in the Gulch as a separate post a few days ago, and it applied here.

the big companies have only been able to do this through the very "reforms" you would seek. There are many incorrect statements in your comment. Our clients have real inventions that deserve protection. It is the only way to advance technology in the world and has been objectively proven. Trade secrets do not advance technology, in fact, technology dies out with the secret holders. a fine example of this is Venice glass makers. The trade secrets were tightly held, but when the city state adopted a pre-cursor to a modern patent system, the city state thrived and the Renaissance took off due to wealth creation.
To your last statement, all inventions are published 18 months into the application process. You have a year from first public disclosure to apply for a patent.
"...no matter if the idea duplicates many others on file" that is called prior-art and the inventor, under perjury of law, must disclose any prior inventions that are the same or similar. There is quite a sophisticated system for looking for prior art. It is the point of the application process-which takes years btw to get a patent where all prior art is argued. Dr, I am concerned you have formulated opinions on the patent system with common misconceptions.

Capitalism can only survive while supported by
1) The absolute right of the individual to own property, and
2) The respect paid by each citizen to each other's right to own property.

As fewer and fewer people adhere to the latter principle, the faster will be the erosion of the first.I'm not optimistic that their are enough of us to convince enough of the ill-taught to turn the tide.

excellent

I have 4 patents. I paid all of the fees for the first and stopped paying the fees for the 3 others because I realized nobody in the country was interested in copying me either here or china.
without an educated populous capitalism will not actually is not understood. they will never understand the concept and how they benefit.
as I have seen it since the mid 70's when I read Atlas it was as if AR had a crystal ball. since the youth of America is for all intents and purposes capitalism is dead.

The patent system, like so many other elements of our failed state, has been broken for a long time. All that counts is that you keep the money flowing to the USPTO, and you'll get a patent, no matter if the idea duplicates many others on file. Sadly, many good ideas deserving of intellectual rights never get a patent, especially if the filer tries to apply without feeding money to the patent attorneys.

The only real reason to seek a patent is to prevent idea theft, and even then big companies often flagrantly violate patent rights, depending on bankrupting the individual or small business from excessive legal costs when they try to enforce their patent. Lockheed Martin is just one such abuser, to use one example.

Keeping a process a trade secret is preferred, if possible. An alternative is to publish designs in public media, so the concept becomes unpatentable, being in the public domain. In the latter case, one depends on being the better craftsman than any who try to copy.

Crap does promote growth, but what is growing are weeds that Ayn Rand refers to in this quote: "Power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lots of an abandoned mind. ”

I've spent a few minutes thinking about the groups that "fit" this description. I can only cite groups that find themselves involved with one party. That is, I think, the greatest danger, that all these have united their political clout under one banner while the rest of us are scattered, splitting our votes among several small groups.

Tea Party, libertarians, religious right (although this is another group that's pretty broken up), and more split their voting power between candidates, each saying they can't vote for "X" if they are not a ideologically pure reflection of the voter, electing to make a "protest vote" by either not voting or voting for some third line character that has no chance of winning anyway.

In the mean while, any kook, oddball, sexual pervert, communist, socialist, LBTH-XYZ all seem to be able to join together to win elections. There is never all "third wing" candidate on the ballot that a left winger will be willing to split off and vote for, with the exception of a few Eco-Nazis in the green party (who have such a small number that they don't, won't effect the outcome.

And here is the place where we could focus our efforts, promote a third "libtard wing" candidate, who would not have a chance of winning, but who will suck votes away from their main candidates.

Crap is fertilizer, and promotes growth.
We need to distribute this crap evenly, so that we can all be waist deep in crapitalism. I can smell the roses already.

Capitalism requires people. But not those who believe they can use the initiation of force to get what they want.