I am not incorrect. Please do not resort to ad hominem attacks to debate. Natural monopolies do exist. These occur when there are significant barriers to entry into a market. A common example is a utility provider. There is a massive cost to setting up any utility network and once a single utility is established, others will not build the infrastructure.
So, in all utility markets around the world, you only have one option? There are more barriers to entry in any utility market in modern society. Yet, not all of them are monopolies. How can you explain that and reconcile it with the fact that in a free market the utilities market will be a monopoly, when right now, with greater barriers to entry, not all of them are monopolies?
Anyways, for a full exposition as to why this public utility argument is incorrect, read this:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3158751
Here is another:
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf
"Six electric light companies were organized in the one year of 1887 in New York City. Forty-five electric light enterprises had the legal right to operate in Chicago in 1907. Prior to 1895, Duluth, Minnesota, was served by five electric lighting companies, and Scranton, Pennsylvania, had four in 1906. .. . During the latter part of the nineteenth century, competition was the usual situation in the gas industry in
this country. Before 1884, six competing companies were operating in New York City . . . competition was common and especially persistent in the telephone industry . . . Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pitts- burgh, and St. Louis, among the larger cities, had at least two telephone services in 1905"
On to intellectual property: some things are not patented so that others can not copy them. One example is WD-40. It is nearly impossible to figure out the exact formula so they don't need patent protection.
What's your point? Knowledge of how to create it would eventually surface, it would just take a long time.
For other products, all you have to do is take them apart and copying them is child's play. Most technologies fall into the ladder portion in todays age and thus there would be no competitive edge to strive for through innovation.
So then how did innovation occur before the existence of a patent office if there was no competitive edge to innovate?
Please, you are wrong. These views are wrong, and they are really destructive in themselves because they continue to prop up a false economic ideaology, that government intervention is necessary. It really, really isn't:
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/...d=news_view&newsId=20090701006334&newsLang=en
"A new study published in The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review challenges the traditional view that patents foster innovation, suggesting instead that patents may harm new technology, economic activity, and societal wealth."
http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.27.1.23
"Historical evidence suggests that in countries with patent laws, the majority
of innovations occur outside of the patent system"
"Overall, the weight of the existing historical evidence suggests that patent policies, which grant strong intellectual property rights to early generations of inventors may a discourage innovation. On the contrary, policies that encourage the diffusion of ideas and modify patent laws to facilitate entry and encourage competition may be an effective mechanism to encourage innovation"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5919/1335
"In a series of experiments, we used the knapsack problem (in which participants have to determine the most valuable subset of objects that can fit in a knapsack of fixed volume) as a typical representation of intellectual discovery problems. We found that our “markets system” performed better than the patent system."
On to charity: People's behavior will not change just because they have more money. If they already have a "what's mine is mine and fuck everyone else" attitude, extra money will not change that.
People are giving billions and billions of dollars to charity. If someone that is already going to give to charity has more money to give, it is likely that they will give more money if they have more disposable income available to them. Not everyone has a mine is mine and fuck everyone else attitude, if that were true, charity would not exist. Clearly it exists because people don't have that attitude OR if they do, it doesn't affect them giving to charity, so an increase the income they have to give to charity will likely increase how much they give to charity.
