Rss Feed
Linkedin button

Posts Tagged ‘President Obama’

A Christmas Tale: ‘I Am My Brother’s Keeper’ – and How it Applied to Patents

The phrase “I am my brother’s keeper” is used to explain a moral goal or imperative.  The word ‘brother’ does not mean your biological brother, but those people in your community, or country, or really every other human being in the world.  The word ‘keeper’ is used to mean that you have a moral responsibility to help every other human being in the world.  This responsibility means that you are to put their needs before your interests and your moral goal is that people exist to serve others.  In other words, the phrase ‘I am my brother’s keeper’ enshrines SLAVERY as a moral goal.  Slavery is the condition in which you have no right to exist for yourself, your only right to exist is to serve others.  Note that all slaves need a master and as a result it is no surprise that President Obama has used this phrase to explain his policies as he is an avowed socialist and wants to be our master.

Wherever this moral goal has been tried it has resulted in human suffering, misery, disease, famine, death, and torture.  North Korea is the country that most encapsulates this moral goal today and it is a living hell.  The Soviet Union and Communist China also tried to implement this moral imperative and it resulted in the largest genocides in the 20th century, resulting in the death of over 100 million people.  Attempting to following this moral code also resulted in the Dark Ages under the direction of the Catholic Church.  It is also why the Christian right is often ineffective at countering socialists arguments, since they accept the same moral goal.  These bad outcomes do not occur because the wrong people are in charge, they occur because slavery is immoral and this is the logical result of following an immoral goal.

The opposite moral imperative to ‘I am my brother’s keeper’ can be found in our Declaration of Independence – namely the RIGHT to Pursue One’s Own Happiness.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This right to pursue your own happiness is the exact opposite of slavery.  It states that no one has the right to enslave you (or anyone) morally or legally.  Wherever this moral ideal has been tried it has always resulted in human happiness, abundance, technological innovation, increasing life spans, increase health care, and yes fewer environmental problems.  There is no contradiction between what is moral and economic abundance and human happiness.  This has not occurred because the right people have been in charge, it is the result of pursuing that which moral, namely FREEDOM.

Why should a blog directed to patents and inventions care about such a subject?  Because this idea of ‘I am my brother’s keeper’ has been raised in the cases Association of Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (which was original called ACLU v. Myriad) and in Mayo v. Prometheus and it is used by opponents of patents.  They all argue that the inventor has no right to his invention and the only reason we allow them to invent is to serve their fellow man.  In the ACLU case this argument was re-crafted as property rights should not stand in the way of science.

Slavery is immoral and a moral goal of slavery, even if it is suppose to be voluntary, is immoral.  Those who push the moral goal of slavery are advocating human misery, death, famine, and genocide.



Complainer in Chief: US Business Lazy

According to a Fox News story, President Obama: U.S. Gotten a Bit “Lazy” on Attracting Businesses, “President Obama said that the United States has gotten a “little bit lazy” when it comes to bringing in new businesses in to the states”.  He said some of the advantages of the US are its stability, and its innovative free market culture.

I guess I am just a little confused how a 2300 page health care law provides stability or how the government taking over 1/7th of the economy is free market?  How is a patent law (AIA) written by large companies to entrench their position furthering our innovation?  How does Dodd Frank also over 2300 pages further the free market?  Or contribute to stability?  How does interfering with Boeing’s decision to move to South Carolina result in stability?  How is that a free market?

Of course Obama is such a narcissist that he would never look at his own idiotic policies and how they are causing the slowdown in American business.  It is doubtful that Obama really wants the US to be successful.  So, his speech was really an exercise in DOUBLESPEAK.  1984 predicted the future it just took twenty five years longer than Orwell thought.


Elizabeth Warren’s Hate Speech

President Obama has picked up on Elizabeth Warren’s argument that “Nobody got rich in the U.S. on his own.”  Warren argues that other people paid for the roads that the rich person’s factory uses, they paid for the schools their workers were educated in, and so on.  This argument is a straw man argument.  Nobody has ever argued that people get rich in a vacuum.  All rich people have to interact with other people in the process of building their business – all meaningful economic activity involves interaction with other people.

What Warren is really attacking is the idea of the “self-made man” and individualism.  But, the definition of self-man made is a person who created their wealth through invention, production and/or trade.  The phrase “self-made man” distinguishes productive individuals from the wealthy aristocrats, those who inherited their wealth, or dictators who made their wealth by force.  Note that the proper definition of a self-made man shows that Warren is being intellectually and morally dishonest in her statements that “no one got rich on their own.”  It is clearly impossible to get wealthy without social interaction with other people and without using existing resources.  Of course, that was her point – distort the definition of a self-made man and then show it is impossible.  When the correct definition of a “self-made man” is used, then it is clear that Thomas Edison, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Michael Dell, Mary Kay, and millions of other American businessmen  and women are “self-made men.”


A similar argument is made in the realm of inventions and patents by socialists.  Opponents of patents suggest that no one creates anything new, because they ignore that every invention is a creation of known elements since you cannot create something from nothing – it’s called conservation of matter and energy.  They ignore that only an individual can think and all inventions start by an individual thinking about solving a problem.  Even an invention with multiple inventors is created by the individual thoughts of each inventor.


It is interesting that socialists like Warren and Obama would attack something that is uniquely American.  Do they want to glorify the Aristocracy of the Old World and denigrate honest work?  Their contempt of America’s unique history, individualism, and success demonstrates that they are not advocating policies that will produce success for the United States.  In fact, they are advocating policies that will produce the decline of the United States and untold human suffering.  Liberals are fond of talking about hate speech, well Ms. Warren is clearly using hate speech, hate of America, hate of achievement, and hate of human happiness.  f


Elizabeth Warren’s “Nobody got rich in the U.S. on his own” is intellectually and morally dishonest.


Obama: Make Regulation Efficient

President Obama in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece said that he has directed federal agencies to eliminate job killing regulations.  According to Obama the Executive order requires “a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive.”  As an example he points out:

For instance, the FDA has long considered saccharin, the artificial sweetener, safe for people to consume. Yet for years, the EPA made companies treat saccharin like other dangerous chemicals. Well, if it goes in your coffee, it is not hazardous waste. The EPA wisely eliminated this rule last month.

The fact that it has taken a severe economic recession and the lagging poll numbers of a president to make this changes shows how heavy handed our government has become and how Bzyantine our regulatory environment is.  I have suggested that the US needs a Regulatory Bill of Rights to provide citizens protections from excessive and contradictory regulations.  The Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) do not protect citizens from regulatory rules.  With just a few exceptions, if the governmental designates something a regulatory law or civil penalty then it can completely ignore the Bill of Rights.  I doubt that this is what the Founding Fathers intended when they passed the Bill of Rights.


If President Obama really wants to get rid of job killing regulations here is a list in order of importance:

1) Repeal Sarbanes Oxley

Sarbanes Oxley has effectively killed the IPO market and the better part of the equity market in the US.  See Sarbane Oxley Obstructing Innovation

2) Fully Fund the US Patent Office

Congress has stolen about $2B in user fees from the US Patent Office over the last two decades.  This has hurt innovation, job growth, and the economy.  See Restore Patent Funding to Create Jobs.

3) Repeal all Securities Laws

Every econometric study of our securities laws shows that they provide no benefit for investors.  See Liu, Tung, Santoni, Gary J., Stone, Courtenay C.,   Federal Securities Regulations and Stock Market Returns. This paper surveys several papers that have studied the effects of securities laws all of which show no meaningful change in investor outcomes.

4) Pass a Regulatory Bill of Rights

This would provide ordinary citizens the tools necessary to require the federal government to only implement regulations that achieve their purpose in a cost efficient manner.  See Regulatory Bill of Rights.


5) Eliminate the Income Tax

The income tax is not designed to generate revenue for the federal government.  It is designed to punish certain people who have committed no crime (violation of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment) and to allow Senators, Congressmen and the President to sell tax favors to the wealthy.  The income tax system should be replaced with a system with the sole goal of providing the federal government the revenue it needs.  A flat tax or a national sale tax would both work.


6) Repeal ObamaCare

This is a job killing piece of legislation that we cannot afford.


7) Reform Social Security and Medicare

The best reform is to make them defined contribution programs instead of defined benefit programs.


If President Obama were to implement these five simple changes, the U.S. would see above 7% growth for the next two decades.


The Value of Charity

From President Bush’s 1000 points of light to President Obama’s biblical argument “aren’t we our brother’s keeper?” for government charity programs it appears everyone agrees that charity is good for our country and may even strengthen our economy.  We are bombarded with the message that “we must give back to our community.”  This discussion even spilled over to Bill O’Reilly and Stephen Colbert where they both agreed that charity was good but disagreed on the extent and implementation of charity.

First, let’s  examine the logic of the “give back” mantra.  In order to give something back you must have taken something.  If you live in a free and just society the only people who can “give back” are those people who are thieves.  The statement is complete nonsense, meant to associate anyone who is successful financially with thieves morally.

Yes, but we don’t want to see our fellow human beings dying in the street for lack of food do we?  About 200 years ago humans in the Western world first escaped the Malthusian Trap.  The Malthusian Trap is when humans are like every other animal, their population expands until they are on the edge of starvation.  This means that until 200 years ago some people did starve to death and it was a real threat for all but the wealthiest people.  This could not have been solved by using charity to redistribute food to those people starving.  There just was not enough food for all the people on Earth.  Even today there are parts of the World where people starve to death.  This problem will never be solved by charity.  While there may be enough food to feed all the people on Earth today, the problem is purposeful manipulation of food supplies in countries for political purposes.

People did not escape the Malthusian Trap because of charity.  The only reason people escaped the Malthusian Trap is because we increased our level of technology.  The only way to increase our level of technology is by inventing and then disseminating these invention.  This occurs when we have strong property rights, particularly for inventions (patents), and free markets.  Why don’t we celebrate people and companies that create and disseminating new technologies instead of charity?  If you truly want to help the “poor,” then you should support free markets and strong property rights, particularly for inventions.  For more information see Source of Economic Growth.

Charity takes (gives) money from a productive person and gives it to someone who has not produced anything.  Since everyone has to consume to live, charity results in a decrease in total wealth.  In addition, the money given to charity is not given (spent) on someone who is productive.  If you really wanted to maximize the “pay it forward” value of your charity, you would give it to the person who was most likely to do the most good with it.  This means you would give it to a person who is productive, which is what generally happens in a free market.

When people donate their time to charities it also destroys wealth.  When engineers, lawyers, architects, doctors, etc spend time preparing meals or hammering nails, they are trading time worth $100-$1000 per hour for labor worth $10 per hour.  This does not help the poor, it just reduces the total wealth created.

Does charity have any value?  I have been both the recipient of charity and have given charity over the years.  I am appreciative of the charity I have received and have no regrets about the charity I have given.  Charity is like manners.  It makes civil society more pleasant, when it is private charity.  Government charity is not charity it is theft.  Even when there is too much private charity it is destructive.  How much is too much charity?  When more than 10% of the people in a country receive charity it is too much.  I remember a United Way pitch I was forced to sit through where they said 40% of the people in our area benefited from the charities the United Way supported.  If that was the case, why didn’t we just pay for these things directly rather than paying United Way to take a cut and redistribute our money?

Here is what Ayn Rand had to say about charity.

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue. (emphasis added)

“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964.

Note that Ayn Rand believes that charity requires judgment, specifically the judgment of whether the recipient is worth of help and the giver can afford the expense.

People who push charity as a moral issue are immoral and are not helping the “poor.”



Subscriber Count


Advertise Here

Your Ad

could be right


find out how


Coming Soon