If you truly believe in laissez-faire capitalism, you should be disturbed at the patent system as it exists today. Adam Smith wrote of a system with many buyers, many sellers, perfect information, and immunity to market manipulation. But a patent gives one person or corporation a monopoly for twenty years, and increasingly it's a world-wide monopoly. The traditional justification for patents was that it's a trade-off: in exchange for the patent, the inventor discloses the invention to the public instead of making it a trade secret, and the reward of a patent promotes "progress in science and useful arts", to quote the language of the US Constitution.

But for the tradeoff to be effective, we have to make sure that the public is getting value for the granting of this temporary monopoly, and we always need to remember that it is a tradeoff, not a human right, to have patents. The US did not recognize foreign patents throughout most of the 19th century; if it had, the US would have been condemned to lagging the British by 17 years in all aspects of technology.

If a patent is granted for something that would be certainly discovered by the first research to look in a given direction, the public is getting nothing in exchange for the grant of monopoly. And that is certainly what happens when someone is granted a patent on a natural substance, protein, or gene. There is an argument for compensation for the expense of putting a proposed drug through clinical trials. But if the effect is just to verify that a drug does what a traditional healer says it does, we need to find some other means besides a patent monopoly to do the funding.

Yes, it is true that "I was only following orders" is not a defense when the orders are to commit heinous acts. However, this should not be an excuse to let higher-ups off the hook. Prosecutors should follow the same strategy as is followed in mob cases: give the little guys lighter sentences in exchange for their testimony against the kingpins.

The military has actually done the reverse: in some cases they have granted immunity to officers for their testimony against their own underlings! This is unheard of (not that a superior would testify against an inferior, but rather that the superior would get immunity against prosecution for the very same crimes).

In 2002, the Democrat with the universal name recognition and the lead in the early polls was Joe Lieberman. That's right, Joementum himself, who just stunk up the place.

Hillary's money doesn't mean a thing. Alternative candidates who catch fire with the base can quickly raise enormous amounts of money, and the base is seriously pissed off at Sen. Clinton.

And the Democratic consultants you talked to for this story? Most of them lose time and time again, but they still presume to tell Democrats how to win. But they've got it wired so they get rich, win or lose.

I have to assume that the Post was unaware of this guy's alter-ego as "Augustine", since I have difficulty believing they would have hired him had they read what he wrote under that name.

Has anyone asked Brady if they he read the Augustine postings?

It's not just that Lieberman supports the Iraq war. It is that he believes, and states frequently, that anyone who opposes the president on any security matter is a danger to the nation. He and those who think like him are a danger to the Republic. He must go.

Warren G. Harding was stupid but personally charming, and his administration was as corrupt as could be (the Teapot Dome scandal was just one of several). Harding was also known for his verbal gaffes.

Gold is only at a 25-year high in constant dollars. Once inflation is factored in, it is clear that gold is worth far less than it was 25 years ago. How many barrels of oil, or (to use the Economist's favorite example) Big Macs will an ounce of gold buy? Far less than it used to.

Those who believe the hype and invest in gold almost invariably lose.

The problem with this type of analysis is that it pretends that countries are the actors, and that countries have uniform interests, and that strict "intellectual property" rules benefit all Americans and harm all Chinese.

But the actual actors that conduct most trade are multinational corporations, which in many cases have operations in both America and China, as well as elsewhere. These actors simultaneously exploit their US patents and their cheap Chinese labor.

And Chinese manufacturers who've obtained exclusive patent licenses to manufacture some product do very well.

But even if the intent were to trade patent enforcement for the end of duties on agriculture and textiles, this would be a poor deal for the Indian who must now die because it's no longer legal for India to manufacture cheap AIDS drugs. At least he'll be more likely to have a job at the local textile plant until he's too weak to work.

Roddy McCorley wrote what I consider the best commentary on Bush the Decider.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/18/185016/217

I'm the decider.

I pick and I choose.

I pick among whats.

And choose among whos.

And as I decide

Each particular day

The things I decide on

All turn out that way.

I decided on Freedom

For all of Iraq.

And now that we have it,

I'm not looking back.

Follow the link for the rest.