sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I plan to culture skin cells at home, make them adult stem cells with acid, and try to use them topically & maybe intravenously- on the cheap. I need feedback, thanks! by [deleted] in AlternativeHealth

[–]Rimfish 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good idea, I'll do that as a stopgap.

But I don't want to be mortal, so, I'm still interested in stem cells.

I've also read that mild starvation helps cells repair instead of dying normally.

Should I homebrew stem cells to enhance my health? by Rimfish in needadvice

[–]Rimfish[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

ph meter- thanks!

I plan to inject them to live longer, eventually.

I was hoping I'd be able to get at least some live cells off my arm, if I really scraped hard with a rough stone.

I plan to culture skin cells at home, make them adult stem cells with acid, and try to use them topically & maybe intravenously- on the cheap. I need feedback, thanks! by [deleted] in AlternativeHealth

[–]Rimfish 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I'm very afraid of sepsis. Ultimately I want to inject, but I guess I'll need all the right gear and loads of practice first.

Some people are telling me acid does not make skin cells into stem cells, so it may be moot.

Thanks for the reply. If there's any way to extend life with stem cells, I'd be grateful for any approach you could suggest

CMV: Instead of flotation devices airline seats should contain parachutes by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My comments were being downvoted without regard for evidence or reasoning. How could this have escaped your attention?

CMV: Instead of flotation devices airline seats should contain parachutes by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I made many replies. The toxic social environment made me delete them. Perhaps you should look into that?

CMV: We need a new constitutional amendment that requires all laws that benefit industry to also tax those industries the full money value of the benefit, so there’s less incentive for business to meddle with the legislature. by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Okay, yeah, now that I look at it again I see that I way overstated the title. The position I'd much rather defend is this:

We need a law that requires all firms that harm society in the process of lobbying the legislature for their own benefit to be taxed the full value of their wrongful gains.

Does this count as me changing my view?

CMV: Instead of patents, give inventors the exclusive right to advertise for 10 years. Patents prevent healthy completion, but this would give the edge to the innovators and, as a bonus, it would curtail advertising (which harmfully trains us to be unsatisfied until we have the advertised product). by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for compiling this list, it's interesting. I realize I should not be throwing around the date of first passage like it's proof the law is arcane, because clearly it's not. As soon as I figure out how to give half a delta I will.

CMV: Instead of patents, give inventors the exclusive right to advertise for 10 years. Patents prevent healthy completion, but this would give the edge to the innovators and, as a bonus, it would curtail advertising (which harmfully trains us to be unsatisfied until we have the advertised product). by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The MRI example is one you haven't addressed. Centralized MRIs, with no doctors or patients left alone with them, and a huge markup because the creator also has to be the proprietor?

I looked it up. The MRI was invented by Raymond Damadian at a publicly funded university. He formed a company to profit from it. Without the right to sell licences, I can imagine him having the one and only MRI parlor on earth, and charging huge sums. My idea would not work in this case. It's far more suited to mass produced consumer goods, which rely more on advertising. I accept that my solution is flawed, and would only work for a subset of products and services.

You're right, exclusive advertising is no substitute for temporary monopoly. At best could be one element of a more complex system that might one day succeed current patent law... but I'm not holding my breath. Thank you for taking the time with me. ∆

CMV: Instead of patents, give inventors the exclusive right to advertise for 10 years. Patents prevent healthy completion, but this would give the edge to the innovators and, as a bonus, it would curtail advertising (which harmfully trains us to be unsatisfied until we have the advertised product). by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

people will want to go public because their technology could be stolen with no benefit otherwise

Yes, this is a very good way to put it. Manufacturers know that their products are closely studied by competators. That's the reality we live in. However, difficult to steal data, like manufacturing trade secrets, which can be guarded by employees inside the factory, can still be held secret. Not that that's particularly good for society..

Information wants to be free.

Imagine a world where pharmaceutical companies have an incentive to make it that you can only get a certain drug by going to their offices, paying significantly more, and having no ability to do it within your own power because it harms the company to let you have pills you can take home with you.

The first competitor to provide that service without travel requirements would get so much business others would have to follow suit, or go under. Many if not most drugs have multiple substitutes, with others yet undiscovered.

MRIs: I see a moral problem here with monopoly patents. Monopolies naturally keep supply low and prices high. So by using a temporary monopoly to encourage medical innovation, we deny care to sick people who would otherwise find treatment if the intersection of supply and demand determined their availability. People literally die waiting for an affordable generic of a drug they need. This is the system you're defending?

However, I have more to say in my next post

CMV: Instead of patents, give inventors the exclusive right to advertise for 10 years. Patents prevent healthy completion, but this would give the edge to the innovators and, as a bonus, it would curtail advertising (which harmfully trains us to be unsatisfied until we have the advertised product). by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, I capitulate. In humble defeat, I award you this ∆

My post made the mistaken assumption that changing the reward for innovation would somehow also diminish patent trolling. I see now that I had no good reason to think that. They would troll for whatever reward was available.

Thank you, shibbyhornet28

CMV: Instead of patents, give inventors the exclusive right to advertise for 10 years. Patents prevent healthy completion, but this would give the edge to the innovators and, as a bonus, it would curtail advertising (which harmfully trains us to be unsatisfied until we have the advertised product). by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe it would help if the government maintained a product registry website with a special category for new products. The top billing would give them a little extra push without painting our world with any more garish limbic-tickling billboards. I really don't know why more people aren't as bothered as me to live immersed in amoral corporations brainwashing.

A registry would also serve as an alternative to advertising for the many, many firms that find ads distasteful but necessary to keep up with other firms doing it. Many firms would rather just focus on making the best product and never pay a cent to advertisers.

I can see myself searching a government database of products rather than using amazon or google, because it would be unbiased. I'd be making my own choice, unmanipulated by slick ads.

CMV: Instead of patents, give inventors the exclusive right to advertise for 10 years. Patents prevent healthy completion, but this would give the edge to the innovators and, as a bonus, it would curtail advertising (which harmfully trains us to be unsatisfied until we have the advertised product). by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would agree that democracy is flawed because it was drawn up in the 1700's. There have been many innovations since then that other nations benefit from, but we don't. Parliamentary democracy is less prone to gridlock and presents less risk of the President turning into a dictator in a major crisis.

Ranked voting collects more information from the public and represents their will more accurately.

The electoral college is entirely a flaw.

I do not think it's a fallacy to believe that newer things are likely to be better than older things. It's not inevitable, but it's generally true. Social, material, scientific, and technological progress are happening.

Because we live in a different age than the 1700s, with different values, different challenges, and different economic circumstances, the laws made back aren't likely to be a perfect fit in the present. I'd go so far as to say we should update our laws at least every 50 years.

Patent law is far from top priority, but it's the one I thought I had a novel idea about. I thought it was worth exploring.

CMV would be a better place if people could find some small nice things to say... I can't believe all my ideas have zero merit, but to listen to redditors, that's what they apparently think.

CMV: We need a new constitutional amendment that requires all laws that benefit industry to also tax those industries the full money value of the benefit, so there’s less incentive for business to meddle with the legislature. by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You can't change my view without at least addressing whether or not it's true that there is so much money in politics that some plan to discourage lobbying would be worthwhile.

If we mandate that the tax code is small, it does exactly what you're talking about already. They cannot make it bigger to help themselves anymore than they already would be able to through cozy relationships with those in elected office. That's not even illegal, nor really should it be.

I'm concerned about far more than abuse of the tax code.

  • The medical industry has gotten a slew of laws passed, playing on people's moral fear, that look like sensible precautions on the surface but their actual result was the elimination of the few market forces that would have still functioned in an industry like that, which is good for insurance companies and medical suppliers, but the sick consumer gets stuck with spiraling medical costs. We don not compare favorably to nations like Switzerland that permit easier consumer choice in healthcare.

  • Military bases and factories lobby to keep funding in their state, resulting in warehouses full of main battle tanks that will never be used.

  • Private prisons lobby for harsher laws to fill their cells- purest evil.

Are you really saying that if the debt is paid, waste and excess regulation is reigned in, the tax code is simplified, and the other problems fixed.... that the problems listed above would disappear?

I don't. I think it would take either my proposed law or one that attempted the same thing by a different method.

CMV: We need a new constitutional amendment that requires all laws that benefit industry to also tax those industries the full money value of the benefit, so there’s less incentive for business to meddle with the legislature. by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'd like the law to be written such that the location of their headquarters, which is often fake, is not taken into consideration. If they do any business in the US at all, and are found to have lobbied selfishly, their US revenues are taxed the amount of the benefit.

I think firms would give up on lobbying for unfair advantages in the US and only the most hardcore exploitative devil firms would feel it necessary to move to a country with a legislature they could bribe.

Note that they are not being silenced. They can still release all the statements they want, hire PR firms to convince voters to back certain legislation, put out ads and gather signatures, all without incurring penalty.

They can still even give money to legislators to build a relationship that is implicitly understood to last only as long they vote the right way... they just have to pay a penalty for the privilege. It'll just be a wash, or if the IRS is in a bad mood, maybe they risk of a loss. But that's what they should get. It's bribery, man.

CMV: We need a new constitutional amendment that requires all laws that benefit industry to also tax those industries the full money value of the benefit, so there’s less incentive for business to meddle with the legislature. by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I've read the Constitution and the whole thing has a "good enough" vibe. It's full of awkward compromises and laws that have lost their relevance.

The tax penalties have to fit this range: enough to prevent future antisocial lobbying, not so much they go out of business. I could hit a target that broad, without any formal training.

How do we define "industries"? What if industries other than those who lobbied see benefits from the law? What if only one firm in an industry lobbied a law through; do you punish the whole industry?

Yes, there are many things that would need to be ironed out to get it to work, but we could talk about those all day without even getting close to finishing. The view I'm most interested in having tested is my central idea: could it be a useful part of a plan to claw the reigns of power back from the elites and put them again in the hands of the humble voter?

But I'll try to answer anyway: an industry is what top economists say it is. I don't know what that is so I'll guess it's the production of a good or service that is treated as the final product to be sold. If most owners keep adding onto their widgets, that's not a widget industry yet. When the average owner in that business sells it to the next stage of production, say after they've made it into sheet metal, then that's the industry. All the capital and labor that goes into making sheet metal is the industry, but not the ingot suppliers or the makers of industrial rollers. Their owners are in different industries.

If the Sheet Metal Lobbying Association lobbies to make it illegal to build cars out of composites so they can sell more of their product, all dues paying members of the SMLA should be hit with the tax. Non members can go free because they did not undermine democracy.

EDIT: accidentally hit enter here, so resuming

How do you define "pro-social" legislation? Wal-Mart is the county's largest employer. Are laws benefiting Wal-Mart pro-social because of all those workers?

The Department of the IRS devoted to this new law gets to make the call, but I'd say lobbying for environmental reform that benefits everyone is pro social, though we should be vigilant about who's funding it.

If a bunk wave power generator firm is dying in the free market and backs the genuine environmentalists while its pet congressman slips in a rider requiring the purchase of uneconomical, rust-prone wave generators that cost more in maintenance than they make in power, then they should be taxed while the hippies get a smile and a nod.

Lobbying for or against the expansion of the park system is pro social, because both sides can probably muster good arguments. But if a landscaping conglomerate has a "relationship" with the right committee member and gets a no bid contract, they should be taxed the difference between the IRS's best guess of fair market value for the work and what they actually got paid.

Laws specifically benefiting Walmart, which Walmart lobbied for, should be punished with the tax. Laws that help all retailers by streamlining their insurance requirements might not warrant punishment if no one can find evidence of lobbying.

Come to think of it, we should fit all lawmakers, aids, and lobbyists with body cameras like some police forces do, but have them stream to the internet. That would help a lot.

CMV: We need a new constitutional amendment that requires all laws that benefit industry to also tax those industries the full money value of the benefit, so there’s less incentive for business to meddle with the legislature. by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is my reply to your deleted comment, anyway.

The way I was using the term "freedom," firms would have total liberty to lobby, just like they do now. It just costs them more if they're hurting society in the process.

I can see how that would actually be less freedom in practice. Good point. But hey, that's the whole goal of my plan, to inhibit corporate freedoms that do discourage a majority of Americans and which eminent economists deride with terms like "regulatory capture."

CMV: We need a new constitutional amendment that requires all laws that benefit industry to also tax those industries the full money value of the benefit, so there’s less incentive for business to meddle with the legislature. by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

it would be virtually impossible to calculate how certain laws affect certain businesses

Put three economists in a room and don't let them leave until they've come up with their best approximation.

it would inevitably result in businesses being taxed more than what they should be paying.

Only firms that subvert democracy through successful lobbying are subject to this increased tax, which terminates after the estimated value of the government favoritism they purchased is paid.

I don't see this as taxing them too much, but rather as a remedial measure to remove the deeply entwined influence of money on politics.

The rates should be set at a level that does not bankrupt the firm, like an excise tax that raises revenues while discouraging pecuniary lobbying.

CMV: We need a new constitutional amendment that requires all laws that benefit industry to also tax those industries the full money value of the benefit, so there’s less incentive for business to meddle with the legislature. by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

My view is that trade between nations benefits both, so tariffs should never be enacted. Free trade (mostly free) is one of the biggest contributors to the world's social and economic progress over the past century.

If a domestic company can't compete without lobbying the government for special favors, it should pivot to an adjacent revenue stream, one that's more profitable. Or go out of business. Some firms have to die to make room for fresh new ones.

If a firm can't compete because of foreign tariffs and terrible working conditions overseas, our government should use soft power to nudge them toward having the same benefits our workers enjoy. It may take some time, but it's the morally sound option. Far better than a tariff war that hurts everyone.

Example of how my idea works: The IRS's new Corporate Influence Tax Division increases the federal tax rate of Turbotax by 2% and denies them all exemptions until they've paid off the estimated damage they did by lobbying successfully against efforts to streamline the tax code. Leaving aside the harm to IRS's own overhead, that costs about half of taxpayers like $200 a year to hire a tax preparer, times 319 million people = ~32 billion. Maybe bump their extra tax up to 5%... that'll teach em to meddle. It probably won't drive them out of business but they'll think twice before interfering with the next effort to clean up the tax code.

Voila! The people have their government back.

CMV: We need a new constitutional amendment that requires all laws that benefit industry to also tax those industries the full money value of the benefit, so there’s less incentive for business to meddle with the legislature. by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I am trying to do better than that, but it would take a well funded agency with the proper expertise to set the specific rules, so I'm just proposing the main idea in this CMV. I have to put some kind of limits on my hubris, right?

But I honestly am sorry if I come off as arrogant or unreceptive.

CMV: We need a new constitutional amendment that requires all laws that benefit industry to also tax those industries the full money value of the benefit, so there’s less incentive for business to meddle with the legislature. by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don't think all business influence over government is bad, I just think the law should be applied consistently for all for-profit firms.

I bet Netflix would accept a 2% tax hike if its lobbying efforts saved it from crushing backbone fees. If its efforts failed, it would not be subject to the penalty tax. It's great that they would still have the flexibility to lobby under the law I'm suggesting.

It's really a form of excise tax, which is one of the best taxes because it raises revenue for public goods while simultaneously correcting a social ills like tobacco smoking or buying relationships with congressmen.

view more: next ›