well if you look at all of human history strict monogamy is the exception, not the rule.
Personally I trust that when my significant other is with someone else she'll come back to me soon enough.
I prefer that trust to believing that everyone around me is keeping to some archaic rule set. Trust in one person is far better than trust in hundreds of thousands.
But can we not overcome the need for these long-standing safety rules with modern materials and a slight bit of fore thought? Rather than teaching children and immature adults only the these rules delivered from on high solely by fiat, one could say "this is optimal for safety, however there are many other options as well, so long as you practice these safety procedures consistently you will be safe"?
Is there really a good reason why we should stick solely with rules that are a thousand years old?
If so then should we not follow all of them? Do I get to start stoning people?
If only the constitution could force people to read and understand it, more people wouldn't make the same mistake the GP makes.
But then again, given the power many corporations have over our lives maybe most people don't see much of a difference between the US Government and Corporations?
Whoa! Wait a second, Ice Pirates was a hilarious and campy film and very worth every inch of celluloid.
I mean where else would you ever see a ship get space herpes?
Well you know half a Billion in DVD sales and he still owes 80 Million, such is the hazards trying to tell a great story.
It really makes you wonder why anyone really tries anymore.
So rather than put all the adults into one place and make it easier for adults to find adult stuff you want to put all the kids stuff in one place for adults^H^H^H^H^H^Hkids to find kids stuff?
*ahem* I can see this going badly
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the US Constitution to prevent the government from buying information from a person or a non-person.
Is this any different than Mathematicians doing research on complex mathematical proofs? Or Physicists researching elementary particles?
Is it really in the interest of the public if Fermilab was able to patent the Top Quark?
How about if Pi or e or c were patentable?
The genes existed before and would continue to exist and do its thing long before and after these researchers discovered it.
A Sewing machine however didn't exist before Thomas Saint made one.
It has always been a possibility that secret research is profitable. The recipe of Coke and Pepsi are secrets and both products of possibly thousands of hours of research and both Coca Cola and Pepsi make money hand over fist for their "Secret" research. It's called a Trade Secret. It has special protections and rules under patent law.
If some company wants to leaves a small sequence of genes as their "Secret Sauce" to discovering Breast Cancer then all the power to them.
But nothing stops me from trying to imitate Coke or Pepsi and nothing would then stop me from trying to imitate their discovery of the Breast Cancer Gene.
The free care that Americans get is billed to the patient, If they can not pay they go into bankruptcy. Then the costs are absorbed by the corporations. Except the corporation will see a drag on their bottom line, and increase the prices to their products (Insurance, cost of medicines and care). And as an end user I have to perform a cost/benefit analysis when said megarich corporation raises my rates, and if I am the breaking point I will drop my coverage or decline service and I doubt that I would be alone.
Now the corporations will see that less people are purchasing their services and will have to raise their prices a bit more to cover their costs.
And now that there are just a few more people who are out of the system they will get sick and go to the ER, and be billed for the services incurred. Being unable to pay they will, eventually, file for bankruptcy and leave the corporation with the vast majority of the bill.
If this were a flow chart I would say go back to the point where the corporation has to raise rates.
This is a feed back loop with the main cause being the law that was signed in the 1986 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act ).
Now really, as a good capitalist, should we really be providing free care to so many people? They should be required to pay, or demonstrate the ability to pay, ER's before they, the ER, treats them. Should we really let people shrug off their financial obligations upon the rest of us unwillingly?
Shouldn't you only receive services that you are able to pay for? If I have not saved for those chemo treatments, should I receive them? If I do not have to ability to pay for, either through insurance or my private finances, should I receive the services of an ER after a car accident? Remember if I can't pay for it, then eventually you will pay for it through higher insurance premiums and higher hospital costs.
If I buy insurance I am volunteering to share the cost burden with those who I am pooling my money together with. But to be forced to cover people who do not contribute anything is a horrible idea. It leads only to the products that my insurance should cover increasing in price. It essentially gives insurance to those who have not paid for it.
This is unfair for the 250 Million (it's more depending on who you ask) Americans who pay for their insurance.
If this is a service economy, why is the service so bad?