Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Capitalism Does Not Drive Innovation

Page 2 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

22 May 2021, 7:15 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
The problem with the idea that only capitalism leads to a rewarding life is hard to support. There are many more countries that rank at a higher quality of life index than the US. Those "socialist" European countries do very well.

This topic is not about *quality of life*.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

22 May 2021, 8:38 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
The problem with the idea that only capitalism leads to a rewarding life is hard to support. There are many more countries that rank at a higher quality of life index than the US. Those "socialist" European countries do very well.

This topic is not about *quality of life*.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well, at least we agree on something: capitalism is not about quality of life.



shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,659

22 May 2021, 8:45 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
The problem with the idea that only capitalism leads to a rewarding life is hard to support. There are many more countries that rank at a higher quality of life index than the US. Those "socialist" European countries do very well.

This topic is not about *quality of life*.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well, at least we agree on something: capitalism is not about quality of life.


Capitalism is about accumulating more capital. Everything else is positive or negative side effects, often depending on persepective. But Capital itself doesn't care.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

22 May 2021, 9:31 pm

shlaifu wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
The problem with the idea that only capitalism leads to a rewarding life is hard to support. There are many more countries that rank at a higher quality of life index than the US. Those "socialist" European countries do very well.

This topic is not about *quality of life*.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well, at least we agree on something: capitalism is not about quality of life.


Capitalism is about accumulating more capital. Everything else is positive or negative side effects, often depending on persepective. But Capital itself doesn't care.


So, the "invisible hand" is not a thing. Reagan promised that the rising tide lifted all boats. Isn't that the capitalist myth: it benefits everyone?



NoClearMind53
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 25 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 369

23 May 2021, 1:31 am

Nades wrote:
NoClearMind53 wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
The *profit motive* sparks innovation.

Do you want to be RICH? More possessions? Bigger home? More vacations? Live the dream life?




Yeah, okay, that's just a misconception due to high correlation in the past. But correlation is not causation, the profi motive does not cause innovation. Innovation is by-product, but if it makes financial sense to stifle innovation, then the profit motive stifles innovation.

The problem is the low hanging fruit is mostly gone. Really revolutionary technological breakthroughs now require a lot of research funding. A single person can still invent clever gadgets, but major endeavors like renewable energy or space exploration require massive funding. That patents always go to the wealthy financiers, not the scientists and engineers themselves. Also, government funds quite a bit of basic research that capitalists get for free. Also, a lot of entrepreneurial inventions these days are just ways to exploit people more (i.e. gig companies). The benefit-to-cost ratio for society as a whole isn't so great always. Flexible work helps some people that don't absolutely depend on steady income because they have other sources, but at the same time it seems to replace more stable jobs.


Having so many innovations achieved to the point where regular folk can no longer innovate any further by themselves isn't really a bad thing. It just shows how advance a society is.

That's not the point. It's a bad thing because the patent system does not encourage innovation the way it would in simpler times. It gets abused by corporations and doesn't always reward innovation, but instead stifles competition and causes artificial scarcity. The people doing the innovation are usually employees, yet it's CEOs and shareholders exclusive who profit off patents. If you examine the real world with a critical mind you see that it doesn't always work in the way theories you are constantly fed say it should.



NoClearMind53
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 25 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 369

23 May 2021, 1:40 am

Jiheisho wrote:
So, the "invisible hand" is not a thing. Reagan promised that the rising tide lifted all boats. Isn't that the capitalist myth: it benefits everyone?

Yep. It didn't. They lied. But the mouthpieces of the capitalist elite will keep gaslighting everyone and even people on this forum will do their duty as propaganda foot-soldiers in repeating the lies over and over again. People in the US have been conditioned to worship capitalist-apologist dogma like they worship the Bible. There is no nuance at all. Every deviation from strict market fundamentalist dogma or attempt to reform the system to fix it's flaws is railed against as "communism" or "authoritarianism". Things have never felt so hopeless.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

23 May 2021, 2:14 am

Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
I can't think of a worse way to hamper innovation than refusing to pay people who innovate.

I'm in the early stages of trying to obtain a patent that will likely cost me thousands. I sure as hell want my money back and more.....otherwise I'll keep it a secret and nobody can benefit from it.


And you can do that. Jonas Salk gave away his rights to the polio vaccine, which is what he thought was good. And there is also public investment in innovation that is also shared (the internet, GPS, etc). That benefits the whole of society and creates more innovation.


So after working 55 hour weeks and spending thousands out of my own savings on prototypes, I'm immoral for expecting payment on an invention?

The polio vaccine is different too. That's at the very extreme and of the scale and can no longer be patented anyway....along with vaccines made in similar ways.

Patent laws often prevent people from obtaining patents using such science.



thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,310

23 May 2021, 2:40 am

Capitalism only means to benefit those who're already rich or part of the elite.
If you're not rich already/part of the elite already, capitalism won't benefit you.

If you make a product, it is most likely already patented. Only wealthy people can afford a patent btw.

Capitalism also means that the rich should not pay taxes, regardless of whether the poor should.
Also, capitalism means that everyone who don't own their own factories, should become wage slaves.

In short, capitalism means freedom for the elite, but enslavement of the masses.

FACT: 1 % elite of Earth's population own more than 50 % of all the wealth in the world.

It's time for a revolution!



Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 23 May 2021, 2:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

23 May 2021, 2:43 am

thinkinginpictures wrote:
Capitalism only means to benefit those who're already rich or part of the elite.
If you're not rich already/part of the elite already, capitalism won't benefit you.

If you make a product, it is most likely already patented. Only wealthy people can afford a patent btw.

Capitalism also means that the rich should not pay taxes, regardless of whether the poor should.
Also, capitalism means that everyone who don't own their own factories, should become wage slaves.

In short, capitalism means freedom for the elite, but enslavement of the masses.


That's not true. Someone can check if their product is patented first and then should they so choose pay for the patent. It's expensive but hardly only in the realms of the "rich".

Many people have gone from rags to riches by a good patent.



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

23 May 2021, 9:49 am

Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
I can't think of a worse way to hamper innovation than refusing to pay people who innovate.

I'm in the early stages of trying to obtain a patent that will likely cost me thousands. I sure as hell want my money back and more.....otherwise I'll keep it a secret and nobody can benefit from it.


And you can do that. Jonas Salk gave away his rights to the polio vaccine, which is what he thought was good. And there is also public investment in innovation that is also shared (the internet, GPS, etc). That benefits the whole of society and creates more innovation.


So after working 55 hour weeks and spending thousands out of my own savings on prototypes, I'm immoral for expecting payment on an invention?

The polio vaccine is different too. That's at the very extreme and of the scale and can no longer be patented anyway....along with vaccines made in similar ways.

Patent laws often prevent people from obtaining patents using such science.


No, you are not immoral. I think you should profit from your labor.

Currently, the COVID vaccines are patented and controlled by private sector companies. Governments have been mulling in breaking those patents to increase global production and distribution. But medicines, including vaccines, are some of the most patented inventions, even when the initial research was publicly funded.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

23 May 2021, 10:21 am

Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
I can't think of a worse way to hamper innovation than refusing to pay people who innovate.

I'm in the early stages of trying to obtain a patent that will likely cost me thousands. I sure as hell want my money back and more.....otherwise I'll keep it a secret and nobody can benefit from it.


And you can do that. Jonas Salk gave away his rights to the polio vaccine, which is what he thought was good. And there is also public investment in innovation that is also shared (the internet, GPS, etc). That benefits the whole of society and creates more innovation.


So after working 55 hour weeks and spending thousands out of my own savings on prototypes, I'm immoral for expecting payment on an invention?

The polio vaccine is different too. That's at the very extreme and of the scale and can no longer be patented anyway....along with vaccines made in similar ways.

Patent laws often prevent people from obtaining patents using such science.


No, you are not immoral. I think you should profit from your labor.

Currently, the COVID vaccines are patented and controlled by private sector companies. Governments have been mulling in breaking those patents to increase global production and distribution. But medicines, including vaccines, are some of the most patented inventions, even when the initial research was publicly funded.


By 55 hour weeks I mean not developing the device. I mean 5 hour weeks in work in general that I'm already paid for but without those long hours I would have never dwelled on the problem at hand enough to think of the device.

The issue with the vaccines is that they are generally unable to be patented as the science behind traditional vaccines is very old and have been open knowledge for some time. Chances are a traditional vaccine that requires a high school level of education to manufacture might have worked just as well but the method of production of a vaccine like that will be refused a patent......so hence the convoluted and overly complex vaccine we have for Covid now.

Patents are tricky. On one hand they provide an incentive for revealing ideas and long held secrets that an individual might have on the assurance nobody will steal them and take credit for them but on the other hand they're out of keeping with modern anti-capitalist stances. My opinion is that capitalism is still better than other forms of governance as it rewards those who innovate and not punish them.

One thing I know is for sure though. Taking the ideas of someone else and taking credit for them needs to be avoided at all cost. It's not even about the money.



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

23 May 2021, 10:37 am

Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
I can't think of a worse way to hamper innovation than refusing to pay people who innovate.

I'm in the early stages of trying to obtain a patent that will likely cost me thousands. I sure as hell want my money back and more.....otherwise I'll keep it a secret and nobody can benefit from it.


And you can do that. Jonas Salk gave away his rights to the polio vaccine, which is what he thought was good. And there is also public investment in innovation that is also shared (the internet, GPS, etc). That benefits the whole of society and creates more innovation.


So after working 55 hour weeks and spending thousands out of my own savings on prototypes, I'm immoral for expecting payment on an invention?

The polio vaccine is different too. That's at the very extreme and of the scale and can no longer be patented anyway....along with vaccines made in similar ways.

Patent laws often prevent people from obtaining patents using such science.


No, you are not immoral. I think you should profit from your labor.

Currently, the COVID vaccines are patented and controlled by private sector companies. Governments have been mulling in breaking those patents to increase global production and distribution. But medicines, including vaccines, are some of the most patented inventions, even when the initial research was publicly funded.


By 55 hour weeks I mean not developing the device. I mean 5 hour weeks in work in general that I'm already paid for but without those long hours I would have never dwelled on the problem at hand enough to think of the device.

The issue with the vaccines is that they are generally unable to be patented as the science behind traditional vaccines is very old and have been open knowledge for some time. Chances are a traditional vaccine that requires a high school level of education to manufacture might have worked just as well but the method of production of a vaccine like that will be refused a patent......so hence the convoluted and overly complex vaccine we have for Covid now.

Patents are tricky. On one hand they provide an incentive for revealing ideas and long held secrets that an individual might have on the assurance nobody will steal them and take credit for them but on the other hand they're out of keeping with modern anti-capitalist stances. My opinion is that capitalism is still better than other forms of governance as it rewards those who innovate and not punish them.

One thing I know is for sure though. Taking the ideas of someone else and taking credit for them needs to be avoided at all cost. It's not even about the money.


I think patent law is very important, which is why they are so universal: socialist countries also have strong patent laws. Innovation is very strong in social democracies. But as noted in the video, capitalism is not the only or best way to innovate.

Please show the the COVID vaccine is "overly" complex.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

23 May 2021, 10:56 am

Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
I can't think of a worse way to hamper innovation than refusing to pay people who innovate.

I'm in the early stages of trying to obtain a patent that will likely cost me thousands. I sure as hell want my money back and more.....otherwise I'll keep it a secret and nobody can benefit from it.


And you can do that. Jonas Salk gave away his rights to the polio vaccine, which is what he thought was good. And there is also public investment in innovation that is also shared (the internet, GPS, etc). That benefits the whole of society and creates more innovation.


So after working 55 hour weeks and spending thousands out of my own savings on prototypes, I'm immoral for expecting payment on an invention?

The polio vaccine is different too. That's at the very extreme and of the scale and can no longer be patented anyway....along with vaccines made in similar ways.

Patent laws often prevent people from obtaining patents using such science.


No, you are not immoral. I think you should profit from your labor.

Currently, the COVID vaccines are patented and controlled by private sector companies. Governments have been mulling in breaking those patents to increase global production and distribution. But medicines, including vaccines, are some of the most patented inventions, even when the initial research was publicly funded.


By 55 hour weeks I mean not developing the device. I mean 5 hour weeks in work in general that I'm already paid for but without those long hours I would have never dwelled on the problem at hand enough to think of the device.

The issue with the vaccines is that they are generally unable to be patented as the science behind traditional vaccines is very old and have been open knowledge for some time. Chances are a traditional vaccine that requires a high school level of education to manufacture might have worked just as well but the method of production of a vaccine like that will be refused a patent......so hence the convoluted and overly complex vaccine we have for Covid now.

Patents are tricky. On one hand they provide an incentive for revealing ideas and long held secrets that an individual might have on the assurance nobody will steal them and take credit for them but on the other hand they're out of keeping with modern anti-capitalist stances. My opinion is that capitalism is still better than other forms of governance as it rewards those who innovate and not punish them.

One thing I know is for sure though. Taking the ideas of someone else and taking credit for them needs to be avoided at all cost. It's not even about the money.


I think patent law is very important, which is why they are so universal: socialist countries also have strong patent laws. Innovation is very strong in social democracies. But as noted in the video, capitalism is not the only or best way to innovate.

Please show the the COVID vaccine is "overly" complex.


Scientists developed a method of just killing the original SARS virus with ultraviolet radiation with seemingly good effect which was then injected for immunity against it in mice. It's very similar to traditional vaccines and most vaccines are made via killing the entire virus/bacteria with whatever method is preferred and injecting it or passing the live pathogen through many growth cycles long removed from what they would experience in our own body effectively evolving them to no longer infect us. It seems weird how a much more traditional vaccine wasn't developed considering how well understood the methods are and how much time was of the essence.

The Covid vaccine is just weird. It uses RNA delivered directly into the cells to allow the body to recognise the virus. Considering they had luck with a much more traditional method with the first SARS, the vaccine seems overly complicated for what it is.

This is a report on the effectiveness of a vaccine made with 100 year old tech for the original SARS virus.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7108621/



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

23 May 2021, 10:57 am

Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
I can't think of a worse way to hamper innovation than refusing to pay people who innovate.

I'm in the early stages of trying to obtain a patent that will likely cost me thousands. I sure as hell want my money back and more.....otherwise I'll keep it a secret and nobody can benefit from it.


And you can do that. Jonas Salk gave away his rights to the polio vaccine, which is what he thought was good. And there is also public investment in innovation that is also shared (the internet, GPS, etc). That benefits the whole of society and creates more innovation.


So after working 55 hour weeks and spending thousands out of my own savings on prototypes, I'm immoral for expecting payment on an invention?

The polio vaccine is different too. That's at the very extreme and of the scale and can no longer be patented anyway....along with vaccines made in similar ways.

Patent laws often prevent people from obtaining patents using such science.


No, you are not immoral. I think you should profit from your labor.

Currently, the COVID vaccines are patented and controlled by private sector companies. Governments have been mulling in breaking those patents to increase global production and distribution. But medicines, including vaccines, are some of the most patented inventions, even when the initial research was publicly funded.


By 55 hour weeks I mean not developing the device. I mean 5 hour weeks in work in general that I'm already paid for but without those long hours I would have never dwelled on the problem at hand enough to think of the device.

The issue with the vaccines is that they are generally unable to be patented as the science behind traditional vaccines is very old and have been open knowledge for some time. Chances are a traditional vaccine that requires a high school level of education to manufacture might have worked just as well but the method of production of a vaccine like that will be refused a patent......so hence the convoluted and overly complex vaccine we have for Covid now.

Patents are tricky. On one hand they provide an incentive for revealing ideas and long held secrets that an individual might have on the assurance nobody will steal them and take credit for them but on the other hand they're out of keeping with modern anti-capitalist stances. My opinion is that capitalism is still better than other forms of governance as it rewards those who innovate and not punish them.

One thing I know is for sure though. Taking the ideas of someone else and taking credit for them needs to be avoided at all cost. It's not even about the money.


I think patent law is very important, which is why they are so universal: socialist countries also have strong patent laws. Innovation is very strong in social democracies. But as noted in the video, capitalism is not the only or best way to innovate.

Please show the the COVID vaccine is "overly" complex.


I also don't see the point in having patents in a society that taxes the living daylights out of anyone who innovates enough to become wealthy.



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

23 May 2021, 11:49 am

Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
I can't think of a worse way to hamper innovation than refusing to pay people who innovate.

I'm in the early stages of trying to obtain a patent that will likely cost me thousands. I sure as hell want my money back and more.....otherwise I'll keep it a secret and nobody can benefit from it.


And you can do that. Jonas Salk gave away his rights to the polio vaccine, which is what he thought was good. And there is also public investment in innovation that is also shared (the internet, GPS, etc). That benefits the whole of society and creates more innovation.


So after working 55 hour weeks and spending thousands out of my own savings on prototypes, I'm immoral for expecting payment on an invention?

The polio vaccine is different too. That's at the very extreme and of the scale and can no longer be patented anyway....along with vaccines made in similar ways.

Patent laws often prevent people from obtaining patents using such science.


No, you are not immoral. I think you should profit from your labor.

Currently, the COVID vaccines are patented and controlled by private sector companies. Governments have been mulling in breaking those patents to increase global production and distribution. But medicines, including vaccines, are some of the most patented inventions, even when the initial research was publicly funded.


By 55 hour weeks I mean not developing the device. I mean 5 hour weeks in work in general that I'm already paid for but without those long hours I would have never dwelled on the problem at hand enough to think of the device.

The issue with the vaccines is that they are generally unable to be patented as the science behind traditional vaccines is very old and have been open knowledge for some time. Chances are a traditional vaccine that requires a high school level of education to manufacture might have worked just as well but the method of production of a vaccine like that will be refused a patent......so hence the convoluted and overly complex vaccine we have for Covid now.

Patents are tricky. On one hand they provide an incentive for revealing ideas and long held secrets that an individual might have on the assurance nobody will steal them and take credit for them but on the other hand they're out of keeping with modern anti-capitalist stances. My opinion is that capitalism is still better than other forms of governance as it rewards those who innovate and not punish them.

One thing I know is for sure though. Taking the ideas of someone else and taking credit for them needs to be avoided at all cost. It's not even about the money.


I think patent law is very important, which is why they are so universal: socialist countries also have strong patent laws. Innovation is very strong in social democracies. But as noted in the video, capitalism is not the only or best way to innovate.

Please show the the COVID vaccine is "overly" complex.


I also don't see the point in having patents in a society that taxes the living daylights out of anyone who innovates enough to become wealthy.


Tax does not prevent you from a) becoming wealthy or b) staying wealthy. Which is why there are wealthy people in those socialist democracies. Tax does things like pay for public services that support patents, patent registration, and parent enforcement.

However, I don't believe the wealthy people should simply be free riders, where they simply can benefit from a society but not pay into it.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

23 May 2021, 11:59 am

Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
I can't think of a worse way to hamper innovation than refusing to pay people who innovate.

I'm in the early stages of trying to obtain a patent that will likely cost me thousands. I sure as hell want my money back and more.....otherwise I'll keep it a secret and nobody can benefit from it.


And you can do that. Jonas Salk gave away his rights to the polio vaccine, which is what he thought was good. And there is also public investment in innovation that is also shared (the internet, GPS, etc). That benefits the whole of society and creates more innovation.


So after working 55 hour weeks and spending thousands out of my own savings on prototypes, I'm immoral for expecting payment on an invention?

The polio vaccine is different too. That's at the very extreme and of the scale and can no longer be patented anyway....along with vaccines made in similar ways.

Patent laws often prevent people from obtaining patents using such science.


No, you are not immoral. I think you should profit from your labor.

Currently, the COVID vaccines are patented and controlled by private sector companies. Governments have been mulling in breaking those patents to increase global production and distribution. But medicines, including vaccines, are some of the most patented inventions, even when the initial research was publicly funded.


By 55 hour weeks I mean not developing the device. I mean 5 hour weeks in work in general that I'm already paid for but without those long hours I would have never dwelled on the problem at hand enough to think of the device.

The issue with the vaccines is that they are generally unable to be patented as the science behind traditional vaccines is very old and have been open knowledge for some time. Chances are a traditional vaccine that requires a high school level of education to manufacture might have worked just as well but the method of production of a vaccine like that will be refused a patent......so hence the convoluted and overly complex vaccine we have for Covid now.

Patents are tricky. On one hand they provide an incentive for revealing ideas and long held secrets that an individual might have on the assurance nobody will steal them and take credit for them but on the other hand they're out of keeping with modern anti-capitalist stances. My opinion is that capitalism is still better than other forms of governance as it rewards those who innovate and not punish them.

One thing I know is for sure though. Taking the ideas of someone else and taking credit for them needs to be avoided at all cost. It's not even about the money.


I think patent law is very important, which is why they are so universal: socialist countries also have strong patent laws. Innovation is very strong in social democracies. But as noted in the video, capitalism is not the only or best way to innovate.

Please show the the COVID vaccine is "overly" complex.


I also don't see the point in having patents in a society that taxes the living daylights out of anyone who innovates enough to become wealthy.


Tax does not prevent you from a) becoming wealthy or b) staying wealthy. Which is why there are wealthy people in those socialist democracies. Tax does things like pay for public services that support patents, patent registration, and parent enforcement.

However, I don't believe the wealthy people should simply be free riders, where they simply can benefit from a society but not pay into it.


Heavy tax does stop a lot of people becoming wealthy though. Not everyone but if society becomes aware of a punishing tax bracket they'll enter after a certain income is reached they will actively try to avoid it and usually that means slacking off at work or holding back in some other way which benefits nobody.