Loyalty to group vs. principle

Principles, nearly by definition, are rules that when they are adhered to, lead to good results. Group loyalty, then – loyalty to specific preferred people over principle – necessarily produces worse results. The two are not the same, so to maintain loyalty to a group, one must depart from principle.

Countries differ on the ubiquity of group loyalty over principle. Prosperous countries tend to be more loyal to principle; shittier countries tend to have more loyalty to groups. It takes a prosperous environment to be able to afford to be loyal to principle, but loyalty to principle also makes a prosperous country. In comparison, people in shitty places feel like they need to be loyal to their families and local groups, but it's also the group loyalty – and lack of principle – that makes those places shitty.

You can find shitty subcultures where group loyalty dominates even in prosperous countries. Compare inner city ghettoes with the "snitches get stitches" mentality. Or the lifestyles of gypsies in Europe, whose loyalty is only to their group. Poor people often have high loyalty to family – because they must, their family is struggling – and this is what helps keep them poor.

To the extent that group loyalty exists among the elite – the rich, the police – it serves to bring down the rest of the country. Group loyalty among the rich results in an economy that benefits them, instead of most other people. Group loyalty among the police results in them mistreating, often killing people, and finding no wrongdoing among themselves.

It needs to be accepted as an ethical standard that people need to be loyal to principles. Loyalty to a group, ignoring principles, needs to be viewed as a form of corruption.


Limitations of single-payer health care

The US runs a degenerate health care system, with abhorrent symptoms that are too many to enumerate. I offer a small tasting sample:
  • Drug companies that lobby to ban older inhalers whose patents are running out, so they can continue selling new patented ones at high markup.
  • Drug companies that lobby Congress to create demand for a product, then jack up prices to $609 per unit to deliver $1 worth of a drug.
  • Private insurance companies created as an accident of history, lobbying to perpetuate a system that routinely denies health care to people who most need it. Before the Affordable Care Act, they would deny coverage to people who they knew would be a net loss. Now, they offer poor people plans costing $1,000 per month, where they don't even cover anything under $5,000.
  • Health insurers may engage in shady practices. Just one, now deleted comment:
    [Insurance company] had my parents sign a bunch of stuff that absolved them from paying for my burn unit bills just days after [I] was burnt. My parents [don't] even remember signing them since they themselves were in shock.
  • Insurance bargaining causes providers to keep list prices of 5x what services actually cost. If you lack insurance, you will not only pay out of pocket, you'll pay 5x the price and go bankrupt.
  • No dental care for the poor. I estimate at least tens of thousands are left with decaying teeth they can't afford to fix. Most Americans can't afford a $500 surprise bill, and dental care is not covered by the ACA, so they don't have insurance. Tooth infections are left to deteriorate, with chronic pain that lasts for years, until the infection enters the bloodstream and the person visits the ER. Once there, it depends on the provider whether they will do what they can to save the person, or neglect to look at them seriously (so they die) because no one pays for it. Young people (with work, and young children!) have to rely on charity to not die due to their teeth.
Since this is unjust and causes pain, people talk about single-payer health care. This is a good idea, but it comes with problematic assumptions. A frequent one is that, under single-payer health care, the same money we're paying now will get everyone all the health care they need. This is not the case.

There are countries where single-payer systems appear to work, but have complaints. Complaints arise because no such system works by addressing all of their populations' health care needs. The potential cost of that would be infinite. It is in fact not the budget of the system that stretches to cover health care, it's the other way around. A budget is established, which is as much as people are willing to pay; then health care is made to fit within that budget.

When I say health care is "made to fit", I mean people are having to wait for health care in certain cases, and some of them die before they get it, or they can choose to pay for it themselves. This goes especially for the elderly. If you're old and need heart surgery, you get put on a queue that's 18 months long. If you survive by then, you get the surgery. If you do not, that's a saved cost for the system. If the queues are structured sensibly, this does not end up really affecting average life expectancy: people who end up not getting treatment are those who would die soon, anyway. However, it makes it appear as though the system is heartless, because it has to economize, and somehow ration access to health care.

If single-payer care existed in the US, it could not work any differently. Infinite amounts of care cannot be paid. If tax payers are willing to pay $4k per capita, that would be the budget, and the health care would be rationed out. This means not every obese diabetic necessarily gets treatment, and may die.

This differs from private health care, not in that care is not rationed, but that it is rationed so everyone gets something, instead of some people getting nothing, and others getting maximum possible care. Under single-payer, health care access is simply not completely based on the moneybags you have.


Why software patents are counter-productive

I've said this before, but I need to keep saying it until the US patent system is reformed. This may mean forever, if necessary.

The existence of patents for software is not okay. There may be a so-so argument for patents where things cost $1 billion each to develop. Even there, publicly funded research could deliver solutions that focus on more real problems, and help more lives.

But there is no argument for things where the cost of development is cheaper than defending a patent, or even filing for one. For software, there is no reason to have patents. It's a pure intellectual land-grab.

Software that takes years to develop will not be founded on a single idea. It will rest on tens of thousands of ideas.

Each individual idea in a software product is low value on its own. The value is in building software that combines the ideas, and then maintaining that software to respond to users' needs. Most of the value of software development is in this process.

All software is protected by copyright. This is more so true for software that takes several years to write.

The presence of patents in this process does not act to preserve the crown jewel that's at the core of your software, because you do not have that type of crown jewel. Your crown jewel are your developers and your process.

If you now introduce patents to this process, all of the above is still the same, except now you can tie up your competitors in court on the basis of each of the ten thousand ideas used in their software, claiming that you own some form of right to that. In return, they must have a portfolio of patents themselves, so they can counter-claim that you violate their patents in your software.

This acts to remove small developers from the field, and divert resources from the work. The net benefit is negative.

It is generally most useful for ideas to be public. The main justification for the patent system is that it's a way for useful new ideas to become public, by way of granting their originators limited monopolies. This way they might not keep their best ideas secret, which is seen as a lesser evil than risking good ideas to be lost.

This system is only worth it for ideas that would not otherwise become public, or would not otherwise be discovered because discovery requires too much effort if not rewarded. The patent system is specifically not worth it where developing the idea requires less work than filing for a patent, or defending it.

This criterion is generally not met for any idea in software. Virtually all ideas that make software work are individually small and non-unique.