In theory they are better, but in practice “what makes them the most money” is often “what is best for the people” and governments and elected officials are often inept or corrupt. This doesn’t apply for every government or corporation on every issue, so we need to be nuanced in who we entrust which issues to. Specifically we want to look at the severity of the issue, the incentives, and the corruption and the competence of the government in question.
Because once people are democratically elected or appointed, they no longer are beholden to the people. Once in power, they are free to do whatever they want, which history shows, tends to be pretty self-serving.
It should be. Governments are supposed to represent the people and be accountable to them. Corporations are far too often only accountable to their shareholders. Reality is often different, of course.
I wasn't saying it was. Merely observing that the government isn't a popular alternative either. Note that this isn't even my valuation--anti-corporatists tend to very strongly dislike both corporations and (the U.S.) government. Of course no political movement is entirely homogenous, so there are probably people who distrust corporations but love the government.
I definitely wouldn't say that government is always trustworthy, but having the food supply controlled by a democratically operated nonprofit entity with a clear interest in everyone's wellbeing is obviously better than having the food supply controlled by a single for-profit entity with no stake in the wellbeing of employees or customers except insomuch as it provides profit for its owners.
Also it should be noted, "government ownership of patents" means that the patents are unenforcable. The government is forbidden by law from charging licensing fees for its IP, so government ownership of patents is inherently open-sourcing them.
While Monsanto owns the patents, they can legally wreck anyone who attempts to violate them. If the government owns the patents, "violation" doesn't exist because anyone can use them freely.
> I definitely wouldn't say that government is always trustworthy, but having the food supply controlled by a democratically operated nonprofit entity with a clear interest in everyone's wellbeing is obviously better than having the food supply controlled by a single for-profit entity with no stake in the wellbeing of employees or customers except insomuch as it provides profit for its owners.
I don't think this argument is very convincing. For example, why limit the application of this rationale to food supply? Why trust the market (i.e., corporations) with _anything_. Is our government strictly superior to the market in all cases, or does the market have some strengths that the government lacks? If so, why are those strengths the wrong tradeoff for this case in particular but perhaps not for others? Without more nuance, this argument could support socialism (as in "the government completely owns production", not the capitalism-friendly democratic socialism).
Another issue is that we're not talking about complete ownership of the food supply, but only temporary ownership (i.e., patents have a lifetime) over individual food products that are individually subject to competition and regulation.
> While Monsanto owns the patents, they can legally wreck anyone who attempts to violate them. If the government owns the patents, "violation" doesn't exist because anyone can use them freely.
Patent enforcement is a feature, not a bug. We want people to invest in making food production more sustainable, so we need incentives. Notably, patents _do_ expire, so Monsato's (or whomever) risk is rewarded and society benefits. If the enforcement is too strict or the patents too long, we can adjust those knobs accordingly. No need smash the system because the knobs aren't tuned properly.
This is true if we make all sorts of ideal case assumptions. Patents should expire but don't always do due to all sorts of shenanigans between corporations and govt. In the end I prefer corporations innovating in "optional" items like iphones, tvs and hamburgers. We however need to take a communal interest in the essential stuff. I mean, a lot of damage could be done to societies before patents expire.
> Patents should expire but don't always do due to all sorts of shenanigans between corporations and govt.
I'm not familiar with this. Genuinely didn't know it was an issue.
> We however need to take a communal interest in the essential stuff.
Yeah, I'm 100% on board so far.
> I mean, a lot of damage could be done to societies before patents expire.
This is where you lose me. What's the threat model? Monsanto releases a food product that is so good that they capture the entire food market in some way that anti-trust regulators aren't able to regulate and then jack up the price, all before the patent expires? Presumably yours isn't a food safety concern because you're advocating for lowering the bar to GMO technology. This sentence sounds like FUD; help me understand why I'm mistaken.
You are correct in that my concerns are not primarily food safety although still a concern. I am more interested in food security. When whole countries are in the thrall of companies like Bayer/Monsanto because their farmers have become dependent on these companies' seeds partly due to 'well-meaning' initiatives like golden rice can feed millions, thats where i say 'hol up'
