Tom Robinson

Since the Wrights' invention was using a variable-incidence surface to provide for roll control, they no grounds to claim exclusivity for the process of lateral control, as Custiss's device was substantially different from theirs.

But why wouldn't this same line of argument apply to private companies and individuals? Suppose a private fire company did not respond quickly to a client's burning house. The company could say in its defense that it only has enough funds to maintain its fire equipment, not to compensate victims of its negligence. If we fine the fire company, we won’t be punishing the bad decision-making, we will be punishing the company’s other clients who will need to pay more for fire protection services. We could then extend this defense to cover surgeons who leave clamps in patients, builders who construct houses that collapse and manufacturers who produce toasters that catch on fire. Fine, but what happens when those who pay proportionately higher taxes and receive average or less than average security are in the minority, and those who pay proportionately lower taxes and receive average or higher than average security are in the majority? The majority will have little incentive to make any changes in the current arrangement.

The Wright Brothers' legal coup was to attain a patent not on a device for lateral control but on the idea of lateral control. As one observer said, this was the equivalent of claiming the idea of roundness in a tire patent.

Since spending and tax collection are two distinctly different activities, there is no reason to suppose reforming one will have any influence on the other. In the past century there have been over a dozen major tax "reforms," without any effect on stemming federal spending. The only measure that would pose any serious threat to spending is not tax reform but tax abolition. If the ideal tax is a simple tax, then we need look no further than the poll or head tax. How much paperwork and accounting are required to assess every citizen $100 for the cost of running the government? The poll tax would not only relieve businesses of a tax burden, it would take it off their backs entirely.

This is an excellent question. I think the only basis for the claim for the importance of "values" in the election was the approval of anti-gay marriage amendments in 11 states. But, of course, this does not tell us anything about values on other issues.

The vital question of tax policy is, as Walter Williams says, "not how but how much." It will do us little good to switch to another form of revenue collection if we are still being looted at the same rate. Furthermore, to complain about the income tax while doing nothing about deficit spending is to choke on a gnat after swallowing a tiger. As Williams says, "The debate over what form of taxation we should have somewhat legitimates the level of government spending; and I have always argued, as a number of colleagues have, that it is spending, not taxation, that is the true measure of the burden of government. You see this by recognizing that there is no necessary reason why government has to tax in the first place. At one extreme, Congress could raise all the resources it needed simply by printing currency, or could borrow and require its citizens and other entities to hold a portion of their holdings in government securities, as is done in some countries. Of course, there would be severe problems associated with either one of these methods of taxation, but the bottom-line point is that government spending, not taxation, is the proper measure of government activity, and that is the major problem that needs to be addressed." Williams on the Flat Tax

Actually, the Wright Brothers' lawsuit against Glenn Curtiss is a perfect example of how patent law imposes a monopoly without protecting legitimate property rights. The wing design developed by Curtiss was substantially different than that of the Wright Brothers. While the Wrights used wing “warping” to control rolling and banking, Curtiss used ailerons, which are now standard throughout the aviation industry. Nonetheless, the federal courts “protected” the Wright Brothers against competition from a device they did not invent!