patrick.net

Obama bun. Bend over it

HydroCabron says

Liberals are in favor of cancer research?

Okay, then: I'm in favor of cancer.

Suck it, libtards.

If you want to misdirect cancer research from finding any cost effective cure, just throw government money at it, and lure real research talents into becoming bureaucratic time wasters.

edvard2 says

Cancer is overrated anyway. Remember- back in the good ole' days we didn't actually have cancer and people lived to be 130 years old easily.

Yes: the gold standard fought off all cancers, which were rare to begin with because only the government causes cancer.

BTW, has anyone else noticed that many liberals are now in favor of nuclear power? Guess I'll have to switch my position to being against it.

Back in a moment: I have to go make fun of wind power, and hate it, because liberals think it will - get this! - generate electricity. I have some great zingers from National Review which will surely piss liberals off!

HydroCabron says

Back in a moment: I have to go make fun of wind power, and hate it, because liberals think it will - get this! - generate electricity. I have some great zingers from National Review which will surely piss liberals off!

Oh yeah. I need to do that too. Make sure and dig up some real good ones. I need to do that too. I'll find something about some person who drank out of a public water fountain as proof that the country is rife with a buncha' freeloaders. What is this country coming to? Back in the good ole' days there was no such thing as "Public" water fountains. Now they're everywhere. Must be because big government is getting in the way...

edvard2 says

Back in the good ole' days there was no such thing as "Public" water fountains. Now they're everywhere. Must be because big government is getting in the way...

I guess you never heard of Andrew Carnegie's libraries, which are far more sophisticated than water fountains, which many private benefactors also made available to the public, at little to no cost to the public.

The difference in later times in the 20th century is that all things "Public" became big opportunities for the politically connected unions and politicians to loot the public and stuff their own private purses. Those projects are not "public goods" but looting of the public: taking far more from the public than the market rate building cost of the end products.

sbh says

"Liberals" are really wannabe slave plantation owners

This "Faux News" reverse logic argues that liberal Atheists are the true christians in America, that "socialists" run the Republican party, that Teabaggers want to raise your taxes. Once you enter the bizarro world there's no going back.

Why didn't you address the details raised:

All slaves could get free housing, free food, free clothing, free education and free healthcare, at the discretion of the elitist community organizer (aka slave owner) of course.

Are "liberals" inherently string matching bots incapable of looking into details?

Reality says

all things "Public" became big opportunities for the politically connected unions and politicians to loot the public and stuff their own private purses

You forgot to mention that the military is an exception to this: military members and defense contractors are good, honest, hard-working people who, by definition, cannot waste money, and deserve budget increases every year.

Liberals don't understand this simple fact because they're traitors.

My usual way of handling this is to define any public spending I like as being separate from government spending. For example, "Keep the government out of my medicare!" and "Cut government spending - fund our troops instead!"

Only government spending is wasteful, not military spending.

HydroCabron says

You forgot to mention that the military is an exception to this: military members and defense contractors are good, honest, hard-working people who, by definition, cannot waste money, and deserve budget increases every year.

Is that what you think? Which part of the libertarian non-aggression principle and anti-war message don't you understand? It is your "liberal" president who is droning people all over the world.

Liberals don't understand this simple fact because they're traitors.

Traitors to their own anti-war belief when their partisan hacks are in the office.

My usual way of handling this is to define any public spending I like as being separate from government spending. For example, "Keep the government out of my medicare!" and "Cut government spending - fund our troops instead!"

Only government spending is wasteful, not military spending.

LOL, sounds like what "liberals" are doing now that their partisan hacks are in the office.

Reality says

I guess you never heard of Andrew Carnegie's libraries, which are far more sophisticated than water fountains, which many private benefactors also made available to the public, at little to no cost to the public.

The difference in later times in the 20th century is that all things "Public" became big opportunities for the politically connected unions and politicians to loot the public and stuff their own private purses.

Amen to that! Like I said before, clearly its ridiculous that any of the taxes we pay be used for any sort of infrastructure. You know what just gets my goat? Seeing all those freeloaders using freeways that my tax dollars were wasted on. If my Grandpappy could get to town on dirt rutted roads, then the whiners of today could do the same. Ever since those bedeviled round wheels came about everything's been goin' downhill ever since!

I also find it realllly annoying when some of those stinkin' liberals continuously try to tell me the history I enjoy re-writing is totally wrong. Why- everyone knows Ronald Reagan was the inventor of the light bulb, telephone, internet, and braille writing to name a few. That's what made him the best President in the whole wide world.

edvard2 says

You know what just gets my goat? Seeing all those freeloaders using freeways that my tax dollars were wasted on. If my Grandpappy could get to town on dirt rutted roads, then the whiners of today could do the same.

Once again, you are engaging in false dichotomy. The alternative to government funded highway (modeled after Nazi Germany) is not dirt rutted roads, but privately funded roads and highways built and maintained at higher efficiency. You mentioned telephone and internet later in the post; those were clear examples of infrastructure build-out by the private sector.

BTW, highways are paid for by gasoline tax, so presumably anyone driving with legal fuel (aside from electric car drivers) are paying and over-paying for the use of "public" roads. I put quotation mark around "public" because they are really monopolistic rent seeking machines owned by the unions and politicians.

edvard2 says

Why- everyone knows Ronald Reagan was the inventor of the light bulb, telephone, internet, and braille writing to name a few. That's what made him the best President in the whole wide world.

Say what you will about Reagan, but he balanced the budget 8 times, raised the poor and middle class up along with the rich, and single-handedly beat the commies, Ninja-style. I mean that: he literally beat the commies with his M-16, Colt Model 1911, and ka-bar knife.

The government can't do anything right. That's why the interstate freeway system, rural electrification, the Internet, and all our water and sewer infrastructure were built by private entities.

Reality says

The alternative to government funded highway (modeled after Nazi Germany) is not dirt rutted roads, but privately funded roads and highways built and maintained at higher efficiency.

Yes: if all our roads were privatized, things would run much better. The cable and telephone companies, with their experience in providing excellent service and low prices, are the logical choice to undertake this task.

HydroCabron says

Say what you will about Reagan, but he balanced the budget 8 times, raised the poor and middle class up along with the rich, and single-handedly beat the commies, Ninja-style

Yeah... Reagan was one kick-ass President for sure.
But moving on, you know another thing that I find highly annoying? That those liberals are always trying to take away my Hamsters. At least that's what I'm told by the NHA, the National Hamster Association. Why-I even proudly support the NHA with stickers on my large, square-wheeled, steam-powered SUV.

But anyway, even though the NHA represents many zillions of Hamster related industries, every time they tell me the libs are about to take away my hamsters, I panic and buy up a few whole bunch of them just to be sure. Nevermind that this makes those hamster companies really rich, all that matters is that the libs keep their hands off my hamsters. There's even a famous actor who runs around and tells everyone that it'll be a cold day in hell before anyone comes in and runs off with HIS hamsters...

HydroCabron says

Yes: if all our roads were privatized, things would run much better. The cable and telephone companies, with their experience in providing excellent service and low prices, are the logical choice to undertake this task.

Have you spent much time on public roads lately? It's not exactly in good shape or cheap. Countries with government run telephone services have much higher per minute cost than we do.

Slaves are not allowed to have hamsters.

edvard2 says

At least that's what I'm told by the NHA, the National Hamster Association. Why-I even proudly support the NHA with stickers on my large, square-wheeled, steam-powered SUV.

Don't forget your "Ignorance is Blix" sticker for that SUV. Dirty liberals are Saddam's best friends!

It's really sad when special interests, such as people who dislike getting cancer from pollutants, or the middle class, distract us from the important issues like hamsters. Maybe the NHA should consider setting up a lobbying arm in Washington - such a move would be consistent with sound Constitutional Conservative and Libertarian® principles of small government and never disagreeing with fundamentalist vagina regulators!

Reality says

Slaves are not allowed to have hamsters.

Yes, and the liberals who outrageously attacked the Confederacy are the biggest slaveowners of all, because Robert Bird!

HydroCabron says

Reality says

Slaves are not allowed to have hamsters.

Yes, and the liberals who outrageously attacked the Confederacy are the biggest slaveowners of all, because Robert Bird!

Just like the communists who attacked the "capitalistic exploiters" turned out to be the worst monopolistic exploiters of all.

Slavery is de facto established when the individual does not have the freedom to choose a different counter-party.

Oh- and remember that its direly important to repeat the terms Communism, Socialism, and other boogeyman type phrases to make our hysterically nonfactual claims be partially driven by fear in things that only we believe will happen. Remember those "takers" taking water from those public water fountains mentioned earlier? Clearly a sign of the road leading to communism. If people look at you when you say things like this as if you're a nut, then don't worry about them. They clearly are not in the know. Even though we are stuck in 1950's-ville, I'm sure that the communist threat we all spend every waking hour worrying about will surely come... its just gotta' because otherwise we have no real argument to stand on and that thought alone is too depressing to consider... so.... Oh no! Here comes Communism! Rah! Rah! Rah!

Reality says

Have you spent much time on public roads lately? It's not exactly in good shape or cheap.

It's weird: We cut taxes, and cut taxes, and cut taxes, and the government has less money.

We need to go back to the 1950s, when the roads were beautiful because they were all private, and there were no taxes.

Communism, socialism, Kenyan anti-colonialist, Alinskyite collectivism. Marxists!

edvard2 says

Remember those "takers" taking water from those public water fountains mentioned earlier? Clearly a sign of the road leading to communism.

The key is not whether there are takers of water, but how much the public is soaked to build the fountain. Societies have mechanisms for taking care of their poor and unfortunate for thousands of years. It is when the nameless and faceless government bureaucrats arrogate to themselves the monopolistic power of resource allocation that the society proceeds to fall apart under that monopolistic inefficiency. The monopolists can usually take far more from the fountain building than what those need water can get out of it, orders of magnitude more. As a monopoly, there is no limit to how much the middlemen can take, until the who system falls apart.

Even though we are stuck in 1950's-ville, I'm sure that the communist threat we all spend every waking hour worrying about will surely come..

Communistic thinking long preceded the 1950's. The Mayflower Pact was quite communistic regarding property ownership. That led directly to starvation and deaths. Communistic episodes will come and go throughout our history, largely due to intellectual blind spots during late stages of prosperity when the offsprings of the upper and upper middle class are far removed from actual production due to their birth privileges (real market experience displaced by "education" under instructors who have no market experience of their own), and can't wait to displace their elders through revolutionary "new" ideas. It works like a forest fire. It's the in-between times that humanity get some respite and real economic progress.

I hate how affirmative action treats people differently because of their race.

By the way, does anybody else love racial profiling for potential criminals?

'Cuz it's totally wrong to create opportunities based on race, but it's okay to hand out detention and interrogations based on race.

I'm not racist.

HydroCabron says

It's weird: We cut taxes, and cut taxes, and cut taxes, and the government has less money.

The government has plenty money: it borrows money into existence. The real problem we have is the economy has become a money sink instead of a wealth generator, largely because free market economic activities that would normally generate increasing wealth have been displaced by government fiat commands that are usually money losers.

Reality says

Slavery is de facto established when the individual does not have the freedom to choose a different counter-party.

Exactly! A much more homespun, down-to-earth formulation than that "when people own other people" definition which liberals are so fond of.

HydroCabron says

Reality says

Slavery is de facto established when the individual does not have the freedom to choose a different counter-party.

Exactly! A much more homespun, down-to-earth formulation than that "when people own other people" definition which liberals are so fond of.

You obviously don't understand the concept of State Slavery (e.g. Helots in Sparta, the general population in former soviet union and today's North Korea, etc.). The Sate Slaves usually fare even worse than privately owned slaves . . . just like "public property" is not usually taken care of as well as private property.

Reality says

Communistic thinking long preceded the 1950's. The Mayflower Pact was quite communistic regarding property ownership.

Yep... Those Pilgrims were really a pack-o-dirty commies. Remember- as long as we, the "Silent Majority" can make up total bullshit and keep up the fearmongerin' about communism we will clearly win any debate.

Worried that someday we might run out of oil? Don't worry about it. Communists want you to believe that we could! As we all know, oil actually grows on Oil trees

Find parts of the Constitution annoying when it doesn't totally jive with your conservative beliefs? Who cares! Communists want people to read more so it'd be their fault.

Have you been sold the lie that any and all social programs are bad for you and desperately want others to believe just as you do for sake of making up for own mistake and unwillingness to admit you've been wrong for years? Blame it on communists because as mentioned any and all use of anything available to the public, like libraries, water, parks, schools, police departments and so on,are clearly all commie things. I mean- nevermind that the founding fathers we enjoy misquoting actually came up with a lot of those social programs- its convenient to ignore that and again- blame it on the commies!

edvard2 says

Yep... Those Pilgrims were really a pack-o-dirty commies. Remember- as long as we, the "Silent Majority" can make up total bullshit and keep up the fearmongerin' about communism we will clearly win any debate.

They actually tried to hold all land in common when they landed. Starvation quickly followed, just like the soviet communes of the 20th century.

Worried that someday we might run out of oil? Don't worry about it. Communists want you to believe that we could! As we all know, oil actually grows on Oil trees

Okay, here are some historical facts for you: vegetable oil replaced palm oil and bee wax for lighting because vegetable oil was more abundant; whale oil replaced vegetable oil because whale oil was cheaper and more abundant than vegetable before the animals were hunted to near-extinction. Then, only then Kerosene came along as the lighting fuel. Oil doesn't grow on trees therefore it is far more plentiful than any tree can provide.

It's funny to see "liberal" behind-timers still citing peak oil when the US is about to become the biggest oil producer in the world due to enormous oil discoveries in the past decade. Goes to show self-important bureaucrats are almost always behind time. They are the worst people for allocating resources.

Blame it on communists because as mentioned any and all use of anything available to the public, like libraries, water, parks, schools, police departments and so on,are clearly all commie things

Already addressed this issue earlier. The key is not whether the facility is accessible to the public, but how they are built: whether by private donation, competitive market process, or by monopolies that tap into taxpayers' purse. It's just like a salmon fillet dinner is likely nutritious for your body, but if someone forcibly takes $1000 out of your bank account and give you that dinner, that horrendously expensive dinner is bad for you as you are in effect losing about 49 comparable salmon dinners just to pay for that one salmon dinner served by the monopolist with a gun to your head.

Ceffer says

Square wheels are a liberal product by definition. The companies could never stay in business on economic merit, and the unions and executives would require and endless stream of handouts, bailouts, tariffs and subsidies from the productive parts of society to keep them afloat.

No, you're thinking of the warfare industry that requires the army buy billions of dollars of tanks it doesn't want to fight the Soviets in 1976.

However, once again, conservatives demonstrate that they have no clue as to what the definition of liberal is. Liberalism is a social philosophy, not an economic one.

Saying that something is liberal economic policy is like saying something is minimalism football strategy. It is a nonsensical statement made by a nonsensical person.

The day conservatives understand the vastly different meanings of the terms communism, socialism, capitalism, liberalism, totalitarianism, and pokemania we might invite them back to the discussion. Until then, they have nothing intelligent to say.

HydroCabron says

Say what you will about Reagan, but he balanced the budget 8 times, raised the poor and middle class up along with the rich, and single-handedly beat the commies, Ninja-style.

All that coke you did in the 80s is distorting your memory.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." - Dick Cheney

Reaganomics: The economic philosophy that maximizes the rich-poor gap based on the principle that a small, ruling class should own everything while doing no work and producing no wealth and a vast serf class should own nothing while being worked to the brink of death to support the ruling class.

A person's economic philosophy says a lot about their character.

Dan8267 says

Liberalism is a social philosophy, not an economic one.

It's actually both. 1776 marked the publication of both Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. The two were intricately related as manifestations of Classical Liberalism of that enlightened era. The North administration's consent to American independence was another manifestation of the growing belief among the upper echelon of the society that the prevailing relationship in society is mutually willing exchange / trade, not coercion.

Liberalism should mean individual liberty in action and choice (so long as it does not constitute aggression to others enjoying equal individual liberty). Political economy is very much part of the philosophical underpinning of this school of thought.

It is unfortunately that "liberalism" the word has come to denote "The Divine Right of the Government / King / Self-important Oligarch in making decisions for the unwashed masses" in our vernacular use on this side of the pond (Atlantic).

Reality says

Oil doesn't grow on trees therefore it is far more plentiful than any tree can provide.

You are clearly not a real conservative then. My conservative radio show told me it did. Maybe some of those commie pilgrims spread the lies that it only comes out of the ground. Either that or Big Foot.Reality says

They actually tried to hold all land in common when they landed. Starvation quickly followed, just like the soviet communes of the 20th century.

Actually what reallllyyy happened was that the Pilgrims had a devious plan to start a sort of USSR in the US. That was the goal all along of course. They had ideas of a state-run economy where all the donkey carts and tobacco pipes would be made in commie factories. Its Twue! Its Twue!

Anyway, I am the most conservative person here. I live in a cave which has no running water, electricity, or air conditioning. I refuse to use anything from the public sector because doing so would make me a commie and as seen, my life is of such a higher quality than any of those takers out there who insist on using the roads and bridges that rightfully belong to me even though I won't use them. I also refute anything remotely scientific. The earth is still flat, the heart is the seat of human intelligence- not the brain, and modern medicine is a big commie conspiracy. I'm a vewy, vewy good conservative... huh-hu-hu-hu!

Dan8267 says

All that coke you did in the 80s is distorting your memory.

Your graph makes Reagan look bad; therefore, it is incorrect.

edvard2 says

My conservative radio show told me

I don't listen to any. Surprised you do.

Actually what reallllyyy happened was that the Pilgrims had a devious plan to start a sort of USSR in the US.

It's the other way around. The founders of the USSR were very much influenced by pseudo-religious end-of-the-world fantacies. They were trying to build an end-state nirvana.

Anyway, I am the most conservative person here. I live in a cave which has no running water, electricity, or air conditioning. I refuse to use anything from the public sector because doing so would make me a commie and as seen, my life is of such a higher quality than any of those takers out there who insist on using the roads and bridges that rightfully belong to me even though I won't use them. I also refute anything remotely scientific. The earth is still flat, the heart is the seat of human intelligence- not the brain, and modern medicine is a big commie conspiracy. I'm a vewy, vewy good conservative... huh-hu-hu-hu!

Like I said before, you can turn around, face the wall, and debate yourself now.

Not sure why this didn't show up earlier:

Reality -

Sure, sure - equal market participants benefit the whole greatest by acting within a totally free market in ways beneficial to themselves. Adam Smith couldn't have said it better himself. Smith did not, however, have experience with the prisoner's dilemna nor Nash equilibrium.

My question is when has a market free to act exactly as Smith would want ever outperformed one constrained by circumstances that ensures no one participant can choose individual benefit over group benefit, given perfect knowledge?

The US economy pre-1980 or so was certainly a time of much higher regulation and central planning within a free market framework. China and Germany operate under State operated capitalism (or social market, whichever term you prefer). Their economies seem to be doing pretty well...post-war Japan - lotta central planning and government sponsored over-lending there...

There 4 examples of central planning within a capitalist framework spurring the highest sustained economic growth in the past 100 years or so.

How many examples of completely deregulated, completely free market economies spurring anything but an entrenched aristocracy, cronyism, and extreme rent-seeking behavior can you name?

What is your opinion of government protected intellectual property rights? How does that fit into a free, unregulated market framework?

Reality says

Like I said before, you can turn around, face the wall, and debate yourself now.

Oh- I'm not debating here at all. In fact, I am in 100% agreement with every single thing you said, whether it be that the pilgrims were really communists, that modern medicine is a bunch of hooey, or that water fountains should only be built by the kindly and generous contributions of wealthy billionaires instead of letting the gubermint do it. I agree with all of it! So you see, I'm not trying to argue with you one bit. Nosiree!

On that same token I am quite confident that you also agree that square wheels are the only way to roll and that all other sorts of wheels are only used by commie liberal pinkos. But if you don't I could put that aside because its as if me and you are like two peas in a pod: The exact same beliefs! wow!

control point says

My question is when has a market free to act exactly as Smith would want ever outperformed one constrained by circumstances that ensures no one participant can choose individual benefit over group benefit, given perfect knowledge?

There is no perfect knowledge. The world is ever changing. If there were perfect knowledge, there wouldn't be trade (who would want to be on the losing side of a trade?) hence no market at all. Market is a price/knowledge discovery and propagation mechanism.

The US economy pre-1980 or so was certainly a time of much higher regulation and central planning within a free market framework.

The 1970's US was near economic chaos. People kicked out Carter due to bad economics (much of it had to do with Nixon though). Before the 1970's, the government's foot print on the economy was constrained by Brettonwood, so government spending as percentage of GDP was actually smaller.

China and Germany operate under State operated capitalism (or social market, whichever term you prefer). Their economies seem to be doing pretty well...post-war Japan - lotta central planning and government sponsored over-lending there...

The Japanese model already proved to be a basket case for the last 2.5 decades. The same Ministry of Technology industrial policies that were praised so much circa 1990 failed to ride any of the major technological advances of the 1990's.

The Chinese economy is showing signs of collapsing due to government bureaucratic malinvestment.

As for Germany, the national socialist government-corporate combine model (aka Nazi fascism) obviously did not work. The current Euro model (i.e. German conquest of Europe without using arms) is also falling apart.

How many examples of completely deregulated, completely free market economies spurring anything but an entrenched aristocracy, cronyism, and extreme rent-seeking behavior can you name?

There hasn't been any complete deregulated and completely free market economy. However, whenever and wherever regulations are applied, the regulators seem to promote their cronies, entrench aristocracy (or putting in place new aristocracy) and enable extremen rent-seeking behavior (regulations preventing new entrants).

Dan8267 says

Reaganomics: The economic philosophy that maximizes the rich-poor gap based
on the principle that a small, ruling class should own everything while doing no
work and producing no wealth and a vast serf class should own nothing while
being worked to the brink of death to support the ruling class.

Why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate America?

edvard2 says

I mean- nevermind that the founding fathers we enjoy misquoting actually came up with a lot of those social programs- its convenient to ignore that and again- blame it on the commies!

This is a far different era. In these times all government enterprises have proven to be inefficient and wasteful. If the founding fathers were here now, they would be for privatization of everything (in to the hands of a small number of the most powerful and efficient corporations). And they would understand that all government revenues, which are channeled directly to these private entities, necessarily have to come from taxes on the middle class. Tax labor. Capital must be free to find the most profitable investments, which in turn naturally benefit us all.

Modern (non-communist) Russia has it right.

Reality says

Dan8267 says

Liberalism is a social philosophy, not an economic one.

It's actually both. … Liberalism should mean individual liberty in action and choice (so long as it does not constitute aggression to others enjoying equal individual liberty). Political economy is very much part of the philosophical underpinning of this school of thought.

Libertarianism is often described as the philosophy of maximum social and economic freedom. However, it is not. Social freedoms apply to individuals and individuals have very little power unless they can order others to commit acts of violence on them. Liberal philosophy does not allow for that. Economic "freedom" is used to mean that corporations are not subject to the same kind of laws that individuals are, e.g. not polluting, placing others in harm's way, etc. Furthermore, corporations, being aggregates, have the potential to become very large and powerful, far more so than any individual. The exercising of unrestricted choice by these powerful entities does limit the freedom of all others. Hence, liberal philosophy cannot be applied accurately to corporations. Libertarianism isn't liberal economic policy.

Furthermore, a liberal can be fiscally conservative, socialist, or ascribe to any other economic policy. Engineers including myself are very fiscally conservative yet highly liberal. And socialists can be far from liberals as well. So liberalism is independent from economic philosophy and deserves to be a word just used for the social philosophy. A different and distinct word should be used for each of the various kinds of "economic free-for-alls" philosophies. The more you overload a word, the less useful it is for clear and accurate communication.

Reality says

The real problem we have is the economy has become a money sink instead of a wealth generator, largely because free market economic activities that would normally generate increasing wealth have been displaced by government fiat commands that are usually money losers.

Sure, sure - equal market participants benefit the whole greatest by acting within a totally free market in ways beneficial to themselves. Adam Smith couldn't have said it better himself. Smith did not, however, have experience with the prisoner's dilemna nor Nash equilibrium.

My question is when has a market free to act exactly as Smith would want ever outperformed one constrained by circumstances that ensures no one participant can choose individual benefit over group benefit, given perfect knowledge?

The US economy pre-1980 or so was certainly a time of much higher regulation and central planning within a free market framework. China and Germany operate under State operated capitalism (or social market, whichever term you prefer). Their economies seem to be doing pretty well...post-war Japan - lotta central planning and government sponsored over-lending there...

There 4 examples of central planning with a capitalist framework spurring the highest sustained economic growth in the past 100 years or so.

How many examples of completely deregulated, completely free market economies spurring anything but an entrenched aristocracy, cronyism, and extreme rent-seeking behavior can you name?

What is your opinion of government protected intellectual property rights? How does that fit into a free, unregulated market framework?