Patents are not brands. So the original brandname is still protected.
Only to a certain extent. If you make the JoeCo Frobulator 1 with no patent, someone else could make a cheap clone called the Frobulator 1 and make it look the same without issue. Likely they could get away with even calling it the JoeCo Frobulator 1 for some time as well before anyone would take action against them. If you have registered a company name of JoeCo they might only need to manufacture it somewhere else and put a label saying JoeCo on it and they'll be able to get around that issue as well.
If someone really could make a clone of a product at a tenth of the price, everyone benefits including the original inventor that could copy the production strategy.
No. Most often the inventor does not benefit, as the clone is often of inferior quality. This leaves the inventor looking like someone who made a shitty product and the demand erodes to the point where the inventor's name is no longer good for anything. And being as the production strategy usually entails sending production to a country where people can be paid less than a dollar a day, knowing the new strategy is of no value to a small inventor.
The big corps will buy the senators and reps to make sure it NEVER happens.
You have that exactly backwards. Large corporations would prefer to have no patent system at all. To a large corporation a patent is a barrier to profit. A patent prevents a large company from making a cheap clone of an existing product and selling it to unsuspecting consumers at a profit. The reason why companies are buying up each others' patents is only to protect themselves; they would just as soon see the patent system go away entirely. It has brought about an arms race between companies, where none of the participants actually want to partake in the race - however they can't afford to abandon it either unless they know everyone else will do the same. And the only way to know that is to have everyone forced to do it.
The patent system, for as much as it gets bad press, offers the little guy (independent inventor) a chance to get ahead. With no patents, anyone with money can make a clone of an existing product and do whatever they want with it, including selling their clone as the original item. Such a patent-less system undoubtedly favors the wealthy who have access to the means to do such things.
And when you accelerate the acquisition of power, you encourage oppression in the name of profit. This leads directly to fascism for the people.
This is the power of the market in the US. Carriers like Verizon and Sprint have found that they can maximize profit (while only inconveniencing customers - who are themselves just an inconvenience anyways) by staying to old infrastructure rather than upgrading to GSM. This way they have a lock on the whole system - phones, service, activation, cancellation, etc - and can make sure that the greatest amount of funds possible goes through them.
Sure, Ron Paul wants you to be able to buy drugs on the street or in walmart - as long as you pay taxes on them. Don't let the slashdot paullowers tell you differently, their interest is in getting you to pay more taxes so they can pay less.
That, and of course to remove you power in the name of "liberties" while giving more power to the wealthy. That is how they bring you fascism for the people.
I wouldn't call that facism, exactly. Just an undoing of labor laws taking us back to the working conditions of the late 19th century
Right century, wrong era. The goal is to bring back the society of the early 19th century, when people bought, sold, traded, gave away, and discarded other human beings on the open market. That is exactly what will happen when all the labor laws are thrown out the window along with all corporate regulations. The libertarian dream state will leave us wishing for Hoovervilles.
But I wonder who these people think their customers would be in their brave new world of economic freedom.
They expect that once they turn the united states into a slave colony they can get by with selling exports to other countries at a profit. They of course overlook the fact that at that point "made in usa" will be a far less valuable label than "made in china" has ever been.
Ultimately they just want to push the current cultural war to the extent that favors their aspirations the most. They aim to concentrate power in the hands of very few and hopefully find a way to place themselves in that circle. By doing this under the guise of liberty they aim to roll out fascism for the people.
Central economic planing doesn't work, no matter how good you think your "plan" is, the market is better. Using the violence of the state to restrict voluntary trade IS "fascism". fool.
There is a common misconception that fascism requires central planning, which is does not. Fascism is not about central planning or intentional manipulation of the economy. Fascism is about division of power - specifically the concentration of the majority of power in the hands of a select few.
Taking power from the economic underclasses, and giving it to the wealthiest minor fraction of your population is indeed fascism. When it is sold under the false pretense of liberty, it is just fascism for the people.
Right now the Americans see themselves on a moral high ground for opposing child labor. Currently, that is one of few labor laws that means anything. However there are plenty of politicians - slashdot idol ron paul amongst them - who would like to overturn those laws as well. In the name of "liberty" they want to remove "market restrictions" to "grow industry". This will, of course, only reduce the wages across the board for working class people while making companies more profitable and increasing executive compensation. They also want to increase the rights of the wealthy and reduce those of the poor. While some conservatives claim they want to stop the "class warfare", this pushes it to a terrible conclusion.
In other words, under the guise of liberty - but with the true goal of profit - some people aspire to bring fascism for the people.
Mohamed Bouazizi was a 26 y.o. Tunisian who burned himself alive because of government oppression, he became the trigger for the people removing the oppressive tyrannical government from power.
You have that mostly right. The self-immolation was an act of protest against the lack of opportunity that Mr. Bouazizi faced. He was not necessarily explicitly interested in overthrowing the government, he just wanted a chance to earn a living wage.
Aaron Schwartz was a 26 y.o. American who killed himself because of government oppression
There has never been any solid evidence of that being the reason for Mr. Schwartz killing himself. Being as untreated mental health problems are the top cause of suicide in the US, and the US has a terrible track record of ignoring important mental health issues, it is very likely there was an underlying cause that we will never be able to fully diagnose.
you are SUPPOSED to remove tyrannical oppressive regime from power, what is going on?
Based on your history of political statements, it is abundantly clear that you want the US to replace "tyranny" with fascism by giving your cult leader unlimited power for unlimited time. The goals of your religion are not compatible with the life that Mr. Schwartz was leading and likely would have lead to the same result for him.
You want to concentrate more power in the hands of fewer people, Schwartz wanted the opposite. In other words, Schwartz is not a martyr to your cause as he opposed your dream of producing fascism for the people.
May I make a suggestion? Sex. Try that. I know you are talking about kids, and that means you aren't getting any lately, so try getting back to basics. And then, while you are doing it, play the video game you like and it's like you are gaming together.
It took a while to figure out what you meant, since people like you never manage to meet females to marry and have sex with. Then I realized that you were referring not to the kind of wife that one meets and marries on one's own, but rather to the kind that is purchased. That is, of course, a key component to your religious fantasy - the open buying, selling, and discarding of people on the free market. Hence, as you would view your wife as your property that is owned, you would feel entitled to force her into intercourse regardless of how she feels.
In other words, once again while you claim to be a champion of individual freedoms and other such bullshit, you are actually pushing for fascism for the people.
You earlier misquoted the second amendment earlier, so it is no surprise that you don't really know what it is about. Naturally, you more recently instead parroted the words of your church rather than the actual words of the second amendment:
It's there so that you have ability to take down a tyrannical government
The second amendment says nothing about that.
Would the military troops attack US citizens inside the country? I say they very well may.
Being as you don't know squat about the constitution, or anything else that is politically relevant or important in the US, it is not surprising that you are also not knowledgeable on the US military, their power structure, their expenditures, or their investment of resources.
And that is precisely why there can be no limit on what type of weapons the civilians must be able to purchase if they can afford it.
Naturally, you again take on the capitalist / neo-fascist perspective of "if they can afford it". Equality matters not to you. Neither does opportunity or true liberty. You worship at the altar of the mighty dollar and your lord is a retiring congressman from Texas.
We can count on the libertarians and paullowers here on slashdot to chime in to tell us how their way of doing things would somehow improve on this situation. Hence I will cut them off at the chase and pose the question - how would the Invisible Hand of the Free Market (IHOFM) make this better? People claim that completely uncontrolled and unrestrained capitalism will solve all the world's problems, so go ahead - tell us how. People like to rally for selling any extent of weaponry on the open market, so tell us how selling nukes in the open would be better.
Because to most of us, a completely unrestricted market selling nuclear weapons would only further serve to concentrate power in the hands of the few, to weild as they please. As the say, absolute power corrupts absolutely and here is the pitch to sell absolute power, which leads to further exploitation of those who cannot afford power.
In other words, while the sales pitch claims freedom, the rest of us see such tactics as bringing fascism for the people.
You just flat-out live in a fantasy land, and I feel sorry for you. Roman_mir, whatever he calls himself, is borderline libertarian.
I feel sorry for you, making such wildly inaccurate statements about roman_mir's beliefs. Read more of his comments - he likes to cite himself in discussions here which makes it easy to find his earlier comments - and you'll see that I am right. Roman_mir supports stripping workers of all the rights they have in the name of improving profits. He also is opposed to the idea of the right to vote, favoring instead restricting the ability to vote to only those who meet specific criteria (ie, those who support his belief system). On top of that he also supports privatization of everything, including law enforcement, emergency response, and the judicial system itself. In other words, he supports concentration of power and wealth to the very top of the economic classes, with actions taking to preserve that power structure.
If you were familiar with the idea of fascism, you would realize that roman_mir's fantasy land fits the definition of fascism quite well. Fascism does not require an overbearing central government, it requires only oppression from a specific class upon the masses.
In other words, roman_mir is a fascist. He openly endorses fascist thought and policy but tries to sell it as freedom in the hopes that nobody will notice. I feel bad for people like you who don't understand fascism well enough to understand this.
Quite the opposite. roman_mir gives liberals a good name, because he is not one of them. He automatically makes everyone else look sane and reasonable, no matter how few people agree with them philosophically here on slashdot. roman_mir is not a classical liberal, he is a neo fascist.
Read what he writes. He promises freedom but his plans would deliver slavery. He is championing fascism for the people.
The ron paul "libertarians" love to portray their leader as some great benevolent prophet who should be given unlimited power to do whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. This seems like exactly the right throne for unlimited power, a place from which he could threaten entire solar systems who dared not agree with his belief system. Price be damned, once all income taxes are corporate regulations are revoked, clearly the benevolent hand of the free market will enable production of something like this for no more than 5 pounds of pure gold.
And apparently, you can't be bothered to stop and think about why your posts from both accounts are so poorly received - or what you might be able to do about it to still get your message out without needing more than one account to do it.
However if you are providing a subsidy, it's a self-defeating deal for you, you'll eventually lose the business because you are either generating losses or you are not improving quality, and eventually quality improvements also mean price improvements.
This contradicts your standard claim that people should work for free. You constantly claim that employers should be able to pay as little as they please - all the way down to nothing at all - to their employees yet here you acknowledge that underpaid employees are providing a subsidy to their employers. You need to take one side of the argument and stick to it, you don't help yourself when you acknowledge the problems with your cause.
However don't forget, the more you invest into a product that more and more people buy, the wealthier you will become.
That is an oversimplification (and I'm being kind here) and you should know that. There is a lot more to wealth than that, and plenty of people have invested all their finances into an excellent product and ended up broke through no fault of their own.
Look at Walmart owners, Sam was just another guy back in the 60s,
You don't know much about him, do you? Sam Walton was able to get started in no small part because a family member was willing to loan money to him. He was not an entirely self-made man, no matter how much you may want to claim him to have been.
Of course, you are a terrible student of history, so it does not surprise anyone that you are trying to use an inaccurate history of a dead man to support your flimsy argument.
now they are multi-billionaires by exploiting the poorest segments of population in America
Fixed that for you.
That's why income taxes are so hugely detrimental to the economy, because taxing income of the wealthy only removes money from their reinvestments, not from their consumption, which stays about the same.
No, that is simply not true. If that were true then the people who manage those investments would be going to the poorhouse. Instead the investment managers are getting multimillion dollar bonuses on wall street.
Ultimately, as usual, you are just making a call for more concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the wealthiest and most fortunate. You are still arguing in favor of exploitation of the poorest and least fortunate.
And as you want that power and wealth to be completely unchecked, you are once again trying to bring fascism for the people.
he pissed off too many wealthy individuals to ever get out of jail now.
Except that is exactly what you have advocated for a long time, though - a judicial system for the wealthy. You call for greater concentration of power for the wealthiest people in this country, and here you are looking at a prime example of it - yet you are unhappy?
You claim that concentrating wealth and power into increasingly fewer hands will somehow deliver freedom. You claim that you want liberty - though what you really aim to bring about is fascism for the people.
Private property ownership is supposed to be protected in order for capitalism to work
And who would protect it? Under your system there is no criminal justice system - at least, not an accessible one that is run by the state. If the free market is providing protection then most people will get screwed. Of course, your entire system depends on most people getting screwed.
In other words, as usual, you are advocating for fascism for the people.
cheaper parts (but this may mean salary and/or regulations surrounding hiring and firing and employment process)
Sure, we strip what few rights workers still have in the US from them, giving more power to employers in the process. As you have argued for before, employers will eventually be able to buy and sell employees openly on the market like cattle. The wage disparity in the country will grow, power will be more concentrated as a result. Ownership of people will basically be restored.
In other words, you are as usual making an argument for fascism for the people.
Slashdot Mirror
Patents are not brands. So the original brandname is still protected.
Only to a certain extent. If you make the JoeCo Frobulator 1 with no patent, someone else could make a cheap clone called the Frobulator 1 and make it look the same without issue. Likely they could get away with even calling it the JoeCo Frobulator 1 for some time as well before anyone would take action against them. If you have registered a company name of JoeCo they might only need to manufacture it somewhere else and put a label saying JoeCo on it and they'll be able to get around that issue as well.
This might be true in a society where the corporate elite can use the court system as a weapon.
That has been described as a dream state by at least one slashdot paullower who is a vocal opponent of the patent system.
If someone really could make a clone of a product at a tenth of the price, everyone benefits including the original inventor that could copy the production strategy.
No. Most often the inventor does not benefit, as the clone is often of inferior quality. This leaves the inventor looking like someone who made a shitty product and the demand erodes to the point where the inventor's name is no longer good for anything. And being as the production strategy usually entails sending production to a country where people can be paid less than a dollar a day, knowing the new strategy is of no value to a small inventor.
The big corps will buy the senators and reps to make sure it NEVER happens.
You have that exactly backwards. Large corporations would prefer to have no patent system at all. To a large corporation a patent is a barrier to profit. A patent prevents a large company from making a cheap clone of an existing product and selling it to unsuspecting consumers at a profit. The reason why companies are buying up each others' patents is only to protect themselves; they would just as soon see the patent system go away entirely. It has brought about an arms race between companies, where none of the participants actually want to partake in the race - however they can't afford to abandon it either unless they know everyone else will do the same. And the only way to know that is to have everyone forced to do it.
The patent system, for as much as it gets bad press, offers the little guy (independent inventor) a chance to get ahead. With no patents, anyone with money can make a clone of an existing product and do whatever they want with it, including selling their clone as the original item. Such a patent-less system undoubtedly favors the wealthy who have access to the means to do such things.
And when you accelerate the acquisition of power, you encourage oppression in the name of profit. This leads directly to fascism for the people.
This is the power of the market in the US. Carriers like Verizon and Sprint have found that they can maximize profit (while only inconveniencing customers - who are themselves just an inconvenience anyways) by staying to old infrastructure rather than upgrading to GSM. This way they have a lock on the whole system - phones, service, activation, cancellation, etc - and can make sure that the greatest amount of funds possible goes through them.
Sure, Ron Paul wants you to be able to buy drugs on the street or in walmart - as long as you pay taxes on them. Don't let the slashdot paullowers tell you differently, their interest is in getting you to pay more taxes so they can pay less.
That, and of course to remove you power in the name of "liberties" while giving more power to the wealthy. That is how they bring you fascism for the people.
Slashdot is biased against liberal ideals?
I have some rapidly down-moderated comments that support that notion. Do you have anything that supports yours?
they can be anonymously sarcastic on an online forum.
Oh, you were making a funny! Well played sir.
That is because reality has a liberal bias, and needs to be punished accordingly when shown on slashdot.
I wouldn't call that facism, exactly. Just an undoing of labor laws taking us back to the working conditions of the late 19th century
Right century, wrong era. The goal is to bring back the society of the early 19th century, when people bought, sold, traded, gave away, and discarded other human beings on the open market. That is exactly what will happen when all the labor laws are thrown out the window along with all corporate regulations. The libertarian dream state will leave us wishing for Hoovervilles.
But I wonder who these people think their customers would be in their brave new world of economic freedom.
They expect that once they turn the united states into a slave colony they can get by with selling exports to other countries at a profit. They of course overlook the fact that at that point "made in usa" will be a far less valuable label than "made in china" has ever been.
Ultimately they just want to push the current cultural war to the extent that favors their aspirations the most. They aim to concentrate power in the hands of very few and hopefully find a way to place themselves in that circle. By doing this under the guise of liberty they aim to roll out fascism for the people.
Central economic planing doesn't work, no matter how good you think your "plan" is, the market is better. Using the violence of the state to restrict voluntary trade IS "fascism". fool.
There is a common misconception that fascism requires central planning, which is does not. Fascism is not about central planning or intentional manipulation of the economy. Fascism is about division of power - specifically the concentration of the majority of power in the hands of a select few.
Taking power from the economic underclasses, and giving it to the wealthiest minor fraction of your population is indeed fascism. When it is sold under the false pretense of liberty, it is just fascism for the people.
Right now the Americans see themselves on a moral high ground for opposing child labor. Currently, that is one of few labor laws that means anything. However there are plenty of politicians - slashdot idol ron paul amongst them - who would like to overturn those laws as well. In the name of "liberty" they want to remove "market restrictions" to "grow industry". This will, of course, only reduce the wages across the board for working class people while making companies more profitable and increasing executive compensation. They also want to increase the rights of the wealthy and reduce those of the poor. While some conservatives claim they want to stop the "class warfare", this pushes it to a terrible conclusion.
In other words, under the guise of liberty - but with the true goal of profit - some people aspire to bring fascism for the people.
Mohamed Bouazizi was a 26 y.o. Tunisian who burned himself alive because of government oppression, he became the trigger for the people removing the oppressive tyrannical government from power.
You have that mostly right. The self-immolation was an act of protest against the lack of opportunity that Mr. Bouazizi faced. He was not necessarily explicitly interested in overthrowing the government, he just wanted a chance to earn a living wage.
Aaron Schwartz was a 26 y.o. American who killed himself because of government oppression
There has never been any solid evidence of that being the reason for Mr. Schwartz killing himself. Being as untreated mental health problems are the top cause of suicide in the US, and the US has a terrible track record of ignoring important mental health issues, it is very likely there was an underlying cause that we will never be able to fully diagnose.
you are SUPPOSED to remove tyrannical oppressive regime from power, what is going on?
Based on your history of political statements, it is abundantly clear that you want the US to replace "tyranny" with fascism by giving your cult leader unlimited power for unlimited time. The goals of your religion are not compatible with the life that Mr. Schwartz was leading and likely would have lead to the same result for him.
You want to concentrate more power in the hands of fewer people, Schwartz wanted the opposite. In other words, Schwartz is not a martyr to your cause as he opposed your dream of producing fascism for the people.
May I make a suggestion? Sex. Try that. I know you are talking about kids, and that means you aren't getting any lately, so try getting back to basics. And then, while you are doing it, play the video game you like and it's like you are gaming together.
It took a while to figure out what you meant, since people like you never manage to meet females to marry and have sex with. Then I realized that you were referring not to the kind of wife that one meets and marries on one's own, but rather to the kind that is purchased. That is, of course, a key component to your religious fantasy - the open buying, selling, and discarding of people on the free market. Hence, as you would view your wife as your property that is owned, you would feel entitled to force her into intercourse regardless of how she feels.
In other words, once again while you claim to be a champion of individual freedoms and other such bullshit, you are actually pushing for fascism for the people.
It's there so that you have ability to take down a tyrannical government
The second amendment says nothing about that.
Would the military troops attack US citizens inside the country? I say they very well may.
Being as you don't know squat about the constitution, or anything else that is politically relevant or important in the US, it is not surprising that you are also not knowledgeable on the US military, their power structure, their expenditures, or their investment of resources.
And that is precisely why there can be no limit on what type of weapons the civilians must be able to purchase if they can afford it.
Naturally, you again take on the capitalist / neo-fascist perspective of "if they can afford it". Equality matters not to you. Neither does opportunity or true liberty. You worship at the altar of the mighty dollar and your lord is a retiring congressman from Texas.
We can count on the libertarians and paullowers here on slashdot to chime in to tell us how their way of doing things would somehow improve on this situation. Hence I will cut them off at the chase and pose the question - how would the Invisible Hand of the Free Market (IHOFM) make this better? People claim that completely uncontrolled and unrestrained capitalism will solve all the world's problems, so go ahead - tell us how. People like to rally for selling any extent of weaponry on the open market, so tell us how selling nukes in the open would be better.
Because to most of us, a completely unrestricted market selling nuclear weapons would only further serve to concentrate power in the hands of the few, to weild as they please. As the say, absolute power corrupts absolutely and here is the pitch to sell absolute power, which leads to further exploitation of those who cannot afford power.
In other words, while the sales pitch claims freedom, the rest of us see such tactics as bringing fascism for the people.
You just flat-out live in a fantasy land, and I feel sorry for you. Roman_mir, whatever he calls himself, is borderline libertarian.
I feel sorry for you, making such wildly inaccurate statements about roman_mir's beliefs. Read more of his comments - he likes to cite himself in discussions here which makes it easy to find his earlier comments - and you'll see that I am right. Roman_mir supports stripping workers of all the rights they have in the name of improving profits. He also is opposed to the idea of the right to vote, favoring instead restricting the ability to vote to only those who meet specific criteria (ie, those who support his belief system). On top of that he also supports privatization of everything, including law enforcement, emergency response, and the judicial system itself. In other words, he supports concentration of power and wealth to the very top of the economic classes, with actions taking to preserve that power structure.
If you were familiar with the idea of fascism, you would realize that roman_mir's fantasy land fits the definition of fascism quite well. Fascism does not require an overbearing central government, it requires only oppression from a specific class upon the masses.
In other words, roman_mir is a fascist. He openly endorses fascist thought and policy but tries to sell it as freedom in the hopes that nobody will notice. I feel bad for people like you who don't understand fascism well enough to understand this.
you give honest classical liberals a bad name.
Quite the opposite. roman_mir gives liberals a good name, because he is not one of them. He automatically makes everyone else look sane and reasonable, no matter how few people agree with them philosophically here on slashdot. roman_mir is not a classical liberal, he is a neo fascist.
Read what he writes. He promises freedom but his plans would deliver slavery. He is championing fascism for the people.
The ron paul "libertarians" love to portray their leader as some great benevolent prophet who should be given unlimited power to do whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. This seems like exactly the right throne for unlimited power, a place from which he could threaten entire solar systems who dared not agree with his belief system. Price be damned, once all income taxes are corporate regulations are revoked, clearly the benevolent hand of the free market will enable production of something like this for no more than 5 pounds of pure gold.
(same person, second account)
And apparently, you can't be bothered to stop and think about why your posts from both accounts are so poorly received - or what you might be able to do about it to still get your message out without needing more than one account to do it.
However if you are providing a subsidy, it's a self-defeating deal for you, you'll eventually lose the business because you are either generating losses or you are not improving quality, and eventually quality improvements also mean price improvements.
This contradicts your standard claim that people should work for free. You constantly claim that employers should be able to pay as little as they please - all the way down to nothing at all - to their employees yet here you acknowledge that underpaid employees are providing a subsidy to their employers. You need to take one side of the argument and stick to it, you don't help yourself when you acknowledge the problems with your cause.
However don't forget, the more you invest into a product that more and more people buy, the wealthier you will become.
That is an oversimplification (and I'm being kind here) and you should know that. There is a lot more to wealth than that, and plenty of people have invested all their finances into an excellent product and ended up broke through no fault of their own.
Look at Walmart owners, Sam was just another guy back in the 60s,
You don't know much about him, do you? Sam Walton was able to get started in no small part because a family member was willing to loan money to him. He was not an entirely self-made man, no matter how much you may want to claim him to have been.
Of course, you are a terrible student of history, so it does not surprise anyone that you are trying to use an inaccurate history of a dead man to support your flimsy argument.
now they are multi-billionaires by exploiting the poorest segments of population in America
Fixed that for you.
That's why income taxes are so hugely detrimental to the economy, because taxing income of the wealthy only removes money from their reinvestments, not from their consumption, which stays about the same.
No, that is simply not true. If that were true then the people who manage those investments would be going to the poorhouse. Instead the investment managers are getting multimillion dollar bonuses on wall street.
Ultimately, as usual, you are just making a call for more concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the wealthiest and most fortunate. You are still arguing in favor of exploitation of the poorest and least fortunate.
And as you want that power and wealth to be completely unchecked, you are once again trying to bring fascism for the people.
he pissed off too many wealthy individuals to ever get out of jail now.
Except that is exactly what you have advocated for a long time, though - a judicial system for the wealthy. You call for greater concentration of power for the wealthiest people in this country, and here you are looking at a prime example of it - yet you are unhappy?
You claim that concentrating wealth and power into increasingly fewer hands will somehow deliver freedom. You claim that you want liberty - though what you really aim to bring about is fascism for the people.
Private property ownership is supposed to be protected in order for capitalism to work
And who would protect it? Under your system there is no criminal justice system - at least, not an accessible one that is run by the state. If the free market is providing protection then most people will get screwed. Of course, your entire system depends on most people getting screwed.
In other words, as usual, you are advocating for fascism for the people.
cheaper parts (but this may mean salary and/or regulations surrounding hiring and firing and employment process)
Sure, we strip what few rights workers still have in the US from them, giving more power to employers in the process. As you have argued for before, employers will eventually be able to buy and sell employees openly on the market like cattle. The wage disparity in the country will grow, power will be more concentrated as a result. Ownership of people will basically be restored.
In other words, you are as usual making an argument for fascism for the people.
What do I do if I'm being assaulted by a dwarf?
Maybe try picking him up and throwing him out of the way?
I'm sure all this technology will make a huge difference for the millions of guns already in circulation in the US.