What's wrong with communism?

[Hubris Boy]

</cloaking device>

Originally posted by warch
What are the ethics of health care? Is it a right?

Uh-oh...

Hubris Boy senses the approaching storm, and worries about wear and tear on the switch for the cloaking device.

Well, let's see... rustle rustle rustle freedom of speech... keep and bear arms... unreasonable searches and seizures... cruel and unusual punishments... slavery or involuntary servitude... rustle rustle rustle right to vote... even women!?... liquor- oh, never mind... dead presidents... Hmmm. Okay.

Nope. It's not a right. At least, not in the United States.

<cloaking device>

Originally posted by Hubris Boy
</cloaking device>



Uh-oh...

Hubris Boy senses the approaching storm, and worries about wear and tear on the switch for the cloaking device.

Well, let's see... rustle rustle rustle freedom of speech... keep and bear arms... unreasonable searches and seizures... cruel and unusual punishments... slavery or involuntary servitude... rustle rustle rustle right to vote... even women!?... liquor- oh, never mind... dead presidents... Hmmm. Okay.

Nope. It's not a right. At least, not in the United States.

<cloaking device>

And again, HB makes his way into my Top Ten Posts of the Cellar. I must have snickered about this for a good 30 seconds.

[Undertoad]

You have the right to care for your health but not the right to order anyone else to care for your health.

[Hubris Boy]

Visibly shaken, Hubris Boy snatches the cloaking device out of the wall with both hands and hurls it across the room. Sparking, hissing and trailing wires, it knocks over a cup of something that is almost but not quite completely unlike tea, ricochets off the MkIV Troll Detector(tm) and comes to rest between his magic 8-ball and a blue copy of Programming Perl. He shrugs and settles down in front of the keyboard. This may take a while. No sense wearing out another perfectly good switch.

originally posted by hermit22
The way I see it, the companies provide that good return to their investors by saving lives. That's their primary focus.

Heh. That's why nobody's ever asked you to run a major pharmaceutical company!

The Red Cross, as a non-profit, isn't in the business of saving lives, so that they aren't tied into all of that mess.

Really? What business do you suppose they're in? Cookie & juice distribution?

On the same token, saving and improving the lives of potential consumers in Africa should be important, if only for their potentiality.

Saving and improving the lives of potential consumers in Africa is properly the concern of Africans.

But when you engage in a money-making venture that plays with people's lives and well-being, you have a certain responsibility to fill.

Yes. You have the responsibility to make money, pay your workers, make money, provide your customers with a safe, high-quality product, make money and obey the laws of the state / country in which you're doing business. And make money. Did I mention making money?

It's appropriate to find the proper balance between making money and saving lives, but it's not appropriate to give up one for the other.

Oh? And who gets to decide what that "proper balance" is? You? Me? Remember Mencken's Law: "Whenever A annoys or injures B, on the pretext of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel."

A = hermit22
B = the profit-loss statement of any major pharmaceutical company
X = dying Africans

And Saturday is Mencken Day! How appropriate. Thank you, hermit22, for providing us with such an excellent illustration of the timelessness of Mr. Mencken's wisdom!

Now I don't know what distinctions you're talking about.

I was talking about the distinction between a for-profit pharmaceutical company and a non-profit philanthropical organization.

But I hope my distinction is clear.

Mmmmm... no, I think you're still having trouble with the concept. But that's okay. I'm here to help.

[elSicomoro]

Damnit HB...I fucking told you once already to quit drinking that damned harbor water down there.

As I see it, businesses are in the game to do two things:

--Offer a service or product to the consumer
--Make money

If they give too much away, they'll go broke. Not enough, then people start bitching. The ultimate Catch-22.

Hermit, you seem to be operating under the pretense that people by nature are inherently good. Why wouldn't they want to give stuff away? It helps people.

I say people are inherently neutral...toss in a bit of nature, add in a pinch of environment, shake well. It's a crap shoot in the end.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by hermit22
I'm a college student, working 60 hours a week to pay the bills so that one day, when I work my way up through the State Dept., I can make sure these things don't happen. Which, in the long-run is more noble than giving up all my posessions to help a few people out for a little bit.

So how do you know what the long-term goals of the pharmaceutical companies are? If they gave away their product to hundreds of thousands of people, they may not be able to fund development of the next new drug.

It's easy to look at a company's balance sheet and offer criticisms and comments about how they could be more moral with their money. I bet it's a bit harder when you're actually the CEO.

And that would be fine if you're in the toaster business. But when you engage in a money-making venture that plays with people's lives and well-being, you have a certain responsibility to fill.

How is developing drugs "playing with people's lives"? If those companies didn't exist, many many people would die. You make it sound like these companies are directly responsible for people's deaths. No, it's disease that's responsible. Those companies try to turn a profit by developing remedies for those diseases.

If some company develops a revolutionary new way to produce microprocessors, it can charge a high premium for that technology. It took risks to develop it, and it paid off. If a toaster company develops a revolutionary new way to toast bread evenly, it can charge a high premuim for that technology. Again, it took risks and now gets the reward of those risks.

But because a company happens to develop drugs instead of toasters, it should be required to give up whatever profits some liberal free-healthcare advocate considers "more than enough"?

Why is it that liberals are always so quick to spend other people's money? So you're putting yourself through college, that's great. Do you mean to tell me that you have no luxury or entertainment items whatsoever? No color TV, no video games, no refreigerator, no name-brand cereal? That extra fifty cents you spend on Cheerios instead of Oati-o's could have bought some poor African kid cough syrup for a day.

[hermit22]

The Red Cross, as a non-profit, isn't in the business of saving lives, so that they aren't tied into all of that mess.
Really? What business do you suppose they're in? Cookie & juice distribution?

Perhaps you missed the whole business angle.

On the same token, saving and improving the lives of potential consumers in Africa should be important, if only for their potentiality.

Saving and improving the lives of potential consumers in Africa is properly the concern of Africans.

Talk about short-sighted. I don't want to go into rhetoric mode, but I will remind you of the idea that what goes on in the rest of the world is important in this country. I would hope that on today, of all days, that lesson would be obvious. It is our concern - but that does not prelude action from Africans. It's the responsible citizen outlook. When you claw your way to the top, you do so (often unintentionally) on the backs of those who don't make it. At that point, it is your responsibility to assist those who haven't been able to make it as far as you. This doesn't mean you have to give up all your posessions and status, just that you have to make an honest effort. It goes for countries, businesses and people. Unfortunately, people forget about this, or ignore it - which is understandable; the natural human instinct is to ensure your own survival (and I mean that in a status sense), even to the point that the idea of non-survival is ludicrous.

But when you engage in a money-making venture that plays with people's lives and well-being, you have a certain responsibility to fill.
Yes. You have the responsibility to make money, pay your workers, make money, provide your customers with a safe, high-quality product, make money and obey the laws of the state / country in which you're doing business. And make money. Did I mention making money?

I'm not suggesting that we take away anyone's right to make money. I'm talking about being a socially conscious business, which, especially in today's neo-laissez-faire outlook, many corporations and their executives ignore.

Oh? And who gets to decide what that "proper balance" is? You? Me? Remember Mencken's Law: "Whenever A annoys or injures B, on the pretext of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel."

A = hermit22
B = the profit-loss statement of any major pharmaceutical company
X = dying Africans

And Saturday is Mencken Day! How appropriate. Thank you, hermit22, for providing us with such an excellent illustration of the timelessness of Mr. Mencken's wisdom!

Haha! I must say this truly cracked me up. I honestly don't know much about Mencken, but this seems like a crackpot formula. How's this one for you:

A = pharmaceutical company CEO
B = dying Africans
X = the profit-loss statement of any major pharmaceutical company

See how ridiculous it sounds from that angle?

If they give too much away, they'll go broke. Not enough, then people start bitching. The ultimate Catch-22.

Yep. Sucks to be them. But they knew about the risks when they got into the business. And I don't want to hear about how that's a different standard - it is different. The poor and disadvantaged are not in the same position as the wealthy and affluent.

Hermit, you seem to be operating under the pretense that people by nature are inherently good. Why wouldn't they want to give stuff away? It helps people.

I say people are inherently neutral...toss in a bit of nature, add in a pinch of environment, shake well. It's a crap shoot in the end.

I'd like to think people are inherently good, but the world tells me differently. I like your analogy though.

It's easy to look at a company's balance sheet and offer criticisms and comments about how they could be more moral with their money.

But that's really all you have to go off of. The government looks at balance sheets to determine taxes - so how is this different?

Obviously, you don't just look at balance sheets though. You look at their actions as well. For example, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co., Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd joined the WHO to set up guidelines for countries to use in distributing anti-retroviral drugs to their citizens. (http://www.who.int/HIV_AIDS/HIV_AIDS...rtJune2002.pdf)

That's admirable. And I know that things like this go on. I've spent a good deal of time researching the HIV pandemic, so I'm generally aware of what has been going on as far as donations, etc. go. This also means that I'm aware of the US balking at the (already signed) TRIPS agreement at the behest of pharmaceutical companies and I understand the level of commitment these companies have toward donations. For example, while the companies listed above are several of the majors, they are in no way representative of the industry.

How is developing drugs "playing with people's lives"? If those companies didn't exist, many many people would die. You make it sound like these companies are directly responsible for people's deaths. No, it's disease that's responsible.

If someone is dying at your feet of a disease that you know how to cure, and you do not do so, then I'd say you're pretty much responsible for that person's death. You're not responsible for that person acquiring the disease in the first place, however, which seems to be what you are referring to.

But because a company happens to develop drugs instead of toasters, it should be required to give up whatever profits some liberal free-healthcare advocate considers "more than enough"?

I'm not saying more than enough. More than enough to what? Here's the way I see it (neglecting the free health care thing, which I'll get to in a minute, and your use of liberal as if it was a dirty word and not a badge of pride): Company A, which is based in country B, finds a drug that will prolong the lives of HIV patients. Country B is full of HIV patients, and the GNP of the country is pretty high, so they can afford to make sure a good proportion of their citizens have access to the drug. Country C, however, has a dismal GNP. So its citizens can't afford the drugs and they die. Suddenly, Company D, based in Country E, which can't afford to help their citizens but does anyway, makes a generic version of the product and tries to distribute it. Country B, where Company A is based, scorns them diplomatically, and pressured Country C with a cut to aid if they try to use the generic drug from D. So they don't, Company A makes money selling to the Country B, and people in Country C die.

Ok, sorry, that was a little confusing. But once you get past that, you might find it a bit disheartening. If either a) companies released their patents earlier on or b) put in more of an effort to supply poorer nations, where diseases strike the worst, with the assets necessary to help their citizens, the world would be just that much better, and I'd have to find something else to bitch about. (water or gross globalization or the environment or some such thing).

On to the health care thing. I'm probably opening up a whole other can of worms here, but....oh well. Yes, I think that basic health care should be available to all. But I think it should be coupled with real welfare and unemployment reform so that the health care isn't taken advantage of. As I see it, universal health care can't work in the present social system we have. It would take a radical restructuring of the system (something along the lines of the New Deal) for it to be effective.

Why is it that liberals are always so quick to spend other people's money? So you're putting yourself through college, that's great. Do you mean to tell me that you have no luxury or entertainment items whatsoever? No color TV, no video games, no refreigerator, no name-brand cereal? That extra fifty cents you spend on Cheerios instead of Oati-o's could have bought some poor African kid cough syrup for a day.

Oh my dear Lord. You know, I feel sorry for the people in Africa, or South Asia, or Indo-China, or anywhere that people are disadvantaged. And it may be hypocritical for me to have a CD addiction (I don't really watch TV, or play too many video games, or eat cereal), but how does that impact the point I'm trying to make? It's shoddy arguing to say that it does. It's like the people who try to say there was something wrong with what the Founders said because they were racist slaveowners. Big friggin' deal. What's important is their point, not their lifestyle. That doesn't mean I don't try, and that I don't respect people who put in an effort to contribute to the world around them. My problem is with the greed (which comes from our society) that makes people live way more than extravagance dictates and then give back either nothing or a paltry tidbit to assist those in need.

I realize that that greed drives capitalism. That's the whole point of it. And I'm wary of the government interfering. But when no one else will, that's its responsibility.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by hermit22
And it may be hypocritical for me to have a CD addiction (I don't really watch TV, or play too many video games, or eat cereal), but how does that impact the point I'm trying to make?

Because it's simply the same behavior on a different scale. Before pointing fingers at others for doing the exact same thing, you should be willing to do make changes yourself.

But as you seem to be willing to admit, giving away what you've worked hard to earn, regardless of how needy others may be, can sometimes be a hard thing to do. Not only because people like money, but they also never know what the future will bring.

I realize that that greed drives capitalism.

That's good, because that's the point I was initially trying to make. If governments forced companies to give up their intellectual property as you're suggesting, those companies would no longer have an incentive to develop that technology in the first place.

You simply can't take people's stuff, whether that stuff is CD's or money or a patented process on making an AIDS drug, and pretend they'll just say "oh well, the government keeps taking my stuff, what a bummer."

No, that's not how it works. They find new ways to get stuff, or they try to get different stuff. You can't tell a drug company "any miracle drug you develop, you must donate at a 90% discount to these millions of starving Africans" and hope that they'll just keep on developing miracle drugs.

If the price of CD's were suddenly raised to $50 each, with $35 of that going to feed poor third world countries, you'd either stop buying as many CD's, or you'd start pirating MP3's, or you'd find a different hobby. If you similarly try to increase the cost of being in the drug business, those companies would find loopholes, close up shop, or most likely find some other business to get into.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Tobiasly

That's good, because that's the point I was initially trying to make. If governments forced companies to give up their intellectual property as you're suggesting, those companies would no longer have an incentive to develop that technology in the first place.

You simply can't take people's stuff, whether that stuff is CD's or money or a patented process on making an AIDS drug, and pretend they'll just say "oh well, the government keeps taking my stuff, what a bummer."

No, that's not how it works. They find new ways to get stuff, or they try to get different stuff. You can't tell a drug company "any miracle drug you develop, you must donate at a 90% discount to these millions of starving Africans" and hope that they'll just keep on developing miracle drugs.

If the price of CD's were suddenly raised to $50 each, with $35 of that going to feed poor third world countries, you'd either stop buying as many CD's, or you'd start pirating MP3's, or you'd find a different hobby. If you similarly try to increase the cost of being in the drug business, those companies would find loopholes, close up shop, or most likely find some other business to get into.

You speak as if I make no changes, or that I live like some high on his rocker gross consumer. The best analogy I can think of is the Simpsons episode where they're caravanning West and Homer kills all the buffalo. I'm obviously nothing like that. I live as marginally as I can - but I still participate in the culture I live in. It would be ludicrous not to.

As for the patented process of making an AIDS drug - I'd have to say most of the international community
disagrees
with you (see Sections 2 and 3). They (and, theoretically, the US, since I do believe we're a sponsor of that treaty) recognise that the human condition should be preserved. What I disagree with is the US's sudden reversal on the subject.

I don't think the discouragement would be as drastic as you surmise. These companies can still make a ton of money in the business. But then again, I'm for the government subsidy of this kind of r&d.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by hermit22
As for the patented process of making an AIDS drug - I'd have to say most of the international community
disagrees with you (see Sections 2 and 3). They (and, theoretically, the US, since I do believe we're a sponsor of that treaty) recognise that the human condition should be preserved.

First of all, what "most of the international community" thinks is irrelevant. And the language in the treaty you link to says "members <I>may exclude</I> from patentability" those various products. Nowhere does it say that "patents were not valid when the product would save people's lives", as you've repeatedly tried to claim here.

But that's not even the point I'm trying to make. Regardless of whether disallowing patents on life-saving drugs should be done, you seem to completely dismiss the effect it would have on whether companies would continue to invest in developing drugs. How do you know they could "still make a ton of money"? How do you know the full impact that such a law would have -- on that company's investors, on their cashflow, on their budget priorities? You can't double the cost a company incurs in marketing a product and just hope they'll keep on doing it.

As I've said already, if such a law were passed, companies wouldn't simply roll over and take it. They'd find new ways to make money.

[socrates]

A very interesting thread. I suppose almost every ideology or philosophy has something to offer, even the most ludicrous on the surface, as they contribute to the great debate on how to live.

I for one, having considered several, cannot see anything to match a fundamentaly liberal ideology, or libertarian to be precise.

My problem with communism and socialism is that it goes against the grain of human nature in my opinion. There is a tendency for (to use a well known argument) people to plunder what resources are available as this is more attractive than labouring. Thus to put this in context, many people plunder the social welfare systems within their nations as it beats working for a living. Many immigrants attempt to enter other nations to plunder the welfare programs. Many plunder others by robbery and theft. The poor generally think the rich should be plundered to provide for those economically below them. Goverments plunder the population to provide unnecessary welfare to those who should be providing for themselves. The list goes on.


That is it in a nutshell against communism. Too many lazy sods wanting something for nothing, by not rewarding the hard workers and redistributing their endeavours amongst the others.

This atitude has however crept into the pseudo capitalistic framework in which we live today. It is hard to find an example where the hardest working and highest earning are rewarded for their success rather than being exploited as is the norm.

The problem stems primarily from big goverment.
Big goverment means big tax and the collection of intrusions against the individual which unfortunately we see today.

I cannot comprehend why someone who is taxed at say the basic rate up to a marginal band, is then suddenly introduced to a penal increase in his tax liabilty which only leads to a demotivation to work harder.


For me, goverment should be there to provide protection for the people who elected it and not much more than that. Defence/Security and basic infrastructure(roads) are really all that is needed to provide a safe and fertile economic and social setting. Anything more than this impinges on the freedom of the individual.

How many immigrants would we see breaching national borders if the target nation suddenly withdrew ALL welfare. Those who were unable to physically look after themselves like orphans or disabled individuals would be cared by philanthropists. The problem would be cured immediately. A generation of labourers and self starters would be created as nothing else would survive.

People would provide for their own healthcare, housing, economic and social needs. Those who worked hard/smart would be rewarded as opposed to penalised.

Individuals would enter into financial agreements to provide access to services which they do not have but desire. Very much like a capitalism without the federal handcuffs.

As long as there are goverments willing to play for votes amongst those who want it all for nothing, then that is exactly what we will perpetuate. We give all but get nothing in return. Minimal goverment equals minimal taxation.

[Undertoad]

> How many immigrants would we see breaching
> national borders if the target nation suddenly
> withdrew ALL welfare.

The US did that in 1995 or so.

You would not know this by looking at the numbers of immigrants to the US, which has very steadily risen for many many years.

The US economy can absorb all comers. In today's Philly Inquirer there's a story about how Atlantic City suddenly needs 10,000 workers.

Also, it looks like about half of immigration is brain-drain from places like the UK, Germany, Japan, and Canada.

[socrates]

The US economy can absorb all comers. In today's Philly Inquirer there's a story about how Atlantic City suddenly needs 10,000 workers.

This is great imho. Immigration for people who Want to work is fine, unfortunately the case in Wester Europe is immigration for welfare.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Tobiasly

First of all, what "most of the international community" thinks is irrelevant. And the language in the treaty you link to says "members <I>may exclude</I> from patentability" those various products. Nowhere does it say that "patents were not valid when the product would save people's lives", as you've repeatedly tried to claim here.

Wow...have you even read what I've said? My basic argument is that it's greedy and wrong for companies to rake in millions in profit because the prices of their drugs are too high for the poorest people, who need them most, to gain access to them. I think government subsidies are the best remedy to this.

Now, back to the treaty. Our country has gone back on this treaty by threatening countries who adhere to that clause, and allow companies to make generic versions of these drugs.

But that's not even the point I'm trying to make. Regardless of whether disallowing patents on life-saving drugs should be done, you seem to completely dismiss the effect it would have on whether companies would continue to invest in developing drugs. How do you know they could "still make a ton of money"? How do you know the full impact that such a law would have -- on that company's investors, on their cashflow, on their budget priorities? You can't double the cost a company incurs in marketing a product and just hope they'll keep on doing it.

As I've said already, if such a law were passed, companies wouldn't simply roll over and take it. They'd find new ways to make money.

Who says this will double it? You're dealing in extremes. I'd venture to say that the cut wouldn't be enough to really cut into their bottom line. Most of the proposals out there would use private donations to pay for the cost of the drug for the absolute bottom of the barrel poor and ask the companies to donate the rest. I just think it's idiotic to let famine or pestilence ravage an entire region just because it's far away and out of sight. This leads to resentment - and resentment, with a little bit of craze (ok, a lot) sprinkled in, leads to things like terrorism.
And I have no problem with them making money. The right to the pursuit of happiness is one of our basic tenets.

Ok, onto what Socrates said. My only concern with your comments is that often the hardest working aren't the highest earning. They get exploited, which then leads to theories like communism.

The problem with pure libertarianism is that there are no checks to halt the explotiation of the hardest working. You also focus entirely on social welfare programs, ignoring the flipside - corporate welfare. Special contracts, tax breaks, lucrative deals, etc. ad infinitum are really no different than the social programs - except that instead of trying to redistribute the wealth more equally, which is the intent of social welfare, these programs attempt to keep the wealth in one place. Which is just as much of a de-motivator (if not more). If you can't break through the ceiling, then why bother?

Ok, enough with that rant. I love doing this. I could argue politics/theory for days with a smile on my face.

[socrates]

You also focus entirely on social welfare programs, ignoring the flipside - corporate welfare. Special contracts, tax breaks, lucrative deals, etc. ad infinitum are really no different than the social programs - except that instead of trying to redistribute the wealth more equally, which is the intent of social welfare, these programs attempt to keep the wealth in one place. Which is just as much of a de-motivator (if not more)

I agree of course. My post was not exhaustive and I barely scratched the surface.
Corporate welfare is just as dehabilitating as personal welfare imho. Tax subsidies to farmers, lease/rent incentives to corporations from goverment etc all merge to distort the market, which can really only operate and find equilibrium if it is left to operate without intervention and interference.

As far as the hardest working being the often the moist exploited then I suppose that would be down to the choice of the individual and how one defines 'hardest working'.
I have and do know many grafters who work every muscle in their body bar the one between their ears. The beauty of real freedom is real freedom.The freedom of choice.