by expatbrit 27 Replies latest jw friends
Let me also say how much I am enjoying this thread.... no one dictating anything, yet, but rather discussing differences of opinion in a rational manner. I like it that way, where one can digest things and thoughts without any attacks....
Yet.
Animal
Hi Vee:
I am (can you stand the excitement?) an accountant, with a professional qualification from the UK. I work in this field in my own business for other businesses and for non-profit clients. My training and my work both involve some economics as well as accounting.
I have a general interest in politics and how society works, and since I left the JW's with their ideas I've done a bit of reading in this area, though I'm certainly not an expert.
Like most people (including everyone commenting with different ideas on this thread), I want what's best for me, but I also want others to have what's best for them, too.
Expatbrit
A good definition, except that the only function of commercial enterprise is to make a profit for the enterprises's owner. This is an exercise in brutal self-interest i.e. the objective must be achieved even at the cost of others. Sometimes others may be benefitted, but whether or not they are is irrelevant.
That's not entirely true. It's good business sense not to annoy your competitors or customers too much but it's certainly true that if there were no laws, unethical people would be more likely to thrive.
Governments are there to promote enlightened self-interest i.e. the selective sacrifice of personal self-interest (or freedoms) for the greater benefit of the society as a whole.
No they're not. Governments are there to protect the rights of the individual, not to force people to give up those rights in favour of the "greater good". In reality, there is no greater good than individual rights and freedoms.
Sometimes these two can be in harmony. But they are fundamentally different, hence the conflict.The conflict is imaginary, because your idea of the role of government is flawed.
It's hard to know sometimes where to come down on an issue.
First of all, the high cost of drug production in the US is due in large measure to the incredibly high cost of meeting myriad FDA regulations.
Secondly, the drug companies - publicly owned all - crave to pay these regulatory costs AND make a profit for their investors in the twenty years provided.
More importantly than these considerations, IMHO, is the hard fact that perhaps millions of people will die absent these drugs - profits aside. Regardless of how we in the US like to hold ourselves more advanced than other countries, obviously we hold life everywhere cheap. Life is certainly not more valuable than, say, Perdue-Pharma profits.
I am required to wear the Duragesic fentanyl patch for chronic pain. For the life of me I can't understand why a month's worth of this drug cost $1,100.00. Or why the cost for these same patches is so significantly less in Canada.
There is a substance used in equatorial Africa by native tribes in their religious rites. This substance, Ibogaine, when prepared from the root bark of a certain shrub produces detoxification from heroin, opiates, nicotine, methampetamines and a host of other addictive substances with only one treatment. Ibogaine is a schedule one substance in the US, that is to say it is illegal. There are a few investigations ongoing into this substance, notably that being conducted by Dr. Deborah Mash, University of Miami. Treatment is provided on St. Kitts, safely out of the US for $12,000.00 for a two-week application and follow-on psychological support. Why is such a promising substance, one that could solve a terrible societal problem all over the world banned here?
Some have suggested that investments in thousands of OTHER treatment modalities and clinics (methadone, suboxone, subutex, and others) act as a bar to development of Ibogaine-based treatment. More properly, the people making a profit from these alternate treatment modalities are acting as a bar to development of Ibogaine-based treatments. IMO, this is far more serious than a mere ethical problem; this is a criminal undertaking.
In the end, I think the entire question boils down to a question of money, profit, greed. How can we sit silently by and - guilty of murder by acts of omission - allow our represenatives to look the other way while millions die for lack of our "miracle" drugs? These drugs would be more miraculous if those millions of our fellow human beings could actually get the drugs - profits be damned. "To the extent that you did not do it for these the least of my brothers..."
Got dayum Francois! I can't believe a republican just authored that post.
IMO, it's just plain old corporate greed. They want to protect their profits at the expense of ppl who would probably be better off dead anyway. That old ideal of compassion for your fellowman is thing sorely lacking in the offices of CEO's nowadays.
This shouldn't be an issue.
Funky:
Would I be correct in thinking that you agree more with the philosophy of John Locke, as opposed to that of Thomas Hobbes?
Expatbrit
Bigboi, I'm not a republican, I'm a Libertarian. Big difference. When there's an argument between the Dims and the GOP, I typically side with the GOP mainly because I'm opposed to Marxism thinly disguised as what used to be the Democrat party. You want to see your "inalienable" rights disappear right before your startled orbs? Keep voting democrat.
my boss who died nearly 2 years ago was an appeal judge for the WTO, he would have fixed all that he was a kind man...
