My response to the Roche debate
germanbishounen has been hosting a debate on whether the accusations made in a New scientist article were justified. The debate has become quite heated. Due to what I assume is an oversight I am not currently able to post my latest response to the thread. I am therefore posting it here.
[Edit: There was a response made which I missed because it was higher up the thread. Consider all comments after the edit which refer to unanswered points to be suitably modified by this edit.]
First of all, it is not a quote, it is a paraphrase. Secondly, I understand it in full, and your ad hominem attack reveals your own inability to answer.
Fine, it's a paraphrase. From who? I never said that you didn't understand it but your out of context usage of it certainly made it appear that you were merely repeating it parrot fashion. If the last phrase is true then how come I actually answered every single point, in full?
Hitler was no socialist. If this is what your perception of socialism is based on I don't blame you for despising it. I am well aware of the name "National Socialism" and as far as I'm aware that's all it is; a name. The original goals of the Nazi party may well be as you say but by the time they came to power their structure was one of complete autocratic power distributed downwards from one person; the Fuehrer. The goals of the party were whatever he said they were.
Carnegie foundation etc.
Yes, so? A few capitalist organisations supporting environmental concerns doesn't mean that there are none that actively hurt the environment. What are Exxon, socialists? The apparent intent of your paraphrase was to show that capitalism is founded on the principle of supporting the resources they draw on. As I say, plenty of companies prosper under the capitalist system whilst exploiting public health, public education, the existing natural environment and state sponsored scientific research while consistently lobbying against governmental support for these institutions so that they can enjoy tax cuts for big business.
Challenger was indeed a public project but as part of its charter it was forced to outsource a lot of its development to private companies. Both the companies I mention fell under this description. I didn't quote a source for this one but I got it from Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman..
Cutting corners just does not work. So say studies of Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates
Again, true as far as it goes. Interesting that you only mention large companies though. Capitalism is supposed to be about the production of excellence through competition. What happens in fact is that only large companies can afford to operate this kind of economy (by buying in bulk, preferential bids, political pressure etc.) and and small developing companies get squeezed out. Outside of IT (Which is a new technology which existing dinosaurs were slow to catch up with. When did IBM last do anything interesting?) when was the last time you heard of a new company being successful? What you end up with is the situation we have now with monolithic corporations with their fingers in practically every pie (Time-AOL-Warner, Glaxo-Wellcome-Schweppes) and suddenly everybody's talking about monopolies.
[ End Edit ]
Rights are not simply bestowed by the grace of some government, to be revoked at its arbitrary whim.
Correct. Rights are altered, added or removed by the power of the current government which is given the mandate to do so by the will of the people. That's how it works in a democracy, anyway. Witness the 18th and 21st amendments to the US constitution where first the people had the right to drink alcohol, then they didn't, then they did again. This was acceptable to the majority, at the time. How would you prefer it?
stark demonstration of what happens in countries where it is believed that rights originate from the government, take a look at...
And then look at the US constitution which is a promise to the people by the government ("We, the undersigned") and then the Magna Carta which is a contract between royalty and the government. The rights in any country that has rights stem from the government. A government's primary purpose is to protect the rights of its people. What do you think a government is? The only way that I could think of where this might not be the case would be some form of socialist anarchy where the power stems upwards from the population rather than downwards from a ruling hierarchy. This was the (sadly failed) ideal of your so despised communism. I'm not sure what form of government it is is that you would propose but it seems to be heading in the direction of some kind of hypothetical benign oligarchy with a group of "smart" people (criteria for who is "smart" yet to be determined) deciding which rights are inalienable and which are not.
But, properly, law exists to protect men from those who engage in force or fraud. These days, trade law mainly exists to enshrine both.
Says you. You've yet to show any evidence of this.
A person could be accused of being a Kulak - someone with property - in the Soviet Union and be sent to a work camp. True? Yes. Unjust? Unquestionably.
Ah, I see what you mean. But it is not the accusation which is unjust but the law. If Pravda had pointed out that high party officials effectively owned property then they would having been exposing hypocrisy and thus doing their job. This might have led to the changing of the law and you would have applauded their actions.
You are completely ignoring the lines in my original post that came before this, where I backed up my contention. Given that, I believe that you are intent of ignoring my arguments and see no reason to comment further.
Please point out in your earlier post where you mentioned people doing evil and then show how these people are socialists. I ignored nothing. You suddenly started on a diatribe which as far as I could see had no relevance to the earlier content. [Ed. Most of the enclosed is modified by the top edit] 'Fess up. Was it it a straight quote or what? As far as ignoring goes, how about answering my examples of how all those virtues of capitalism that you extolled are completely untrue? [ End Edit ]
This is theft, plain and simple.
Yes, you already said that. And I answered how, legally, it is not. I am now about to answer how it is not morally theft either. It is confiscation of goods from a corrupt organisation done in order to save lives.
Where, precisely, is Roche's corruption?
This is the crux of the point. I have pointed out out many reported instances of their corruption and you have refuted none of them.
You ask what the specific instance of corruption is at this time. It is this; their corruption is not in the fact that they have produced a life saving product. It lies in the fact that they admit they cannot produce enough of this product to save all of the lives that could be saved and yet refuse to allow others to do so because they would not profit out of it. They are letting people die because they cannot make money out of saving them and, on the other hand, they are refusing to let others, who are willing to save them, do so. This despite the massive profits they make anyway. This makes them more than corrupt, it makes them monsters. Any law that allows them to do this must be ignored for the moment and changed thereafter.
[Edit: There was a response made which I missed because it was higher up the thread. Consider all comments after the edit which refer to unanswered points to be suitably modified by this edit.]
First of all, it is not a quote, it is a paraphrase. Secondly, I understand it in full, and your ad hominem attack reveals your own inability to answer.
Fine, it's a paraphrase. From who? I never said that you didn't understand it but your out of context usage of it certainly made it appear that you were merely repeating it parrot fashion. If the last phrase is true then how come I actually answered every single point, in full?
Hitler was no socialist. If this is what your perception of socialism is based on I don't blame you for despising it. I am well aware of the name "National Socialism" and as far as I'm aware that's all it is; a name. The original goals of the Nazi party may well be as you say but by the time they came to power their structure was one of complete autocratic power distributed downwards from one person; the Fuehrer. The goals of the party were whatever he said they were.
Carnegie foundation etc.
Yes, so? A few capitalist organisations supporting environmental concerns doesn't mean that there are none that actively hurt the environment. What are Exxon, socialists? The apparent intent of your paraphrase was to show that capitalism is founded on the principle of supporting the resources they draw on. As I say, plenty of companies prosper under the capitalist system whilst exploiting public health, public education, the existing natural environment and state sponsored scientific research while consistently lobbying against governmental support for these institutions so that they can enjoy tax cuts for big business.
Challenger was indeed a public project but as part of its charter it was forced to outsource a lot of its development to private companies. Both the companies I mention fell under this description. I didn't quote a source for this one but I got it from Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman..
Cutting corners just does not work. So say studies of Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates
Again, true as far as it goes. Interesting that you only mention large companies though. Capitalism is supposed to be about the production of excellence through competition. What happens in fact is that only large companies can afford to operate this kind of economy (by buying in bulk, preferential bids, political pressure etc.) and and small developing companies get squeezed out. Outside of IT (Which is a new technology which existing dinosaurs were slow to catch up with. When did IBM last do anything interesting?) when was the last time you heard of a new company being successful? What you end up with is the situation we have now with monolithic corporations with their fingers in practically every pie (Time-AOL-Warner, Glaxo-Wellcome-Schweppes) and suddenly everybody's talking about monopolies.
[ End Edit ]
Rights are not simply bestowed by the grace of some government, to be revoked at its arbitrary whim.
Correct. Rights are altered, added or removed by the power of the current government which is given the mandate to do so by the will of the people. That's how it works in a democracy, anyway. Witness the 18th and 21st amendments to the US constitution where first the people had the right to drink alcohol, then they didn't, then they did again. This was acceptable to the majority, at the time. How would you prefer it?
stark demonstration of what happens in countries where it is believed that rights originate from the government, take a look at...
And then look at the US constitution which is a promise to the people by the government ("We, the undersigned") and then the Magna Carta which is a contract between royalty and the government. The rights in any country that has rights stem from the government. A government's primary purpose is to protect the rights of its people. What do you think a government is? The only way that I could think of where this might not be the case would be some form of socialist anarchy where the power stems upwards from the population rather than downwards from a ruling hierarchy. This was the (sadly failed) ideal of your so despised communism. I'm not sure what form of government it is is that you would propose but it seems to be heading in the direction of some kind of hypothetical benign oligarchy with a group of "smart" people (criteria for who is "smart" yet to be determined) deciding which rights are inalienable and which are not.
But, properly, law exists to protect men from those who engage in force or fraud. These days, trade law mainly exists to enshrine both.
Says you. You've yet to show any evidence of this.
A person could be accused of being a Kulak - someone with property - in the Soviet Union and be sent to a work camp. True? Yes. Unjust? Unquestionably.
Ah, I see what you mean. But it is not the accusation which is unjust but the law. If Pravda had pointed out that high party officials effectively owned property then they would having been exposing hypocrisy and thus doing their job. This might have led to the changing of the law and you would have applauded their actions.
You are completely ignoring the lines in my original post that came before this, where I backed up my contention. Given that, I believe that you are intent of ignoring my arguments and see no reason to comment further.
Please point out in your earlier post where you mentioned people doing evil and then show how these people are socialists. I ignored nothing. You suddenly started on a diatribe which as far as I could see had no relevance to the earlier content. [Ed. Most of the enclosed is modified by the top edit] 'Fess up. Was it it a straight quote or what? As far as ignoring goes, how about answering my examples of how all those virtues of capitalism that you extolled are completely untrue? [ End Edit ]
This is theft, plain and simple.
Yes, you already said that. And I answered how, legally, it is not. I am now about to answer how it is not morally theft either. It is confiscation of goods from a corrupt organisation done in order to save lives.
Where, precisely, is Roche's corruption?
This is the crux of the point. I have pointed out out many reported instances of their corruption and you have refuted none of them.
You ask what the specific instance of corruption is at this time. It is this; their corruption is not in the fact that they have produced a life saving product. It lies in the fact that they admit they cannot produce enough of this product to save all of the lives that could be saved and yet refuse to allow others to do so because they would not profit out of it. They are letting people die because they cannot make money out of saving them and, on the other hand, they are refusing to let others, who are willing to save them, do so. This despite the massive profits they make anyway. This makes them more than corrupt, it makes them monsters. Any law that allows them to do this must be ignored for the moment and changed thereafter.