Reactions to AC

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Richard

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem polite, call me Cody

[ QUOTE ]
If insulin was so necessary AND hard to produce in large quantities why couldn't Lilly charge enough to make it worth its while?

[/ QUOTE ]

They do (I believe) make a small profit, but they can't charge a large amount for it without either 1) the government stepping in and saying "nope" (yuck) or 2) the government would have to step up subsidies to Medicare, etc. (yuck).

Life, she is a [censored] eh

[ QUOTE ]
Ahhh, i think i see. Was insulin non patentable? My barely educated guess would be yes since its an animal product. I bet this would be a great example of patents skewing incentives being bad for consumers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Insulin is grown in Hamster Oveum, and oh boy is it patentable. But here's the thing (and maybe some people don't know this): Government patents on Pharmicuticals only last 7 YEARS. There are a few cases where they can be extended, but not often. So Eli Lilly made the drug, sold the piss out of it, and became a victim of its own success in a way.

Life, she is a [censored] eh

[ QUOTE ]
I think the issue here is that if something is so damn valuable to tons of people AND a company decided it wasn't going to produce enough of it that there probably is something [censored] with the free market in a major way.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing that's fudged in a major way are those barriers to entry I referenced. While economic theory accounts for them, it basically just says "well, if there are large barriers, that's gonna suck for the consumer". The thing is that a free market is mathematical darwinism, it's a thing of beauty, but no system is perfect.

Life, she...

[ QUOTE ]
From a personal perspective i agree, i would never take drugs that hadn't gone through a trial period time. On the other hand it not my business to tell others what their preference for the number of trials should be, nor would i ever want a single entity and their ideas in this area dominating mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%, although you realize this is how things currently are. Go to GNC or look for cheap drugs online, what do you see. "This drug has not been evaluated by the FDA, it is not intended to treat, prevent, or cure any disease". There you go, if you wanna take it, go nuts, but if your nuts fall off, can't say we didn't warn you.

As a tangential aside to this thread, Michael Moore has pulled himself out of the 55 gallon bucket of Haggen Daas to make a movie about the Pharm industry, which if that past is any indication, will be chock-full of half-truths and outright lies, should be fun to watch.

Cody

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, but what I was talking about was skewing incentives. Making X patentable and Y not will skew funds towards X even if Y is more efficient/effective as a solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, with your primise, and it needs some tweaking.

Here's a fun story about a situation where the government did a good thing with a drug. Specifically, insulin, a product marketed as Humulin by Eli Lilly and Co. is not a huge money maker, in fact it's largely break even (as pharm profits go). Still, there are alot of diabetics out there and they all need Insulin to live. Sadly there is only one company with the facilities to produce enough insulin to "feed" the people (really about 85% of the total, but still). You guessed it, Eli Lilly and Co. The reason is that the machinery (both mechanical and biological) requred to produce the worlds supply of insulin is so expensive that it's not likely, or profitable, for anyone else to create. Of course Eli Lilly, in true free market fashion, said "hey why don't we stop making this and delegate it to smaller companies and use these resources for other drugs" and lo and behold, no other companies could handle the load. The US government steped in and said "Uhhh sorry but if you don't keep making this, millions of people will die, tough [censored], now get back to work" and Lilly (to this day) is still making that large percentage of Insulin and keeping those people alive.

The issue here is that in AC, it's likely one of two things would happen. Lilly would stop making it ([censored] 'em it's not making a profit) and they would die because barrier to entry exist to keep people from taking over. Or, Lilly would jack the price up super high (no market price here, Lilly has the monopoly baby) and a bunch of people die.

In short (or long) this is why I'm a Libertarian. I dislike the government and its interfearence, but some things are so large as to require it.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the reasons is that the FDA controls what gets accepted and what doesn't. Long trial periods coupled with specific and rigid guidelines increase costs to get drugs approved. Generic market efficiency should lower the costs of getting drugs to market quite a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, the generic market is basically Kinko's. They do very little research and mostly just produce things that have lost their patent. There are some exceptions but you as a consumer should never depend on Generic labs for research. Prices won't go down (due, again, to barriers to entry in an industry this big/expensive)

You are correct however, about the long trial periods. Although, I don't know about you, but I'm a big fan of my drugs not causing serious side effects to me. And, if there is a risk associated with said drugs, they are required to test for it, and warn me explicitly about it ("Taking X may cause: Nausea, headache, etc" we've all heard it).
Some things can get cut out of the trial process, others kinda need to be there.

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have to find people to do it for free, just get the people who are doing it to have their incentives push for the same results as your incentives. Personally I believe that under a market economy the group of entrepreneurs whose interests most closely mimic my interest in my health is the life/health insurance industry. Having cheap, available and effective treatments on hand providing their customers with great quality of life would have an enormous advantage in the industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, there are alot of barriers to entry, but it's not impossible. The situation you describe may happen. Some guys might get together and say "Hey I'm willing to put down some money to help cure the X we all have" and that's cool except it would take a large amount of money, and at the end of this, drugs are usually easy to reverse engeneer, which means all that money they spent just went up in smoke assuming they can't get a patent.


Believe it or not, I like alot about AC, but to me, AC is a house of cards. In statist philosophy, some things may be wrong, but there's a give and take. In AC, there's no government at all, which means that if there's anythng that could give rise to warlords/depotism/etc. then it's a dangerous road to hoe.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]
Cody,

Super post. I second basically all of it. (Including your closing remarks about AC.)

-Jogger

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Government patents on Pharmicuticals only last 7 YEARS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, this is a problem with skewing incentives then. Patents make new products more profitable than old products in an artificial way. I am going to assume that Lilly wanted to switch its production to some product that it held a patent on, so even though consumers wanted Insulin Lilly could make more elsewhere (again these are just assumptions from past readings in other similar areas). I'm very big on hidden costs like these.

[ QUOTE ]
"This drug has not been evaluated by the FDA, it is not intended to treat, prevent, or cure any disease ".

[/ QUOTE ]

As soon as they can start saying we have had this independently evaluated by company X and they approve of this for the treatment of X Y and Z, but this is not approved by the FDA, then i think we will have gotten somewhere.

[ QUOTE ]
but no system is perfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree 100%, and thats why I'm an ACer, it allows for the most flexibility and change, and the main impetus is consumer wants. Government tends to be inflexible, and the impetus is the wants of the governing class.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Many cases of extensive, traffic congesting road construction work have been documented as needless, mere political favors rewarding generous donors, at incredibly steep, unjustifiable costs to the taxpayers. Nothing is done about this. wasteful road companies habitually hiring needless construction as gifts to pavers would go out of business



[/ QUOTE ] "Nothing is done about this" -> Sources?


[/ QUOTE ]
Do you get out much? Road construction now a days is the definition of pork spending. The government has literally built bridges to nowhere. You think that has a chance in hell of happening in a free market for roads?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes yes, it's all bad, all roads are pork-bought, everything is bad, etc etc.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Citizens of any given state cherish their Department of Transportation and DMV's like they cherish the black death. companies that patrons cherish like the black death go out of business, fast

[/ QUOTE ] Sort of. I think you're right that people habitually dislike their DOT's, but this doesn't necessarily demonstrate that DOT's are bad

[/ QUOTE ] Eerr, yes it does.

[/ QUOTE ]
Er, no it doesn't.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, I would guess that most people don't like surgeons who perform amputations (not that this is necessarily a modern surgical specialty per se, but bear with me for the sake of example)... but on the off chance I ever develop a serious case of gangrene, I'm quite sure I don't want the profession eliminated.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? Most people don't like Surgeons? Whre the hell are you pulling this from?

[/ QUOTE ]
Please reread my post. If you don't run across the part where I said, "surgeons who perform amputations" and also the part where I said "bear with me for the sake of example", then re-reread, re-re-reread, etc, till you do.
"kthnxbye", as they say.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Construction of a major road is often preceded by the violent hijacking and destruction of innocent people's homes in the name of "social efficiency." Would never happen with privately operated roads

[/ QUOTE ] Like you, I have problems with eminent domain powers. (I see them as solvable, however, without eliminating the power; if you're interested, ask, and I'll explain how.) That said, at times the process truly is for the good of society,

[/ QUOTE ]
yeah, maybe when government is run by benign angels emminent domain would cause more harm then good. In the meantime it's run by humans that have their own incentives. It's farcical to believe giving power hungry individuals the power the use emminent domain will use it for the good of society, and not simply for the good of their wallets.

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen any private individual or politician enriched by e.d. in my area. One major effort was made, and was beaten by the voters in the area that was to be affected. I can see the threats you see, and I think the power should be restricted in a couple of specific ways.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Many of the people paying through the nose for roads don't even use said roads, never have and never will. Would never happen with privately operated roads


[/ QUOTE ]
False. You don't need to drive on a road to receive benefits from it. How did the grocer who sells you groceries get them? How does the pizza guy you called deliver your order? When your grandpa has a heart attack during Thanksgiving dinner, how do the paramedics get to your house to try and revive him? Etc, etc, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're obscuring another issue. The point is that some people don't get as much as what they put in out of public roads.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who are these people?

[ QUOTE ]
Private roads using the market would be much better at having the right people pay (and the bill would likely fall upon business owners).

[/ QUOTE ]
You think so. I don't. I doubt we'll find common ground here.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Many cases of extensive, traffic congesting road construction work have been documented as needless, mere political favors rewarding generous donors, at incredibly steep, unjustifiable costs to the taxpayers. Nothing is done about this. wasteful road companies habitually hiring needless construction as gifts to pavers would go out of business



[/ QUOTE ] "Nothing is done about this" -> Sources?


[/ QUOTE ]
Do you get out much? Road construction now a days is the definition of pork spending. The government has literally built bridges to nowhere. You think that has a chance in hell of happening in a free market for roads?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes yes, it's all bad, all roads are pork-bought, everything is bad, etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, perhaps you should read up on it. You don't have to be an ACist to know that public road production is a racket.
[ QUOTE ]

Er, no it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's remember what we're talking about, the DoT and the DMV. Do you see any private companies that act in the manner they do?
[ QUOTE ]
Please reread my post. If you don't run across the part where I said, "surgeons who perform amputations" and also the part where I said "bear with me for the sake of example", then re-reread, re-re-reread, etc, till you do.
"kthnxbye", as they say.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fine, show me some poll that shows this. Then show me that surgeon amputees are net possitive for society. "Kthxbye" back atchya.
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen any private individual or politician enriched by e.d. in my area.

[/ QUOTE ] Ignorance of the issue isn't an argument. You should read up on how George Bush made most his money. It's not an isolated case.
[ QUOTE ]
Who are these people?


[/ QUOTE ]
People that don't use roads as often as others (or use services that use those roads).
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Private roads using the market would be much better at having the right people pay (and the bill would likely fall upon business owners).

[/ QUOTE ]
You think so. I don't. I doubt we'll find common ground here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then perhaps you should make an argument. You'll find mine in the aforementioned linked threads in the faq.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No; violence is inherent in AC as well - contracts will include enforcement provisos and private security,

[/ QUOTE ]
I figured you'd understand I meant initiation of force. I'm certainly not against violence in self defense. Actually I'm sure you did know that, but would rather obscure the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see this as obfuscation. I simply don't buy the claim that AC will somehow result in less violence than government.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. I advocate democracy and a mixed economy.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd characterize myself as more or less a consequentialist libertarian

[/ QUOTE ]
These two things are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, I hadn't realized that. Come to think of it, neither did Milton Friedman. Know why? Because you're wrong. Sorry bro.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have public education for free too. Obviously private schools can't possibly compete, except: they can and do compete, and their results generally outstrip their publically funded competition.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and as you pointed out earlier private roads do exist as well. And I love that you bring up education, and the fact that private education does better. You also realize that while private education does better, more people go to public schools then private. Why do you think that is?

[/ QUOTE ]
A variety of reasons. A big one is because some families can't afford private education.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So whoever starts off with the most money buys the roads, and then charges however much they want for 'em until alternatives are constructed - which probably won't be overnight, given the time concrete takes to set and the millions of miles of road out there, not to mention the problems with obtaining right-of-ways to build new roads - thereby regaining their money with interest. Sounds like a great system. Especially if you're already rich.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pathological argumentation 101

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I thought that was precisely what the guy I was responding to proposed should happen to the already-present public roads if we converted to AC. Was he mistaken?

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, this is a problem with skewing incentives then. Patents make new products more profitable than old products in an artificial way. I am going to assume that Lilly wanted to switch its production to some product that it held a patent on, so even though consumers wanted Insulin Lilly could make more elsewhere (again these are just assumptions from past readings in other similar areas). I'm very big on hidden costs like these.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's my take on patents.

The Good: They provide an incentive to create, to invest large (individually impossible) sums of money and be reasonably assured that they will recoup those investments, assuming their product is good.

The Bad: They do allow for a few loop-holes (see another Lilly drug, Cymbalta) and they also do stiffle the free market to a degree.

I'm for them to a limited degree, but I definitely agree with you on some of what you said concerning copyrights (I think you refered to patents on books and music, these are copyrights and last MUCH longer then patents). There needs to be a largescale reworking of this system to stop, in some cases, killing the free market and raping its corpse.


[ QUOTE ]
As soon as they can start saying we have had this independently evaluated by company X and they approve of this for the treatment of X Y and Z, but this is not approved by the FDA, then i think we will have gotten somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing though. You and I run competing regulation companies. I decide that there is an acceptable amount of bad press I can take and still be successful, so I start being more lax on my testing requirements. People buy our drugs and nothing happens, until one day, someone that bought one of mine dies because of it. It's going to be little comfort to the people that were basically defrauded by me that the free market "buyer beware" is being served.

However, anyone that says there is too much incompetence and red tape in the FDA has my full support, we need a massive reworking there too.

[ QUOTE ]
Agree 100%, and thats why I'm an ACer, it allows for the most flexibility and change, and the main impetus is consumer wants. Government tends to be inflexible, and the impetus is the wants of the governing class.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will say that we agree on our ideas, but I've come to a slightly different conclusion. Again, I love pragmatism, (like most schools of thought it's ultra-complicated, but it's best simplified as "compromise"), which is why I'm a Libertarian. Almost everything the government touches turns to crap. It's really sad. However, I can't go so far as AC (which incidentally says "no compromise" in its end) because like I said, if you can think of even one thing that disproves it, I can't justify it.

Cody

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't see this as obfuscation. I simply don't buy the claim that AC will somehow result in less violence than government.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd disagree with you but that's not the issue anyways. You're claims need initiations of force for them to work. Mine does not.
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, I hadn't realized that. Come to think of it, neither did Milton Friedman. Know why? Because you're wrong. Sorry bro.


[/ QUOTE ]
Well bro, it's simple, by todays standards, saying you support a mixed economy implys quite a bit of socialism mixed with capitalism. If ou're not a libertarian by todays standards. Chances are you're not libertarian.
[ QUOTE ]

A variety of reasons. A big one is because some families can't afford private education.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then help them out, just don't force others to. By the way a lot more would afford private education without so much taxes + inflation.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pathological argumentation 101

[/ QUOTE ] I'm sorry, I thought that was precisely what the guy I was responding to proposed should happen to the already-present public roads if we converted to AC. Was he mistaken?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, he wasn't, you are. I said that roads would likely either be auctioned off or homesteaded. You took that to mean an elite rich minority would buy up every road and the implied that they would charge outrageous prices. This is known loosely around here as the Evil Bill Gates scenario. See, pathological.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
When I imagine an AC society, one of the first things I think of - and this bears very significantly on your comment above as well, that we're wealthy despite government rather than because of it - is that it offers no mechanism to protect intellectual property.

I view IP protection as one of the most, if not the most, important regulatory functions of government.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically, the limits of your imagination are your argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Beyond question, IP protection incents progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beyond question, it inhibits it. That's the entire idea - to prevent people from engaging in particular activities. This may or may not encourage some other people to engage in some other, unknown activities - but this is not guaranteed. What IS guaranteed is that force will be used against those who engage in proscribed activities on a list. Beyond question.

[ QUOTE ]
That fact in itself doesn't absolutely "prove" that IP protection has done the slightest bit of good for society, but I don't see any way an intellectually honest individual can claim to simultaneously believe that incentive power is one of the virtues of a market economy but that IP protection, and the government that has enforced it, has not played an important part roll in the US's success.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you can prove isn't important to you, what you feel is. Nuff said. Who cares about the consequences, the motivations are "good"!!!

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the conflict between your absolute right to control your labor (P2) and others' absolute right to control the fruits of their labor (P3) would become apparent once all real estate becomes owned, whereupon either you could not labor anywhere without being subject to the will of the property owner on whose property you wish to labor, invalidating P2, or the property owner could not exercise control over the manner and measure of (your) labor on engaged in upon his property, invalidating P3.

Consequently either your P2 or P3 (or both) is false and the conclusion that rests upon them is unsound. QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, there is no conflict; you continue to conflate. The ownership of one's labor is a seperate issue from where one may reside. When I'm in someone else's house, I may agree to refrain from certain exercises of my labor, but I still own it.

QEunD.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't "still" own it once all real estate becomes owned. Your self-ownership, including your absolute right to control your labor, necessarily conflicts with somebody else's absolute right to control the fruits of their labor under that circumstance.

If every place is somebody else's "house" (property), their ownership would render you perpetually subject to the will of another, thus negating your absolute self-ownership (which is defined as the "exclusive" right to control your body and life). If the owner(s) of all real estate on earth could say, "no crack-smokage in here", their property rights would absolutely prohibit you from smoking crack, which would impinge upon your (according to the doctrine of self-ownership) absolute right to smoke crack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intentional obtuseness? Intellectual dishonesty? Which is it?

When I visit my neighbor, I agree not to smoke in his house. He sets this as a condition of agreeing to interact with me. I have no right to interact with him, so I have to either 1) accept his conditions 2) decline to interact 3) aggressively initiate an interaction with him without his consent (necessarily violating his ownership in the process).

In none of these cases do I give up ownership of my cigarettes, or the labor that would enable me to smoke them. In fact, it is my ownership of that labor that is required for me to make the promise to him that I will refrain from using it in certain ways. If someone else owned it, I couldn't rightfully make such promises.

If these pathological concerns, where I am born into a 3x3 foot plot of land in a world full of hardcore aboslute property owners who have me surrounded and have built moats around their properties and filled them with aligators and sharks with frikkin laser beams on their heads and if I step over the line they'll chop me up to little peaces - if this is your nightmare scenario, then I feel pretty good about what we're talking about, since I can think of a lot more nightmare scenarios under a state, scenarios that are actually plausible; scenarios that have actually occured, and continue to occur every day.