When Government Plays Doctor

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

here's the thing. the free market is governed by the rule of law. a country of this size with the kind of civil liberties that we have, there won't be one universal guideline for what that rule of law is. there would be factions of people all across the country organizing together to insure their survivability (usually based on ignorant prejudgements). this in turn can cause chaos if relations between the peoples becomes violent.

 

the free market doesn't take racism, sexism, status discrimination, prejudices, etc. into consideration. this is why it's idealist.

 

You bring up some points that I've also been debating myself. Where is the line drawn between anarcho/capitalism and limited government/capitalism? I'm actually attending a debate on it tomorrow night on that very subject, I'll let you know how it goes.

 

Obviously, the rule of law would be the law of nature, do as you please as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others. If you do, you will be punished (Here's where the A/C vs LG/C argument comes into play). Accountability and personal responsibility are paramount. I know a lot of anarcho/capitalist who believe all society can run without government. I can't say that it couldn't because I don't have any proof to the contrary, but I think we have a Constitution for a reason and it puts limitations on the government for a reason. Obviously we don't abide by it or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

As far as people banding together, what would be wrong with that? As long as it was voluntary, people were allowed to come and go as they pleased and it didn't infringe upon the rights of others there wouldn't be a problem. And you are right, the free market doesn't take into consideration any of those things you mentioned because it doesn't have to. It takes into consideration individual freedom which is far more important than any of the groupings you described above. Sure, you will always have people who are racist, bigots or whatever, but as long as they can't infringe upon your individual rights, what's more important than that?

[huskerjack23]

well, for one, right-wing christians believe that homosexuals deserve no rights, being that it is an abomination of god. does the LBGT community get the same rights as the majority of christians, seeing as how the law of nature, not the word of God is the guiding force of the free market?

 

also, you hit on the key phrase, "as long as it was voluntary". what would stop that particular region's people from banning a particular group from their region? they'd be governed by a rule of law that was different than yours.

 

i know i'm arguing against anarchist/capitalism here and you're not for that. so here's what i'm thinking. i think it comes down to what people's opinions on what "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" comes down to.

 

and i just keep thinking that without some government intervention into health care, labor laws, and what have you, that our national GDP never reaches what it has. who was gonna stop the steel, railroad, and telephone monopolies? the free market? i doubt it. violent revolution? more likely.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I've been meaning to get on here sooner and give an update on the debate I attended last weekend, Limited Constitutional Government vs Anarcho-Capitalism, but I've been busy with work and research and haven't really had the time.

 

First off, the arguments for anarcho-capitalism completely blew me away. They made way too much sense to just ignore and toss aside as blather. Even worse were the contradictions brought forth about a Lmtd Const. Government and of government itself. It caused me to do some real soul-searching and quite a bit of research also. If anyone's interested in hearing about it, here's a link to an audio book that explains it like no other Complete Liberty . Also, check out Stefan Molyneaux's podcast for a life altering look at freedom, relationships, philosophy, anarcho-capitalism and much, much more.

 

Anyways, the conclusion that I came to is that nearly everything I have supported and based my support on; from the Constitution, to voting, to my time spent in the Marine Corps, all have been a complete contradiction and are actually quite detrimental to the cause of liberty I thought I stood for. Mainly, how can the Constitution protect and promote the freedoms of individuals, when its very existence requires the trampling of individuals freedoms, through coercion and force? This contradiction is just the tip of the iceberg, but is also the fundamental flaw in any argument for government.

 

Anarcho-Capitalism is not a complete 180 from what I believed before, free markets and individual liberty are still the mainstay, but it is a system without contradiction, unlike the Constitution, which is something I could not live with. I've always been a supporter of Ron Paul, along with others who have fought to uphold the Constitution, and will always hold him in high regard as an individual. However, it is also his support of state coercion that will no longer allows me to champion his cause.

 

Here's a letter I wrote to him stating my view and asking him to explain his stance. Hopefully I get a response back, I'm not counting on it, but it could happen.

May 11, 2009

 

Congressman Ron Paul

203 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Phone Number: (202) 225-2831

 

Dear Dr. Paul,

 

Thank you so much for the time, energy and devotion you put into promoting sound economics and personal liberty. I don’t think I would have nearly the understanding, I currently possess of either, without your guidance, constant teachings and by the unwavering example in which you have lived your life. Our country would be a complete wreck if not for individuals like you, those who have the decency to stand up for what is right.

 

This last weekend, in San Diego, I had the honor of attending a debate titled: Limited Constitutional Government vs. Anarcho-Capitalism. Being open-minded on both thoughts and when all was said and done, I was completely blown away by the arguments supporting an anarcho-capitalist system and baffled by the contradictions brought to the fore about limited constitutional government. It seems what I have been supporting and sanctioning my entire life has been a complete lie and a contradiction in and of itself. It brought up many questions, which I will no doubt spend countless hours researching and debating. However, my biggest question is how does one support a system, created to prevent the loss of liberty by coercion and force, yet the only way it can be brought into existence is through the loss of individual freedom by the use of coercion and force?

 

The founders created the Constitution and our “supposedly” limited government, declaring it was to protect our freedoms. However, in order for them to implement it, required coercing the citizens into involuntarily paying for its very existence and forcing citizens to submit to its rules. Isn’t that a complete contradiction of what the creation of the Constitution was about? I know you are well versed in both limited constitutional government and anarcho-capitalism; and I highly respect your opinion. It is because of both that I was wondering if you could help me see through this complex dilemma. Why do you continue to support the Constitution, if you know at its very root is the very same evil it vows to prevent?

 

I realize you may not be able to answer these questions due to political reasons, but if you might find the way to explain your stance and point me in the right direction I would greatly appreciate it. Once again I would like to thank you for all that you do for the promotion of liberty and I’m looking forward to your response. As always, I wish you the best.

 

For those interested, here's a reading list on Anarcho-Capitalism. Enjoy!!

[SOCALHUSKER]

I'll also post the youtube video of the debate as soon as it is uploaded.

[carlfense]

I think anarcho-capitalism is useful in theory only. It's very similar in that way to Marxism. It's tempting to base opinions off of debates but success in debates seldom translates effectively to success in reality. Karl Marx could do a bang up job of trumpeting Marxism, but in reality it failed miserably.

 

A quick example of a problem with anarcho-capitalism is how is the society policed? I mean . . . you have this hypothetical society where everyone is motivated by personal ambitions. The most common form of personal ambition is probably the desire to accumulate wealth. The most efficient way of accumulating wealth (which a purely free market society would eventually demand) is to take it from others. However, without a unified government how could this hypothetical society fund an adequate police/military force to defend against such seizures of wealth?

 

The way I see it, the US Constitution provides the best example so far of a rule of law that strikes an effective balance granting the government enough power to protect the rights of all of it's citizens from outside interference . . . without trampling those rights with excessive governmental intrusion.

 

Anyways, it does raise some interesting points in a theoretical sense. Thanks for posting the links. (As a side note SOCAL, have you ever read Ayn Rand? I have a feeling you'd enjoy her. I'd recommend starting with the Fountainhead.)

[strigori]

I think anarcho-capitalism is useful in theory only. It's very similar in that way to Marxism. It's tempting to base opinions off of debates but success in debates seldom translates effectively to success in reality. Karl Marx could do a bang up job of trumpeting Marxism, but in reality it failed miserably.

 

A quick example of a problem with anarcho-capitalism is how is the society policed? I mean . . . you have this hypothetical society where everyone is motivated by personal ambitions. The most common form of personal ambition is probably the desire to accumulate wealth. The most efficient way of accumulating wealth (which a purely free market society would eventually demand) is to take it from others. However, without a unified government how could this hypothetical society fund an adequate police/military force to defend against such seizures of wealth?

 

The way I see it, the US Constitution provides the best example so far of a rule of law that strikes an effective balance granting the government enough power to protect the rights of all of it's citizens from outside interference . . . without trampling those rights with excessive governmental intrusion.

 

Anyways, it does raise some interesting points in a theoretical sense. Thanks for posting the links. (As a side note SOCAL, have you ever read Ayn Rand? I have a feeling you'd enjoy her. I'd recommend starting with the Fountainhead.)

having done a little reading on on the subject, it gets back to the whole point that no pure ism works in the real world. I fully agree with Carl that the US constitution gives the best form of government. Just take a look around the world at the other governments and the levels of intrusion they have.

 

The root problem with Anarcho-Capitalism is the anarchy. Sure the guy makes a little not to 'mutually agreed upon' loose laws, but who agrees on them? And who enforces them? The volunteer police/militias that are voluntarily funded? And volunteer courts? Please. The non aggression theory he inserts gets back to who polices it, and who decides what is what? And what about when the country next door that has a large funded organized military decides to take over? Just to decide all these things you need a form of organized government.

 

And this is even before you delve into issues like infrastructure and education. There are just so many holes in the argument to even start picking at.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I think anarcho-capitalism is useful in theory only. It's very similar in that way to Marxism. It's tempting to base opinions off of debates but success in debates seldom translates effectively to success in reality. Karl Marx could do a bang up job of trumpeting Marxism, but in reality it failed miserably.

 

A quick example of a problem with anarcho-capitalism is how is the society policed? I mean . . . you have this hypothetical society where everyone is motivated by personal ambitions. The most common form of personal ambition is probably the desire to accumulate wealth. The most efficient way of accumulating wealth (which a purely free market society would eventually demand) is to take it from others. However, without a unified government how could this hypothetical society fund an adequate police/military force to defend against such seizures of wealth?

 

The way I see it, the US Constitution provides the best example so far of a rule of law that strikes an effective balance granting the government enough power to protect the rights of all of it's citizens from outside interference . . . without trampling those rights with excessive governmental intrusion.

 

Anyways, it does raise some interesting points in a theoretical sense. Thanks for posting the links. (As a side note SOCAL, have you ever read Ayn Rand? I have a feeling you'd enjoy her. I'd recommend starting with the Fountainhead.)

 

Just started reading Atlas Shrugged!!

 

Also, you and Stigori bring up some common arguments against A/C, mostly pertaining to security, justice, and infrastructure, things we are forced to rely on the government for, today. The reality is the free market would take care of it much more fair and more efficient than the government could ever think of. Here's a few links that explains it quite clearly. Market For Liberty Privatization of Roads and Highways They are both pretty long so I'll try to find some articles that summarize both.

 

Of course you both are right about Lmtd Const. Gov't being the best government but since the concept of government is flawed at the root, it never brings about any type of freedom. Look at what "the" Constitution has done with our freedom since it was first introduced. Are we any more free than the people were the day it was signed into law, absolutely not!?! We are nothing more than indentured servants with the ability to quit our jobs.

 

Comparing A/C to Marxism is way off base. First of all, Marxism, Communism, and any other type socialism have "absolutely been proven not to work. Comparing something that has no contradictions to something that has been proven wrong absolutely is quite absurd. Wes Bertrand, the author of Complete Liberty discusses socialism here. Take a listen to Ch 1 at the beginning when he talks about the "timeless allure of Communism."

[carlfense]

What about the military though? I see that (along with the justice system) as having no free market equivalent.

 

Also, I don't think the A/C to Marxism comparison is that far off. They occupy opposite extremes of the political spectrum and both are big on theory and short on reality.

 

The second link you posted often references the cost of a can of beans in 1970 . . . and the theories presented therein seem about equally valuable to that can of beans.

 

(I hope you enjoy Atlas Shrugged....the ~50 page speech is difficult to make it through...particularly since it can be summarized in less than a paragraph. Personally, I think the story is a little better in the Fountainhead even though the base message is nearly identical. However, if you read Atlas Shrugged first the characters in the Fountainhead will seem VERY familiar to you.)

[strigori]

I think anarcho-capitalism is useful in theory only. It's very similar in that way to Marxism. It's tempting to base opinions off of debates but success in debates seldom translates effectively to success in reality. Karl Marx could do a bang up job of trumpeting Marxism, but in reality it failed miserably.

 

A quick example of a problem with anarcho-capitalism is how is the society policed? I mean . . . you have this hypothetical society where everyone is motivated by personal ambitions. The most common form of personal ambition is probably the desire to accumulate wealth. The most efficient way of accumulating wealth (which a purely free market society would eventually demand) is to take it from others. However, without a unified government how could this hypothetical society fund an adequate police/military force to defend against such seizures of wealth?

 

The way I see it, the US Constitution provides the best example so far of a rule of law that strikes an effective balance granting the government enough power to protect the rights of all of it's citizens from outside interference . . . without trampling those rights with excessive governmental intrusion.

 

Anyways, it does raise some interesting points in a theoretical sense. Thanks for posting the links. (As a side note SOCAL, have you ever read Ayn Rand? I have a feeling you'd enjoy her. I'd recommend starting with the Fountainhead.)

 

Just started reading Atlas Shrugged!!

 

Also, you and Stigori bring up some common arguments against A/C, mostly pertaining to security, justice, and infrastructure, things we are forced to rely on the government for, today. The reality is the free market would take care of it much more fair and more efficient than the government could ever think of. Here's a few links that explains it quite clearly. Market For Liberty Privatization of Roads and Highways They are both pretty long so I'll try to find some articles that summarize both.

 

Of course you both are right about Lmtd Const. Gov't being the best government but since the concept of government is flawed at the root, it never brings about any type of freedom. Look at what "the" Constitution has done with our freedom since it was first introduced. Are we any more free than the people were the day it was signed into law, absolutely not!?! We are nothing more than indentured servants with the ability to quit our jobs.

 

Comparing A/C to Marxism is way off base. First of all, Marxism, Communism, and any other type socialism have "absolutely been proven not to work. Comparing something that has no contradictions to something that has been proven wrong absolutely is quite absurd. Wes Bertrand, the author of Complete Liberty discusses socialism here. Take a listen to Ch 1 at the beginning when he talks about the "timeless allure of Communism."

For someone arguing against someone looking over your shoulder for everything, the theories produced in those links just shift who is watching. I mean good God, a sticker on my car that would essentially keep track of every single street i went down, when i went down it, then charge me? Talk about 1984, just replace everytime 'government' is used and replace it with 'company'. I trust corporations less than the gov. A lot less. In our country we have some level of control of who runs things. Have you worked in or with any mega corps? I have, both in and with some of the largest in this country, and giving those men more power than they have now would be scary. And really the whole argument that A/C is making is a move from a world run by govs to one run by mega corps. Any idea that the common man gets some sort of massive gains is lunacy. Operations like Wal-mart would essentially become a small government, with their own 'security forces' to protect their interests.

 

And really, I call BS on the whole argument that government is at its root flawed. You simply are not going to put people together and not have them form some form of rudimentary government. Unless I missed one hell of a lot in history classes, no society in the history of the world has existed without a government.

[carlfense]

Edit: double post

[carlfense]

I think anarcho-capitalism is useful in theory only. It's very similar in that way to Marxism. It's tempting to base opinions off of debates but success in debates seldom translates effectively to success in reality. Karl Marx could do a bang up job of trumpeting Marxism, but in reality it failed miserably.

 

A quick example of a problem with anarcho-capitalism is how is the society policed? I mean . . . you have this hypothetical society where everyone is motivated by personal ambitions. The most common form of personal ambition is probably the desire to accumulate wealth. The most efficient way of accumulating wealth (which a purely free market society would eventually demand) is to take it from others. However, without a unified government how could this hypothetical society fund an adequate police/military force to defend against such seizures of wealth?

 

The way I see it, the US Constitution provides the best example so far of a rule of law that strikes an effective balance granting the government enough power to protect the rights of all of it's citizens from outside interference . . . without trampling those rights with excessive governmental intrusion.

 

Anyways, it does raise some interesting points in a theoretical sense. Thanks for posting the links. (As a side note SOCAL, have you ever read Ayn Rand? I have a feeling you'd enjoy her. I'd recommend starting with the Fountainhead.)

 

Just started reading Atlas Shrugged!!

 

Also, you and Stigori bring up some common arguments against A/C, mostly pertaining to security, justice, and infrastructure, things we are forced to rely on the government for, today. The reality is the free market would take care of it much more fair and more efficient than the government could ever think of. Here's a few links that explains it quite clearly. Market For Liberty Privatization of Roads and Highways They are both pretty long so I'll try to find some articles that summarize both.

 

Of course you both are right about Lmtd Const. Gov't being the best government but since the concept of government is flawed at the root, it never brings about any type of freedom. Look at what "the" Constitution has done with our freedom since it was first introduced. Are we any more free than the people were the day it was signed into law, absolutely not!?! We are nothing more than indentured servants with the ability to quit our jobs.

 

Comparing A/C to Marxism is way off base. First of all, Marxism, Communism, and any other type socialism have "absolutely been proven not to work. Comparing something that has no contradictions to something that has been proven wrong absolutely is quite absurd. Wes Bertrand, the author of Complete Liberty discusses socialism here. Take a listen to Ch 1 at the beginning when he talks about the "timeless allure of Communism."

For someone arguing against someone looking over your shoulder for everything, the theories produced in those links just shift who is watching. I mean good God, a sticker on my car that would essentially keep track of every single street i went down, when i went down it, then charge me? Talk about 1984, just replace everytime 'government' is used and replace it with 'company'. I trust corporations less than the gov. A lot less. In our country we have some level of control of who runs things. Have you worked in or with any mega corps? I have, both in and with some of the largest in this country, and giving those men more power than they have now would be scary. And really the whole argument that A/C is making is a move from a world run by govs to one run by mega corps. Any idea that the common man gets some sort of massive gains is lunacy. Operations like Wal-mart would essentially become a small government, with their own 'security forces' to protect their interests.

 

And really, I call BS on the whole argument that government is at its root flawed. You simply are not going to put people together and not have them form some form of rudimentary government. Unless I missed one hell of a lot in history classes, no society in the history of the world has existed without a government.

 

 

Good post strigori. You knocked that one out of the park.

[sarge87]

I think anarcho-capitalism is useful in theory only. It's very similar in that way to Marxism. It's tempting to base opinions off of debates but success in debates seldom translates effectively to success in reality. Karl Marx could do a bang up job of trumpeting Marxism, but in reality it failed miserably.

 

A quick example of a problem with anarcho-capitalism is how is the society policed? I mean . . . you have this hypothetical society where everyone is motivated by personal ambitions. The most common form of personal ambition is probably the desire to accumulate wealth. The most efficient way of accumulating wealth (which a purely free market society would eventually demand) is to take it from others. However, without a unified government how could this hypothetical society fund an adequate police/military force to defend against such seizures of wealth?

 

The way I see it, the US Constitution provides the best example so far of a rule of law that strikes an effective balance granting the government enough power to protect the rights of all of it's citizens from outside interference . . . without trampling those rights with excessive governmental intrusion.

 

Anyways, it does raise some interesting points in a theoretical sense. Thanks for posting the links. (As a side note SOCAL, have you ever read Ayn Rand? I have a feeling you'd enjoy her. I'd recommend starting with the Fountainhead.)

 

Just started reading Atlas Shrugged!!

 

Also, you and Stigori bring up some common arguments against A/C, mostly pertaining to security, justice, and infrastructure, things we are forced to rely on the government for, today. The reality is the free market would take care of it much more fair and more efficient than the government could ever think of. Here's a few links that explains it quite clearly. Market For Liberty Privatization of Roads and Highways They are both pretty long so I'll try to find some articles that summarize both.

 

Of course you both are right about Lmtd Const. Gov't being the best government but since the concept of government is flawed at the root, it never brings about any type of freedom. Look at what "the" Constitution has done with our freedom since it was first introduced. Are we any more free than the people were the day it was signed into law, absolutely not!?! We are nothing more than indentured servants with the ability to quit our jobs.

 

Comparing A/C to Marxism is way off base. First of all, Marxism, Communism, and any other type socialism have "absolutely been proven not to work. Comparing something that has no contradictions to something that has been proven wrong absolutely is quite absurd. Wes Bertrand, the author of Complete Liberty discusses socialism here. Take a listen to Ch 1 at the beginning when he talks about the "timeless allure of Communism."

For someone arguing against someone looking over your shoulder for everything, the theories produced in those links just shift who is watching. I mean good God, a sticker on my car that would essentially keep track of every single street i went down, when i went down it, then charge me? Talk about 1984, just replace everytime 'government' is used and replace it with 'company'. I trust corporations less than the gov. A lot less. In our country we have some level of control of who runs things. Have you worked in or with any mega corps? I have, both in and with some of the largest in this country, and giving those men more power than they have now would be scary. And really the whole argument that A/C is making is a move from a world run by govs to one run by mega corps. Any idea that the common man gets some sort of massive gains is lunacy. Operations like Wal-mart would essentially become a small government, with their own 'security forces' to protect their interests.

 

And really, I call BS on the whole argument that government is at its root flawed. You simply are not going to put people together and not have them form some form of rudimentary government. Unless I missed one hell of a lot in history classes, no society in the history of the world has existed without a government.

 

 

Good post strigori. You knocked that one out of the park.

I trust corporations less than the gov. A lot less. In our country we have some level of control of who runs things.

Really? Those same lawmakers in government that you put so much trust in have family members who are lobbyists for those very same corporations you hate so much. In turn, those very same corporations contribute huge amounts of dollars to get those members re-elected.

 

So in reality, those lawmakers are defacto paid representatives of those companies. (I'm including Big Unions in this also.)

 

So what really is the difference here? The market deciding who succeeds or fails or Big Government?

 

Enough of the threadjack.....

 

Why do drugs cost so much here in the US? Because every country that has some sort of Universal Healthcare has price controls. We do not. So the American people are subsidizing drugs and paying for their development while the whole world leeches off the US paying public.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Really? Those same lawmakers in government that you put so much trust in have family members who are lobbyists for those very same corporations you hate so much. In turn, those very same corporations contribute huge amounts of dollars to get those members re-elected.

 

So in reality, those lawmakers are defacto paid representatives of those companies. (I'm including Big Unions in this also.)

 

So what really is the difference here? The market deciding who succeeds or fails or Big Government?

 

Enough of the threadjack.....

 

Why do drugs cost so much here in the US? Because every country that has some sort of Universal Healthcare has price controls. We do not. So the American people are subsidizing drugs and paying for their development while the whole world leeches off the US paying public.

 

Sorry about the threadjack. I'll start a new thread on anarcho-capitalism.

 

Drugs are so expensive because of government interference. The government regulation adds more of a cost burden to an already expensive process and drives away competition. This creates a government backed monopoly of the pharmaceutical business, where only those wealthy enough to comply with regulation and wealthy enough to lobby/buy off politicians will survive. This, along with the high demand for drugs, allows those companies to set prices at whatever level they would like.

 

Introducing price controls would have the opposite effect we would be looking for and in the long run creates many unintended sonsequences. Read about it HERE

 

Some highlights-

"Now we cannot hold the price of any commodity below its market level without in time bringing about two consequences. The first is to increase the demand for that commodity. Because the commodity is cheaper, people are both tempted to buy, and can afford to buy, more of it. The second consequence is to reduce the supply of that commodity. Because people buy more, the accumulated supply is more quickly taken from the shelves of merchants. But in addition to this, production of that commodity is discouraged. Profit margins are reduced or wiped out. The marginal producers are driven out of business. Even the most efficient producers may be called upon to turn out their product at a loss."

 

"If we did nothing else, therefore, the consequence of fixing a maximum price for a particular commodity would be to bring about a shortage of that commodity. But this is precisely the opposite of what the government regulators originally wanted to do. For it is the very commodities selected for maximum price-fixing that the regulators most want to keep in abundant supply. But when they limit the wages and the profits of those who make these commodities, without also limiting the wages and profits of those who make luxuries or semiluxuries, they discourage the production of the price-controlled necessities while they relatively stimulate the production of less essential goods."

 

"Some of these consequences in time become apparent to the regulators, who then adopt various other devices and controls in an attempt to avert them. Among these devices are rationing, cost-control, subsidies, and universal price-fixing."

[carlfense]

 

Really? Those same lawmakers in government that you put so much trust in have family members who are lobbyists for those very same corporations you hate so much. In turn, those very same corporations contribute huge amounts of dollars to get those members re-elected.

 

So in reality, those lawmakers are defacto paid representatives of those companies. (I'm including Big Unions in this also.)

 

So what really is the difference here? The market deciding who succeeds or fails or Big Government?

 

Enough of the threadjack.....

 

Why do drugs cost so much here in the US? Because every country that has some sort of Universal Healthcare has price controls. We do not. So the American people are subsidizing drugs and paying for their development while the whole world leeches off the US paying public.

 

Sorry about the threadjack. I'll start a new thread on anarcho-capitalism.

 

Drugs are so expensive because of government interference. The government regulation adds more of a cost burden to an already expensive process and drives away competition. This creates a government backed monopoly of the pharmaceutical business, where only those wealthy enough to comply with regulation and wealthy enough to lobby/buy off politicians will survive. This, along with the high demand for drugs, allows those companies to set prices at whatever level they would like.

 

Introducing price controls would have the opposite effect we would be looking for and in the long run creates many unintended sonsequences. Read about it HERE

 

Some highlights-

"Now we cannot hold the price of any commodity below its market level without in time bringing about two consequences. The first is to increase the demand for that commodity. Because the commodity is cheaper, people are both tempted to buy, and can afford to buy, more of it. The second consequence is to reduce the supply of that commodity. Because people buy more, the accumulated supply is more quickly taken from the shelves of merchants. But in addition to this, production of that commodity is discouraged. Profit margins are reduced or wiped out. The marginal producers are driven out of business. Even the most efficient producers may be called upon to turn out their product at a loss."

 

"If we did nothing else, therefore, the consequence of fixing a maximum price for a particular commodity would be to bring about a shortage of that commodity. But this is precisely the opposite of what the government regulators originally wanted to do. For it is the very commodities selected for maximum price-fixing that the regulators most want to keep in abundant supply. But when they limit the wages and the profits of those who make these commodities, without also limiting the wages and profits of those who make luxuries or semiluxuries, they discourage the production of the price-controlled necessities while they relatively stimulate the production of less essential goods."

 

"Some of these consequences in time become apparent to the regulators, who then adopt various other devices and controls in an attempt to avert them. Among these devices are rationing, cost-control, subsidies, and universal price-fixing."

 

<sigh> I think I'm done with this thread after this post. It's like arguing against a recording. SOCAL, you are so fixated on your conclusion that the government is the cause of high drug costs that you are blind to whatever facts people introduce. In your post you say the government is responsible for high drug prices. Immediately after that you state that drug development and production is an expensive process and that government merely adds costs on top of the already high costs. You can't have it both ways. The government can't be the sole problem AND only part of the problem.

 

That's followed by a rant about the evils of governmental price fixing . . . which NO ONE here has championed.

[huskertim]

I have got to quit working, I miss all the good threads.

 

Let me get this straight, Jen favors more government control over a big part of our lives. I did not see that one coming. Also, demonizing corporations for focusing on making a profit, Isn't that what they are supposed to do?

 

Calrfense can't see government as a primary reason costs are high in health care. Aren't you in law school, doesn't your entire profession and those in it's wages rely entirely on the very existence of complex, almost indecipherable regualtion and defense therefrom? Isn't it likely that the rediculouly high price of your wife's education is also a side effect of third party payer systems? If for instance there where no government loans or grants, do you think the average med student could possibly afford tuiton. What then, would the meds schools all shut down or would they find a way to charge a reasonable amount of money for their services? Would the average doctor then expect, even be required to make so much themselves?

 

Huskerjack23 claims that free markert economies (capitalism) don't take into account factionalisms such as raceism, sexism, status and prejudice. Yeah it does, to sum up, those are called human nature and capitalism plays upon human nature. Failure to exploit human nature is one of the greatest weaknesses of Marxism.

 

Raceism: If you play only white guys on your team and I play only my best guys who do you think is going to win that game.

 

Sexism: see above.

 

Status: Capitalism rewards the best ideas and best performers, it may not always be fair, but competition will always be open if your looking for the best of the best. Nepotism is not capitalism.

 

Bottom line for me is, capitalism works. Yes, it must be retrained from time to time in the interest of the public, but by and large our problems stem from overregualtion not underregulation.

 

Lastly, Socal....did you recently purchase a new pair of purple Nikes?