Should the Cure for Cancer Only be Available to Those Who can Pay for it?

[crimzonsol]

This issue seems to be over looked in the quest to cure cancer. This Question also applies to the cure for AIDS and other life threatening diseases.

[lily]

That's an interesting question. I might come off as a conspiracy nut, but I honestly don't think there is too much of a hurry to develope a cure for either cancer or diabetes, both are big money makers for the pharmaceutical companies, but that doesn't answer your question.

I do know that at the latest stages of cancer is when patients also get the chance to try out different trial medications, but that also doesn't answer your question.

.....so to answer your question, no.....but then I would think that you are talking about a universal drug that would kill all types of cancer? If something like this is ever developed, it should be availabe to all. Money shouldn't matter who lives or who dies.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Should it be? No. Will it have to be? For a while, yes. It's a necessary evil, just like research for AIDS drugs. When all that matters is the bottom line, companies need to make a profit and by doing that they need to cater only to those who have money. Saving people at a loss holds little benefit to their profit margin. All they need to do is make you think they care, that's a hell of a lot cheaper.

[Buck Laser]

I think the question itself is faulty. There will never be a single
cure for cancer. Some cancers are easily and cheaply cured today, while others could drive a wealthy family to bankruptcy with no cure in sight. But it will almost inevitably be people who can afford to participate in research studies who will get closer to being cured.

I have a little experience in this area, as I have had--and survived--three totally different forms of cancer. I had colon cancer in 1975, cured by surgery, skin cancer in 2001, cured by outpatient surgery, and leukemia in 2004, cured by chemotherapy. In each case, my hospitalization insurance covered all the costs.

I don't know what would have happened if, like fifty million Americans, I hadn't had insurance.[/b]

[crimzonsol]

The Question is more of A hypothetic Scenario rather than a reality I wish to know what you think if there was a cure all for cancer.

[lily]

I think the question itself is faulty.Â*Â*There will never be a single
cure for cancer.

I think crimzonsol was posting a hypothetical, if there was one pill/therapy that would cure all cancers, Buck. An interesting topic.

Â*Â*Some cancers are easily and cheaply cured today, while others could drive a wealthy family to bankruptcy with no cure in sight.Â*Â*But it will almost inevitably be people who can afford to participate in research studies who will get closer to being cured.

Well, I do have a little experience in this. My sister had no insurance and at her end stages they finally approved her for experimental drugs. Also best friend had medicare and got an experimental kidney transplant. I can also see the danger in this, using the poor as guinea pigs, for the wealthy.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I can also see the danger in this, using the poor as guinea pigs, for the wealthy.

At the same time, a person used for testing experimental meds on has a shot of survival that they otherwise wouldn't. I've never tested experimental meds, but I've been given them by Tufts University to use on sick pets.

[crimzonsol]

most actions like these combine logic and morales, i believe that questions were morals and logic is involved are unanswerable, we can only do the best we can in situations like these

[lily]

At the same time, a person used for testing experimental meds on has a shot of survival that they otherwise wouldn't.


Yes, as I stated, my sister was at the last stage, it was her only hope. She was also informed of all the dangers and made her decision.

I've never tested experimental meds, but I've been given them by Tufts University to use on sick pets.

I've tested an insulin and med cal unit one time.....and I've got insurance, so I guess that blows my worries about the poor used as guinea pigs out of the water....although when I was testing everything was paid for by the company, so maybe not?

[underdawg]

Personally, I think the answer should be yes. I don't think the drug companies should be required to make cheap drugs, but only up to a certain point. I think with all discoveries and patents, I think they should have a certain time limit. After a certain number of years has gone by, I think all patents should expire and the ability to make generic drugs as well as other technology should be in the realm of private domain.

[crimzonsol]

Underdawg You answer the question, But your reasoning is hard to follow.

[underdawg]

I see the cure for cancer the same way I see everything else in a capitalistic country. I am not speaking for everyone else, only myself. If I can't afford it, then if I want something bad enough I have to save up for it or just resign myself to never having it. Just because something exists doesn't mean that we automaticly deserve to have it. Now if the government developed a cure for cancer, then yes I think we all deserve to be able to have the cure, but if a privately owned company developes a cure, unless they are funded by the government, then I think they should be able to change any price they want to.

[crimzonsol]

So then I assume that you think that armed Robbery is fine? Its the same concept, Pay or Die.

[lily]

So then I assume that you think that armed Robbery is fine? Its the same concept, Pay or Die.


Actually it's not. A company puts billions of dollars into research, they are not a charity. As underdawg said, if it was the government that came up with this cure, then it shold be free, since we've put money into it's investment. If it's a private company, patents are ususally over in 5 years, then the generic would be available.

[crimzonsol]

To charge someone for a medicine that they will die without is not the same as putting a gun to someones head and telling them to give you all their money?

[lily]

No. I may not like it and you may not like it but pharmaceutical companies are not charity. If I don't take some of my medication I will die. I don't expect them to give me mine for free.

[Labrocca]

I agree with Lily in that there is no money in cures. They money is in the magic pill or treatment that's applied daily or weekly. They found a cure for polio and they realized their error. Drug companies stopped producing cures a long time ago.

[crimzonsol]

1. what if they did find some magic cure all?

2. Should they charge the people in Third World Countries that can't even pay for food? or should they allow them to have the cure first and then after the economy picks up, charge them for it, while telling them in advance?

[lily]

1. what if they did find some magic cure all?

2. Should they charge the people in Third World Countries that can't even pay for food? or should they allow them to have the cure first and then after the economy picks up, charge them for it, while telling them in advance?


I would imagine they would do what they already do with the cocktail for AIDS.

[Leopardpm]

To charge someone for a medicine that they will die without is not the same as putting a gun to someones head and telling them to give you all their money?


no, Crimzonsol, it is NOT the same, not by a long shot. Death due to disease or accident is not the same as death CAUSED by another human. It is not the drug company which is threatening death if a person does not purchase their product - it is the universe which is trying to kill them. Is a housing developer responsible for providing free shelter to a person who has none (and may die due to exposure)? Is a farmer responsible for providing free food? Is a car maker responsible for providing free cars to those without? To say that any of these producers, be it car manufacturers or drug manufacturers, have some sort of 'obligation' to provide a product or service to those who cannot afford it is to say that they are slaves.

[crimzonsol]

It is the same. Having an oppurtunity to stop Human Suffering and not taking it is THE EXACT SAME as creating human suffering.

I do not think that they should be forced to, but I do think that they should consider it before they say no.

[Leopardpm]

Well, of course! We all agree that it is a nasty and brutish person who would walk by a starving infant and not give it some food! But, it is wrong to force people to give it food. The old, two wrongs do not make a right.

[crimzonsol]

What About killing someone who killed thousands of people on purpose?

[Leopardpm]

What About killing someone who killed thousands of people on purpose?


what are you talking about, the death penalty? What does that have to do with anything?

As far as the death penalty, sure, but I think that it should be up to the victim(s), not the State, and compensation should also be transferred from the aggressor to the victims as well (or, instead of).

[crimzonsol]

Not on such a small scale, The people who commited the Genocide in Rwanda were killed. I was asking if you thought that was ethical, sorry I did not have enough time to write it out.

[Leopardpm]

people who threaten or harm others are disregarding their rights, and therefore lessen the rights they can lay claim to - to participate in the human invention of 'rights', one must reciprocate equally. "I won't murder you if you don't murder me - we have the 'right to life' between us". Those that murder, on a small scale or grand, deserve no protections.

[crimzonsol]

What about those that can save someone and don't

[Leopardpm]

no force used against them, only social pressure. If I can only be cured by getting someone else's kidney, do they have a legal imperative to give it to me? no, but there is perhaps a moral/ethical pressure.

There is a difference between should doing something, and a legal obligation. There is no basis in using force to make people be nice to each, or not be rude, or to give your Mother a present on Mother's Day... you cannot force folks to be 'moral' - force is reserved for protecting against rights violations.

For instance, kid falls through the ice on a frozen lake, passerby sees them but doesn't feel safe in getting them - are they a criminal? Even if the ice was more than thick enough to support their weight?

[crimzonsol]

I was thinking more along the lines of you coming across some one who is bleeding to death and you just watch them die. Or someone needs X amount of money to save his daughter and you have that amount of money and you do not help him.
I was talking about a situation in which there is no risk to you, but if you do not help then the other person dies.


Another question For you. Say you are in the Coast Guard and a ship not from your country starts sinking right outside your borders and they ask for help. You know that if you do not help them then they all die. There are 20 people on that ship, an American ship is also sinking, there are 5 people on that ship, they do not ask for help. If you can only help one ship which ship do you help?

[Leopardpm]

I was thinking more along the lines of you coming across some one who is bleeding to death and you just watch them die. Or someone needs X amount of money to save his daughter and you have that amount of money and you do not help him.
I was talking about a situation in which there is no risk to you, but if you do not help then the other person dies.
first off, you overlook what 'having that amount of money' represents: let's say it I perform a labor which earns a wage of $10/hour. I work and save up $10,000. This takes me 1000 hours laboring: not spending time with my kids, mot making love with my wife, not cruising down the highway in my convertible on a warm day - 1000 hrs of my life which I have traded to earn this wealth. If someone needs X ($10,000) amount of money to save his daughter, and I have it in the bank, I MAY or may not decide to hand it over - but in NO case should a gun be pointed at my head and be forced to do so... such an act STEALS 1000 hrs of MY life! If I choose to give it away, fine.


Another question For you. Say you are in the Coast Guard and a ship not from your country starts sinking right outside your borders and they ask for help. You know that if you do not help them then they all die. There are 20 people on that ship, an American ship is also sinking, there are 5 people on that ship, they do not ask for help. If you can only help one ship which ship do you help?
You can paint an endless amount of crisis ethical circumstances, and in each one I will say: It is up to the person to decide for themselves to 'save' the other, the society he lives in might advocate for such good deeds, might punish socially for non-charity like ostracizing or other non-forceful methods, but it is wrong to FORCE moral action.

In this particular case I would try to help the 20 people - I care less for nationality than human life. But if someone else chose to save the 5 americans, I might not visit their store, might choose to not sell them my products, and possibly other things... BUT, I would not put them in jail, or advocate punishment of any sort of forceful sort.

Do you understand what I am trying to say? I DO think it is wrong to ignore folks in need, I DON'T think that doing so (or not doing so) should be a matter of the law or government. You cannot force people to be moral and recognize free will at the same time, either we are free and self-activating humans, or, we are robots to be manipulated by others because we are too (ignorant, irresponsible, stupid, selfish, uncaring, immoral, etc) to do so ourselves.

[crimzonsol]

By not helping someone your denying them their right to life, the most important right in the world. You said that those who take away that right should lose their right to life. That argument can be used in the case of denying a cancer victim the cure, by not giving someone the cure to cancer you are denying them the right to life, so then you have forfeit your right to live. Do you agree?

[Leopardpm]

By not helping someone your denying them their right to life, the most important right in the world.
incorrect. A 'right' does not involve positive action by others - rights are by nature 'negative', ie: you have rights NOT to be murdered, but you do not have a right to medical care. By not helping someone, it is not me that is killing them, it is nature - it is not my hand which is diseasing them, starving them, or otherwise harming them. If you think that 'rights' apply to the natural world, I suggest taking that up with a hungry lion, or a meteor, or a hurricane... we do not 'deserve' to exist, we exist because we can.

You said that those who take away that right should lose their right to life.
not necessarily, it is up to them victim and relations. But, in essence, once you stop respecting other people's rights (which is a fundamental social agreement/arrangement) then the 'contract' is broken (at least with the person/victim) and consequences occur. If someone comes on my property and threatens or harms my family, they have violated my rights and I am free to defend them up to and including snuffing out the violator's life. The level of response vs the violation is a concern for the society in question.

That argument can be used in the case of denying a cancer victim the cure, by not giving someone the cure to cancer you are denying them the right to life, so then you have forfeit your right to live. Do you agree?
nope, you are equating a positive action with a non-action, and they are NOT the same. If they traded you some agreed upon amount and THEN you refused to fulfill your obligation, then you have denied them and violated their rights.

Do you understand the difference between giving someone $10 and them pointing a gun at you and demanding $10? It is the same exact difference here.

[crimzonsol]

Every death that happens is because of the natural world.
According to you What Rights Do people Have?
This Argument seems to be an argument about what I believe a right is and what you believe a right is.
Rights I believe people have are:
1. The Right to life
2. The Right to not live a life of fear.
3. People have the right to do what they want (with in reason) as long as they do not infringe upon others Rights.
4. The right to Learn
5. The Right To question.
There are others, but I am to lazy to type them all.

[firefox]

2. What do you mean by this one? The others seem clear enough.

[Leopardpm]

Every death that happens is because of the natural world.
According to you What Rights Do people Have?
This Argument seems to be an argument about what I believe a right is and what you believe a right is.
yeah.

Here goes my understanding in what a 'right' is.

First off, 'rights' are not anything outside the human sphere, meaning, there is nothing in nature or the universe which defines what 'rights' are. So, they are a construct of humans, they exist only in the minds of humans (and any others that can participate, explained later). So, what are these ideas called 'rights'? Basically, they are agreements that are so obvious and/or fundamental that the understanding of them transcends even language barriers and cultures, agreements which most all humans could easily vocalize. They also, by their very nature, must be 'equal' in that all humans that participate receive equal respect. If a person, or a group of persons were to claim that they had rights which others did not, then those could not be rights. An easy example of this is the slave/master scenario where the master has more rights than the slave, in fact in the extreme, a slave/master relationship strips all rights from the slave and he becomes property (like a rock or house) of the master. Since a slave/master relationship is not 'equal', it is obviously not based or backed by rights of any sort. Rights must be negative in that for a person to have 'a right in something', this must not impose some sort of positive obligation upon another. I do not have a 'right' to life, I have a right to not have my life taken from me by other humans. I do not have a right to medical care because medical care must be provided by someone else and for me to have a 'right' in it would imply that someone else has an obligation to provide it. In other words, if I become sick, a doctor has no obligation to cure me although I am free to attempt to persuade such a doctor through trade or even appeal to his 'moral code'. But it is wrong for me to force the doctor to perform his service on me just as it is wrong for me to force a carpenter to make a chair for me, or a baker to make my bread.

We own our bodies. We own any labor we might produce with our bodies. This ownership means that we each have 'rights' to remain unmolested in our activities with our bodies, our labor, and with any property we might also own. In other words, if I own a bucket of paint, a house, and a brush, I may do anything with these objects including paint the house, destroy the house, eat the brush, or whatever as long as my use of my property does not infringe on anyone else's equal right to use their property. It is 'wrong' for me to paint another's house, or build my house on their land, or threaten or harm another with the brush (or knife or gun, etc).


So, here goes the short list for 'rights':
(1)We each have a right to remain unharmed. I have no right to harm you, as you have no right to harm me. This includes violence, theft, coercion.

(2)We each have a right to own property. This means we can do with our property as we see fit, as if it were an extension of ourselves (which it is in may ways). This includes the ability to use our property in any way we see fit (as long as no one else's rights are violated: My right to swing my bat ends where your body and property begins). This also means we have the ability to transfer or trade our property rights with others as we determine. If I spend my life building chairs and accumulate a great many chairs on my property, I may trade them, use them, give them away, or even destroy them as I wish. But note that I do not have the right to force others to trade with me.

...and basically all other 'rights' are directly tied to these two: on my property I have a 'right' to talk, to wear a hat, to jump up and down, to eat, to run around naked, whatever. But I have no right to enforce my ideas or actions upon others when they are on their property. I DO have a right to determine the ways my property is to be used: if you come on to my property, I can stipulate that there is no smoking/drinking/kissing/or even wearing of pink hats while on my property. It is up to the potential guest on the property if they desire to agree to the 'rules' of my property, or decide not to come on to it at all and thus not be subject to my rules.

now, as far as your understanding of rights:


Rights I believe people have are:
1. The Right to life
Does this mean that other people must be forced to provide you with food, water, shelter, medical care and all other things that enable your life to continue?


2. The Right to not live a life of fear.
what? What if I have a fear of birds, does this mean that someone must keep all birds from my sight wherever I go?

3. People have the right to do what they want (with in reason) as long as they do not infringe upon others Rights.
exactly as I believe, except you add the 'within reason' part which makes it completely arbitrary - what is 'reasonable' to one person may not be reasonable at all to another... a thief might think it 'reasonable' for you to give him half, or all, of your wealth...

4. The right to Learn
sure, but others have no obligation to provide education to you. You are free to learn as with everything else: you can learn by yourself, using your property to test nature and consequences as you experiment, or you can trade with others to teach you, trade for books and other methods of obtaining knowledge. But you cannot have a 'right' to use the property of others without their consent, and books and classrooms and such all require the labor of others and are property of others.

5. The Right To question.
what does this mean? You do not have a right to come into my bedroom and question me, though you do have a right to question as you see fit on your own property.

There are others, but I am to lazy to type them all.
if you think about it, 'rights', as you are writing them, are actually infinite. The founders and writers of the Constitution understood this. We all have a 'right' to do anything upon our own property: to wear a hat, to wear pink underwear, to make love with whomever we wish in whatever manner we wish, to trade as we see fit, to read, to do anything that does not violate another person's equal right to do so on THEIR property.

The key to all rights are property. We have ownership of our bodies and so we have the right to do with it as we wish. We own other property and we have then rights to do with them as we wish. Where we do not have rights in when we come in contact and violation of other people's equal rights.

[crimzonsol]

1. Yes it does, just as you have an obligation to them to help them live. They help you when you need it, you help them when they need it.

2. Property is not the basis for Rights the basis for Rights is in an agreement between two parties. Property is the destruction of Rights. If own property that interferes with your right to own that same property.

[Leopardpm]

1. Yes it does, just as you have an obligation to them to help them live. They help you when you need it, you help them when they need it.
where does this obligation come from?


2. Property is not the basis for Rights the basis for Rights is in an agreement between two parties.ok

Property is the destruction of Rights. If own property that interferes with your right to own that same property.
this makes no sense, can you restate somehow?

[crimzonsol]

I have the right to own property. You have the rigth to own property.

Example:
I own property X, can you own property X? NO, you cannot own property X. My Right to own property X has stoped you from your right to own Property X. My Right Interferes With your Right.

The Right to own property may be right, but it is adifferent right than the type of Right we are talking about.


The Obligation comes from you wanting to help. Have you heard the phrase:
"Each According To His Ability, For Each To His Need"
It means that you work as hard as you can and everything will be provided for you to live. If someone is unable to work because they are sick they are a strain. You help them because they will be able to work sooner. This helps everybody, because everybody will only have to work as much as they can.
I am sorry if these do not make sense, I am trying to shorten it.

[Leopardpm]

I have the right to own property. You have the rigth to own property.

Example:
I own property X, can you own property X? NO, you cannot own property X. My Right to own property X has stoped you from your right to own Property X. My Right Interferes With your Right.

The Right to own property may be right, but it is adifferent right than the type of Right we are talking about.
a right to own property is very different than a right to own the SAME property.


The Obligation comes from you wanting to help. Have you heard the phrase:
"Each According To His Ability, For Each To His Need"
oh yeah, way too many times - it is a famous phrase which sums up the great fallacy of Marxism and provided the incentive to the social movement worldwide which has caused great harm to the human race. The fall of the Berlin wall allowed the West to view first hand what effects this type of government has on a society.


It means that you work as hard as you can and everything will be provided for you to live.That's the theory, but the reality is that everyone works as little as possible and even the bare necessities are hard to come by as socialist economic calculation is nigh impossible.


If someone is unable to work because they are sick they are a strain. You help them because they will be able to work sooner. This helps everybody, because everybody will only have to work as much as they can.
I am sorry if these do not make sense, I am trying to shorten it.
no, they make sense - I understand perfectly where you are coming from. The problem is that such a system is not for huans as they actually are in reality. We do not like to work, we would rather play if given the chance. And so we do as little work as possible to attain the goals we also desire and need. Communism/socialism strips away the incentive to work harder because there is no individual benefit...and it is impossible to determine the correct application of that work so inefficiency, waste, and corruption permeate throughout the entire society. It is a pipe dream, and the first clue to this fact in the found in the necessity to restrict the travel of the citizens. Communism is ultimately a giant prison camp, with slave labor provided for those politically connected.

[crimzonsol]

No that would be assholes who say that they are for Communism, but they only want to go towards the dictatorship of the prolietariat. They will call it whatever they want as long as it increases their personal power. Anarchism opperrates on somewhat the same principals. Anarchism also came first, Karl Marx Disagreed with one or two points form anarchism and because anarchism was not well known then, he was considered "original". Anarchism would work if everybody could think beyond their next fuck. The only country to ever get close was Ukraine, but Lenin and Stalin saw to that.

How is the right to own property and own the same property different.

[firefox]

Crimzonsol, I don't agree with some of your positions, but if you are an anarchosocialist and support voluntary, cooperative, and peaceful solutions to problems, rather than using force/government to "solve" problems, than I think we are both on the same side!

As far as property goes, check this:

First, there are no so-called "collective" rights, only individual rights. This means that you and LPM, for example, can each own your own plots of land, lumber, jackhammers, or whatever in one of two ways:

1. Each of you owns your own material, and never lets the other use it. Let's call this "exclusive ownership".
2. Both of you decide to share each other's property on some kind of terms for mutual benefit. This constitutes a contract, and can be written or verbal, formal or informal. This is "non exclusive", or "contractually limited ownership".

Both are perfectly legit as long as no coercion or fraud is committed by one or both of you.

If you enjoy sexy flash animations, check out the following presentation on this topic: http://jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf. You can also find other written materials on this topic at http://keepyourassets.net/free.html.

Does this make a bit more sense now?

[Leopardpm]

No that would be assholes who say that they are for Communism, but they only want to go towards the dictatorship of the prolietariat.
this is the problem: communism/socialism REQUIRES a government to enforce the rules - and once you have a government, and the assumption that government can basically do what it wants, then all bets are off.

They will call it whatever they want as long as it increases their personal power.And you will find these type of folks are the ones most often attracted to the hallowed halls of government.... just as s___ attracts flies, government attracts a__h____s.

Anarchism opperrates on somewhat the same principals.
nope. Anarchism does not 'operate' at all - it is NOT an imposed system, it is a truly voluntary existence which can create all manner of replacement organizations (still voluntary) to provide each and every service including shoes, shirts, safety (FDA, etc), local protection (police, fire, etc), regional protection (military), and also law. Anarchism is not a 'system' in the same manner as 'democracy', or 'socialism', or 'communism' - those are enforced political systems requiring a specific governmental body with supreme authority.

How is the right to own property and own the same property different.
because part of 'ownership' is the ability to exclude all others - I own my sofa, it is up to me to determine if I ever let someone else sit on it. If you and I own a sofa together, then we must figure out a way to determine 'use' rights - if I am sitting on it, can you kick me off? etc. This is impossible with 'communal' property and it suffers from the tragedy of the commons.

BTW: I actually consider myself either a Propertarian, or an AnarchoCapitalist, not really a Libertarian.

[crimzonsol]

Well I somewhat I agree with your definitions of Anarchism, I have to disagree Actual Communism is supposed to be completely voluntary and classless without any governmental rule.

You are the first Anarcho-Capitalist I've met that can actually put together a coherent argument.
I do not know what I would consider myself, I am all over the board on political matters.


If I own a Sofa You cannot own that sofa so I have taken a way your right to own that sofa.
The Same with the cure for cancer, If I do not allow someone to own something then I have denyed their right to Own property.
If I with hold the cure, they die and are unable to own property, so I have interfered with their right to own property.

[Leopardpm]

Well I somewhat I agree with your definitions of Anarchism, I have to disagree Actual Communism is supposed to be completely voluntary and classless without any governmental rule.
maybe, but the problem is that it is not in the nature of mankind to be 'communistic', there are a few, but by and large not enough to even keep a true communistic commune running for any extended period of time let alone anything the size of a state.

You are the first Anarcho-Capitalist I've met that can actually put together a coherent argument.
I do not know what I would consider myself, I am all over the board on political matters.
<blush>thank you! I found that focusing on a real moral principle like "Humans should not initiate force against one another (violence, coercion, stealing)" and viewing any issue through that lens helps to clarify my positions. Also, in researching economics (especially of the Austrian variety) I have found practical economic arguments which also support the moral one.


If I own a Sofa You cannot own that sofa so I have taken a way your right to own that sofa.
ah, no, you have not taken away my 'right to own' that same sofa - I still have that 'right' (read: ability), but first I must convince you through just means (trade, charity, etc) to give up your current right and use of it. Then I can exercise my right. I have a right to swing my fist... but not so much that it impacts another person's face. Does another person existing deny me my right to swing my fist? no.

The Same with the cure for cancer, If I do not allow someone to own something then I have denyed their right to Own property.
They have the same right as you to own property and they are free to develop their own cure or purchase/trade for the one I have. I am not denying them their right. No one has a right to take my property, they do have a right to own property in general though.

If I with hold the cure, they die and are unable to own property, so I have interfered with their right to own property.I think we are losing track here...

[crimzonsol]

I concede this argument to you. However, would you with hold the cure for AIDS from third world counties? I believe with holding the cure for AIDS is different, because you can infect someone else with AIDS.

[Leopardpm]

I concede this argument to you.
I am not really trying to 'win' the argument, just want others to think of different possibilities - even if I were to 'lose' an argument. Probably we both 'won' in that we both were forced to think of a subject from a different point of view - we expanded our knowledge and perhaps ability to present our views.

However, would you with hold the cure for AIDS from third world counties? I believe with holding the cure for AIDS is different, because you can infect someone else with AIDS.
If you are asking me if 'I', the 'inventor' of a cure for AIDS would withhold as in 'deny any use' - no. I would perhaps let others form a charitable corporation to transport and distribute the cure to those who could not afford it yet need it most, hopefully with a measured dose of teaching the benefits of chastity and self-responsibility along side. But I would also try to form possibly a multi-tiered pricing structure to sell it to everyone, with different price points for different income levels. The only reason I might consider such a task is because I would feel guilty/bad for those who would die if the market price were too high for their ability to pay.

On the other hand, if someone else developed the cure, I would not advocate or otherwise physically interfere with however they decided to distribute (if at all) their cure. I might voice my protest, organize various social pressure, etc against them in order to persuade them to be more 'charitable' - but other than that, I wouldn't force them.

[micfranklin]

No. Too many people get and die from cancer everywhere, and already it's hard enough to get rid of. So there's no reason to make it harder for people with cancer to be saved.

[crimzonsol]

When I said I concede I meant that I have to agree with you on the issue, because your argument is more logical than mine was.
I was presenting the question as if you had a say in the sale and distibution of the cure.
Do you consider infecting someone with AIDS to be a crime. If the infector knew that they had AIDS and did not inform the other person. Would it matter if the person who became infected died?
Should rape victims have access to the cure without paying?

[Leopardpm]

Do you consider infecting someone with AIDS to be a crime. If the infector knew that they had AIDS and did not inform the other person. Would it matter if the person who became infected died?
If you infected someone without knowing you had it - no crime. If you knew you had it, then it would be an aggression against them, anywhere from aggravated assault to possibly murder depending on the result.

Should rape victims have access to the cure without paying?
The cure should be provided to the rape victim by the aggressor - he is responsible and 'owes' her. Society (other people) do not owe her. The question then becomes, "What if he cannot afford to pay?" - then this is where I probably get a bit radical and say that he must be forced to either (a) labor to earn the money (slavery in a way, but is due to his own violation of others rights), (b) sell his organs (with or without his consent). If somehow he does not provide for restitution (which is what providing a cure is), like he dies right after infecting her, then I am sure that she can be attended to through compassionate folks like you and I to fork up the money to pay for the cure. But, in no way, should force be used against innocent persons to provide for her cure.

[crimzonsol]

I'm not asking people to provide money to get he cure. I want the people that own companies not to make money from people who are in suffering. because nobody should make a profit frmo the suffering of others.

[1Samuel8]

I'm not asking people to provide money to get he cure. I want the people that own companies not to make money from people who are in suffering. because nobody should make a profit frmo the suffering of others.Nonsense. That is like telling people that they have to work for free.

[Leopardpm]

I'm not asking people to provide money to get he cure. I want the people that own companies not to make money from people who are in suffering. because nobody should make a profit frmo the suffering of others.

you mean like evil farmers making me pay for my food when I am hungry? or evil doctors desiring payment when I 'need' medical care? or the tow truck driver charging me for coming to my rescue when I run out of gas (or battery goes dead) in the middle of nowhere? or when I am suffering from exposure to the elements (wind, rain, sun, etc) and the evil housing contractor has the outright gall to charge me for his services to build a shelter for me and my crying baby child?

we are ALL suffering, we ALL must fight against this universe which has its sights on killing us unless we actually do something about it. This is just a natural fact. This is not either moral or immoral, it is amoral. But, what IS immoral is to force people to 'help' or pay for others in their fight against the universe - that is slavery and definitely is 'wrong'.

[crimzonsol]

No I'm talking about a company that sets up to sell a cure to AIDS to rape victims. Companies that make a living off of other peoples suffering. Things like slave trade and human traficing, Drugs, Beer companies and cigarette companies.
It is not Immoral to force everybody to help, because that help flows both ways. Otherwise you will have repetitive class wars because you end up with the rich and the poor, the haves and have nots. Then we have an eternal civil war, is that more moral? Is paying 50$ a month a equal price to pay to not have an eternal civil war?
If everybody lived like that then the price would be spread across six billion people, I think that they could come up with enough money to pay the workers and the inventor of the cure.
What is to stop another person violating another persons rights, If we cannot force them to not do it again?

[Leopardpm]

No I'm talking about a company that sets up to sell a cure to AIDS to rape victims.
sounds to me like they are being nice folks... MUCH nicer than everyone else who wouldn't even sell an Aids cure for any price!

Companies that make a living off of other peoples suffering.We ALL do this, as I pointed out before. Everyone is suffering, selling them something to help with that suffering is HELPING them!

Things like slave trade These things are evil - and violate peoples rights - they can be noted as such because they involve someone using force against the slaves.


and human traficing,you mean getting paid to transport people past government barriers so that they can have a better life? That doesn't sound like a bad thing... now, I think you are probably talking about all the bad stuff you hear on the news like people being left to die in the desert, or left without water in a cargo container, etc - Yes, these are rights violations and thus criminal (evil).

Drugs, Beer companies and cigarette companies. what's the problem with these guys? If I want a beer and someone sells me one, aren't they being nice to me? I mean, its my choice, right? And I decided to drink the beer (do the drug, etc), they didn't force me.

It is not Immoral to force everybody to help, because that help flows both ways.help flows voluntarily, FORCE flows both ways and when you force someone, I assume you would expect them to do a little bit of forcing back, don't you think? Force is immoral - you are purposely imposing your will over theirs and their property.

Otherwise you will have repetitive class wars because you end up with the rich and the poor, the haves and have nots.yes, it is true that everyone has different capabilities and earnings potential - but it is a BENEFIT to both parties when someone with little capability trades with someone with capability: I do not know how to make a cure myself, so I will be glad to exploit the greater intelligence and ability of the cure-makers and trade with them for some money (earned be me by doing something that I CAN do).

Then we have an eternal civil war, is that more moral?I don't see the 'war' - how did you get to war from people being different? It is only when people start comparing 'groups' of folks, stirring up jealousy and hatred that these awful predicaments manifest themselves.

Is paying 50$ a month a equal price to pay to not have an eternal civil war?As long as I am not forced to pay... otherwise it is slavery.

If everybody lived like that then the price would be spread across six billion people, I think that they could come up with enough money to pay the workers and the inventor of the cure.you could apply the same logic to every product ever developed, but the fallacy of such a situation shows itself in the fact that it NEVER works out.

What is to stop another person violating another persons rights, If we cannot force them to not do it again?
Say person A violates person B. Person B has the right to defend himself from this violation, AND to restitution (compensation for damages). Just as I can 'lend' my right to use my property to another, so can we lend the right to be defended or restituted. In my name, a body guard could use force to defend me as long as I gave permission, or a court to extract damages for compensation.

[Keramac]

Doing nice things should be for the good of doing nice things. By forcing people to do good, you are completely going past the point of doing good. Doing good should be a voluntary act - as soon as good is forced, it stops being good and starts becoming a type of moral authoritarianism. Companies should not have to swallow the costs of creating cancer/AIDS drugs because if they do, they won't make the drugs. And who would benefit from that? We live in a system driven by money. At times, it's not pretty, but it works better than anything else we've tried. Sometimes the little guy gets shafted, no doubt, but that doesn't mean that other people should be forced to work at a loss, against their will, and for a cause they don't believe in. It would be great if everyone could be cured of every disease. Problem is, this is reality, and things aren't always great.

[crimzonsol]

I'm not saying that the people that make the drugs have to give it away to everyone, I'm saying that they should give it to the people who can't Afford to pay for it.

[Keramac]

But they would still have to work at a loss because the majority of the world's population can't afford expensive drugs. Would they have to give the miracle drug to everyone in the Third-World?

[crimzonsol]

If they do not then they will only widen the gao betweent the haves and have nots, then how can the third world ever achieve a democracy, all they have are the Somwhat rich and the very poor. By not allowing them to have the drug, we condem them to a life in wich the social ladder only goes one way, down. If we do not give them the cure to cancer, AIDS and what ever else comes up we are effectively making it so the middle class cannot exist.

The second problem is that people will use the cure to control the people living in The Third World. they will be able to say do what I want and I'll let you live by giving you the cure. This practice would be as immoral as slavery. Not allowing the Third Wold access to the cure will allow dictators the ability to commit genocide legaly. This will lead to more violence, this could possibly spill over past the third world right in to the middle east. If this kind of large scale slaughter spilled over into the middle east we would probably witness the biggest free for all brawl in the world. With the majority of the worlds oil located there we would have to interven tand put our soldiers at risk. The easist way to stop the fighting would be to provide the cure to the people that need it. Instead of giving them the cure in the first place, we allow genocide to happen witness a large percentage of earths population in a war, we have to send our troops in because it will threaten our allies and then we will have to give everybody the cure to stop the fighting. Two different paths same out come.

[Leopardpm]

Doing nice things should be for the good of doing nice things. By forcing people to do good, you are completely going past the point of doing good. Doing good should be a voluntary act - as soon as good is forced, it stops being good and starts becoming a type of moral authoritarianism.
completely true - compassion, morality, 'doing good' must be from an act of free will. A person forced to live in a cell for 20 years is not 'moral' because he hasn't killed anyone, it is the person who freely chose to not murder that is the moral person.

Companies should not have to swallow the costs of creating cancer/AIDS drugs because if they do, they won't make the drugs. And who would benefit from that?Although true to an extent, I tend to stay away from these type of empirical arguments because then the discussion gets broiled down into comparing assumptions: how many less drugs will be made vs the benefit to those who don't have to pay...


We live in a system driven by money.
ACK! It is NOT a 'system', not something that is imposed or created by man... man lives in the universe where resources ARE scarce and physical laws DEMAND that we expend energy to extract our desires from the material around us. The only reason man 'acts' is because he expects to profit in some manner, be it physically (material gain), emotionally, intellectually, or spiritually. A man does not expend the labor necessary to get up off the couch to walk over to the fridge and retrieve a beer for consumption UNLESS he expects to gain from all that hard work - 'gain' as in, somehow be in a better place (as he sees it) after comparing the labor required to the end result. The position of man in the universe IS the free market - the free market is not 'created' by man.

At times, it's not pretty, but it works better than anything else we've tried. Sometimes the little guy gets shafted, no doubt, but that doesn't mean that other people should be forced to work at a loss, against their will, and for a cause they don't believe in. It would be great if everyone could be cured of every disease. Problem is, this is reality, and things aren't always great.
There is a difference between 'the little guy' getting 'shafted' because a meteor falls on his head, or him choosing to make mud pies instead of cherry pies, and getting shafted because some other person steals his stuff, or beats him over his head.

[crimzonsol]

Then why would you give the cure to the people who need and cannot pay for it?

The problem with capitalism is that it would be great if youcould actually have it installed, but that will never happen because most people only move when someone with more authority tells them to. Communism, Anarchism and Capitalism only work if People think logically or just plain think. Communism, Anarchism and Capitalism do not when people do not think so unless we get rid of 80%of the people in the world, none of them canever be instaled properly. This Leaves basicaly a mixed Market Economy as the only viable option that does not get rid of the majority of the peolpe.

Also in communism I expend energy to get the resources I am good at getting, other people get the resources that they are good at getting. This would be the same thing as capitalism, the incentive took is that you then get everything you need. the only problem arises when people do not work as hard as they can, so we would be able to do this if we were willing to work to have everything we need.

[Buck Laser]

I guess I say screw 'em if they can't get the money to pay for their medicine. I got mine, so why should I worry?

[crimzonsol]

Because they will resent the fact that you have it and they do not. That is the begining of any revolution, when the difference between the haves and havenots become apperent. This will lead to things like the French Revolutio and The Russian Revolution. And corect me if I am wrong, but in both revolutions all the Haves lost their Heads. So if you do not like your head where it is then by all means do not give them the cure.

[Leopardpm]

so, give them what they want or else? Sounds like blackmail with a threat of force thrown in just to spice it up - no different than a mugger saying "Your money or your life"... in fact, it is the EXACT same thing.

[crimzonsol]

It works both way though, thats how capitalism works or aleast the twisted form that we have.

[underdawg]

If there was a cure and drug companies were forsed to give over the cure to people who wanted it, then what incentive would they have to ever try to develope a cure for anything else?

[1Samuel8]

If there was a cure and drug companies were forsed to give over the cure to people who wanted it, then what incentive would they have to ever try to develope a cure for anything else?They could make some airy-fairy argument that they deserve compensation for their altruistic work and lobby the government to subsidize their benevolence thus, screwing the tax-payer. They could hide their methodology behind some duplicitous public initiative and call it, oh, say...... call it Universal Healthcare!


I guess I say screw 'em if they can't get the money to pay for their medicine. I got mine, so why should I worry?-- you should worry if when people take it upon themselves to justify taking other people's money.
Oh! I see you already have solved that (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=4466&pid=57129#pid57129) one.

[crimzonsol]

How many people do you think can afford it, most of them, maybe 15% cannot, so you give them the cure get publicity and you don't lose that much money.

In This situation, they would have stumbled acroos a magical cureall for cancer. I am asking should they be able to not give the drug out to people that can't pay for it, people of other races and people who do not do what they say?

[Leopardpm]

How many people do you think can afford it, most of them, maybe 15% cannot, so you give them the cure get publicity and you don't lose that much money.


this is common business practice. In addition, charities provide this sort of service as well. Notice both methods to distribute to those who cannot provide for themselves do not involve violating the rights of anyone.

[crimzonsol]

What about in the case where someone used the cure to gain power. Something like do what I say or I will not give you the cure type of scenario?

[Leopardpm]

you mean like "Do what I say (give me money) or I will not give you food"? Is that really 'power' over other people? like I said, a person is free to grow their own food, build their own shelter, and discover their own cure... unless their attempts at doing such things is hindered, then their rights are not violated. Just because I can grow food better than you does not mean that I should be forced to provide it for you - the food still remains my property which implies I can trade or sell it for whatever I desire (whether or not people accept is their business), and I can also refrain from selling or dispensing with my property as I see fit.

Does you grocer really hold 'power' over you?

[crimzonsol]

Food is easy to get compared to the complexity of trying to get a cure for cancer, look at how much money has already gone in to it. you are free to develop it, though you have a greater chance learning to levitate yourself to the moon.

[1Samuel8]

I am asking should they be able to not give the drug out to people that can't pay for it, people of other races and people who do not do what they say?Yes, they should be allowed to deny selling their product to anybody they want.

Anyway, you continue to ask the same tired WRONG question. You should be asking the following RIGHT question:
Should one person be forced to pay for a different person's wants or needs?

[crimzonsol]

Your an Anarchist?

[Leopardpm]

I just HATE that sentiment, 'should they be allowed' - jeesus! It is everyone's absolute 'right' as a living human being to own property in themselves and material things out into the universe... and that ownership is absolute: to use as they see fit, to trade, to give, to destroy.... as long as they do not infringe on the same said right of others to do the same with their property.

I am an anarchist, but probably not the socialist type you are thinking of... more of the AnarchoCapitalist variety from Rothbard et al.

[crimzonsol]

No not you the Other one.

So would denying someone the cure because of race be allowed in your anrchist society?

[manu1959]

Food is easy to get compared to the complexity of trying to get a cure for cancer, look at how much money has already gone in to it. you are free to develop it, though you have a greater chance learning to levitate yourself to the moon.


some cancers can be cured.....and those cures are available to all....even the poor....all you have to do is go to a clinic or a teaching university or hospital and offer to be part of a trial and they will treat you....

the real issue is not the cure it is the prevention or early identification....colon cancer for example....or hpv....but test cost money and those are not available to the poor or uninsured.....

[Leopardpm]

No not you the Other one.

So would denying someone the cure because of race be allowed in your anrchist society?


motives are irrelevant - just as I can decide to not sell my bike to another because I didn't like their hair color, or the phase of the moon, it is up to the owner of the property... and that is exactly what we are talking about: property. A bike, a house, a shovel, a gun, a cure for cancer, a cure for foot fungus - these are all property.

[lily]

some cancers can be cured.....and those cures are available to all....even the poor....all you have to do is go to a clinic or a teaching university or hospital and offer to be part of a trial and they will treat you....

the real issue is not the cure it is the prevention or early identification....colon cancer for example....or hpv....but test cost money and those are not available to the poor or uninsured.....


While I will agree with you that the so called "gold standard" of testing for some types of cancer are not available to the poor, there are other older, and now cheaper because they are no longer high tech tests that are.

It's not fair, but then what in life is?

[manu1959]

some cancers can be cured.....and those cures are available to all....even the poor....all you have to do is go to a clinic or a teaching university or hospital and offer to be part of a trial and they will treat you....

the real issue is not the cure it is the prevention or early identification....colon cancer for example....or hpv....but test cost money and those are not available to the poor or uninsured.....


While I will agree with you that the so called "gold standard" of testing for some types of cancer are not available to the poor, there are other older, and now cheaper because they are no longer high tech tests that are.

It's not fair, but then what in life is?


i am fair..........

[lily]

.......and balanced?

[manu1959]

.......and balanced?


i can argue either side .....

[lily]

Don't I know it........but we should leave the chit-chat for another thread. These people have been discussing for 9 pages now and they are pretty serious.

[manu1959]

Don't I know it........but we should leave the chit-chat for another thread. These people have been discussing for 9 pages now and they are pretty serious.


well back to topic then....do you believe prevention and cure should be free to the poor or no.....thus national health care....i say no....

[lily]

That's not what they are discussing here manu.......you will want to go here;)

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=4466

[manu1959]

That's not what they are discussing here manu.......you will want to go here;)

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=4466


sorry, for me ... cure....prevention and health care are intertwined.....

as you said in the second post .... they don't seem to want to cure it as the drug companies make more money not curing it .... or preventing it for that matter .... still the cure should not be free

[lily]

Look manu.........you can't come here agreeing with me on your first day.......people will think you're a lefty!;) You wouldn't want that now would you?

[manu1959]

Look manu.........you can't come here agreeing with me on your first day.......people will think you're a lefty!;) You wouldn't want that now would you?


a true lefty would want the cure to be paid for by the taxes from the rich....

[1Samuel8]

Your an Anarchist?Of course and I am proud of it.

Anarchy is an absolute respect for individual freedom.
You may label yourself as an anarchist but certainly do not promote it. Most of what you promote is coercion and forcing other people to do things against their will.


So would denying someone the cure because of race be allowed in your anrchist society?Of course.
Here is a challenge for you: describe concretely how the opposite (forcing someone to supply the cure to everybody) would take place without forcing someone to do something.

[crimzonsol]

I'm not saying that forcing people to do things is the right way to do things. I am better at trying to poke holes in other peoples arguements and asking questions. I work with my strength to better everyone and the anarchist movement.
I asked the question, because I did not if you were an anarchist, because I know of a band called church of anarchy, so I did not know if you were an anrchist or a fan of the band.

By not allowing people to have your product, you are FORCING them to
a) develop the cure themself
b) do what that company wants to them to do.

This is How I see the situation. I think these questions need to be though about by Anarchists if Anarchism is ever going to be able to be achieved. We need to know what we would implement if anarchism was ever accepted by people. Also as only having discovered anrchism I would like to know other Anarchists opinions on things that I can not figure out about the theory of Anarchism.

As for an anwser to your challenge.
People are not forced to follow the law. People are punished for what they do. This is Cause and Effect. They know that if they steal they will be charged. They can make the decission for themselves based on the information that they have. I f they know that they will be punished for commiting an act of thief they are not forced to follow the law that sates Do Not Steal. The Laws are more of a guideline. They act like the rules you set down for your children. They are not forced to follow the rules because they know what will happen if they do not follow them. This can be applied to any level. You do not chew with your moth open because someone tells you to. You do not chew with your moth open because you know of the consequences.

Having a law stating that cures for diesiease that kill other human beings does not force the person to do anything. They developed the cure knowing that there is a law regarding cures for dieases that kill human beings. They knew that the cure would be distributed among the people who needed it. This does not force someone to do anything. It provides an incentive to do something. If you believe that this is coercion then examine your own philosopy of Anarcho-Capitalism which believes that people only work if they get something inreturn. In other words companies need to provide an incentive to get their workers to work.

I do not believe most of it, but I tried to rise to your chalenge. I do not know if I succeded.

[Leopardpm]

By not allowing people to have your product, you are FORCING them to
a) develop the cure themself
b) do what that company wants to them to do.
that logic is like saying that by me not selling my bike to another, I am somehow 'forcing' them to make a bike themselves - it is NOT force, nature does not 'force' us in the sense that humans 'force' others. Also this scenario does not include the obviousness of other companies developing a cure as well.

It is not force if the situation remains in the same status quo as it would WITHOUT the person in question. A clumsy way to say it, perhaps an example is in order: I build a house. I do not allow others to use it. I am NOT forcing them to build their own houses because they would have to build their own houses if I (and the things I built) did not exist, they are no worse off than as if I were not around. Now, compare that to a real example of force: I build a house. I point a gun at you and tell you that you cannot build your own house. Now I am using force against you, my presence is directly preventing you from doing something you would otherwise be doing.


This is How I see the situation. I think these questions need to be though about by Anarchists if Anarchism is ever going to be able to be achieved. We need to know what we would implement if anarchism was ever accepted by people. Also as only having discovered anrchism I would like to know other Anarchists opinions on things that I can not figure out about the theory of Anarchism.If you are advocating for using some institution (government?) to force folks to use their property in a way these folks would otherwise choose to, then you are no Anarchist. Where is the 'live and let live'?

As for an anwser to your challenge.
People are not forced to follow the law. People are punished for what they do. This is Cause and Effect. They know that if they steal they will be charged. They can make the decission for themselves based on the information that they have. I f they know that they will be punished for commiting an act of thief they are not forced to follow the law that sates Do Not Steal. The Laws are more of a guideline. They act like the rules you set down for your children. They are not forced to follow the rules because they know what will happen if they do not follow them. This can be applied to any level. You do not chew with your moth open because someone tells you to. You do not chew with your moth open because you know of the consequences.
ew! People ARE forced to follow the law - it is a version of force normally called 'coercion'. Look at the difference between these two laws: (1) It is illegal to murder another (you can substitute anything which actively involves forcing another against their will here: steal from another, etc), and (2) It is illegal to eat beans (you can substitute any normal action here: eat beans, smoke pot, hire a prostitute, determine a minimum price which you would sell your property, not associate with a certain group of people for any reason, etc). The law #1 is a law which is against the violation of another's natural right, whereas law #2 is a law which uses coercion against the exertion of a persons natural right. Just because something is a law does not mean it is moral.

Having a law stating that cures for diesiease that kill other human beings does not force the person to do anything. They developed the cure knowing that there is a law regarding cures for dieases that kill human beings. They knew that the cure would be distributed among the people who needed it. This does not force someone to do anything. It provides an incentive to do something. If you believe that this is coercion then examine your own philosopy of Anarcho-Capitalism which believes that people only work if they get something inreturn. In other words companies need to provide an incentive to get their workers to work.Having a law that stated "Any cure developed which will greatly help other people must be distributed for free (or at cost) without any profit" would greatly hinder the desire of folks to develop such cures! Scientists have to eat, pay their mortgage, clothe their kids, educate their kids... you think they will tend to choose to work on an endeavor which will yield them no ability to profit, and thus pay for the things in their own life, or do you think they will decide that they need to focus their talents in areas where they can make a living like developing 'tastier' foods. And do you think that companies, which exist for the sole purpose of providing a return to their stockholders, will actively seek to expend resources down roads which will not provide a return on investment?

I do not believe most of it, but I tried to rise to your chalenge. I do not know if I succeded.didn't succeed, but really, I ask you, why are you trying so hard to justify this line of thought?

[crimzonsol]

1. I do not advocate having a government or any thing that forces anyone to do anything, I am trying to find out WHY others do or do not.
2. I am trying to understand how others believe that a goverment should exist.
3. I also believe that Anarchism allows people to believe what they want, so I am trying to understand how this could work.
4. Not trying to justify it, trying to anwser his question. I only really start to work when I am challenged.
5. I have philosophies that I do not promote because they are constanly changing, and I believe that everyone should find the anwsers by looking.

[firefox]

6. Resorting to numbered lists of 5 sentances? Are you CWN's evil twin? JK

[God]

2. I am trying to understand how others believe that a goverment should exist.



If the shepard did not watch over his flock, then the wolves would have torn the sheep to pieces

[1Samuel8]

2. I am trying to understand how others believe that a goverment should exist.A government should exist by holding a monopoly on violence, theft and murder.

[Leopardpm]

2. I am trying to understand how others believe that a goverment should exist.



If the shepard did not watch over his flock, then the wolves would have torn the sheep to pieces

what shepard? Government is a wolf!

[Leopardpm]

2. I am trying to understand how others believe that a goverment should exist.A government should exist by holding a monopoly on violence, theft and murder.

a state ONLY exists due to its monopoly on violence, theft, and murder... a government exists through voluntary support (ie: any business hierarchy, or organization like the boy scouts, the red cross, the elks club, shriners, etc... these organizations ALL have 'governments, complete with rules and regulations, fines, and penalties (private law)).

a state should not exist - its foundations are immoral

[1Samuel8]

We are just splitting semantic hairs here but I consider government to be part of a state just like corporatism is part of a state.

a government exists through voluntary supportIn that case it is a misnomer to call it government. You should just call it a business.

[God]

what shepard? Government is a wolf!


Government protects us in war, helps with healthcare, distibutes food stamps. It may take advantage of us like a shepard would steal wool from a sheep but that doesn't mean it's not a better alternative to being slaughtered without its protection

[1Samuel8]

Thank you, Lord, for not making all of us a bunch of mindless sheep.

[firefox]

We are just splitting semantic hairs here but I consider government to be part of a state just like corporatism is part of a state.

a government exists through voluntary supportIn that case it is a misnomer to call it government. You should just call it a business.


In my book, "business" means voluntary transactions. Therefore, government cannot be anything like "business" by strict definition. Anyway, I think we are on the same page here.


Government protects us in war, helps with healthcare, distibutes food stamps. It may take advantage of us like a shepard would steal wool from a sheep but that doesn't mean it's not a better alternative to being slaughtered without its protection

Hmmm. What creates war? What tends to kill, maim, and starve the most people, then try to convince them that it would be "so much worse if THEY were in charge", whoever "they" might be. The state comes to mind. What about you? :D

[crimzonsol]

To me it sounds like the Catholic Church.
And the Communists.
And the Capitalists.
And the Socialists.
And the Republicans.
And the Democrats.
And the Liberals.
And the Romans.
And the Nazis.
And the Mongols.
And the Huns.
And the Eruopeans.
And Hezbollah.
And Al-queda.
And almost every orginization in the history of the world.
The porblem with democracy is all the people involved in it are basically saying think about how it would be if They were in charge. Democracy has changed from this is what we will do for you to what they will not do for you.

[firefox]

There also is the tendency to skirt personal responsibility and blame others for problems and/or force them to do things for "us", whoever "us"is.

[crimzonsol]

The main problem is the seperation into us and them. Instead of it being everybody, it becomes they did it, or we did it, all based upon the benifit to those who say such things.

[Marley]

"Those Who can Pay for it?"

Says who?

I'm catching a distinct whiff of Marxism in the rhetoric.

What's the old adage?

"To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability?"

"According" to who???????

And there's the rub!

Pure, raw, brute POWER dictates huh?

The only way for that fake dishonest adage to work is to cede freedom and grant POWER to others over you.

Why NOBODY can "afford" a cancer cure, according to THEM!

Why NO! Some one else needs to pay for it! And give a socialist some raw brute power, and they'll go out and find that person huh?

But funny, after the socialist is done, they never reliquish that power, even though they're done with it!

[crimzonsol]

Marley, Argue with the Idea not with the wording.

[Marley]

I am.

Distilled to it's purest form that I can tell, the question is about the power to mete out cures, and whether capitalism should be the best mechanism for that.

I say yes, capitalism in the long run proves to always be the best most efficient allocation of any resource, including cancer cures.

[crimzonsol]

Would that be american capitalism, or real capitalism?

[Leopardpm]

real capitalism.

American Capitalism is really Corporatism (perhaps 'Well Monied Special Interest-ism", a very 'special' flavor of Fascism. But, for all it's flaws, we do have a pretty relative free market compared to most other places.

[DANG]

It should be paid for by those who knowingly cause genocidal cancer.

100%

[Salim]

[/size]
I'm not asking people to provide money to get he cure. I want the people that own companies not to make money from people who are in suffering. because nobody should make a profit frmo the suffering of others.


i agree. not just because you are jewish but also because companies and evil people (me) could expliot many infected people and the ones who could not afford the cure would suffer more. i belive that cancer treatments (if you have it) (and by treatment i mean cure) should be free because everyone deserves to live...

Except for you know who... it had 3 letters... and it ends with w

[crimzonsol]

I am intrested in what the new members of this site think of this. So anybody have an opinion?