Kodiak, re: 'Interesting reply, but you failed to deal with the 3 items I listed, instead choosing to talk about various straw men which don't have anything to do with my 3 examples.
No, Kodiak, the "straw man" discussion evolved from your statement that, "[m]any of [your] economic disagreements with liberals revolve around a single issue: not only do they not believe in democracy, but they do not believe in capitalism, that is, they ascribe no value to capital."
While it's true that the rest of your post made sense, it's also true that your blanket indictment of "liberals" as anti-capitalism and anti-democratic did not make sense. What it did reveal was the depths of your ill-feeling toward those who are on what you must consider the "other team."
It was that blanket indictment that I addressed and the manner that I addressed it was to discuss the many ways our economy is not, and should not be, purely free market, nor should our democracy be unfettered by rules that limit the power of the majority. So, using the broad definition you imply, I guess we all must be "liberals." That's the reason I listed some examples. After all, there are certainly some restrictions on the free market and on democracy which all of us not only tolerate; but which we embrace.
Now for the rest of your post. With respect to your example of the use of imminent domain to "take" private property for the "public good," I fully agree with you. I think that power has been grossly abused. If the public good is defined so loosely that it can include increasing the tax base as a justification for taking private property, and I think it has, then there are no effective limits. That serves as another example of the reasons we should fear the power of our government.
The example of allowing drug manufacturers to charge very high prices to justify their expenses in research and development raise other issues. Those issues are too complex and varied to discuss here but I can point out some of the considerations.
1. If the only way such research will be done is through allowing the monopoly pricing of newly developed drugs pursuant to a patent, then I would agree that the lesser of two evils is to continue our current methods.
2. It seems a little too harsh to make the availability of life saving drugs contingent upon the pricing of the drugs when the drug itself is cheaply made. How many aids or cancer patients die because they cannot pay the price of maintaining their health through life extending drugs? When it comes to choosing between profits and a human life, is it good policy to allow drug companies holding patent monopolies to choose profits?
3. Call me liberal, but much of the long term drug research is already funded by government grants for research by academic institutions and private companies. That's why it is so important that the Bush Administration limited embyonic stem cell government funding to the existing lines only.
Why not prioritize the medical needs and do a little more public funding. In addition why not pay a "bonus" and royalties to the developer instead of allowing the developer to price the product to maximize profits instead of maximizing health? Have we explored alternative methods to keep the drug pipeline going without suffering the negative costs to society? In view of the drug lobby, I'd suggest we haven't and we won't.
I think of it this way; suppose there were 10 of us lost in the desert. I have enough water for all of us to make it out but I won't share any of it, and I'll only sell it to those who have a way of assuring me that they can, and will, pay me a million dollars. Cause hey, I like to drink a lot of water, I like having lots of extra insurance and I don't really care about the rest of you anyway.
One of you meets the price and I give him 1/10 of my water. The other 8 of you face sure death. What about it, my property rights or your life? I suspect that the 8 of you might decide that your lives were worth more than my property rights. Yet when it comes to health care and drugs for many of us in this country, property rights take preference for those who cannot afford to pay. |
