Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The areas that would have the most return on investment are the areas that have the most need. Supply and demand.
Which means the people suffering from rarer diseases are just out of luck, not enough return on investment to bother researching treatment/cures for them.
Do you really believe that there wouldn't be internet without the DoD? Seriously? That is about as nonsensical as saying there wouldn't be personal computers if it wasn't for Steven Jobs. That is as nonsensical as saying there wouldn't be nuclear bombs without Albert Einstein.
Dod is not Steven jobs or Albert Einstein. DoD hasn't invented anything but simply provided funding for something that private business wasn't interested in. And that's how the internet came to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The internet was originally invented by the government. But it would have been invented regardless. The fact that the government invented the internet first doesn't mean that it never would have been invented.
You're absolutely right, it would've been invented anyway but when? 20-40 years later? Who knows? We will never know. It doesn't change the fact that the government is responsible for developing the technology that gave birth to internet and in case you're too young to remember it took commerce quite a while to realize the potential of the internet in commerce. I remember the time when there was only a few .com domains and thousands of .edu .mil .net and .org. Business not only didn't invent the internet but was very slow to adopt it.
The internet is a great example of an important role that the government plays in science and technology: it provides funding for the projects that business is not interested in as it sees no immediate profit.
Last edited by random_thoughts; 09-25-2014 at 10:16 AM..
Which means the people suffering from rarer diseases are just out of luck, not enough return on investment to bother researching treatment/cures for them.
Not so. If you develop a treatment for a rare disease that no other company is working on, then you corner the market for that treatment and can charge whatever you like for it.
Not so. If you develop a treatment for a rare disease that no other company is working on, then you corner the market for that treatment and can charge whatever you like for it.
Rare disease means that there are not many suffering so your market could be 10,000 people and ther is no way you could recover $50 million on spend on developing the drug by charging the sick who are already impoverished by their disease. That's a major shortcoming of market: it is not interested in anything that does not translate into immediate profits. If it wasn't for the government there would be no internet and no space program.
Rare disease means that there are not many suffering so your market could be just 10,000 people and there is no way you could recover $50 million you just spent on developing the drug by charging the sick who are already impoverished by the disease.
That's a major shortcoming of the market: it is not interested in developing anything that does not translate into immediate profits. If it wasn't for the government there would be no internet and no space program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
Not so. If you develop a treatment for a rare disease that no other company is working on, then you corner the market for that treatment and can charge whatever you like for it.
Exactly, the weak, single mothers, disables, orphaned children are not your responsibility. if they survive OK, if not its not your problem. That's your morality but unfortunately for you most of us subscribe to a different kind of morality so thanks LOL
You have a mental block of what "help" really is. I used to have it too.
You believe in being a preemptive thief and think it's moral.
I understand that force is evil and can and will help only when I freely choose to.
Life is messy. People are going to suffer and die despite our best voluntary efforts. They suffer and die under your tyrannical efforts.
That is precisely one of my issues with anarchism - it can't defend itself against bigger, organised forces.
Your point about the people that rise to the top aren't the good people - I agree with that. It would be the same with small voluntary groups too, the worst will rise to the top. Though then you can leave the group and try and join another one but its still a case of finding the lesser evil. But then again we can do that with states - leave one country and try and join another. The only way to escape those that want to rule in an anarchist society is to try and live as an individual or family but then you won't have the protection of a group and so be at the mercy of anyone stronger will ill intentions towards you. I'd like to believe that people could leave peacefully and not fight over resources or territory but it never seems to happen in reality.
With that Spooner quote he posted, there is something I wanted to correct. He said that groups with money will hire people with guns to take over and that will replace government, but they would only be "government" if people thought they had the legitimate right to rule over them. That's the difference between any old thug and a government official/king/dictator/etc. People believe they have the a moral right to rule (which is logically impossible unless every person they rule has signed a contract beforehand.)
Now, I realize that the main point is that groups with more guns could take over other groups, and people think that having a government makes that less likely.
1. Having government in the first place is a huge reason this happens. One group has control of a certain territory and its citizens (more citizens = more tax livestock and labor) and the other group wants to take over so they can have those things. Without government, there is no tax base to steal.
But the other reason is that one group could want to take over the other's resources, which brings me to...
2. What does government bring to the table that we wouldn't have without it? How is having a government army any different than having armed citizens who organize to protect themselves and their resources? If the U.S. denounced their government today and ISIS or North Korea or Russia or whoever tried to invade and take over, how would they do it? We would still have armed individuals (former military and law enforcement, as well as a crazy number of gun owners and gun enthusiasts) who they would have to deal with. They don't just disappear.
Let's say hypothetically there were many small voluntary communities and a large organization wanted that community's resources. First off, if it's a small community there probably aren't many resources to take, so they would have to go from community to community gathering these resources...but there would likely be alliances between these communities as there are today where countries help defend each other. Not having a government doesn't change that. If there is a threat out there that people are worried about, they will need to band together to stop it (Lord of the Rings anyone? ) and that does not require a government forcing everyone to do it.
Here is a video (that had an influence on me when I was still a statist) that addresses much of what's being discussed in this thread. I highly recommend the whole thing, but I'll put some notes below...
2:00 - an analogy using statists' arguments for government applied to something we do voluntarily every day
4:40 - "but who will build the roads?"
8:30 - "I'm really concerned that poor people won't be taken care of."
That is precisely one of my issues with anarchism - it can't defend itself against bigger, organised forces.
disorganization is actually a strength in terms of defense. plenty of examples of asymmetrical warfare happening around the world that demonstrate this. it's easy to topple a government - just take out the leadership and replace them with your guys. conquering a territory with no leaders is much more difficult and costly, as it requires a long term full scale occupation - and as history has shown, even this usually isn't successful.
That video really drives home the point I talk about on here all the time.
I know what I would do. What would you do?
That's in response to the mindset of automatically seeking approval from someone...anyone...in how to deal with a situation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and that does not require a government forcing everyone to do it.